I see often people say that the distro you are using doesn’t matter. One can turn any distro into another. And I do not agree with that. If that was true, why do we even have so many distributions? I always said, if distros don’t matter…
- … why distro hop?
- … why don’t you use Ubuntu then?
- … why don’t you recommend Archlinux to a newcomer?
- … why don’t you use Kali Linux as a server?
- … why don’t you use Batocera or SteamOS as your daily driver?
- … why do you trust a community distro more than a corporate distro? (or vice versa)
I don’t think that distros only matter to newcomers. Maybe it matters for experienced users even more.
Your choice of distro doesn’t matter insofar as you can fix any issues you have with one, and it can be modified to work like any other.
Your choice of distro does matter in the fact that your time is limited and you probably don’t want to spend days making your system work exactly like you want from a base point that was far away from that. You should choose a distro that minimizes the gap between what you want and what you get out of the box.
You just need to choose one that seems right, then you can make the modifications you need. Just make a choice though. It’ll be fine if you just picked something that seems close enough.
It doesn’t.
I don’t mind them, except Ubuntu. Broken by default since it started. I don’t know how or why, but it is the most fragile least user friendly one of the bunch.
I am not currently using it but it’s always been fine whenever I have. What’s broken?
For the last few projects I have been on, it has thrown errors during the install. It usually resolves itself, but the user should never be greeted with “something went wrong” or “error during install”.
I guess I could download the latest and play with it for 10 minutes and get some specifics.
I don’t actually care, but when I have in the past (around 2006 era) it “just worked”, while other distros i was using required more hand holding (gentoo, redhat, slackware). I suspect most distros are just fine now a days (using debian now and it seems just fine).
Are you bored? Did you just build a strawman version of your own community to argue about something that is trivially easy to answer for everyone in this community? I am seriously confused. I have never ever heard anyone say that you could turn any distro into any other. That is just obviously not true. And every single question on your bullet point list is equally easy to answer.
When people say that it doesn’t matter which distro you use what they obviously mean is that the desktop environment has the way more immediate and tangible impact on the user experience. So as long as the newcomer choses one of the many distros that have an intuitive installer (so obviously not Arch), are reasonably up to date, have a broad software package repository, and come with one of the major environments pre installed, it really does not matter that much.
In a very technical sense, you can turn any distro into any other distro, in the same way you can turn Windows into OpenBSD.
It’s probably also true in a smaller way, where you could technically reengineer a distro manually by replacing components and reconfiguring things until it works, but why? Someone already did that.
In a ship of theseus kind of way i guess you can turn almost anything into anything else :p
I found certain hardware to be a problem with Debian based distros and had to install Fedora or OpenSUSE. There was a bios bug that those distros worked around, the debian distros either failed the install process or threw bug on boot that killed everything.
So sometimes you are forced to distro hop.
I just thought that the phrase “the distro you are using doesn’t matter” is used to combat the analysis paralysis that many new users experience.
And -to be frank- while Ubuntu and NixOS don’t even remotely resemble each other, I can’t be the only one that feels that most traditional distros do feel kinda same~y.
There are lot of people who really believe that, not just an answer help with choice paralysis.
I also agree that lot of distributions feel similar. And that is not a coincidence. First most distros follow same rules, often have the same underlying technology or act the same, even if its different. And then desktop environments makes up a lot of how an operating system feels to use, and most distributions default to the same one or two. So no wonder many feel the same, even if their underlying technology would be different. It just depends on what you do. Take X11 and Wayland in example. For most people who just use KDE and Firefox on one distribution with Wayland, will feel the same when using this combo on another distribution with X11.
There are lot of people who really believe that, not just an answer help with choice paralysis.
IMO, that’s the lesser of two evils. Start first, get annoyed with nuance and tedious internet arguing later, if you’re content enough before reaching the latter, that’s a win in my book.
Just like your “opponents” are over-generalising, you’re deliberately picking the most extreme examples to make your argument. (Batocera as a daily driver - you know that’s what Hanna Montana Linux is for!)
My Linux axioms are: for most new users…
- choice of DE is most noticeable and decides whether they like their initial experience.
- choice of base distro family does matter a lot in the long run (Debian-based vs. Arch-based vs. Redhat-based); if you stay inside the same family (e.g. Pop!OS vs. Ubuntu vs. Zorin vs. Mint), choice matters a lot less (and DE is most impactful, c.f. point one).
- choosing a distro with specialised security hardening (immutable systems, Nix, Qubes, Bazzite) does matter; most of these will make new users unhappy or even question their sanity.
Where you are right: yes, the choices embedded within these three axioms do matter a lot and are noticeable, so it is helpful to have an experienced user recommend a distro to you when starting out.
Where the “distro don’t matter” people are right: there are a lot less choices to be made than meets the eye. Effectively, it can be boiled down to three.
choosing a distro with specialised security hardening (immutable systems, Nix, Qubes, Bazzite) does matter; most of these will make new users unhappy or even question their sanity.
Out of curiosity, as someone who’s never used Bazzite/other uBlue/SilverBlue/etc, what makes it difficult for new users? I definitely agree with Nix and Qubes though (and SecureBlue to some extent).
Basically, anything that isn’t packaged as a flatpak needs to be installed from the CLI using distrobox containers, which will go over the heads of the majority of new users.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to bonk the immutable Stans over the head with this logic, but it never works. They install bazzite, play their game of choice on steam and occasionally use their web browser and “ALL NEW USERS MUST USE BAZZITE ITS SO EASY”
Any distro is easy when you use it like a fucking Sony PlayStation.
Lol, but so true.
Can’t you use homebrew?
You can and it works very well now
I have zero experience with that. 😄
FWIW, uBlue has been brewing for almost three years now for their CLI stuff: see this issue tracker and this blogpost from Bluefin’s creator.
The distrobox workflow overall has mostly been superseded by better alternatives[1]. Though, for completeness’ sake, openSUSE’s atomic offering continues to heavily rely on Distrobox. But, in their defense, I think their atomic offerings are simply better[2] suited for it.
There’s sysext with its (WIP) manager, Brew Tap to tap into homebrew casks and some peeps even use coldbrew. And last, but definitely not least,
nixsupport has improved over the years. And if you just want to usednf, RakuOS’ innovative hybrid design allows just that; an image-based core you can’t touch (like the other ‘immutables’), butdnfworks and is applied through a persistent overlay. ↩︎Fedora’s container images are tied to its major release versions. Hence, every 7-13 months you’re required to set them up from scratch if you’d like to continue using them 😅. Even if this process can be streamlined, it’s IMO very cumbersome regardless. In openSUSE’s case, the containers are based on Tumbleweed. Which, has a rolling release cadence. Hence, it was meant to be used indefinitely. ↩︎
Thank you very much for the detailed and well-sourced write-up! I’ve saved it for later when I get to drill down on this.
It kind of proves OP’s point though: distros do come with a lot of idiosyncrasies of “how things are done around these parts”.
Thank you very much for the detailed and well-sourced write-up!
It has been my pleasure 😊. I really appreciate your kind words 🤍.
It kind of proves OP’s point though: distros do come with a lot of idiosyncrasies of “how things are done around these parts”.
Absolutely. But, I think it’s nuanced and the lines are becoming increasingly blurry. If something based on Fedora can become something based on Arch (and vice-versa), if almost any distro has multiple releases/channels/braches, if software for/from any distro can be installed on every other distro, then… at what point is it truly “around these parts” rather than “with those not-hardcoded system specifications”? Kinda like how DEs can be (un)installed, and how those come with implications on how some stuff is done…
There’s a ton of added friction when doing things outside the basic ‘install Flatpak app’. Security generally comes at the price of being difficult to use.
For new users it also means virtually every guide or there on fixing an issue or installing extra software won’t apply.
If you install home brew 90% of the issues go away.
The problem is that most Linux software assumes it can do whatever it wants, and immutable distros do not let you write to the system files.
This creates confusion, because you see a guide for Fedora and it said
dnf install xyz, but dnf doesn’t work. The solution is to add it to your image tree (no) or to create a toolbox with that package (complicated, requires setup, gets complicated if your tool needs access to Wayland for clipboard or something).Bazzite solves this by using brew, which is a package manager built for macOS which has had immutable systems for years. Brew solves most of the issues.
For me by the time I went immutable it just made more sense to go full declarative with nix, but nix is also a steeper learning curve.
There is another point, which makes this discussion very variable. Also the choice matters or does not matter a lot, depending on the person, expectations and what is being done. This is probably the biggest reason why we don’t agree on simplifications like these. And BTW, just because the examples I gave are extreme does not make them wrong in any way. They are just easy for illustrating my points I’m making.
If someone is coming from Windows, does not care much about trust and just want something that runs a browser, doesn’t care about community or technicalities, then yes it does not matter if the person chooses Ubuntu or Mint. On the other hand, if someone doesn’t like corporations, has strong opinions about standards and is a developer, then the choice suddenly matters a lot more.
For me it comes down to trust, since the distro maintainers have root on your system. You’d better trust their competence and alignment with your values!
This is actually critically! I love little distros, but it does break my heart that they cannot give the same reassurance on potential malware as Mint would. Many here we are anti-AI but FOSS could benefit a lot from it… it can automatized checking for malware on peanuts. DistroWatch, Flatpak store, Debian backports, etc should be using AI already across the board to check for malware and that would level dramatically the plain field for all.
I love little distros, but it does break my heart that they cannot give the same reassurance on potential malware as Mint would.
Don’t forget their ability to patch critical security issues in a timely manner.
Well, Void is not that large, but they quickly patch security issues, especially due to being a rolling release. OpenBSD, not Linux or rolling release though, is not a huge OS either, but they are patching - if there is a security issue - quickly. Similarly Slackware - if we want to come back again to a Linux distro.
In other words: No, the size of its dev team does not necessarily mean that they are behind with patching security issues. it depends on the commitment and skills of devs, and the community.
Being a “rolling release” has absolutely nothing to do with it. They still need to update their repositories and add patches to it.
No, the size of its dev team does not necessarily mean that they are behind with patching security issues. it depends on the commitment and skills of devs, and the community.
Sure - a one-man-band supported distro could do all that. But a larger distro with a dedicated security team will definitely do it better.
With a dedicated security team
Where is the difference between „dedicated“ and „commitment paired with skills“???
Being a „rolling release“ has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Sure, Debian and alike are up-to-date as are ArchLinux or Void. Oh, boy!
Where is the difference between „dedicated“ and „commitment paired with skills“???
One are paid to do the job, the others are assumed to be doing the job.
Sure, Debian and alike are up-to-date as are ArchLinux or Void. Oh, boy!
You’re mistaking “up-to-date” with “patched in a timely manner.” The two are not the same. But you’re an Arch derivative user (btw) so I have low expectations. Suffice it to say that Ubuntu / RedHat / etc. back-port security patches to the packages they manage. They don’t need to be running the latest version to be patched.
One are paid to do the job …
I suggest you better stay then with Microsoft or Apple. Suits more your ideology.
But you‘re an Arch derivative user
Wrong, but keep guessing.
Suffice it to say that Ubuntu / RedHat / etc …
Oh, I see, you like being hold by your hands 😂🤣
I see often people say that the distro you are using doesn’t matter.
For certain things it doesn’t. Usually this is brought up in the context of someone wanting to choose between 5 possible valid alternatives to start using Linux, and the advice is “it doesn’t matter, just pick whichever and when something annoys you you might understand the difference”
One can turn any distro into another. And I do not agree with that.
You can disagree all you want, it’s 100% possible, stupid, but possible.
If that was true, why do we even have so many distributions?
Because philosophy matters. You don’t pick a distro because it’s technically superior or because it has features others don’t have (with some exceptions like NixOS). You pick a distro because it’s philosophy speaks to you, be it “I aim to be user friendly” or “I aim to follow KISS”. This is why for the most part distro doesn’t matter for newcomers, because they’re looking at 5 examples of “I aim to be user friendly and…” distros.
- … why distro hop?
Because I want to try something different and see how I feel about it.
- … why don’t you use Ubuntu then?
I did, for a long time, then I decided that building my system up was easier than tearing it down. If I was using Plasma or Gnome I wouldn’t have switched probably.
- … why don’t you recommend Archlinux to a newcomer?
Because Arch philosophy is KISS, meaning you have to build everything from the ground up and you’re expected to understand the steps and read the manual. This is why I believe distros like Manjaro or CachyOS cause issues, they remove the initial hurdle of Arch but don’t change the core philosophy, making them ticking time bombs for people who don’t know their way around Linux.
- … why don’t you use Kali Linux as a server?
You do you, my servers don’t usually need all of the extra tools a distro with the philosophy of “I’m a pen tester tool” has.
- … why don’t you use Batocera or SteamOS as your daily driver?
Because usually I want my daily driver to do computer stuff, and those distros philosophy is “I’m a gaming console”
- … why do you trust a community distro more than a corporate distro? (or vice versa)
I don’t trust either more inherently than the other, I trust distros that have a track history of good behavior.
I don’t think that distros only matter to newcomers. Maybe it matters for experienced users even more.
Distros matter, they tell a lot about what you’re trying to accomplish. But most newcomers are debating for days whether they should use Ubuntu, Pop, Mint, Fedora or CachyOS, and realistically they’re unlikely to even understand the difference between those. Think on distros like clothes, if you’re just going to the market it doesn’t matter what clothes you wear, if you’re going to a job interview it matters, and if you’re going to do something very specific like swimming some clothes are simply better than others. But if someone asks you “do clothes matter?” You will probably reply no, because for most stuff you do as long as you’re not wearing clothes with holes in them you’re fine, but you can tell a lot about people by the clothes they decide to wear. It’s a similar thing for distros, for most stuff it doesn’t matter, for certain things it’s important for others it gives some information and for some specific cases it makes a huge difference, but for the most part it’s a personal choice.
One can turn any distro into another. And I do not agree with that.
You can disagree all you want, it’s 100% possible, stupid, but possible.
You misunderstood my disagreement. I’m not saying its not possible, I am disagreeing that his is a valid point as an argument for “the distro does not matter” statement. My bad for not being clear about it.
You pick a distro because it’s philosophy speaks to you … Because I want to try something different and see how I feel about it.
These are not the only reasons, but good reasons WHY the distribution matters. BTW I also think that some distributions are technically superior for certain use cases. In example CachyOS is more up to date, has optimizations even on Kernel level, compared to an old Debian distribution that is focused on stability. These are technical differences that matter, for whatever you want to achieve. It’s not just a personal taste.
I don’t understand why you answer all questions, because not all questions are meant for a single person. I chose many questions that are meant for many different people, just to illustrate some points. They are thetorical questions, like why you don’t use Kali as server.
But most newcomers are debating for days whether they should use Ubuntu, Pop, Mint, Fedora or CachyOS, and realistically they’re unlikely to even understand the difference between those.
If they don’t understand the differences, then they SHOULD research and debate until they do. Choosing a random distribution and hopping until they understand is not only waste of time and resources, it will teach them wrong lessons this way. I for myself researched for months before I landed on Ubuntu in 2008 as the default, to replace Windows XP. Then I kept using it for… I think 15 years straight or so (forgot the exact numbers).
I don’t like the analogy of “clothes” or someone else with “colors”. Distributions are extremely complex and there is way more work and knowledge involved, they have way more impact and dependencies. And to your point if someone asks me “do clothes matter?” i will say “off course”. Not just to contradict you, but because I think clothes do matter depending on how they fit to me, to the situation I am and how nice it feels, how it looks and so on. Even on practical side, if it rains or if I want to swim. While I don’t like this clothes analogy, I still wanted answer that question you assumed I would say “no”.
Just because it does not matter for most, does not mean that it does not matter at all. They don’t know it does not matter. I think there are choices better suited to them, even if they don’t know and say it does not matter - it does, they just don’t know it yet.
I’m not saying its not possible, I am disagreeing that his is a valid point as an argument for “the distro does not matter” statement.
But when the question is between Ubuntu and Kubuntu you can “convert” between them very easily. Not to mention that the fundamental difference between all Debian based distros is the version of the packages they offer, so you can very easily jump between them expecting most things to be the same.
These are not the only reasons, but good reasons WHY the distribution matters. BTW I also think that some distributions are technically superior for certain use cases. In example CachyOS is more up to date, has optimizations even on Kernel level, compared to an old Debian distribution that is focused on stability. These are technical differences that matter, for whatever you want to achieve. It’s not just a personal taste.
Yes, that matters for you, it doesn’t matter for someone who just wants something to use. That contributes to the decision paralysis of switching to Linux, when we say distro doesn’t matter we’re trying to remove that hurdle, because for the average guy that will just use his computer the difference between Debian and CachyOS is the name. Someone without experience in Linux doesn’t understand what stability means, they think it means the system won’t crash so they always try to use stable distros and get frustrated because they’re out of date, or alternatively they think they want bleeding edge until it cuts them. And that’s the crux of the issue, when we make a distro choice, it matters because we understand the differences, when a new user is trying to pick their first distro they’re essentially throwing a dice, it doesn’t matter where it lands, it matters how they feel about it.
It’s hard for us to put ourselves back in the shoes of someone just getting started,
They are thetorical questions
But they’re not, they might be to you or me, but for someone without Linux knowledge they’re very real questions. I have answered some form of some of those from people in the past.
If they don’t understand the differences, then they SHOULD research and debate until they do.
Oh really? Would you mind telling me what’s the difference between Pop, Ubuntu and Mint in a way that would matter for someone who doesn’t understand anything about Linux?
Choosing a random distribution and hopping until they understand is not only waste of time and resources, it will teach them wrong lessons this way.
Having to research what to use before understanding the difference will teach them nothing and make them give up before starting.
I for myself researched for months before I landed on Ubuntu in 2008 as the default, to replace Windows XP. Then I kept using it for… I think 15 years straight or so (forgot the exact numbers).
Yeah, but 2008 was a very different playing field than it is today. 2008 we were almost unanimously recommending Ubuntu or Mint, every forum you asked, every thread you found online it would have been essentially the same recommendation. It’s easy to make the decision then. Today if you open 4 different articles from 4 different sites you will likely get at least 4 different answers to which distro you should choose. And theyake it seem like it’s this big important decision that you have to get right the first time around, that’s the mentality we’re trying to fight.
I don’t like the analogy of “clothes” or someone else with “colors”. Distributions are extremely complex and there is way more work and knowledge involved, they have way more impact and dependencies.
An expert in clothes might tell you the same about them, and that’s what you’re missing, you are an expert, to you the difference between Mint and Pop is concrete and mensurable, to someone who doesn’t understand what I package manager is it’s just vague words without any meaning.
And to your point if someone asks me “do clothes matter?” i will say “off course”. Not just to contradict you, but because I think clothes do matter depending on how they fit to me, to the situation I am and how nice it feels, how it looks and so on. Even on practical side, if it rains or if I want to swim. While I don’t like this clothes analogy, I still wanted answer that question you assumed I would say “no”.
Cool, now explain to an alien who walks around naked why this jean and t-shirt is different from that jeans and t-shirt.
Just because it does not matter for most, does not mean that it does not matter at all.
And if the alien above asked you what clothes to wear to go to the supermarket, you would just say “any jeans and t-shirt would do”, only to have dozen of other people telling him “use this shirt and this pants”, “No, that’s a bad color combination for your eye color, use this one instead”, “No, that show is hard to lace, use this outfit instead”, “You’re not really dressed unless you wear a custom tailor suit”, etc, etc…
They don’t know it does not matter.
Precisely why we tell them it doesn’t.
I think there are choices better suited to them, even if they don’t know and say it does not matter - it does, they just don’t know it yet.
Yes, exactly, but they won’t know until they understand, and you won’t know until they understand, and they won’t understand until they do, and no amount of reading will make them understand. The initial choice between 5 different “noob” friendly distros doesn’t matter, the understanding you get from that will guide your next step, trying to take the next step before knowing where you’re standing is a recipe for disaster
There are two reasons why distro choice doesn’t matter.
- The majors are mostly fine. Ubuntu (not this one), Mint, Fedora, Arch, and Debian.
- They’re going to need to distrohop in the end anyway, and it’s naive to think they’re going to get it right on the first try.
No, I think you’re missing the point. Distro really and truly doesn’t matter at all. They all can do the same stuff as each other. It’s entirely all about taste and personal preference, and nothing else. Each flavour has a different starting point, and those staying points make it quicker and easier to achieve different end goals, but they can all achieve the same end goals but with varying amounts of effort. But to stay with, just pick one and give it a try, learn how it works and what it does, then either stick or twist, but have fun learning and exploring.
Distro really and truly doesn’t matter at all. They all can do the same stuff as each other. It’s entirely all about taste and personal preference
So you say my personal preference and taste does not matter? A starting point does not matter and I should randomly pick something from Distrowatch, maybe the newest updated entry in their database? Just because it CAN be turned into a different distro, does not invalidate the value of having a good starting point that fits my needs perfectly. Also you are wrong that these are the only factors. There is also the factor if I trust the maintainers of the repository, and probably other factors important for choosing a distribution.
No, the opposite. The only thing that matters is your personal taste and preferences. It’s purely and entirely about your perception. They include if you trust the maintainers, the logo, the package manager, the website, the distro name and everything else. You just choose what is important to you based on your taste and preference and choose the distro that aligns with that taste. Which distro you choose doesn’t matter at all, just pick the one you want to. If the most important thing to you is the colour pink, pick one that uses pink.
No, choosing a distribution is not like choosing a color. First there is compatibility. Some hardware work better than others or are better supported. Then you also put “trust” into personal taste, which is not just a taste, but a fundamental design decision that has nothing to do with taste. I wouldn’t recommend a newcomer who does not know how Linux works and does not have time to workout how to install and maintain Archlinux. In example my grandma. Or someone who just want to game on it like a console.
I don’t care how you name these points, the fact is, that choice of distribution is very important and matters a lot.
So you say my personal preference and taste does not matter?
The point is, the amount of time and effort it takes to tune any distro to your personal preference.
There are distros that fit your needs out of the box and there are distros that need hours of setting up and tuning to fit them.
There are distros that fit your needs out of the box and there are distros that need hours of setting up and tuning to fit them.
And that exactly is the reason why the distribution matters.
I think you heavily are misinterpreting the " The Distro does not matter" argument.
Usually ppl want a distro that “does x” and the answer will be “the distro does not matter, use the one that suits you the mkst”.
The argument “The disteo does not matter” does not come from the user preferences site of things but feom the technical " i want to video edit, “i want to game” etc.
So which one can I use for gaming? Which one can I use for development?
There are differences but they’re generally in user-space and not what most newbies think. Things like installers, package management, etc. But “generally speaking” all distros are capable of doing what the others can do. They just do it in different ways.
You’ve basically got categories.
- The mainstreams: Debian-like, RedHat-like, SuSe, Gentoo, etc.
- The Immutables
- “Specialty”: Kali, Raspbian, etc.
There are different philosophies on stability vs. being up-to-date, security, etc. But the same software and drivers are available for all of them “generally speaking”.
Edit: I’ll add that the biggest mistake most people make is distro-hoping. People will have trouble with something like “getting a printer to work” and just start installing new distros until one works. To learn something you need to spend time with it and fix things
Edit 2: I’ll also add that choice of distro matters less for experienced users since you realize that it’s mostly just about preference.
I mostly agree with this. The reason I stick with arch has nothing to do with finding it technically superior or more convenient to use than other distros. There is almost no way I would be using arch if their wiki wasn’t leaps and bounds more helpful than other distros’ documentation. Some other distros can meet my needs just as well or better, but arch’s documentation allows for a more straightforward learning process through tinkering.
I do think repository differences can potentially matter a lot. I have a lot of respect for hyperbola being ultra-hardline in removing proprietary packages and any hint of uncertainty in licensing, but the fact that that kills off texlive makes it untenable for me to use. Keeping manual installs up-to-date is a hassle, so I can definitely understand someone limiting themselves to distros supporting a certain set of packages.
To your first edit, having been a user since 2010, I’ve tried it both ways and sometimes just giving in to a new distribution is easier than spending a week or more combing forums and getting ghosted while your display resolution is broken.
When it comes down to it, unless you’re using Linux as a hobby, I say distro hop away until something clicks in your first few months. When you finally get your hooks into one you feel you understand, that’s when you start putting the effort into perfecting it.
Agreed. I distro-hopped for months before settling on Void. It took a while for me to figure out (with help from the internet) that systemd was causing a lot of the problems I was having. It’s been smooth sailing since I found Void and I’ve never been happier with an OS.
It really isn’t difficult to install or use, and I think experienced users would probably appreciate it as much as I do. It does what you tell it to, out of the box. Nothing more, nothing less.
Ive been using fedora, my first distro, for about 5 years. I’m about to switch because it just doesn’t do some things I want, or not without a ton of config. I got it because it came up as “best distro for coding” when I googled it, and I was just beginning to code.
I can’t imagine its that much better than like Ubuntu though, which is what I think I’ll switch to. Meanwhile there’s several just complete and total roadblocks ive hit because of the distro. Kubernettes and Docker just doesn’t work for me. I was trying a teat install of CiviCRM and never got past the download. Recently, when trying to install Graphene on a new phone, Fedora in fastboot just refuses to recognize it. In the process of trying to work around this limitation, I somehow removed myself from the sudo su group, and fixing it has been a chore.
Its like every time I want to do x, it isn’t supported. Coding and developing on it is fine, for my personal projects. If I wanna do anything more than run a script though, its been nothing but hardship.
Its been a pretty good distro for me, but I have a dislike for extended config and sysadmin tasks and troubleshooting, and on my personal projects I keep hitting roadblocks over and over on Fedora. Open to other suggestions, but Ubuntu seems the most straightforward
The thing with Fedora is they will not ship with anything that isn’t FOSS. This means some things will be missing, like video codex as an example. You can add whatever you need to it, but you’ll sometimes have a starting point that needs more things added than another distro would. Also, tutorials may not include Fedora directions.
Personally, I’ve been using Garuda for a few years, and it’s been great. I used Fedora for a bit before and ditched it. Garuda is Arch-based, so Arch tutorials directions work, and you get all the benefits of Arch without the work. CachyOS should be similar.
Personally, I don’t care for Ubuntu. I used it before Fedora and I preferred Fedora.
What didn’t you like about Ubuntu? Im still kinda hesitant, I like the idea of an arch based distro thats a little easier to use, I mean ive never used arch so I dont really know, I would just like to be able to spin up or install whatever I want without being gatekept out of seemingly anything I try that isn’t just install program, run program. I’m comfortable with terminal but I dont wanna get stuck in config hell like every time I wanna do kinda basic shit for anyone tech-savvy and experimental minded
I just don’t really care for the way Cononical does things.
Garuda at least was trivial to get going. You install it and it has everything you need, then it also has a tool where you can select any other packages you may want. It’s pretty nice. I’ve heard CachyOS is really easy to get going too. You basically don’t need to use the terminal for them if you really don’t want to, but it is significantly easier to do a lot of things with it. If you managed to install Fedora, you’ll be fine with either of these too. They’re no harder than Fedora or Ubuntu except you get the bonus of the Arch Wiki for anything you might need.
Thanks for the insight, appreciate your input!
ontop of other user comments where it boils down to trust in the maintainer and code reviewers of the project, another reason depends on the use case that you plan on using your Linux system. for example, if I were to setup a nextcloud server, i’d generally go with alpine for it’s lightweight design, or Debian for it’s stability. I wouldn’t necessarily use Kali Linux, because with those features it also uses a lot of resources for it to function, and I don’t need that for a server.
in terms of my personal device I generally build those from the tty and add other modules (like DE, utils, etc…) to give it more functionality. Much like my servers I like to have my laptop optimized – take as minimal resources as possible – which is a rather controversial take after seeing users bash at me that I’m not taking advantage of all my memory. anyways, I don’t think there is a specific distro that has everything that I want. I want a system that works that doesn’t use 2 GB from the DE alone and that is accomplished by adding the modules myself.
I don’t trust any other sub-distro other than myself. I generally go with one of the corporate base tty installer (arch) and I build the system from that. I’m not going to switch to say cachy OS for it’s aesthetics, or ease of use, I couldn’t really care less.
Why would you want your OS to use you’re memory? My browser already takes too much, and I really push my system trying to run dev-builds of games built for desktops.
so people reasonings are, that if you don’t use all memory then it’s just going to waste. which is true, but you also need to take into account the applications I use, ~10 GB of memory is used when i run vivado/vitis synthesis and bitstream.
the second thing i was going to add is, Do you know what also makes ram redundant? when the laptop is fucking dead. Which is ultimately why I’m trying to optimize it resource wise to extend battery life.
that said, i’ve optimized it to where I can beat the m1 macbook on idle. again, not something that is a benchmark, but to say an engineering student beat a trillion dollar company. I continue to smear that in apple fanboys faces as just a massive “fuck you.”
Weak.
If you’re needing to ask this question then you don’t understand Linux and it’s eco system.
Try and think real hard and you might be able to understand why you are wrong.
