How to choose your first distro - A guide for beginners (flowchart + text post)
So, you're new to Linux? Welcome to our community!
You probably ask yourself
"Where should I start?"
and feel a bit overwhelmed right now.
In this guide, I will show you how to choose your first Linux distro.
This is part of my "New to Linux?"-series, where I will guide you through your first weeks.
TL;DR: If you don't care about this at all, just go for Linux Mint.
As you've probably already heard, "Linux" isn't just an operating system by itself, it's just the engine of it.
You need stuff built around that to get a working desktop. That "stuff" is packaged and distributed, hence the name "distro" (distribution).
Everyone can package this stuff themselfes and make their own operating system.
There are literally hundreds or thousands of different Linux-based OSs out there, and as a newcomer, this choice can be very overwhelming.
This is why you've already came here and asked for advice.
Don't worry, we've all been there!
You can find the "right" one for you if you follow the flow chart.
The flow chart is complementary to the text here. The diagram is for the choice, while the text is more for general information about each distro.
Every distro of the following recommended ones meets all of these criteria:
- Easy to understand and intuitive to use
- You don't have to use the command line
- Works reliable
- Supports Nvidia-GPUs
Choosing the DE
Before you choose your distro, you should choose your prefered desktop environment (DE).
The DE is what defines the user interface and some core apps, so, basically, what you interact with.
Don't mainly choose the distro because of its' DE, you can change that later too if you really want.
The two main DEs (Gnome and KDE) are listed in the flow chart.
KDE
- is very modular and configurable, you can turn it into whatever you want.
- has pretty much everything you can imagine already built in
Gnome
- Is more opinionated, but if you don't like its' unique workflow, you can turn it into a "classic" desktop with minimize/ maximize buttons, task bar, and more, too.
- You can use the
Extension manager/Gnome Tweaksfor doing that or getting other functionalities like smartphone integration for example.
If you like certain aspects of one, but others from the "competitor", you can more or less turn one into the other. You have maximum freedom!
#Differences between distros
**Choose your distro based on the following key points: **
-
Release schedule: Some get new features very often, some only once a few years. We refer this as stagnation as "stability" (not to conflict with reliability!)
-
Philosophy: What are key values of the distro? (e.g. just providing a well functioning set of software, no matter if it's proprietary; conservative vs. innovative; etc.)
-
Base: Many distros are based on other ones. A very common base is Debian or Ubuntu, where many newcomer-guides are based on. It mainly determines what package manager you use in the command line. I personally think that's not as important, since you will use the Software Center anyway most of the time to download apps and updates.
-
All other things, like big community, good track record, hardware support, etc., were already taken care of by me.
So, here's the list of every distro shown in the flow chart, with a short description on why it is included.
Linux Mint
It's THE recommendation for every newcomer, no matter where you look. Not without reason:
- Very sane defaults
- Works, just out-of-the-box
- Not too many, but just the right amount of pre-installed apps to get in touch with the Linux app ecosystem
- Simple, yet highly functional
- Hides all "advanced" features in a reasonable way
- Huge userbase, especially for beginners. More experienced users still use Mint, and are always there to help newcomers.
- Doesn't change much, only gets more polished. New features arrive occasionally, but they usually don't change your workflow radically.
- Feels very familiar when you came from Windows, which most people do.
Website: https://www.linuxmint.com/
ZorinOS
It is the main "competitor" of Mint right now.
The big difference between Mint and it is how the desktop looks. While Mint is more old-fashioned in how it looks, Zorin wants to be an eye pleaser by looking more modern. With it, you can choose between different "styles", that mimic the looks of Windows 7, Windows 11, MacOS, and more, depending on what you feel the most comfortable with.
It has a slow release schedule of ~3 years, with some minor polishes in between, which is great if you don't like change.
Don't worry about the "Pro" and "Light" versions. This is not like a freeware app with ads and stuff.
- "Pro" refers to the paid version, that only differs in some extra styles you can choose from. With the payment you get some extra tech assistance and support the developers.
- "Light" is a lightweight version, that is made for old devices to give them a second life and make them perform better than before, while still looking good.
Website: https://zorin.com/os/
VanillaOS
This one is also very promising. It has the same philosophy as Mint, but implements it differently.
It works a bit different under the hood and ensures an always working system you can't brick. If you still fucked up something, or got a bad update somehow, you can just roll back in seconds.
It also updates itself in the background and applies the updates without the user noticing on the next reboot, without any waiting time (unlike the forced Windows updates).
If you become more advanced and experienced over time, you can turn to the terminal and have access to literally any app that was ever made for Linux. Especially if you start using Linux as developer, this is very handy.
Even if you aren't a developer, no, even if you aren't techy at all, VanillaOS is a very good choice if you prefer the simplicity and ease of use of Mint, but want something more modern!
Website: https://vanillaos.org/
[Disclaimer: The new release, VanillaOS 2 Orchid, is currently under very high developement and still in beta. Consider waiting until the new version is officially released for a garanteed smooth experience.]
Fedora
This one is not exactly (but comparably) as beginner oriented as the above are, but still, a very good choice for new users. Fedora is often considered "the new Ubuntu", and is one of the most used distros out there with a gigantic community.
It is community-owned, but supported by the money and development power of the biggest player in the commercial Linux world.
Features:
- Comes with any major DE you want + huge software availability
- Balanced desktop release schedule of 6 months. This ensures both a modern and reliable desktop system
- Everything is pretty vanilla (no theming, etc.) and has very sane defaults
- No big collection of pre-installed software (e.g. Office), bit it is installable with one click in the software center.
- Future-oriented: as soon as a new promising technology is reliable enough, it will adopt it.
Website:
https://fedoraproject.org/
https://fedoraproject.org/workstation/
https://fedoraproject.org/spins/kde/
Fedora Atomic
Fedora Atomic is a variant of Fedora that works different under the hood, while behaving the same on the surface as the regular Fedora does. I don't want to get too technical here, but the pros are the same as the ones from VanillaOS (unbrickable, better security, no half applied updates, etc.).
I'm not sure if I would recommend it over the normal Fedora right now, as due to the other inner workings, you might have the chance to encounter issues when trying to get things working, e.g. an install script you found online.
If you are leaning bit more towards a tech-savy-person and have no problem searching a small thing here and there (only when you need non-ordinary stuff), then definitely check it out. Especially if you already came from another distro and feel dissatisfied.
BUT, keep following in mind:
- If you are just a casual user, you don't need the terminal for this distro. If you want to really make full use of it tho, you might have to use it from time to time.
- On the surface, it looks and behaves exactly like the normal Fedora.
- Compatibility is not fully given, due to the double edged nature of the said new technology.
- Those potential issues or cons sound more dramatic than they are. If you are a normal user, you won't encounter these. Even I never had any compatibility-issues and always got everything working.
One of the coolest things about it, apart from the pros mentioned above, are:
- Most "hidden" parts of the OS are irrelevant now to you if you want to change something -> simpler structure
- You can "swap out" the OS with something different any time you want, while also keeping your data (pictures, games, etc.). If you want to switch your DE for example later on, you can do that very easily by just changing the selected spin. This even works in the extend of rebasing to almost another distro!
uBlue
If you are interested now, then check out UniversalBlue instead of the "official" Silverblue or Kinoite. uBlue offers:
- Many different variants of this distro, but with some quality-of-life changes included.
- Custom builds for special hardware, e.g. Microsoft Surface devices, ASUS ROG, etc., which come working OOTB, are very reliable and don't require tinkering.
- And also special variants for different tastes and use cases, e.g. a security-enhanced variant, as well as
Bazzite
which is one of the biggest and "best" example in how awesome uBlue can be. It's derived from it and is a gaming-focused distro. With it, you get many optimization tweaks and tools for gaming included out of the box, like some performance enhancements for example.
You don't need a gaming distro to play games at all, but if that's what you mostly do with your PC, then maybe consider that.
Links:
https://fedoraproject.org/atomic-desktops/silverblue/
https://universal-blue.org/installation/
https://bazzite.gg
Arch and NixOS
Those two are in the "pain" category. I would never recommend them to anyone starting with Linux, for example because they're fed up with Windows.
Both Arch and NixOS are known to be "for experts only", meaning, they're
- high demanding
- hard to set up and use
- requiring the user to be skilled and to know what he's doing
- don't hold the users' hand
- and don't tolerate user error well.
Why did I still decide to include them in my noob-recommended list anyway? Well, because not everyone wants to start Linux expecting an easy road. There are some people who want to tinker and challenge themselfes, and some birds learn flying the best when kicked out of the nest.
Don't get me wrong! Both Arch and NixOS are fantastic choices and very powerful. They can be fun to use and very rewarding.
What makes them great?
- Minimalism: they come with basically nothing out of the box and require the user to set up everything themselfes. If you've done that, you have an OS that's truly yours!
- Skilled community and great wiki. Especially the Arch-wiki is the number-one-ressource for any Linux thing, and by the point you installed Arch or NixOS the hard way, you got a good understanding in the inner workings of Linux.
- Rolling release: as soon as packages are released, you get them, no big release versions
- Biggest package repositories ever, with many inofficial ones too, created by the user base
- Great package manager
Alternatives
If those pro-points of Arch and NixOS are appealing to you, but sound too hard to get for your taste, here are some alternatives you may consider instead. They aren't my top pick, but still very popular in the community.
-
Debian: One of the oldest distros ever out there. It's what a lot of other distros, including Mint, Ubuntu, Zorin, and more, are based on. It's stable (the normal version at least), very flexible (supports many CPU architectures) and minimalist (if you want).
-
OpenSuse Tumbleweed/ Slowroll: Rolling release like Arch, but with a bigger safety net behind
-
EndeavourOS: Very sane Arch-distro that's already set up for you
Other honorable mentions
Pop!_OS
Also gets recommended often. A popular distro for everyone who likes the coherence of Gnome, but doesn't like the opinionated workflow and more features like tiling. Good Ubuntu alternative, especially for gaming.
- Made by a hardware manufacturer.
- Based on Ubuntu/ Debian.
- Currently a bit outdated. The devs are focusing on their self-developed new DE that's coming soon. I would go for Fedora (general use) or Bazzite (gaming) and add the tweaks myself via extensions when needed.
Still a viable option.
MX Linux
- Great for older devices with non-optimal performance.
TuxedoOS
- Best Debian/ Ubuntu-based distro with KDE.
- Also made by a hardware manufacturer.
Everyone should choose their first distro based on what his friend/neighbor uses already. Direct support can't be beaten.
Great advice! That's why I will also install Fedora Silverblue or VanillaOS on my mums' laptop in the future. Currently, I put Mint on hers, because she is older and I thought she might prefer having something that reminds her of "the good ol' days". But I find myself needing to google stuff she could have searched for herself, because I also don't know how to fix it.
Sure, I could resort to the terminal, but I want her to see how I do things to let her fix them herself in the future if the need arises.
So nixos or gentoo then.
please not gentoo. I don't thin any bird leaarns best how to fly by having their nest nuked
Good effort but.. Why is Debian "for grandpa's" now? Do you not know that you can install KDE and other DEs on Pop (and most other distros)? Why is the terminal treated like some dark and arcane device only to be used by "the old ones"? Ubuntu left off just because you don't like snaps regardless of the fact that it has a huge user base and tons of documentation and user support forums?
Leave out the immutables, rolling distros like Arch and other small community distros - there lie dragons. If somebody wants that pain they will seek it out themselves. You're just muddying the water with that. Then stick to ones you get good hits from Google with "my sound isn't working on distro name".
Also - maybe start by explaining what a distro is? Mostly that they're the same basic libraries packaged differently. beginners sometimes don't even know whether they can run the same things on each. Like - yes you can play the same games on mint and fedora.
I would explain desktop environments separately - they are typically the most confusing thing to Linux newbies. e.g. that you can often choose between them on the same distro. And that they can even be installed at the same time and chosen on login so people can experiment. A true "newb" will often not even recognize that the DE isn't the os itself.
I would avoid the phrase "beginner friendly" as 1) it makes it seem like it may be limited compared to others and 2) is too vague. "Easy to install and use" and "have a good community for support" are better metrics to judge by and are what beginners want.
Ubuntu needs to be here for this to be serious. I run pop and will Google "how to X on Ubuntu" because it'll return more hits. Finding support is a huge part of why you pick one distro over another.
You misunderstood that point. It's not that Debian is for grandpas, it's that Debian is the cool grandpa! ;)
It's one of the oldest distros available out there (in terms of how long it has already existed), and everybody likes it. Just read my post, and you'll notice that I've never spoken badly about it.
I do, but the DE is one of the main selling points of a lot of distros. For example, in what main aspect would you say TuxedoOS differs from Mint? Right, in terms of the DE.
Of course you can change it, but when you do that for example in Mint, you loose most of the great things that distro does. It also feels "dirty". You can do that, sure, but if there are a dozen "different" distros, that only differ mainly from their DE-optimization, then choose it based on that. Nothing wrong with that.
If you already decided for a distro (e.g. Fedora) and want to change the DE further down the road, you can do that, but it might be messy.
Because it appears frightening and "hacky" for new users. Using the terminal from time to time to change very deep settings under the hood is fine for most people, but if you need to open the terminal for any trivial task it ruins the user experience.
Yes. While Snaps became better in the last years, they still bring a lot of trouble. Just, for example, think of Valve when they officially recommended everyone to not use the fricking Snap package because it's broken all the time? Good luck doing that with Ubuntu, when they shove Snaps down everyones' throat, without even notifying the user.
While we more experienced users just change the package format, newcomers aren't aware of that and blame a malfunctioning app to Linux, not the Snap.
I just don't see any reasons to recommend Ubuntu over something like Mint or even Debian. Both are pretty much the same (same command compatibility with apt, documentation also applies to them, etc.), but just better in any aspect.
Immutables have their place, especially VanillaOS. They maintain themselfes automatically, make the system way less complicated (because you never come into touch with anything outside of
/var/anyway) and are perfectly fine for most people by just installing Flatpaks.Arch is only there because people wanted it to be in my previous post where I asked, and they argued that not everyone wants a easy "Windows-replacement and just works"-experience. Some are here because they want to learn and tinker. And for that, NixOS and Arch are ideal, with the big disclaimer.
I did briefly, but that would be too confusing. I don't recommend installing many DEs side by side, as this will cause many problems and inconsistencies.
That's what I did in the beginning?
I still thank you for your critique and upvoted it because it might add value to this discussion :)
What does this mean? I was looking at Bazzite, and choosing the DE was the first step after telling it what hardware you want to build it on
I meant with that that installing many DEs side by side, e.g. Gnome + KDE on top of Cinnamon on Mint, would result in many clashes.
They all use different design components and often share the same configuration, resulting in a very messy and broken looking desktop.
I personally always knew I can just install another DE and delete the old one, but still just reinstalled, because it's cleaner.
Oh, I didn't even consider that that would be something you could do. Why would you want two desktops?
I like installing various DEs every now and then to see how they're doing, and if their workflow matches up with what I'd expect. Right now I have KDE as my main, GNOME, and Hyprland (not a DE technically but...) all installed.
However, you do have to be careful as like the OP mentioned it can be a bit annoying, KDE and GNOME tend to overwrite each other's settings, for example in Nautilus it displays the Breeze icon theme - I can switch it, but then Dolphin will display the Adwaita icon theme. The workaround for this in specific is to use a third party icon pack, so that it doesn't look out of place on either side.
Additionally, any GTK apps now use the GTK theme instead of the Breeze-GTK theme, so Firefox in KDE has GNOME-like toolbars which I have no problem with, but others might. You can of course switch it, but then it'll look really out of place in GNOME.
Still much easier for me than reinstalling everything all over again, only to then decide "actually, I don't want to use GNOME" and then reinstall again however.
As someone that is a total newbie, I would definitely appreciate this. It's the first option to select lol
TL;DR: If you just care about having something that works reliably then install Debian + GNOME + Software as Flatpaks. You’ll get a rock solid system with the latest software.
About the desktop environment: the “what you go for it’s entirely your choice” mantra when it comes to DE is total BS. What happens is that you’ll find out while you can use any DE in fact GNOME will provide a better experience because most applications on Linux are design / depend on its components. Using KDE or XFCE is fun until you run into some GTK/libadwaita application and small issues start to pop here and there, windows that don’t pick on your theme or you just created a Frankenstein of a system composed of KDE + a bunch of GTK components.
Good advice!
I personally think tho, that Debian isn't the best beginner distro.
Not, because it's not user friendly or something, but more because of the complicated and unintuitive installer.
Take Mint or Zorin for example, where you basically only need to click "next next" and it's installed, and after that, you get a wonderful first start wizard where everything gets explained (how to download new apps, get updates, etc.).
I had a lot of issues when installing Debian after some days, because of a non-optimal suggested partitioning layout, misconfigured mirror-server list or network for example.
But once it's running, it's very solid!
As I mentioned in the post, Debian (+ Flatpaks) is a great choice, but I'd recommend something else as a base tbh.
My personal choice is Fedora Atomic, because of the reliability of the host system and the good balance between stability and moderness. Debian is a bit too stable (too old/ stale) for my own taste, but I respect everyone who likes that.
I'm a Gnome fanboy personally too, but not everyone likes it.
I've heard very often from other users, that they always thought Gnome is the Linux DE and didn't get warm with Linux in general because of that.
And when they discovered KDE/ another DE, they instantly fell in love and never looked back.
In my opinion, GTK apps look way better on KDE than Qt apps do on Gnome. On KDE, they integrate a bit better due to theming, but look slightly off.
Qt on Gnome on the other hand is almost unusable.
But both improved.
Still, thank you for your addition!
Honest question, what is unintuitive about the Debian installer? I'm asking because I've done it so many times that it's intuitive for me.
@TCB13@lemmy.world @pmk@lemmy.sdf.org Maybe the installer isn't bad, and I'm probably just dumb. You aren't the only ones saying this, so maybe not Debian, but me is the problem.
Well there's something about it that is confusing compared to other installers? For example there is a text message instructing the users what happens if they don't set a root password. Many people miss it, but it's right there. If many people miss it, there's something that can be improved.
Maybe something (very) hardware specific?
Not unintuitive, but thinking about it from a beginner standpoint, calamares-based systems are way easier to 'get'. These distros don't ask for domain names, proxies, usage surveys etc. This stuff isn't that complicated, but they add an extra level of things you need to worry about if you've never used Linux before, which is the kind of person who this flow chart is made for.
GNOME should at least support colour schemes, in my opinion. If they don't want theming, they can at least do that. In any case, Gradience can help with getting a coherent colour scheme on non-GNOME/libadwaita environments, and if the user is just using Breeze, they already have a Breeze colour scheme available. It's available as a Flatpak.
For what's worth I never had those kinds of issues with the Debian installer, to me it seems that anyone capable of installing Windows 10/11 is capable of installing Debian on the bases of "next > next > next" everything as defaults and will get to a working desktop.
I've seen a few people complaining about the Debian installer but I never had issues at all. From servers to laptops always seems to get things right for me.
Been using xfce for over 10 years and never had gtk/libadwaita issues.
No mention of Debian as the main and default option? Come on now. Debian with Gnome or even Ubuntu with Gnome are just as good as Mint.
This also surprised me. The Debian platform has been terrific over decades, at least for me.
My journey was
Are Mint or Pop_OS better than Ubuntu or Debian? In what way?
I think yes, but not extremely much, mainly because they've added some stuff, like welcome wizards, additional easy access and pre-configured software, and more.
I think Debian is a very very solid and good distro, but I think the first impression could be better for newcomers.
Honestly, if one more person says I should also include Ubuntu or or recommend Debian more, I will. Ubuntu not that much, but Debian, why not? If you all think it should be there, it definitely has its place.
So, I don't know if you're aware, but Debian has live CDs/USBs with the same Calamares installer that so many other distros use. Pick any of the eight different DE ISOs and the installation process is identical to that of... pretty much everything.
It's all preconfigured (to the point where some might say there's a bit of bloat) and there's no need to go messing around with the more complicated stuff (although I'm not certain if it requires enabling the non-free repo separately or offers it on installation; that would be the only major issue).
My only problem with that installation method is that the default partition setup sticks with the traditional "half your RAM size" swap space, which I think is annoying. But if someone doesn't know or care about what swap is, there's no real problem with it.
While I appreciate the post, and, organized as it may be, it runs afoul of every post like it. It is too much choice and too much information. No amount of formatting will change that. If you want people to switch to Linux make the choice for them. They don't want to choose.
Agreed. "Use debian, unless you know better".
Done.
Can I ask why you say that?
(I realize that's ironic considering the theme of this thread, I just enjoy learning from people who have passion for something)
Because the vast majority of users don't or won't care about the distro.
For almost all intents and purposes they're the same. They do the same thing, you can install the same things, they all work great out of the box and can be configured to work in whatever way.
This thread is talking about choice of distro as though it's like choosing a car, like it says something about your personality or useful for different things. Do you want a 4x4? A truck? Something sporty? Red or Kermit Green? It's not like that at all, it's more like what engine oil you put in your car. There are different types but the vast majority of people just won't ever notice the difference. Of course, there are some specific uses that might make a particular type of engine oil a better choice, but people engaging in those uses will already know their specific requirements.
The best distro for any newbie will be, the one their friend or neighbour uses, or any of the top 5 on distrowatch.com.
This has always been my opinion on distros as I don't really like to switch distros and prefer to use one that just works. I used to be more into Redhat and that's kinda soured for me.
What happened with Ubuntu? I tried Linux once, like 15 years ago, and Ubuntu just worked.
Ubuntu has become very controversial.
It used to be good and paved the way of today's Linux desktop world, but nowadays, the Corporation behind it, Canonical, decided to shit on its user base.
If you want something non-BS, use Mint or Fedora.
Not with beginners
Beginners would have a better time with Mint
Only if they prefer a windows style UI
if you know they don't then just tell them to use Pop!_OS, Fedora, or any one of the other 5 billion distros out there that may suit their liking, tho preferably something that is easy to use and that they can easily find support for.
Yeah, well maybe you should put this into your graph as a choice. You might not like it but Ubuntu still has a major support for anything Linux related. Any manufacturer or software development - if they support Linux, there is a high chance that they mean basically Ubuntu, quite often they tested it just there. This is a HUGE advantage for any beginner.
Beginners don't care about behind the curtain stuff, they just want things to work. And you might not like Canonical but Ubuntu does this
Copied from another answer I made:
beginners don't care but you, person recommending them Linux, should. We shouldn't recommend distros whose maintainers do bad practices that can affect the noob negatively, especially if they don't care because that means they will associate all those problems with Linux.
Besides, the putting ads thing is a big no no. Why would I recommend someone coming from windows to use a distro that has one of the major flaws of windows when there's better alternatives?
Do you like pain and wasting as much time as possible? Gentoo. Jk jk I’ve never used it, I’ve only seen memes about it.
Laughing in Linux From Scratch.
You didn't even write your own kernel, sad!
Gentoo isn't so much painful but it takes a bloody long time. If anything, some of the packages are really painful. Qtwebengine is one such example.
gentoo takes a long time. but currently they started shipping out binaries -- and with a more recent architecture too (x86-64-p2 or - p4) which helps a lot as compared to building your own Libre office.
they got good guides as well. I got to use one for troubleshooting even if I use a diff distro.
Installing Gentoo requires you to 1. follow a long list of instructions (correctly, in order, without skipping) and 2. be willing to make some decisions about your system setup. I don't consider that painful, but some people apparently do. It's also useful to bring a book or some other secondary form of entertainment to occupy yourself with during the non-interactive parts of the install process. Once the initial install is done, you can minimize wasted time by starting updates right before leaving the computer, or just configure it to always leave one core free for your interactive needs.
Gentoo has never been an appropriate distribution for new Linux users with no technical background, or people who want their system to "just work" without caring about how. It's always been about choice, and its flexibility is both a strength and a weakness. Regardless, the OP did the correct thing by not including it in their guide.
I am in this picture and I don't like it.....
If you gave this to 14yo me choosing my first distro then I would have just given up. There are too many choices, just point noobs to something that works well and let them choose based on the DE.
Isn't that what you want?
At the very start
How is TuxedoOS the "best" distro with KDE Plasma? What about Kubuntu?
As explained in another comment somewhere else here, Ubuntu is highly controversial, especially due to Snaps. I will paste my reasons here when I found them.
I wanted to have a Debian-based distro here too, and TuxedoOS removes all the Ubuntu-shit and replaces it with some great OOTB additions (e.g. a good welcome wizard).
Edit: Found it
I personally dislike recommending NixOS at all for new Linux users. Even though it's packaging and file system differs from other Linux distros, it's necessary to understand how general Linux works to understand why and how NixOS works.
E.g. systemd services in NixOS are often times more complex as they include the full nix store path or execute a script which simply executes a command. This is because of how they are generated and obvious once you have experience how other distros systemd units look like.
PS: I appreciate you helping people find a good distro. I'm merely nitpicking and complaining which doesn't help anyone :D
That's why I've put NixOS and Arch on the "I'm ready for an adventure and pain"-path, not the "You'll have a comfy time with it"-one.
I asked a few days prior what I should include, and a few mentioned said distros, because not everyone wants to start using Linux expecting an easy time.
A few people said they're in because they enjoy tinkering, learning, frustration and challenging themselfes, not because they are looking for a Windows alternative.
Also, as side effect, newcomers easily see why they shouldn't use Arch directly, in case some edgelord recommends that :D
Good reasoning. You've made it clear in your graph that Arch and NixOS aren't recommended (for most newbies).
Calling GNOME a mobile UI perfectly sums up why I hate it on a desktop/laptop
Each to their own :)
I've also read other comments telling me to drop KDE and Mint because Gnome is the "standard" DE for Linux, and that nobody else should use something different.
This is why I included other DEs.
While I personally love Gnome more than anything else and find myself working extremely efficient with it, others despite it and prefer other things like Plasma.
Giving them a choice between 2 (3) great options felt right for me.
Gnome is certainly the most polished. They just need to get over the ultra minimalism though, because it is completely non functional without installing a thousand extensions.
Why they aren't bringing back the dock is beyond insanity though. 3 million+ people agree, the dock needs to come back along with the application and places drop-down like it was in gnome 2.
Hard to say. Minimalism is just part of their philosophy, and also one of the reasons why it is so reliable.
Adding a toggle for a "traditional workflow" would just diminish the unique workflow they've built up over the last years, and which so many people love so dearly.
But adding a few extensions (GSConnect, quick close in overview, app tray, etc.) for basic functionality would be a big win.
I just think having to rely on workflow altering extensions and forcing Gnome to be a certain way will make the user unhappy over time, and they're better off just using KDE or Cinnamon imo.
Hello OP
Can I translate this to my language and post on my lil' blog about Open Source stuff?
Sure, under two conditions.
Otherwise, here's the raw file (Draw.io, FOSS, also available as Flatpak) and the Markdown text for you to paste. Link: https://notebin.de/?bacad84b46e92d92#3ZzsNgjBMCxudUGrJ6TV9hZTh5hFt1ctiAYgbuUNcjf2
Awesome. Will do.
Hello again. It is done. As you requested, I have credited you (using your Lemmy @, if you'd rather I use something else, let me know) and linked your original post, as well as your profile and this community. (t'is all in the second paragraph of the text, as part of the introductory preamble)
I also added some personal notes to the text, but they are mostly dumb stuffI once again thank you for allowing me to do this.
I sadly can't open it. If I click on the link, it leads me to the main page, and if I search for it, then the post doesn't open. Is that intended? I'm on mobile (Firefox) if that matters.
Weird weird glitch, but it happened on my phone too now that I tested it.
No idea WHY it happened, but I just copied and reposted my own post and now it seems to work on my phone.
Try again, please.
It now works, thanks!
Just as a small note, you have to export the .svg-drawing as .jpeg first, otherwise, it might lead to legibility-issues.
Fixed. Opened it up on inkscape and did some tinkering with the colors n' shid.
I'm only referring to Arch now because I have no idea about NixOS.
In my opinion, you are making the mistake of equating all Windows users. But not every Windows user is the same.
An acquaintance of mine, who works full-time as a Windows administrator, was able to install and configure Arch manually on his first attempt, for example. But yes, other Windows users would despair.
But that's exactly why you shouldn't make blanket recommendations, but rather recommendations based on the wishes and knowledge of the person who wants to use Linux.
Basically, you should be able to read and willing use a search engine. That's all you really need.
If you use archinstall, which has long been an official part of the Arch iso file, you can install Arch within a short time. But I don't think manual installation is very difficult either. Because if you follow the official instructions, you can simply execute many of the commands mentioned therein without having to change them beforehand.
And what do you mean by hard to use?
I've been using Arch for over 10 years, almost like any other distribution. Apart from only 3 things, 2 of which can be automated.
Not necessarily. The most important thing is that the user is willing to read, that he is willing to use a search engine and that he is willing to learn something new. And that is often the problem these days.
And shall I tell you something? Even after several decades with Linux, I often have no idea what I'm doing. But I'm still trying to acquire new knowledge.
I agree with you here. Arch is, among other things, intended for users who want to solve their problems themselves. But that doesn't mean that you can't get help. However, it is expected that you first try to solve your problems yourself. And if that doesn't work, you should ask smart questions. However, this guide does not only help with Arch. Basically, it is (even if it is now partly outdated) still one of the most important pieces of knowledge you can have.
I have been using Linux for over 20 years and have therefore already used several distributions. Basically none of them tolerate errors. If I make a mistake when configuring Alacritty under Ubuntu, for example, basically the same thing happens as under Arch.
Edit: Please don't take this post the wrong way. My point is not to claim that Arch is like Ubuntu, for example. But these myths that have formed around Arch (e.g. that you can only learn Linux properly with Arch (which is complete nonsense)) are a bit annoying.
Of course, you're right. I know I made some blanket statements, but I found it necessary to simplify everything a bit.
I personally have the feeling you contradict yourself tho. You basically say "Arch is super easy", but then list 100 reasons why it isn't.
As I said in the post, Arch is a fantastic distro, but nothing I would recommend for anyone.
Most people don't use their OS as a nerd hobby (sorry!), but as a means to get their software they need (browser, office, games, etc.) running.
They just want something that works reliably and doesn't get in their way.
They don't care if they use zfs or btrfs as filesystem or run the newest KDE framework.
Needing to check the news page on daily basis, or risking to brick their system otherwise, is a big no-go for most.
Of course, installing it isn't the hardest part.
But maintaining it reasonably is also important, which happens mostly passively on other systems. Turning on the PC and getting greeted by GRUB emergency mode is the worst case for anyone, and would result in installing Windows again for most.
Also, it's very minimalist. For users who already know what they need, that's good.
I don't know if you know the greentext-meme with the Arch-guy who had to share his screen, but couldn't because of his missing component, and then got laughed at and overshadowed by the girl with her Windows laptop.
This "bloat" is what makes a comfortable computing experience for most other people, and needing to google "Arch no sound" and fixing something for two hours is just something not everyone is comfortable and willing with.
That's why I've made the big disclaimer and said it should only be chosen if you're ready for a big learning experience and have the patience for that.
This is helpful info. I've been thinking of doing a dual boot for a while just for better privacy, keeping Windows for gaming only.
Thank you very much! ❤️ Depending on what games you have in your mind, you might not even need Windows anymore for that, thanks to Steam/ Lutris and Proton. Have you checked protondb.com?
That's what I hear, but as someone just starting out with Linux, switching over completely is more of a 'down the line' kind of deal for when I'm more comfortable with it.
Who knew recommending Distros could be so controversial 😛?
Seriously though I think this is a great flowchart and you took on board the more reasonable suggestions from the intial post. This flowchart now quickly eliminates some of the distro choice anxiety. Worst case a newbie might end up on a distro like mint and then end up migrating to a different one.
One comment I had is that I actually didn't know what opinionated DE meant without googling despite being a long time Linux user (maybe thats just my ignorance) and I wonder if a newbie might be confused maybe there's another way of saying it (flexible versus simple?).
Anyway, I really think early me would have appreciated this when I first started even if that would been ultimately "use Ubuntu" back then.
I was looking for someone to mention "opinionated". I've been using computers since the 386 days, mostly on Windows, granted, but with some Linux tinkering here and there, and I have no clue what that means.
Still, maybe I should just jump into Bazzite regardless since gaming performance is a consideration for me.
Yeah a lot of this chart just doesn't make sense to me. You trolling op?
For example, pop os uses a very opinionated version of gnome? Since when? Seems barely modified to my eye.
Also you recommend kde plasma to Mac users? Gnome seems WAY closer to me.
I don't get why you'd spend so much time if your info is all just going to be a little bit wrong
That's rude, man. If you don't like it, do it better. I've spent half my weekend for it, and gave my best. I wouldn't invest so much time if my sole purpose is only trolling.
But, that's what the comment section is for - if others think the same way as you do, yours will be one of the top comments.
I made a post a few days before, where I collected some opinions and double checked if I'm wrong.
If others think differently about certain points, feel free to correct me or add information.
Yes, it is highly modified compared to the vanilla Gnome, for example, in following ways:
It looks and feels completely different. Not worse, just different. I don't say it's a bad modification, it feels coherent and adds value for many people.
Gnome looks only similar to MacOS on the surface, but, philosophy and usage wise, it behaves completely different.
It's completely unique in its own way, you can't compare it to anything else, except you want it to be that by using extensions.
KDE on the other hand is often compared to Windows, only because of the out-of-the-box look with the task bar on the bottom.
But, if you modify it for less than 5 minutes, it looks and behaves almost like MacOS does, e.g. ALT + space opening up KRunner (Spotlight).
Tell me exactly what is wrong, and I'll correct it if the need arises.
Sorry, I meant to respond days ago. I don't really think it rude to ask you if you're trolling. You could just say no. It's not like I didn't point out specifically why I thought it might be so.
I've not even really used KDE Plasma but yeah it is always compared to windows and it is probably because it 100% looks like it. That's why to me it's a turn off. That and gnome is not only nicer to look at out of the box, it seems to have a ton of support.
I find it interesting that precisely what you said about KDE applies to gnome:
Out of the box, gnome looks like a weird Mac. After 5 minutes of me changing settings the average user will assume it is a Mac desktop (actually has happened to me before)... I have been a heavy mac user for about 20 years now and a heavy gnome user for about 3. I do not see a huge "philosophical difference". Other than a few details that Mac has always refused to do it the "windows way", I think it would be easy to assume that 90%+ of the gnome design inspiration came from apple...
Lastly, every single thing you listed as a reason that pop os's gnome is super different than vanilla gnome, except the tiling feature (never used that), is an easily changed option in gnome. So your idea of "a highly opinionated version" is my "I changed 5 options in the provided settings menus". Of course you will probably bring up the dock, but extensions are easy to install and use. And dash to dock is a very popular one. PS the "overview" menu or whatever on vanilla features almost verbatim the same dock.
So yeah, I see things very differently from you. Where you see similarity I see difference and vice versa. Not sure I need to be a top comment to have a valid point btw.
Thank you for the advice. Im going to try Linux Mint, but im interested in privacy. Is it true they dont collect data?
Yes, this is basically true.
Some desktops offer an opt-in telemetry, but as it implies, it is almost always disabled by default and up to you if you want to support the devs in giving them anonymized (and usually reviewed by you!) data about crashes and some patterns.
But, in contrast to Microsoft and others, this is no "spying", and you can always check for yourself what they maybe want to collect. Open source devs are usually extremely transparent about what they might consider from you.
The reason for that is that most devs just expect you reporting bugs yourself if any arise, so they didn't even make the effort to implement telemetry :D
Thank you. Im om a jouney into Linux world. I will look forward to 🙂
Very nice. I’d suggest adding ChimeraOS next to Bazzite.
Also I’m not sure I’d recommend Vanilla to a beginner yet. It’s a very cool OS, but it’s got a lot of new tech that most instructions online won’t work on, and would frustrate a beginner.
Both valid points. Thanks!
What would you say Chimera does better than Bazzite? In my eyes, Bazzite is superior, because of how the immutability is handled. Chimera is more edge case in my eyes (1:1 clone of SteamOS, IIRC), while Bazzite is just gaming focused, but can still do everything else too.
For Vanilla, I'm not sure. Maybe I will keep it included, but put the disclaimer in there about the incompatibility of many instructions. For simple tasks, it should work perfectly.
I wouldn’t know what it does better, because I’ve never used Bazzite. Chimera is nice though, and it’s another option to inform someone of.
I've just looked up in their documentation, and they're Arch based and atomic.
One thing I'm always a bit cautious of is the community support. On Bazzite, you have an already big community, and almost everything is applicable from Fedora Silverblue. It also builds itself without anyone needing to patch stuff, thanks to uBlues' GitHub build actions.
I personally see Bazzite as a better option for "normal" PCs, that are multi-purpose and not only there as gaming console.
It also offers a variant that boots directly into BPM if you want that.
Also, I think Fedora Atomic is better due to rpm-ostree instead of A/B-root, which is quite inflexible and doesn't support layering.
That’s great, man. If you recommend Bazzite over Chimera, good on you. I’m telling you that I use Chimera and I like it. It’s simple enough that my wife can use it on the PC I built her. If you want to add it to your flowchart, go ahead. If not, whatever, it’s your chart.
Thank you for your input!
Great write-up, thank you OP!
I'd like to suggest an addition: I often get the question: but will distro XY run on my device? Then I suggest to boot from an USB stick and try everything in a live session without installing anything. (And if people are just curious how it will look and feel, I recommend https://distrosea.com/)
Also, I miss the mention of Cinnamon. Mint is very popular as you have already said and the "flagship" version comes with Cinnamon.
Sure! The "What distro to choose" post is only a part of my series.
I want to make a post on "How to install" too, including testing different distro with Ventoy from a live USB.
For cinnamon, I think Mint is the flagship for it. I tried it "vanilla" on Fedora too, and it felt a bit lacking. I noticed instantly how much polish went into Cinnamon from the Mint team.
Sure, I just meant to avoid confusion if someone follows the suggestion to simply try Mint and then goes to "choose your DE" but then there is no Gnome or KDE for Mint to download.
Interesting to hear the difference to Fedora's Cinnamon though, since I've never tried that.
-hops on nix soapbox- As someone currently trying to set up a NixOS server, your bullet point descriptions of it are incorrect except maybe the last 2. You're just describing Arch.
In fact Nix tolerates user error extremely well and arguably makes every effort to be error-proof. A wrong user config means it flat out won't compile and just revert to the past working config.
I agree it's a pain - at first - and requires a strong base knowledge of how Linux in general works. -hops off-
That's why there's the "hard to set up, but once it works, it works" description in the chart.
Arch is, especially due to the Archinstall, relatively easy to set up, but might break randomly, either due to user error, or a bad update.
NixOS on the other hand requires Nix (the language) and the Nix-config. Once that's set up, you can always roll back or it won't even work, that's right.
But explaining that in detail would be too much - I wanted to keep it simple, and by putting the two in the same category, I got the point.
I feel like EndeavourOS should just be a side option from Arch with the statement "I want to install the OS with a GUI"
I promised myself I wouldn't cry because slackware didn't make the cut, yet here we are.
I just gotta say this looks great. It paints a quick picture with broad strokes, just like a newbie needs. Kudos.
Last week I tried Ubuntu on a dual boot and eventually uninstalled it because i had messed some partitions up and also it felt like I had to do a lot more to get every day stuff to work. Now, I am considering doing it again but with better partitions and more patience. But how come I don't see Ubuntu on this list?
I just made a separate post on why no Ubuntu or Debian, see https://feddit.de/post/9127111
great list !! meowz theres nothing i can think of that u missed so well done :3
Thank you a lot! 😊 It was days of work!
Btw, it's always awesome to see the colorful variety on Lemmy! 🦈🌈
Hi, Thank you for this post! Maybe it's just me but your flowchart link is broken.
I wouldn't recommend Fedora for NVidia users because it wants to be Wayland-only. The introduction is quite good though
I'm no Nvidia-user myself, but I've heard only good things over the past year, especially months.
It seems to cause way less problems than it did 1-2 years ago, and Nvidia on WL-Gnome especially is said to work very smooth now.
Maybe, choosing the
-main-nvidia-image from uBlue makes it even better, because if the drivers break after an update, you can just roll back to yesterdays image and have a working OS again.What about window managers? i3wm as example
This isn't a complete full guide on ALL distros and DEs/ TWMs, just a small selection for newcomers.
Too much choice is overwhelming, and giving them basically a choice between A or B, where both options are great, was the best idea I came up with.
Regarding window managers:
Still, thank yo for your comment!
Real Linux users just echo "xterm" > ~/.xinitrc && startx.
EndeavourOS is supposedly "more reliable" than Arch? How's that?
I agree, endeavor doesn't do anything special with its packages to make it any more reliable. In fact it's really just Arch but with a DE setup out of the box
Mainly because of the installation process. It is already done for you and you can't do as much wrong.
I never used Endeavour, but many many people love it, and praise it as a way more reliable Arch.
May I point out that Arch also has an "easy" install option, and other than that there's no reason to consider Endeavour more or less reliable. It's literally using the same packages for the most part.
I'm starting to think that people jump around distros and at some point things start to click (because it's been a while and they're more experienced) but they think to themselves "oh it must be this last distro I've tried, it must be what's working so well".
Its really just Arch with an installer. No more or less reliable
First of all, I applaud your efforts. Making an all-encompassing guide/flowchart that is able to answer all kinds of needs that new users might have is hard and not done in just a few sittings. And it seems you're willing to iterate a couple more times until you and the community are satisfied with the end result. That's just awesome and highly commendable.
As for my personal critique, perhaps it's noteworthy that I'm not entirely satisfied with the current setup. I think the following would align better with my personal convictions on how I would assist friends and/or family with these matters:
::: spoiler (long text)
Having said all of that, whatever is mentioned above is a lot more involved than what you have currently. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if you would deem most of it out of scope.
Moving on to the actual critique:
Thank you for your elaborate answer! <3
I've been following Linux-related subs (Reddit, Lemmy, etc.) for years now, and I constantly saw the flood of
-posts. The guide is mainly meant for exact this kind of new users, who are perfectly fine with either Fedora or Mint. I excluded edge-cases, like QubesOS, completely on purpose, as this should be consisting of only 2 (or so) distros with different DEs. This should make 80% of exactly those post redundant. If someone wants a "non-normal" distro, they can still of course feel free to ask.
I thought about that too, but I think people with super old hardware (32-bit, 500 mb RAM, etc.) are such an edge case too. Most people with halfway recent devices (<5-10 years) have at least 4 GB RAM and should be fine with major distros/ DEs. If they still have problems, they can also come here to ask or choose the "low-performance hardware"-arrow from the chart.
Again, the majority of people coming here are a bit techy casual users. If they had no clue about anything, they wouldn't think about Linux in the beginning, and if they already had a clue or a lot of experience, they would do the research alone.
I wanted this "Choose the right distro"-post to be only one puzzle piece of a collection, where I also want to explain what Linux can do and what it doesn't, e.g. CAD or some games.
By keeping it very short and only focusing on the distro part, it can be linked more selectively.
I also planned posts like "How to Ventoy"/ "How to install, and what problems may occour", why one shouldn't use Linux (expectations), and much more.
Will include it on the arrows and the text, good idea.
I already put this into the text I think, read the part with Gnome extensions and stuff :)
I thought about using Sozi as a tool to achieve that. I have to research tho how to make a website first.
My idea was to keep the exact structure of the chart, but when you zoom in a lot to the distro, you get the description.
Same, but I asked a few days prior in another post if I should include them or not, and nobody disagreed. I see VanillaOS as a great competitor to Mint, especially for people who want something of a managed and simple experience, while also being capable to do normal PC stuff. I see VOS 2 as "stable" enough in just a few weeks, there's mainly only some polishing and fixing in newer under-the-hood stuff, but the surface-stuff is already fine.
That was a suggestion from someone else from the previous post, which I liked, and it shouldn't imply that "Mint is just like Windows" or "Fedora is like using your Android phone" at all. It's mainly about preference, if one likes a simple UI or prefers traditional workflows. How can I make that more clear?
Thank you for your elaborate reply 😜!
I agree that it makes sense to start with tackling the problem in a way compliant with the 80/20 rule; i.e. 20 percent of the work to deal with 80 percent of the cases. I'm perhaps too much of a (wannabe) perfectionist/tryhard, which is why the process described in my previous post was a lot more involved and (perhaps) therefore more utopian/idealist than realistic. Perhaps I've even alluded to this a couple of times 😅.
Great idea! FWIW, perhaps an interactive map with pop-ups may be utilized to that effect. Though, there's plenty to consider here and a lot of ways to do it justice. I trust in your capabilities to achieve that splendidly.
I haven't installed the beta of its Orchid release yet. So, hopefully my gut feeling is just wrong. Ironically, the first time I installed a relatively immature version of an atomic distro (Fedora Kinoite, but like its first release (so Fedora 35 at the time)), it was a very bad experience and I rebased right away to Silverblue and haven't look back since 🤣. Hopefully others will not be stung by VOS 2, like how I was stung by Kinoite.
By not naming any of the associated operating systems, but instead opt to distill their respective workflows in plain text. I'm very aware that this is pretty hard without spending way too many words on their descriptions. Therefore, perhaps it's worth exploring if the 'intended workflows' of the different DEs might be (screen) captured and displayed as gifs. Obviously with the caveat that the 'intended' isn't forced upon them and that they're free to change them to better suit their needs.
Same for me, with the addition of me being a people-pleaser. I already have to select which voice I listen to, since there are hundreds of different ones contradicting each other.
Right now, I think I've spent enough time for the next days :D I will consider making a small website out of that, but that's more of a hobby project and learning experience for me.
Yeah, I know that too well... the pain of being an early adopter :D Fedora Atomic has matured heavily, and I think it is perfectly usable, both in terms of reliability and availability.
It's just that it is quite different from other distros, especially when you want to install apps. For newcomers, just telling them to go into the software center and selecting the apps to install (via Flatpak) is perfectly enough. It only gets a bit more complicated when they want more and have to turn to the CLI (e.g. Distrobox).
Very commendable! I hope you can remain positive and optimistic. Unfortunately, I've stopped caring much for others' opinions. I hope I'm wrong; but to me most people that engage in these topics somehow lack knowledge, are not very intelligent or just plain ill-informed/ misinformed and obnoxiously oblivious for how wrong they are. This doesn't mean that others' opinions/views are de facto wrong, but I try (as hard as it sometimes is) to assess/evaluate ideas based on their respective merit(s) rather than how often they're voiced or how popular they are.
Absolutely. I find it hard to recommend other distros, unless something specific is sought after that's either very hard or plain impossible to materialize/accomplish on Fedora Atomic.
Paradigm shift for sure. Curiously, I'd argue the average Android/iOS-user should be fine with only resorting to the software storefront. So in a sense, non-Windows/Linux users might have it easier on Fedora Atomic 😅. Simply for not having (false) preconceived notions on how something should work/function.
A good answer to "Where to start", is not likely to be "determine your Linux distro of choice".
Which isn't to say that what you're doing is not a good way help with getting a quick idea of what to expect from the different distros.
But the original question, might be better answered by explaining some concepts instead:
These concepts, IMHO, are much more important, than what distro. Because it gives them the tools to understand how easy it is to just try stuff out, without having to commit to anything. Picking the wrong distros then isn't a big of a deal.
If I were to make a comment on the chart itself. I think there is some value in describing what some distros are tailored for. But I find it curious how little that would matter to me. Things that matter to me are:
Many distros are different by only having a different list of software installed by default. That... Is nice if you want to try it out with a live USB. But, it doesn't matter all that much. For example, Arch is considered one of the least advisable for beginners, but, it also has the AUR that covers a lot more than most other package systems. Some things are easier to get ahold of than say Ubuntu.
Year of the Linux desktop might just happen if you keep making flowcharts like this.
It must really suck for Windows or Mac users whose flowcharts only have one flowchart box between them and actually using their computer ;P
Endeavouros is Arch. It has the calameris installer and a selection of defaults, tools, etc. But there is no real difference to arch.
endeavoros has a major pitfall for new users that it has no default hooks to update bootloader, so to the uninitiated it will
sooneventually "brick" itself (when grub changes it's config syntax or whatever)Wait, what aspect of the bootloader doesn't get updated?
for example, if GRUB changes the syntax of the config file, then the mismatching configuration can result in an unbootable system. it's so annoying because all it needs is a script to run automatically any time pacman sees that grub got an update. it just has to rerun grub-mkconfig
Ah, EndeavourOS uses systemd-boot by default these days (it definitely does update that by automatically as well), I would really advise new users changing it away from that default.
Edit: Whoops, slight typo there. I wouldn't advise new users changing away from the default systemd-boot option.
I’ve been enjoying endeavourOS for a while now. Great intro to arch and also not really all that different to Debian in day to day use. It’s nice having a more recent kernel and the NVIDIA drivers have worked flawlessly for me. It has been one of the smoothest experience out of the box next to Debian. NixOS and several others just gave me all sorts of headaches trying to make them work, the experience was subpar on this desktop build.
So biased. If you don't know what distro to choose, go with kubuntu, mint, or pop. That simple.
I keep coming back to Mint+cinnamon as my daily driver and debian+xfce on older hardware. They just work and both distros and DE are simple and familiar coming from win10. There are enough built-in customization options for me to get the desktop looking how I want it but I don't have to spend a day configuring it if I don't want to. It might be a basic choice for basic people, but I was up and running in about an hour and after a month of not booting into windows I wiped that old drive to make room for data. I may switch over to LMDE at some point, but that is more philosophically motivated than an actual need.
There's something to be said for simplicity.
This information is good, but overwhelming for newbies. This is what I tell people interesting in using Linux:
Start with Linux Mint. If you decide later on that you want to delve deeper, check out distrowatch for a good list of distros with descriptions.
Thanks for the write up @Guenther_Amanita@feddit.de ! That will guide my further distro hopping I wanted to know what you meant by 'outdated' regarding Pop!_OS? What's wrong with it?
There's nothing "wrong" with Pop. It's just that the devs are currently more focused on creating their new own DE instead of working on the current distro, and therefore, no new development is happening right now.
This is of course understandable, and I still would recommend Pop, since it's in a fine state right now and still works good.
If one wants newer features or releases, I would recommend checking out Bazzite (when gaming focused) or regular Fedora and then applying some tweaks on it to recreate the Pop-experience.
I think I would split Guix & Nix based on your flavor of functional language heritage: LISP or ML
How to choose your 1st distro:
-Have 1 monitor: Linux Mint
-Have more than 1 monitor: Fedora
-Have a potato PC: AntiX
@Presi300 Mint is fine also with 2 monitors
Mint does, X11 (cinnamon) does not
@Presi300 I'm using Cinnamon with 2 monitors (laptop + external monitor connected via displaylink)
In my experience with X11, just in general, trying to run multiple monitors with different refresh rates and/or resolutions is where the big problem is. Everything just feels choppy and unstable...
This might be easier: https://distrochooser.de
Why is the only non-optional question in that quiz whether you want fast or stable updates? That isn't something the typical user will understand.
You can skip all questions the last time I checked.
Not the very last one though, at least when I tried just now. Strange.
So they broke it? Great!
I made the post specifically because distrochooser recommends the weirdest niche- or non-fitting distros.
If you say "security and privacy is important for me", it just says "use Tails", and then the new user comes here to ask "Why is my performance in CS:GO so bad? I already had to troubleshoot my drivers for 5 hours, Linux sucks!".
This diagram basically only recommends the 3 same distros, with just mild variances of DE choice. I wanted to make it easier for newcomers, so they get oriented better and choose a well supported and easy one :)
That's the worst...
no