On the software-side of things; Kodi is cool. As for remote control, consider referring to Kodi's Wiki-page on the matter for options.

Btw, honestly your query is way too vague. If possible, please provide us with more info so that we can better help you 😉.

While technically not a Linux distro, Qubes OS is the gold standard. With the primary cons being that it's kinda hard on system requirements and it doesn't play nice with dedicated GPUs and thus software that would require it.

Honorable mentions would be Fedora Silverblue/Kinoite/Sericea, Kicksecure, openSUSE Aeon/Kalpa and Vanilla OS. Of course, regular Fedora and openSUSE Tumbleweed are still good even without being immutable. The aforementioned distros all have varying levels of hardening out of the box. While the offerings of Fedora and openSUSE have better defaults than most other distros, Kicksecure -which is made by the same team behind Whonix- is almost completely hardened from the get-go. Vanilla OS is in a major overhaul, so I refrain from making any strong judgements on it yet.

For whatever it's worth, a couple of years ago the (infamous) Madaidan (AKA security researcher on Kicksecure and Whonix) did recommend running minimalist distros like Alpine, Artix, Gentoo and Void for the sake of security. However, he did that recommendation on the basis of minimalism and zero-trust. However, that would require the system administrator (read: you) to actually know their shit. Which, unfortunately, is often times not the case as not everyone that's sensitive of their digital security proceeds to study cybersecurity. That's where the "honorable mentions" in the previous paragraph come into play; all of the distros that were mentioned within actually have shown to take security very seriously and acknowledge with the amount of heavy-lifting they do that they hold a sense of responsibility in that regard.

Im most interested in blendOS, because its based.

I once had an interaction with its primary developer and the dude was oblivious on which MAC was configured on his distro; spoiler-alert: none. It does a bunch of cool stuff, but I wouldn't call it secure (by default) by any stretch of the imagination.

As others have already (somewhat) alluded to; it's best to buy a laptop from a company that offers devices on which Linux users are first-class citizens. Therefore, any device that specifically fits your needs (hardware-wise) from either NovaCustom, Star Labs, System76, Tuxedo etc should fit the bill. Furthermore, it's worth noting that Nvidia GPUs have a known bad track record on Linux. The possibility exists that you won't even notice it on any of the devices sold by any of the aforementioned vendors. However, I'd argue it's still mindful to be cautious.

Should I better buy all of AMD (if yes, which CPI, GPU) or Intel/Nvidia? Or Intel CPU and AMD GPU? Which combination is the right one with best performance for a casual gamer? I prefer FPS games, if that’s important…

AMD has been doing very good for some time and the fact that the Steam Deck is powered by AMD is very telling of what the current status quo is. However, I don't think it's a hard requirement. Sure, going full-AMD has it's merits, but you should be fine regardless.

Hard-reboots are no longer required on Silverblue when installing or upgrading packages (besides kernel) through rpm-ostree. Arguably one should only sparingly rely on rpm-ostree for installing packages. But it's great to have access to soft-reboot when setting up a new system.

If one can afford to pay the higher price, then Star Labs' (or System76' etc) laptops will offer far superior Linux support. Modern hardware from non-'Linux-first' vendors have shown causing troubles with 'deep sleep'. Issues like these can and have been resolved on Star Labs' (or System76' etc) devices. Furthermore, they don't only sell 'Linux-laptops', but they also contribute to the upstream of coreboot and other Linux projects. Thus, by buying their laptops, one is actively contributing to that cause.

steamos is debian-based

This used to be the case until the launch of the Steam Deck, on which SteamOS (3) is actually based on Arch instead. However, SteamOS is a very special distro based on Arch due to 'immutability', how it achieves said 'immutability', the implications thereof, 'freezing' of packages, inability to install packages persistently without some hacking etc. So, SteamOS is not representative of how Arch works in general.

while popos is ubuntu-based

And Ubuntu is based on Debian.

is that the biggest part of how a distribution works, ie commands, etc.?

If we take your average (popular) distro, so the likes of Gentoo, NixOS etc are dismissed as they are very unique compared to the others, then arguably the most important differentiators would be: Model for updates, package manager and available packages. One might delve deeper into this and with the advent of stuff like Distrobox this becomes a lot more blurred, but traditionally speaking the aforementioned three things used to be the main differentiators. Beyond those, the end-user has the freedom to do whatever with their system. For example, Pop!_OS comes with GNOME + their own touches by default. However, the desktop mode of SteamOS comes with KDE. But you can install KDE on Pop!_OS and even customize it very closely to how it's done over at SteamOS. This is not a special quality of Pop!_OS, but of Linux in general.

Good ui/ux is important for me so i should maybe use nitrux or deepin

It's important to note that both of these are not unique in what they offer in terms of UI/UX. You can recreate 99% of it yourself, simply by installing the appropriate desktop environment; which constitutes most of the UI/UX. Nitrux has KDE as its desktop environment (with a touch of Maui), while deepin uses the Deepin desktop environment. Personally, I wouldn't recommend any desktop environment beyond Cinnamon, GNOME, KDE and Xfce. Don't be discouraged by this though, feel free to put Nitrux and deepin on a Live USB to get a feel for them. Regarding good UI/UX, your best bets are probs Kubuntu, Linux Mint, openSUSE and Pop!_OS. Honourable mention would be MX Linux, but I don't recommend systemd-less distros to newer users.

that are debian-based

Sure, Nitrux is based on Debian. But it's immutable, systemd-less and favors AppImages over Flatpak/Snap. It's a cool project, but I find it hard to recommend to a newer user. While deepin is less unique by comparison, it's far from a distro that's known for its polish. I'd argue it's mostly just eye-candy instead 😅.

or is it a bad idea to choose a less common distro for a amateur like me?

Bullseye! This isn't a hard rule though. I started venturing into Linux through a somewhat obscure distro as well 😅. But, at the time, I researched for about a week which distro to install and why. Afterwards I spent another week on how I should install it and what should be considered for install. And then I installed it, after which I spent almost two weeks getting the system to a working state. It still wasn't quite there yet, but after spending a month on it from start to finish I wanted to move on to something else 😅. I kept the install, don't get me wrong. And it became my daily-driver. After some time I even 'fell in love with it'. But like, I know that I can be stubborn about things like this and persevere where others might have preferred to hit their heads to the wall instead. So your mileage may vary...

Do you have any advice for me?

As you've correctly assessed, you are indeed lost 😅 . That's fine, I think almost all of us have been lost at some point in time. Uhmm..., but honestly, I think you're conflating two very distinct things. Pop!_OS is a general-use distro on which you can do whatever. And most distros that people talk about and engage with are similarly general-use distros. SteamOS, on the other hand, isn't quite like that. Sure, you may hack your way and achieve some things with it. But it's false to believe that you can find any distro that qualifies as SteamOS but on your laptop. Before giving you any recommendations, would you be so kind to answer the following:

• Your post is written in a way that implies that you want to forego Pop!_OS for another distro that's more like SteamOS. Therefore my question would be:
  • What things from SteamOS did you prefer over Pop!_OS? Please be specific and elaborate*.

Notably openSUSE Tumbleweed is a distro that satisfies all requirements while not being named yet by others. Apart from it, only Arch and Fedora are worth mentioning as distros that also satisfy all requirements (as some others have already noted).

While I get why distrochooser.de is romanticized, in its current iteration it's simply not very good and anyone that is somewhat well-versed in how different distros operate and how Distrochooser works, will tell you the same. At best, it provides some orientation into what some of the more common distros are. But it fails to answer some fundamental questions in the process; like:

• What is the relation between a distro and its derivative and (more importantly) how does that matter to a user?
• How exactly does a distribution's chosen release model affect software and updates? And while we're into that, what's even the difference between the "stable" used when talking about point release distros that opt to freeze packages over longer periods of time vs the "stable" that's brought up in conversations regarding update concerns and how they might break software (I'm honestly not even sure if the one(s) responsible for writing the parts of Distrochooser even know(s) themselves)^[1]^.

There are a lot of other fundamental questions that are involved in the decision for picking a distro that would have made a lot more sense than the ones found on Distrochooser. E.g. Do you use an Nvidia GPU and want this to cause no issues in the process of installation and is this your biggest concern? If yes: then just use Pop!_OS. Otherwise, move on to the other questions etc. I think the fact that a flowchart isn't used for some uses and that ultimately priorities aren't brought up to finalize the decision are the two biggest issues that Distrochooser has in its current iteration.

And we haven't even gone over the many distros that despite having little to no user base are still included in the results, while (more recent) 'staples' like Garuda and Nobara are clearly left out for reasons most likely related to the maintainers not being able to keep up with the Linux landscape. Which, to be fair, is quite hard; so I don't blame them. I, in fact, applaud them for their continued contributions and hope that some day it will become something that we can proudly present to others for their first orientation.

Allow me to end this with a question to OP:

• Do you feel the same way about excellent websites like DistroWatch.com and DistroSea?^[2]^
  • If yes; Why didn't you make a similar post for either of the two instead?
  • If no; Why not?

1. Sure, there is some overlap in what they mean and how they're used, but it's a very important distinction; otherwise openSUSE's stable rolling release designation for their Tumbleweed wouldn't make any sense.
2. If anything, I think these two actually make more sense to be included.

Distrobox exists, so one is not bound to use a specific distro just because it packages some of the apps/binaries they require.

So they've had a major release last year in December. And their official website seems to be up. Though, I only had luck connecting to it through Tor 😅. It's still active according to Distrowatch. And, honestly, the reader reviews ain't that bad. I'd say give it a spin and consider reporting back on us 🙂.

Hopefully bcachefs will be merged with 6.6.

Last year I upgraded to an Inspiron 15 7510 with i7-11800H and RTX3050. Since purchasing this laptop I’ve used Manjaro, Debian 11, Pop OS, Void Linux, Fedora Silverblue (37 & 38) and now Debian 12.

A distro-hopper. *Noted*.

I need to reinstall soon since I’ve stuffed up my NVIDIA drivers trying to install CUDA and didn’t realise that they changed the default swap size to 1GB.

Prefers starting from scratch instead of fixing. *Noted*.

I use this laptop for everything - development in C/C++, dart/flutter, nodejs and sometimes PHP. I occasionally play games on it through Proton and sometimes need to re-encode videos using Handbrake. I need some amount of reliability since I also use this for University.

General-use and reliable. *Noted*.

I’ve previously been against trying Arch due to instability issues such as the recent GRUB thing.

Understandable, but not entirely justified.

But I have been reading about BTRFS and snapshots which make me think I can have an up to date system and reliability (by rebooting into a snapshot).

Fair.

What’s everyone’s perspective on this, is there anything major I should keep an eye on?

It is almost common knowledge at this point that this approach has serious merits. That's why we find it on a myriad of rolling release distros. From Manjaro to Garuda, from SpiralLinux to Siduction. Heck, even Nobara -which is not strictly a rolling release distro- has it. I wouldn't even use/recommend a rolling release distro if not for (GRUB-)Btrfs+Timeshift/Snapper. But, while by itself it is already very powerful. It still benefits a lot from testing. Which, when utilized by openSUSE in particular, manages to elevate their Tumbleweed to a very high standard. So much so, that it has rightfully earned to be named the stable rolling release distro. But not all distros are as rigorous in their testing... if at all...

Should also note I use GNOME, vscode, Firefox and will need MATLAB to be installed, if there is anything to do with those that is problematic on Arch?

Nah, that's absolutely fine. *Noted*.

Should I give Arch a shot?

So there are some glaring issues here:

• You've set some parameters and asked us if Arch satisfies. Which it does, but so do a lot of other distros. Which seems to tell me that this will become yet another chapter of your distro-hopper-phase. Which -to be clear- happens to be totally fine. I'd even argue that it's preferable to do it sooner rather than later. Though the mindset of a distro-hopper might deter you from being satiated...
• As previously alluded, Arch is yet another distro that satisfies your needs. You didn't mention what attracted you towards it, nor why you'd prefer it specifically over all the other available options.
• Btrfs snapshots, while powerful, are not 100% fail-safe. Sure, nothing actually is as a random SSD crash might loom around the corner. And I'd be one of the first to tell you that using Btrfs snapshots to rollback to is an exponentially better experience than without. But we're still able to improve upon it (mathematically speaking) infinitely times, to be more precise; some systems allow us to decrease the complexity from uncountably infinite amount of states (which therefore become "unknown states") to countably infinite or (better yet) finite amount of states (which therefore actually become "known states"). The reduction of complexity that this offers and its implications to system reliability are far more impactful than the simple use of Btrfs snapshots.

Consider answering the following questions:

• Are you a distro-hopper? Or did you have very legit reasons to switch distros? If so, would you mind telling us why you changed distros?
  • Would it be fair to assume that it boils down to "I messed up, but instead of repairing I will opt for reinstalling."
    • If so, is this something you want to work on (eventually) or doesn't it bother you at all?
• Why Arch?
• Would you like to setup Btrfs yourself? Or would you prefer your distro to do it for you? Or don't you actually mind regardless?

As other have already alluded to, any distro with a lightweight desktop environment should work on that laptop. However, we don't know if it would work out for you; simply for the fact that you haven't given any other information.

I wouldn't call a project with over 6k upvotes (and counting) on Github underappreciated. Perhaps what you tried to convey is that -surprisingly enough- the community is split on how they view Distrobox within the grand scheme of things. I simply can't fathom anyone to be unappreciative of what it achieves and how. However, there are those that might regard it as one of the rising stars that represent a big upcoming change that might even be -in their eyes- an existential threat to Linux. They fear that containers, immutable distros and all of that 'mumbo jumbo' will threaten the freedom in which they interact with their systems. They don't see them as (potential) solutions to long-held problems, but instead they are viewed as invasive to Linux and an attempt to <insert proprietary OS>-ify Linux and thus as an assault to Linux' uniquely strong qualities. I wonder if if this might be somehow philosophically rooted in how some people lean towards conservatism, while others lean towards progressivism instead.

But yeah, Distrobox is excellent.

They're overrated today because they were good at some time in the past and people have to catch up. As for why they're not that good right now:

Elementary OS had at some point in time perhaps the most polished and accessible user interface out of any distro out there. This was mostly due to how much time and effort they had put into their in-house Pantheon desktop environment. And if they would have continued their efforts, then it would have continued to flourish. Unfortunately it failed at keeping their momentum, this is most likely related to internal disputes. I say this because over the years a lot of important members from their team have departed. Right now; it's just a shadow of what it once used to be and the likes of GNOME, KDE and Cinnamon have far surpassed their Pantheon.

While Elementary OS is just plain bad at this point, by contrast Manjaro is actually not that bad. Arguably, it does a lot of good things; Btrfs+Timeshift being one of the big ones. However, freezing packages in a rolling release doesn't make any sense. Furthermore, it's just very unprofessional to let the SSL certificates expire. Mind you; it didn't happen just once or twice, but four times?!?! Today, if one wants a stable rolling release that holds their hands, they should use openSUSE Tumbleweed. If they want to use Arch, then they should just use Arch; archinstall exists. And if one is not able to install Arch using archinstall, then they should question themselves if Arch is even the right distro for them. Finally, if they seek any kind of hand-holding, then there's a plethora of derivative distros of Arch that are as good, if not better than Manjaro. So just to make myself very clear; Manjaro is not bad, it's just overrated; people gravitate too much towards it based on old videos/articles and what not, but it doesn't deserve that gravitation in its current state.

OP, my request/suggestion would be the following:

In order for us to better help you consider the following:

• Inform us on your hardware specs. You could even rely on the software found on linux-hardware.org for a (so-called) probe.
• Inform us on which distros you've tried. If possible, for each one of them list the following:
  • What exactly didn't work?
  • Did you try any troubleshooting?

On a more general note, you shouldn't feel the need to switch distros even if other distros might offer more convenient solutions.

::: spoiler Story time When I was new to Linux, I wanted to rely on the Chromium browser for cloud gaming through Nvidia GeForce NOW's web platform. For some reason, I just wasn't able to get this to work on Fedora. Somehow, while still being mostly a newbie, I stumbled upon Distrobox and decided to give it a go in hopes of allowing me to overcome the earlier challenge by benefiting of the ArchWiki and the AUR through an Arch distrobox. And voila; -without too much effort- it just worked. More recently, after I've become slightly more knowledgeable on Linux, I just rely on a flatpak to get the same work done. :::

Moral of the story would be that there are a lot of different ways that enable one to overcome challenges like these. And unless you feel the need to go with a system that's (mostly) managed for you (à la uBlue)^[1]^, you will face issues every now and then. And the only way to deal with them would be to either setup^[2]^ (GRUB-)Btrfs+Timeshift/Snapper (or similar solutions) such that it automatically snapshots a working state that you might rollback to whenever something unfortunate befalls your system or to simply become ever so better equipped in troubleshooting them yourself.

1. But therefore demands from you to engage with the system in a specific (mostly unique) way.
2. Or rely on a distro that sets it up for you.

openSUSE's Richard Brown has given multiple talks over the years comparing these three. I'd suggest anyone to look at those for a great rundown on how these universal package managers compare to one another. His most recent talk can be found here; in which he actually does some kind of recap as well.

Unfortunately, we live in the reality in which an affordable laptop with open source (yet modern) hardware simply doesn't exist. While the likes of Insurgo, NitroPad, NovaCustom, Purism, Star Labs, System76 and Tuxedo do commendable work on the software side of things; they still leave a lot to be desired as there is currently no laptop counterpart to what Raptor Computing Systems is able to achieve on the desktop.

Obviously I applaud Framework for what they've achieved for the "right to repair" and hope they'll at least pave the way for what's possible within the realm of open source hardware on laptops. Unfortunately, I'm a bit pessimistic as the way they've handled coreboot up till now has been far from desirable. But I'd love to be mistaken on this.

• uBlock Origin: On medium mode. Honestly, the internet mostly sucks without this excellent extension.
• Dark Reader: Easy on your eyes and prolongs battery life on OLED displays.
• Redirector: This allows you to be in full control of which sites/urls you redirect and to where. As it allows the use of regex, you're even able to create your own 'bangs'. For example I used !x as a bang to redirect me to my favorite SearXNG instance. Kinda neat.

'Spins' on Fedora Silverblue had -for some time- been following a naming scheme that involved picking the name of a blue mineral that ended on "ite". We see this in for example its KDE-spin Fedora Kinoite -which (inadvertently) happens to be the one starting this trend- and the unofficial spins of Vauxite (Xfce), Sodalite (Pantheon) and thus Bazzite (Gaming/Steam Deck). However, the official Sway-spin (Fedora Sericea) and the upcoming Budgie-spin (Fedora Onyx) don't quite follow this naming scheme 😅.

Yes, ideally a naming scheme that's a lot more descriptive would be awesome; like say Fedora Atomic GNOME or Fedora Atomic KDE etc.

I would like to ask if openSuse Tumbleweed is a good option for daily driving ang gaming.

Definitely! Depending on your hardware configuration and the games you play, it might even give you a significant performance boost. For completeness' sake, it's important to note that most of the (potential) gains in performance are related to having a more recently released kernel. So similar gains would have been had simply by using something like Arch or Fedora. Furthermore, other factors -like scheduler, custom kernel patches for additional performance and how the packages have been compiled etc- are perhaps also avenues worth exploring in that regard. However that's a potential can of worms I would rather keep closed in this discussion.

Furthermore, openSUSE Tumbleweed comes with great defaults, which is in clear contrast to Arch that comes with (little to) no defaults. This makes it significantly easier to just install and get on with business, something which you might be already familiar with if you've used Linux Mint and Ubuntu. However, compared to those, openSUSE Tumbleweed might require you to perform some additional steps related to codecs and whatnot. This is nothing out of the ordinary as Fedora would have required it as well. Out of 'the big bois', only Ubuntu has been able to solve this through a single-click during installation. Note; this is not a technical matter but a legal one. Thankfully, openSUSE offers great documentation to solve this as smoothly as possible.

Perhaps it's worth mentioning that openSUSE Tumbleweed, contrary to all the other distros that have been mentioned, is configured with Snapper+Btrfs out of the box. This is IMO a must-have on any reliable system as it allows one to rollback to a working system whenever your system seems to have been borked somehow. The other distros allow you to set this (or similar solutions) up yourself, however openSUSE is the only one that does this for you. Furthermore, if security is of any concern to you, but you're not that knowledgeable on the subject, thus requiring your distro to do the heavy-lifting, then once again openSUSE Tumbleweed (together with Fedora) performs best out of 'the big bois'.

After mentioning such praise one might ask "What's the catch?", because -somehow- openSUSE Tumbleweed isn't as represented in the online discourse compared to Arch, Debian, Ubuntu and Fedora. And honestly, I don't know why it is so criminally underrated. So in that regard, it's quite unfortunate that it can't quite reap the benefits of having a huge involved community like the others have. And perhaps that's where the catch is...; it doesn't have as big of a user base -> limited user base isn't able to contribute to it so that it becomes as 'competitive' as the more popular distros -> potential new users don't pick or stick to openSUSE because package/function X (or whatever) is absent -> it doesn't have as big of a user base... To give an example; I really like to have a secure system. And while openSUSE is one of the best to offer that out of the box, it unfortunately doesn't allow me to further harden it by installing a hardened kernel without myself becoming the maintainer of said package. This is in clear contrast to Arch, Debian and Fedora that offer access to repos that contain a hardened kernel; be it through the AUR, COPR or the repo maintained by the folks over at Kicksecure.

The graphics card I have is Nvidia if its any relevant.

Perhaps openSUSE Tumbleweed will require you to put in more effort -compared to Ubuntu- to make sure this works as intended. However, thankfully, the documentation has got you covered.

Elementary OS and Manjaro are the big ones IMO. Sure, they've had their heydays, but it's time to move on.

Linux is a platform that allows you the freedom to acquire the perfect OS for your needs; Linux Mint for your elderly mother, ChimeraOS for the Steam Deck of your son, Debian for your server, Ubuntu on your laptop you use for work and we can't forget your fully customized Arch/Gentoo on your self-built PC that has been optimized to perfection for your workflow. Whatever problem/use-case/need you might have for your device, Linux offers solutions that are quite possibly the best there is; your mileage may vary depending on your knowledge and experience*.

I will simply list a couple of the images^[1]^ I've used over time and provide some personal insights (in alphabetical order):

• Alpine; when I'm restricted in bandwidth and/or disk space. FWIW, apk is even faster than whatever is found on Arch.
• Arch; if I just need a certain package and can't be bothered to look up if it's available on any of the others. Yup, the AUR strikes yet again. Furthermore, if I'm troubleshooting and I find myself on the ArchWiki, then in order to prevent edge cases from happening and thus the provided solutions to not work on the non-Arch distrobox; I rely on the Arch distrobox. It doesn't hurt that pacman (or any of the AUR helpers) are blazing fast. However, if I intend to rely on said AUR packages over longer periods of time, then I often do look for an alternative distrobox to grab the package from instead. While the AUR is excellent for the amount of packages it has, the security standards aren't the best. Thus, if you're security-conscious, then it's better to rely on AUR packages sparingly, unless you're willing to get into the nitty gritty and check how they're built, how the package is maintained and if its maintainer(s) is reliable.
• Bazzite-Arch; my go-to for gaming.
• Fedora; as I'm already on Fedora Atomic, relying on Fedora distroboxes makes the most sense security-wise. Fedora is also known to take security very seriously themselves, so in general this is just very pleasant to rely on for security reasons. The only reason why one should not rely on Fedora for security reasons would be if they're already on something from openSUSE (like Aeon/Kalpa/Tumbleweed etc). In that case, going for an openSUSE distrobox makes more sense for security. Furthermore, if the package I need is one that's widely accessible, then I also rely on Fedora distroboxes. Lastly, currently, my development environments are all Fedora distroboxes. I might eventually change these to Wolfi distroboxes or simply rely on Nix, but that's still WIP for me.
• Ubuntu; I've had to rely on these a couple of times to use software that's known to target Ubuntu. Most recently it was with Matlab IIRC.
• Wolfi; For the security-conscious, this is probably the best choice. Unfortunately, I've only experimented with it so far without too much success. Thankfully, the Bluefin project has made some good use out of it. So I'll try to emulate their ways in the near future.

Notable mention goes out to Davincibox. Unfortunately my laptop doesn't have a dedicated GPU, so I can't make use of it. But it's something I'm keeping my eyes on.

NixOS is not a supported container distro, but I do have Nix installed through The Determinate Nix Installer. It's somewhat underutilized currently, though 😅.

1. The images will be the toolbox ones if available.

My two cents; if you want to use Linux on it, then do yourself a favor and pick a laptop from a Linux-first vendor. So the likes of NovaCustom, Star Labs, System76, Tuxedo and others found on the link over here come to mind. Besides that, it's important that the device in question either has a dedicated GPU (or at least supports eGPUs). Furthermore, choose a device with relatively high battery capacity; they go up to ~99 Wh, so pick something that's at least relatively close to that number.

How many members does the development team behind Nitrux consist of? I think it's a very cool project, but I tend to be cautious with distros that aren't safe from the bus factor. While googling for answers; I've only seen the primary/main developer being named. Can anyone provide a conclusive answer on the matter?

I just started using Linux

Welcome!

I have not tried running WINE yet but I plan on doing so soon.

Don't feel pressured in any way to use Wine. Sure; if you're in need of certain software that's only available on Windows, then feel free to engage with Wine to get said software working on your system. However, note that a lot of alternatives exist, so make sure to check them out through something like alternativeto.net before getting involved with Wine.

What are some really important basic commands I can use to start branching out into Terminal command structures and learning more about how I can edit and customize my computer?

Broad question; arguably it makes sense to start out with something like linuxjourney.com if you haven't yet. After which, you might proceed to plunge deeper into some of the subjects that have been introduced through more expansive resources. Assuming that you might prefer something like a video guide of sorts; it's worth pointing out that the videos made by the Learn Linux TV channel on YouTube are excellent. One might argue that the ArcoLinux distro might be worth exploring as a platform to learn Linux on; it's literally one of its design goals. Though, once again, you shouldn't feel pressured in any way to use a certain distro to learn Linux on. We'll delve into distros later on.

And if Cinnamon has shortfalls or weaknesses that I may run into eventually, what are some good alternative distros that I could leapfrog to eventually?

Cinnamon is just a Desktop Environment, and it happens to look and function close to how Windows does, which is one of the main reasons it is often recommended to newer users that seek a familiar experience. There's nothing necessarily wrong with Cinnamon, really. Though, it's worth pointing out that it's not one of the top dogs in the realm of Desktop Environments; those would be GNOME and KDE. Those two have put in considerable work and effort to have proper Wayland support, which we'll call the 'successor' of X11; this is a very oversimplified description and thus somewhat false, but it would be out of scope for this comment to delve deeper into this. What's worth pointing out is that Cinnamon -due to its reliance on X11- is (very likely) to be deprived of features like HDR support and superior security standards as long as they don't put in the necessary time and effort to get proper Wayland support for themselves.

In case your question was meant to ask if Ubuntu LTS is the best platform/distro to learn Linux on, then the only correct answer would be that it depends on your needs. Ubuntu is definitely a decent choice, but you're not protected from unintentionally borking your system when you try to install Steam. Jokes aside, even though Pop!_OS is only based on Ubuntu and thus I don't know for 100% sure if said bug stems from Ubuntu or Pop!_OS, it's still worth pointing out that this is not necessarily a very bad showing for Ubuntu or Pop!_OS. Unfortunately bugs happen, though it's great to have a system that might be better protected..., though unfortunately nothing comes without a cost... compromises... compromises...; moving on.

In case you're interested to explore other distros, perhaps take a look at distrochooser.de. It's not exhaustive by any stretch of the imagination, but it's decent as a first orientation. If you share your result, then we might even give our opinion on the matter based on said results. If you do end up sharing the result, consider answering the following questions as well (feel free to give non-binary answers):

• Sane defaults or Blank slate?
• Full control or Little to no control?
• Secure or Convenient?
• Tool to get work done or Tool to explore/play around?

any great tips?

You might come across a piece of software that's not available within the repo of your distro. However, if you know that it's available in another distro's repo, then perhaps you should use Distrobox (or similar container-solutions) to access said software. Refer to videos on YouTube if you're interested to know how it works, though its documentation is quite excellent as well.

Yup, we've even been able to engage (to some extent) with it for the last couple of months.

It does require some know-how to set up, at least if you're unaware of uBlue; a community project that is set on offering said OCI images of Fedora Silverblue (batteries included) with different desktop environments (even those that aren't offered by Fedora (yet)). Bazzite, that has received some significant traction and exposure since it's very recent 1.0 image, is just one of the provided OCI images.

They even offer a very easy way for everyone to engage in building their own custom OCI image. I got mine spin up within two hours or so without knowing how git or containerfiles worked beforehand, it's that simple.

The issues you're experiencing are peculiar for sure. Though some of the things you've mentioned do ring some bells for me; specifically from the time I was new to Linux and installed a bunch of (random) stuff to get more battery life out of my laptop.

First of all, unfortunately an all-encompassing software that ensures optimal performance at all times simply does not exist. Your best bet would be running a distro that does a lot of heavy lifting to ensure a good experience regardless of your hardware. So let's start with a healthy dose of questions to make sure we're all on the same wavelength:

• Could you inform us regarding your hardware specifics?
• What distro do you run?
• How long ago did you install the distro?
• Did you ever install software that was not available in the official repositories and is not otherwise delivered as a self-contained package-deal (read: flatpaks, snaps, appimages etc)?
• Were the issues there from the get-go? Or did you do some things that might have triggered them? And if so, do you have any suspicions on what that something might be?

P.S. if it isn't khamzatsmom 🤣🤣. Welcome to the better platform 😉! Btw, I'm not surprised to hear that you're met with random issues if you continue to run more niche distros for the heck of it 🤣🤣. Sure; you're free to do whatever you want, but running a sane distro as a start will make a huge difference.

Nah, no need to worry. I've got a friend that was bad at math and therefore dismissed a career as programmer initially. Eventually, he just couldn't ignore how much programming interested him and did start a Bachelor's degree in Computer Science (after disliking his first year of Finance). A couple of years later and he's the proud owner of a Master's degree in Computer Science while still being relatively bad at math, but it didn't stop him. Nor should it stop you.

First of all, thank you for replying 💙 !

Can’t install a new system package for most immutable distros without going through some magic incantation

blendOS: Replace sudo pacman -Syu with system install

Fedora's 'immutable' distros: Replace sudo dnf install with rpm-ostree install

openSUSE's 'immutable' distros: Replace sudo zypper install with sudo transactional-update pkg install

While Guix and NixOS offer somewhat similar functionality with their guix install and nix-env -iA commands respectively, usage of said comments are rarely done by advanced users as other means to install packages are more sophisticated. And in terms of how sophisticated installing a mere package can get, one might argue that Guix and NixOS are to 'immutable' distros what Gentoo is to mutable distros.

And with that we just went over the 'immutable' distros that are prevalent in 95% of the discourse (besides Vanilla OS; but that one's in a major overhaul) and none of the commands found above strike me as particularly hard. Though, of course, your mileage may vary.

then doing a reboot

I'll just briefly mention that --apply-live exist for Fedora's immutable distros if you like living on the edge. Furthermore, both Guix and NixOS don't require a reboot in most cases. Finally, while the soft-reboot feature from systemd benefits all distros, one can't deny how impactful it is to 'immutable' distros in particular.

In the past year or so, literally everybody and their mother, decided to join the immutable bandwagon that has been going strong for quite some time. About half of these rely on Distrobox (or very similar solutions) to ensure the desired feature set functions properly. Unsurprisingly, it has also been featured on conferences.

Furthermore, Distrobox itself has been featured in some capacity in a lot of different Linux-related news outlets. And I haven't even mentioned how many times Linux content creators on YouTube have featured it in their videos.

It would be awesome if people that are still bereft of the features that are provided through Distrobox would somehow get to learn about it. Today has been 'your awakening', so feel free to spread the good word and perhaps others will follow suit.

an inflexible immutable distro

Besides the somewhat unfortunate and false 'immutable' name, what makes them inflexible according to you?

The author of the blog post likes X, that's why distro A is might be the perfect distro for them. While I like Y, which is why distro B is the perfect distro for me etc. What makes Linux -in a sense as a platform- perfect great is that it allows one to either find/install/build/configure the perfect system for them^[1]^. Some prefer to be in full control from start to finish, while others just like sane defaults. The fact that Linux allows for such diversity is almost mind-blowing.

The degree of that diversity will only increase as time goes on and very likely at some point (purely as a side-effect of further diversification) very 'dumped down' versions of Linux might -and perhaps already have- arise. This is inevitable and -perhaps to a degree- essential. And no matter how 'dumped down' some Linux distros would have become by then, you can still bet your money that distros like Gentoo and Slackware will continue to do what they always have. So that everybody and their mom, but also the tinker-loving you, will be able to have their perfect distro.

Therefore I don't see any merit/benefit in contributing to gatekeeping, elitism or whatever this is supposed to be. Instead, we should contribute in more meaningful ways; e.g. like by maintaining some packages you need in your perfect distro. And perhaps those changes will actually contribute to it becoming the perfect distro for others...

1. I'd argue Linux isn't quite there yet, unfortunately. As some highly specialized systems just don't exist yet... Regardless, l would reckon it allows one to get the closest to such systems.

I prefer Flatpaks by a wide margin. This presentation by openSUSE's Richard Brown is a great watch for those looking for a thorough comparison.

::: spoiler (Perhaps) unrelated background information xD , I started writing a reply yesterday and it got unwieldy real quick. So, I got discouraged and not long after I fell asleep. In the morning, I was surprised to see that a lot of your questions still weren't answered, so I mustered some motivation and here it is. Don't expect a very thorough response, but you should find enough pointers to make this work. :::

Preface:

• Last summer I tried dualbooting Windows 10 and Fedora Silverblue and succeeded. So I will be sharing my experiences based on that. I don't know if doing this with Windows 11 will be different and/or more challenging (or not).

It’s also got an Nvidia GTX 4060 in it, which will probably not be optimal from what I hear (so any tips on that are much appreciated as well!).

Yup, the gist of it would be that Nvidia's proprietary drivers are not found in the native repos of most distros. This also applies to Fedora. However, you should be able to acquire the proprietary drivers by following the instructions found on RPM Fusion. But, Nvidia's proprietary drivers are known to not play nice and might require you to get into the nitty gritty later down the line to save your system. Don't get me wrong; some people never have issues, but unfortunately this doesn't apply to everybody. Therefore, it's very good to approach this cautiously. If, instead, you'd prefer a managed solution; so one in which your input is left to a bare minimum but somehow Nvidia's proprietary drivers are installed and (at times) fixed by some black magic shenanigans (or just good engineering) going on in the background, then look no further than uBlue's Nvidia images. Delving further into what uBlue is and why IMO you should consume Fedora Silverblue through it would be out of scope for this comment.

How would I go about actually shrinking Windows 11 down to make space for Fedora? Is “partitioning” the right word to use here?

So, unfortunately I don't quite remember what I did exactly. But I can't imagine I would do anything beyond the following two scenarios:

• I just did what I always do and used GParted to shrink the size of the Windows 10 installation.
• I used Windows' own tool to do the shrinking (assuming they even offer something to that effect).

After I shrink the partition, is it then just a matter of running the installer and using automatic partitioning with the unused space left over after shrinking Windows?

If memory serves me right, automatic partitioning by Fedora's Anaconda installer was for some reason undesirable. I don't remember the specifics, but it's likely either one of the following:

• It straight up took hold of the entire disk and thus wanted to remove Windows.
• Issues related to the bootloader; either it just forgot about it or tried to coexist with Windows' bootloader or tried to hijack Windows' bootloader. Nonetheless, all of these might result into some issues later down the line. Therefore, ideally, it should have its own separate bootloader (or at least one it shares with other non-Fedora(-based) distros).

Therefore, I did something slightly different. If I recall correctly, one should adhere to the following instructions:

1. After you've shrunk the Windows partition, make a new partition (preferably using GParted) with the following specifics:

   • 512MB (in size)
   • Set as file system "fat32"
   • Give the partition the "boot" and "esp" flags

2. Reboot into Fedora Silverblue/Kinoite's installer and when you get to the screen found below: ::: spoiler Click here to reveal image of the screen ::: First select the disk you'd like to perform the installation on and then select Custom (optional: you're free to choose the "Encrypt my data" option as well). After you've done this, press "Done" in the upper-left corner.

3. A new screen should appear, in here I selected "Click here to create them automatically.". This should apply the default partitioning on the empty disk space. However there are a couple of things to keep track off:

   • Ensure that nothing from your Windows partitions is touched.
     • This includes the EFI partition of your Windows; if Fedora wants to do anything with it, then ensure it remains untouched.
   • By default, at least in my case, a new EFI partition specifically for Fedora Silverblue wasn't made. This is where the earlier created partition using GParted will play an important role;
     1. Select the earlier created 512MB partition
     2. Mount Point: change it from blank/empty to /boot/efi
     3. File System: Set it to EFI System Partition
     4. Ensure the checkbox with "Reformat" that's found to the right of the selection box for "File System:" is enabled/blue/checked
     5. I don't recall what I did exactly with the selection box under "Device Type:", but it likely was Standard Partition. I didn't encrypt it.
   • (Optional) You should have noticed that this screen also enables one to create partitions. There's a chance I created mine using this instead of GParted, but that would mean I would have departed from my ways. If the method in which the partition is created with GParted didn't work and you don't know why, then it's at least worth trying to create the partition here instead.

4. After you're done with the previous screen, select "Done" in the upper-left corner. This should prompt a popup screen that summarizes the changes. Ensure that this doesn't do something strange to your Windows partitions and make sure that it looks otherwise as you'd expect. If you're done, then select "Accept Changes".

5. The rest of the installation should progress like how you'd expect from there.

6. (Post-install) Depending on how you'd like to have GRUB (read: default bootloader on Fedora) configured, you might have to do a thing or two to ensure you can access both Fedora Silverblue/Kinoite and Windows however suits you best.

I’d also love to know what kind of issues the docs are actually warning about as far as dual-booting. Will Windows wipe the bootloader on update or will Silverblue / Kinoite wipe Windows out somehow? If it’s Silverblue wiping Windows out, that may cause me to go with a different distro - but if Windows wipes Silverblue, it’ll be annoying but not a deal breaker

As long as the EFI partitions are separated, there's nothing to worry about. And if anything, it's Windows that might wipe out whatever Linux distro you're dualbooting.

I plan to use Silverblue / Kinoite for development exclusively, so everything will be on GitHub.

Perhaps it's worth mentioning one of uBlue's most ambitious projects; Project Bluefin, or to be more precise; the Bluefin developer experience.

General tips:

• Grab a USB with enough capacity (8 GB at the bare minimum), and use Ventoy to create a bootable USB drive out of it. Then, put the .iso files for both GParted and Fedora Silverblue (or uBlue) into the designated location (read: partition called "Ventoy").
• Regarding Ventoy, ensure to set it up specifically for your needs (GPT vs MBR, SecureBoot or not etc).
• I recall to have greatly benefited from this excellent video guide on dualboot and multiboot by DorianDotSlash when I did my first dualboot ever. It's very likely that I even watched it in its entirety before doing my most recent Windows 10 + Silverblue dualboot.

Please feel free to inquire if you so desire!

"ABRoot is utility which provides full immutability and atomicity to a Linux system, by transacting between two root filesystems. Updates are performed using OCI images, to ensure that the system is always in a consistent state. It also allows for local atomic changes thanks to the integrated ABRoot package manager, which generates local OCI images with the user's changes, and then applies them on top of the system's default image."

(From ABRoot's page on Github)

This sounds a lot like what Fedora is trying to achieve with their ostree native containers.

Are there any technical differences between the two? Besides, of course, relying on tools with different names etc*. FWIW, it doesn't seem as if ABRoot (v2) allows one to pin multiple deployments, while this can be done relatively easily through the sudo ostree admin pin [-u] command on Fedora Atomic.

without using special tools like respin and archiso

What do you exactly mean with this?

• Can we suggest any package/tool that you have to install?
• Did you intend to convey a solution that's independent of an existing distro?
• Do you want the custom distro/iso to only do its thing until installation? Or are you perhaps interested in something more declarative that can continue to exist and be (one of) the primary means to config your system?
• Could you explain to us how your envisioned solution looks like?

Sorry for asking these questions, but it was either this or a very very long post satisfying all kinds of different criteria. Thanks you in advance for answering any of the questions!

Thanks for enlightening us! Fortunately, the answer in my original comment should still satisfy your needs.

A couple of assumptions I will be making:

• Your hardware is supported; consider to check driver support over at linux-hardware.org. Honestly, most hardware should be well-supported, unless it has been released very recently or is hardware from known troublemakers (i.e. Nvidia GPUs or Broadcom etc).
• Your 'computer-literacy' is at least (slightly) higher than average.
• You've primarily used Windows in the past.
• You prefer asking others instead of finding it out for yourself; the existence of this post supports that. (It's either that or you like to have a second opinion in all cases; but I would have expected more input from you if that was the case 😅.)
• Your hardware is somewhat modern.
• You will mostly stick to defaults (at least initially).
• You're aware that while hundreds of actively maintained distros exist, most of them are either niche or not worth your time in the first place. If, from the remaining ones, the less impactful derivatives are surgically removed, followed by the removal of newbie-unfriendly distros, then only 10-20 distros would remain; most of which have been named in this thread already. And your needs dictate which one out of these would suit you best.
• You will educate yourself regarding desktop environments like GNOME, KDE Plasma, Cinnamon, Xfce etc. Perhaps you will even boot into a live environment to check them out for yourself; loading a bunch of distros on your USB through Ventoy is excellent for that. This is important as they're arguably the biggest contributor to how you perceive your Linux system. You should also be aware that in almost all cases a second (or heck; even third, fourth etc) desktop environment can be installed on your system and you should be able to switch between them relatively easily. However, in most cases, the one provided on first installation works close to flawless while others that have been tacked on later on are generally less polished.
• You will educate yourself (eventually) regarding universal package managers (read: AppImage, Flatpak, Nix and Snap) and Distrobox as collectively they've (mostly) ridden the Linux ecosystem of problems related to software not being packaged in the native repos. Don't feel the need to indulge into all of them simultaneously from the get-go. But be aware that they exist and that they enable one to install (almost) any package that has been made available to Linux regardless of their chosen distro.

Any distro I should use?

Typically, distros like Arch, Debian, Fedora, Linux Mint, openSUSE, Pop!_OS and Ubuntu (or their derivatives) will be mentioned in these kinds of queries. And it becomes mostly a popularity poll that measures what the community thinks is the preferred distro for beginners. And honestly, I don't blame them as you haven't really given us a lot to work with. My entry to that popularity poll would be Linux Mint. If you prefer to use GNOME or KDE Plasma instead, then consider either Fedora or openSUSE Tumbleweed. Additionally, Pop!_OS should be considered if Nvidia causes problems on all the others.

Feel free to inquire if you so desire!

EDIT: I just noticed how you mentioned to someone that your use case will be primarily gaming. First of all, gaming is somewhat equal on most distros; especially with the likes of Bazzite-Arch and Conty providing excellent environments for gaming regardless of installed distro. Though, these containers do still rely on the hosts kernel, therefore any perceived difference on same hardware but different kernels might be attributed to said kernels. Newer kernels generally come with improved performance; at least for newer hardware*. Though, perhaps more performance could be gained through other means as well. I will spare you the details, however, as this is potentially another rabbit hole within the initial rabbit hole. Therefore, instead, I will name a couple of distros known for being excellent for gaming purposes: Bazzite, Garuda Linux, Nobara Linux, PikaOS and RegataOS. If you want a no-nonsense system, just go for Bazzite; while initial setup might seem slightly more involved, it's by far the most robust system out of these. This does come at the cost of being 'unique' amongst the others, but I believe it's a great fit for your use case.