Not a hot take at all. Asking someone to go from a GUI heavy operating system to a command line heavy one and be just as productive is lunacy. Like all major changes it is important to ween off the old thing.
My biggest hurdle with the switch has been permission related issues, and you can't deal with those cleanly with a UI, and every help thread under the sun throws out a bunch of command line commands giving a solution without explaining why those changes are needed. It may seem like Unix 101 to experienced Linux users, but it is really cryptic to newcomers coming from operating systems that are...cough more lenient with their permissions.
There is also a mentality that UIs are much more idiot proof than command line. UIs are written by people who actually know the OS so we can't accidentally delete our home folder because of a typo. It is a very legitimate concern.
Yesterday morning i installed Mint xfce on an old laptop.
I wanted to install synaptics drivers for the touchpad because i use the trackball as mouse but need the touchpad for clicking. Something that isnt configureable in the default driver.
When i copied an example config file and added my line, i rebooted the computer.
The GUI broke because in the example config file, there were "..." To indicate writing further options, but xorg couldnt interpret or ignore it, so i had to figure out how to edit textfiles in the command line.
No fun times, and definetely a risk for new users.
I agree, BUT that is only because the average windows user never even had to bother with permission. I find permissions on Linux A LOT easier to handle than on Windows. Basically the way Windows does permissions is garbage, so they made it so that people can just do whatever so they won't complain about permissions. That is... one way of doing things, I guess.
You are correct, which is why I deleted it about a minute after I posted it. Unfortunately deletion of a comment does not propagate to other instances as well as creating one.
Which does not change the fact that this "hot take" IS a repost.
it is not about plagiarism as in "stealing someone's ip" but about the fact that being a repost is in itself a proof that is not not really that hot take.
I agree - was switching to Fedora about month and a half ago, and only learned about KDE vs Gnome like a week ago, when I was reinstaling to Nobara to fix some NVIDIA issues.
I did hear terms like KDE or Gnome thrown around, but never really realized that it's actually and important choice. And once you add X11 vs Wayland to the mix, it's suddenly so confusing I just subconsciously choose to ignore that choice and went with whatever the OS installed for me. I though that DE chouse is similar to X11 vs Wayland choice, i.e something tha is more about back-end than front-end, and didn't realize that's literally how your OS UI looks and controls, instead of how it works in the background (which I now know is what X11 vs Wayland is actually about)
Turned out I really don't like Gnome (Which was default for Fedora), but love KDE, which was thankfully a default for Nobara.
So, if you're ever recommending Linux to someone, be it in a comment or somwhere else, or someone is asking for a recommended distro, please include a short paragraph about the importance of choosing the correct DE, and explanation of what it is and that you can change it!
PopOS is great! I have used a few other (but never strayed far from APT), and I also did some light reading when doing my final decision . PopOS was the best fit for and easy-to-use OS without Snaps. Linux is great and all with how much control you have, but I want as little maintenance as possible for my daily driver.
Yeah that's all I need - I'm super into everyone else hyper customizing what they use, I love seeing everything that can be done, but I just need something that works and pop_os is it, and as I've said before, my games run better on pip_os than they ever did on win 10/11
Aktually, I prefer Arch + KDE. I say if you like your current desktop, then stay with it. I've hit the sweet spot with what I've got because I love the AUR, pacman, and paru.
Great take. But you know the real sneaky one that trips you up? File system.
I wouldn't call myself a beginner, but every time I install a Linux system seriously I see those filesystem choices and have to dig through volumes of turbo-nerd debates on super fine intricacies between them, usually debating their merits in super high-risk critical contexts.
I still don't come away with knowing which one will be best for me long-term in a practical sense.
As well as tons of "It ruined my whole system" or "Wrote my SSD to death" FUD that is usually outdated but nevertheless persists.
Honestly nowadays I just happily throw BTRFS on there because it's included on the install and allows snapshots and rollbacks. EZPZ.
For everything else, EXT4, and for OS-shared storage, NTFS.
But it took AGES to arrive to this conclusion. Beginners will have their heads spun at this choice, guaranteed. It's frustrating.
I did NTFS because both windows and Linux can read it. Do I know literally any other fact about formatting systems? Nope. I'm pretty sure I don't need to, I'm normie-adjacent. I just want my system to work so I can use the internet, play games, and do word processing.
I once tried to install my Steam Library in Linux to an NTFS partition so I wouldn't have to install things twice on a dual boot system. Protip: don't do that.
chkdsk -f (or r or whatever the third option is), reboot twice, but do it multiple times because steam on linux asks you to reinstall the games in the exact same spot and you accidentally do it because you're not paying close attention due to the mild panic windows threw at you?
There is a guide here that says you can do it, but my experience was that I installed the games in Windows on my D drive, mounted the drive in Linux (Mint, I think), and when I tried to play them The system locked up. Rebooting into windows, Steam said the game files were corrupt and I had to reinstall them. I've always just kept two separate game libraries on any dual boot systems ever since.
Interesting. I was able to use the files perfectly fine from linux, but windows threw a tantrum when I tried to boot and removed everything linux had touched.
I once heard that the trick to this is you need to let Steam "update" every game before you switch OSs. If it doesn't get to finish this, it will bork. That's also highly impractical I feel though.
So yeah on my dual boot Linux is for making things and doesn't see my main Steam library. Win10 is just for games. :p
EDIT: Win11 or 12 won't be a problem because I'm confining them to a VM for only the most stubborn situations, and doing everything including gaming with Linux. :D
Ext4 is the safe bet for a beginner. The real question is with or without LVM. Generally I would say with but that abstraction layer between the filesystem and disk can really be confusing if you've never dealt with it before. A total beginner should probably go ext4 without LVM and then play around in a VM with the various options to become informed enough to do something less vanilla.
It makes adding space easier down the road, either by linking disks or if you clone your root drive to a larger drive, which tends to not be something most "end users" (I try not to use that description but you said it heh) would do. Yes, using LVM is optional.
It's all skippable if you want... Just put a large / filesystem on a partition and be on your way. There are good reasons for using it in some cases (see my response now).
Can you explain LVM in practice to me? I used ext4 and now Fedora Kinoite with BTRFS, the filsystem never makes any problems and some fancy features just work.
Lending my voice to this as well for most, my thought is EXT4, without LVM, deferring to the preferred FS for the distro. It is a mature, stable, and reliable choice and logical volumes complicate things too much for beginners.
If dual-booting, yeah, definitely an NTFS partition for shared storage (just be aware that Windows can be weird with file permissions and ownership).
Honestly, I'd say the defaults most distros use will be fine for most users... If they don't know why they should use one filesystem over another, then it's almost certainly not going to matter for them
If I read lsblk correctly, I am using ext4 for my whole drive. I have used linux for some years now, but I never bothered to learn more than "next next next done" when installing my OS.
Does BTRFS popOS allow BTRFS? Should I bother for a daily driver?
Only have one HDD and using a laptop, ext4 has been working well enough so far. I only wonder if there is something else I should use for my home drive for better disaster recovery.
It really depends on the disaster. Snapshotting isn't strong disaster recovery protection. It's more like I'm about to do something stupid and need to undo. If you need real disaster recovery slap an NVMe in an external enclosure and sink them up occasionally. Or set up sync thing or something like that.
In practice BTRFS is a bit faster and on a Distro like Fedora or Opensuse they already integrate it to do system backups while running (copy on write).
In practice it just works and you dont use all the fancy possibilities, because a majority of the Linux world still sticks with ext4 for whatever reason, so Filemanagers and backup tools wouldnt reach everyone.
Its a perfect example of Linux slowing down itself by desperately refusing to change
Xorg
old Desktops
old software, system packages, damn appimages
no automatic updates
ext4 instead of something modern
Ext4 is from 2008. BTRFS is even older from 2007, but was only declared stable in 2013. More innovation, more testing time, more "dont use it yet, it is unstable". Ext4 probably never was as they didnt try that much.
I'm still figuring it out. I know ExFAT works across all desktop OS's, NTFS works with Linux and Windows, and ext4 only works with Linux.
But it took a half hour of googling to figure out you can't install Linux on NTFS. I planned to do that to ease cross platform compatibility. Oops. I'm also attempting a RAID 1 array using NTFS. It seems to work, but I'm not sure how to automatically mount it on boot. I feel like I might have picked the wrong filesystem.
Yes, I listened to a podcast about that recently. Linux was far with XFS or something, but then Apple came, improved their HFS and actually made tools for it and it got better.
BTRFS is just as established as etx4, just not as damn old. It also just works, and it has advanced features that are crucial for backups. But I have no idea how to use btrbk and there is no GUI so nobody uses that.
But as a filesystem that just works like ext4, plus the automatically configured snapshots in both regular and atomic Fedora systems and OpenSuse, BTRFS is awesome.
Only outdated Distros that fear change stick with ext4, at least thats my opinion.
Makes sense to go simplest as possible on a home pc and even home sever. More important with raid and production capacity planning or enterprise stuff.
I installed Mint for the sake of trying it and I quite liked Cinnamon, but after that I did some distro and desktop hopping, I will not go back until it has proper Wayland support.
I've been using Linux in different capacities since the late 90s. I use Mint with Cinnamon because it's stable, does all I need and I don't need to fuss with it. You're more than fine.
Installed it on a thin client instead of win10 iot for the same reason, basic functionality all there, being used as a media streaming browser machine, no regrets.
Had previous experience with fedora and others many years prior, definitely can tell how far it all progressed since
Is it just me or is every new distro just a base with a different DE? I started to notice this a few years back but not sure if it was my imagination or something developers starting doing because it was easier to ship the DE as "the OS" than it was to instruct users on how to switch to their DE.
Repositories and package versioning are also extremely important in ways newbies don't realize yet. There's a significant variety between using Debian, Ubuntu, Pop!_OS or Kali. They are all Debian based using apt but they are all decidedly entirely different systems with completely different purposes and uses.
Fedora also comes with a dozen different DEs prepackaged and installable with a single, simple command. Each user just can select and change their own desktop with a menu selection on the login screen
My problem with Gnome is if it were my desktop, I might as well run Windows, since Gnome shell/mutter is slightly less capable than Windows. Extensions exist, but are very much a second class citizen and get broken by shell versions frequently, and the author of an extension may be gone when it comes time to rework it for a new version.
Plasma/kwin have pretty much everything I want in desktop/window management baked in.
I love gnome overall and it's my favorite de, but the missing features and extensions being almost mandatory for basic functions definitely are a pain.
Extensions are cool but the basics should be built in.
Nowadays fedora is a decent "boring" distribution, that finally settled into blatantly prompting to add the non free repositories you will probably want.
Ubuntu was annoying with it's little adventures in "not invented here" with mir, unity, and nowadays snap. So nice to have a modern, boring distribution.
That's not usually the problem. Usually you can generally do this on any distro, even ones that have a higher level of integration with their DE.
The problem is more likely to be issues caused by overlapping configurations and base libraries that can cause weird issues if they aren't swapped out or kept default. If they aren't default and are managed by the package manager, usually the package manager will mark it as modified and often won't touch it unless you purge the configurations. Some will ask and some will straight up nuke em.
To me the problem is actually removing the old one. You can easily uninstall gnome, but it will leave behind config files and various data. It's less clean.
Also, there's an overlap in the libraries required by DEs, so you should use the "replace" option in you package manager (if it has one) to let o t figure out the best way to uninstall one and install the other.
But the post is more about recommending a DE to start with/them picking one they like since it’s visual. And then you recommend a distro where that is default
Yeah np. For example my dad got bogged down by all the options and features in KDE, but cinnamon was great cause it just launches apps and shows the time lol
Got it! I tend to forget that not everyone can deal with tons of options. I am this person in certain config files like synapse and telegraf. The config files are just impossibly long and getting an overview of them is impossible in my mind.
I recommend KDE as when I switch from windows I tried multiple DE and that one felt the most like windows it also had support for wallpaper engine which I really wanted!
As a power user of windows I've lost faith in Ubuntu, though. Their DNS implementation alone is a disaster. So I've switched to Debian and KDE, but then I saw there is a Mint Debian Edition (LMDE) so that's probably what I would recommend if anyone asked me. I personally haven't used it yet tho as I'm enjoying KDE.
I started with Ubuntu and slowly tried getting used to Gnome over the course of a few months (mainly using windows, every now and then hopping into Ubuntu when not gaming). I learned of KDE, tried it in Kubuntu, and it all instantly clicked for me. I switched over in about a week and haven't had much reason to boot Windows since.
It turned out that front-facing experience was incredibly important to me.
Got Ubuntu because all I wanted was to play/mod games and watch videos..... and Windows 10 totally shit the bed. Constantly on the green loading screens.
I'm so lost with installing, directories, hidden directories, learning how to uninstall things I can't find in directories I can't find. It's a massive headache and steep learning curve.
Still haven't really played a game yet that can't run on Ubuntu natively, and it's still better than Windows 10.
Not a hot take, I keep saying the same thing in different threads. I was not able to switch to Linux for years before I understood that I have problems with Gnome not with Linux itself, tried KDE and given I was migrating from Windows it clicked immediately.
After you gain some experience, DE becomes mostly irrelevant, but it is crucial for starting off in an unfamiliar environment.
the DE is very important unless you have A LOT of free time and REALLY WANT to see something different from what youre used to.
my first distro (other than ubuntu in school computers, but we dont talk about those) was fedora server minimal install, where i installed dwm and had fun using it. i had just switched from windows and was happy to have so many options, even though i had (almost) no linux experience before. after trying most of the big DEs and distros, i ended up on arch with xfce, which i have been using for more than a year now.
most people really should go slower and try things step by step, as what i did would be really weird for anyone that tried it ...probably
I switched back to Linux about a year ago after taking about a 10 year break, and I installed gnome without even considering another option (because it’s good enough right?)
It’s completely different than what I remember and I hate it. I want to switch to something else but that is now a “someday” project.
I remember when it had a cute footprint where the “start button” used to be. It’s so different. I should have went with xfce or something. Maybe I should try cinnamon.
Cinnamon is the most Windows like DE, even more so than default KDE Plasma. Specially since the Mint team went the extra mile to make the OS settings and configuration 100% UI based in a Windows-lite way. It's currently the perfect Linux noobie distro.
This isn't a bad take. DE is what is going to keep people from running back to windows right away, mostly. I do think it is better for people coming into Linux not to try to emulate the Windows experience. It is easier to learn when you accept it is going to be different from the start.
I don't think they will officially support it outside of the deck IMO, having used one in the flesh they have hardware optimization down to a tee - which to me really rounds off the deck experience.
The rapid sleep/wake and some options in the quick access menu would likely need some ironing out on other hardware configs, not sure how nvidia card support would work too...
Disagree on picking RPM distros for an absolute beginner (this is what the image is about at least). SUSE maybe but you don't want a newbie having to deal with US patent bullshit and especially SELinux. Similarly, no newbie will ever pic a barebones WM as a first time user.
I have used Fedora for nearly all the time I've daily driven Linux, and haven't encountered any problem that a newbie would encounter and couldn't overcome, excluding distro-agnostic stuff. Yeah, the h264 shit sucks, but if you use flatpaks you shouldn't have to worry about it. And if you ever have to face SELinux, then you're probably doing something that's beyond beginner level.
It's a very rough guide I threw together. There's all sorts of wedge cases you could use to argue against it. E.g. you could use RPMs on slack Linux. Not exactly user friendly.
Bit on the whole fedora or Suse do the job.
Also desktops are better for newbies. I thought I'd mentioned that but yeah I agree deffo better for newbies while WM managers more for tinkerers/power users.
Same. I remember getting interested in Linux in like 1997 or so, and it seemed like RedHat was preferred for newbies.
Of course, what were the alternatives then? It was basically Slackware (or Suse), Debian, and RedHat (or Caldera). There was no RHEL or Canonical or SElinux back then. It was a different time.
Hell one of the language packs for installing RedHat was “Redneck”. It was a gimmick to demonstrate localization options.
I started on CentOS and don't remember any issues but that was a long time ago. I flirted with Suse, Ubuntu, and Arch when RH started being a super dick. I finally settled on Rocky, rpm is the devil I know.
Started using Debian because I only used it for servers to begin with. Learned APT and never dared to learn anything else. So now I just stick with any distro using APT and a DE I like.
So for gaming.... Pacman? I thought mint and kubuntu use aptitude, and was under the impression those are two of the better gaming distros.
I hate windows, but am sick of trying Linux every 5-6 years and finding out that I cannot get half the games I play to work. Admittedly, with you guys I might not be going it alone this time.....
The package manager is usually tied to the distro, but the point above is to let the package manager inform your distro choice.
You'll notice a running theme in my lecture here is "choice." You can switch Desktop Environment and other stuff on just about any distro and make it feel like yours. Switching package managers isn't recommended though! 😅
So for instance, Arch (btw lol), or Manjaro, or Endeavour use Pacman.
I've switched to Endeavour recently which is essentially "User-friendly Arch-based" with an installer and stuff, and it's absolutely lovely for games. My old 960M laptop runs plenty of stuff great. :D
On my main rig I've used OpenSUSE Tumbleweed for years, which is also a rolling release (constantly updated) distro that technically uses RPMs, but uses its own package manager called Zypper, which I find mostly user friendly.
Packages are also a bit more thoroughly tested.
Both use KDE Plasma desktop environment and it's gorgeous.
Alternatively, especially for laptops with hybrid Nvidia graphics, POP!_OS is alright if you're okay with GNOME desktop environment. (You can always change, but it's geared toward GNOME). It used Aptitude, and the updates trail behind a bit, but generally that's supposed to make a more stable system.
(Note that when I say "lags behind", latest security fixes tend to be backported, but you won't see fancy new shiny features as fast.)
For gaming specifically though:
Win10 is gonna be my last Windows. 11 is invasive and opinionated, and 12 is gonna have a forced Ai fetish. Gross.
Good news: Steam games work wonderfully. Thanks to advances with Proton and all their support for the SteamDeck (which runs Linux btw!)
For other platforms, look into Heroic Launcher, which takes a lot of the headache out of managing stuff like GOG games. :)
With rolling releases you usually want to update cautiously and check news updates and stuff, because newer versions aren't as thoroughly tested and some stuff might break...but you get new features faster so that's fun.
That being said:
If you're willing to learn a little as you go, OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a big win in my book for getting the latest fun stuff while still being stable! It's also thoroughly security-minded.
And by default, it includes "Snapper" set up for you, so you can just roll the system back to a working version in the rare case something goes wrong.
You can install snapper on any distro, but it comes pre-configured and ready to go, as long as you use the default "BTRFS" file system.
I won't get into filesystems because hoo boi...but TL;DR: BTRFS allows "snapshots" and rollbacks that don't require literally doubling your disk space for rolling back, so it's a great safety net.
That being said: ALWAYS have more than one backup, in multiple locations, of anything you find important!
Good luck and have fun. I will say, Endeavour, OpenSUSE, and Pop_OS all have great communities that are eager to help if you're eager to learn! :)
Debian-based systems (including Ubuntu and its forks such as Mint) uses dpkg and APT (APT does all the communicating with repositories, dependency managment etc, dpkg actually installs and removes packages.) Aptitude is a TUI front-end for APT that gives you a menu-based system in the terminal. Synaptic (not to be confused with the trackpad driver) is a GUI front-end for APT.
I game on Linux Mint. Now it might be my tendency to play single player and/or cooperative multiplayer (think Stardew Valley or Unrailed!) games often made by smaller studios and indie developers as most of the AAA space has otherwise offended me, but...I don't really have a problem. The vast majority of things just install and run from Steam.
I'd say, just use Ubuntu if gaming is your main concern.
Imo the main problem for games are 1. hardware drivers (afaik only if you have brand new hardware), 2. game launchers (fuck those fucking game launchers, fuck; except steam) and 3. anti- cheat software.
Otherwise gaming is really good under Linux nowadays.
Most new Linux users if not all, are unable to make an educated decision on package management. The UI that they think they will like better would be more important.
Agreed. I used to be the tech support for my family members. Everyone I switched to Mint Cinnamon stopped calling me. (That's also when I realised my relatives never call me to share good news or to ask about me.)
I 100% agree! Am a pretty new user of Nobara as a daily driver, switched like a month ago (I did have extensive CLI experience with Linux servers, along with Kali VM for work), and I've only realized what DE actually is only a week ago, because no one mentioned how important choice it is - it was usually just a note, that wasn't given enough importance.
So please, if you're ever recommending any linux distro to somenone who's asking, please include a short paragraph about what DE is and how importnant choice it actually is, and that they should not ignore it. I hated Gnome, and KDE feels so much better (only found about it when reinstalling broken first Fedora install to Nobara), but I didn't know I can switch or that there was that choice in the first place - I though KDE vs Gome is a back-end thing, similar to X11 vs Wayland. It's not, but people don't usually explain it when recommending distributions.
I’m a noob using the default Ubuntu DE for a few months now and I’ve gotten used to it, at this point I’m afraid to ask what are the other DEs and whether I should swap over
I particularly like Cinnamon, it's very simple and nothing fancy (while still looking great and modern).
The other popular choices include:
Gnome
KDE (customizable to hell)
XFCE (very easy on resources, good for old hardware, or if you like simplistic DE)
LXDE (similar to XFCE in the resources department, but looks more modern, IMO)
There are others, but I can't speak for them as I've never tried them. I can't really describe modern Gnome as well, because the last version I used was 3 and it doesn't look at all as the same DE, so someone else will have to provide that info.
modern gnome is simpler to learn and more polished than basically all other DEs. i think its better for someone that wants something new and for people who just started using a computer, because of just how easy it is to use. its not good if youre switching from windows or mac and want something similar.
You can use the list there to look up images or videos of the DEs
If you think you’d prefer one then you can try it but you aren’t likely to find an advantage over what you’re used to (there are some like old hardware wanting lighter weight) it’s mostly preference.
If you changed your Window Manager to i3 then you would probably hate it just for being so different
Don't. It's a trap. Most of them have compatibility issues with software. Stock Ubuntu is the benchmark for every piece of software these days. Deviating is fun until it isn't.
Unless you want to go a non Debian based distro, always pick Ubuntu.
Tried switching to KDE Plasma and then OpenCV broke because of outdated QT version or some shit. Same with another distro. And I couldn't install two versions at the same time.
Fair, that reply above is not helpful at all. I mean yeah, I have had my fair share of dependence hell as well. Mostly when trying to install an external deb package. I know how to prevent it nowadays but it ain’t user friendly at all.
Also I would be hesitant to use Linux as a workstation. If I had the luxury of time I would for ideological reasons alone. But I don’t have that kind of time. Troubleshooting can become costly when you get paid by the hour.
Depends on what you do, most of the deep-learning world and scientific computing is based on Ubuntu. And not just Ubuntu but currently 22.04. Even upgrading the distro can bring compatibility conflicts.
I have a massive hate boner for development on Windows for things such as the \ in the paths and needing to install a 10gig IDE to do cpp development. Or they tell you WSL "just works" while it doesn't "just work" because it can't cv2.imshow your images because there's no X11 passthrough etc.
…for nothing this days. The only people using Ubuntu now are dinosaurs and system managers running cheap servers or locked into Canonical's ecosystem, and the latter are using headless servers, remotely managed, not the DE. Variety is the spice of life. All mainstream DEs are perfectly serviceable, 100% compatible with everything and completely stable and reliable. FFS, Ubuntu's snaps don't even work well on their own DE. Stop fearmongering for Canonical, let people live life.
You do you. Just stop wasting other people's time with this worthless false hope. What I'm saying here is what I would have liked people to tell me before I wasted my time troubleshooting issues caused by custom Desktop Environments. What's next you're going to tell me Wayland already runs without issues too?
The stock Ubuntu environment looks pretty decent to begin with.
Wow, you really are aggressive and hostile for no reason. You can use Ubuntu all you want. But don't go around spreading lies just because you are too cognitively challenged to change your DE without breaking the OS. Most people are fine making a fresh install with the DE they want to try preinstalled and it works fine 100% out of the box. It's trying to make two different DE live on the same system at the same time that is only partially supported and thoroughly discouraged by every single DE developer. Most of the time installing a new DE on a system and uninstalling the old one is a pretty straightforward, although dirty process. Guess who is particularly bad and incompatible with that process? Ubuntu. It has the worst support for alternative DEs, because Ubuntu is not the benchmark for squat shit anymore. Use a real end user distro, and you'll be able to change DE to your heart's content without issue.
I'm only on Linux for a few months (as a daily driver, always used headless servers before that), and I'm almost certain that my Fedora install came with both KDE and Gnome in Wayland and X11 flavors pre-installed out of the box, and I could just choose between them at login screen. Or am I wrong, and I do I just not remmeber installing the other manually? I mean, that's also possible, it's been a while.
Because advice like this is an enormous waste of time. Calling people dinosaurs for using Ubuntu instead of KDE is a pretty out there take. The only more modern option is arch based distros like Manjaro but since every programming tutorial assumes you have APT and are running Ubuntu I don't see much of a reason to deviate from that.
it seems you should be using debian or distros based on it. ubuntu, as far as i know, uses apt as a mirror to snap, so as long as the tutorials youre following letter for letter arent too recent, you really should be using debian for actual apt packages, since ubuntu used those a couple of years ago.
you can also use fedora or arch, but it seems you dont want to check what package youre downloading at all, and just want to follow tutorials blindly.
I won't argue with you. You obviously just want a fight. And the glaring ignorant sentences in this particular comment convince me that either you're too greenhorn on Linux to understand anything I have to say. Or you are an intentional troll looking for negative engagement. So, goodbye and enjoy the downvotes.
Dude...I build my desktops from a bare Debian text only terminal by installing it piece by piece and only what I need. This current install has bee running fine for three years and I have no issues installing and configuring anything you can on Ubuntu.
This is a skill issue on your part, not an OS issue. At a certain point, if you've been using it enough, the distro literally doesn't matter anymore. Linux is Linux is Linux.
Ubuntu is shit. It used to only be shit under the hood if you were an enterprise sysadmin building your own packages and managing versioned repos for thousand machine fleets, but now it is shit from a user experience, too. Fuck snaps, fuck walled gardens, and fuck vendors attempting lock-in.
And for new users choosing a distro with big user base (thus having a better support system) should be a top priority. Instead newbies are often advised to use an obscure distro that in theory might be a good fit, but isn't. Probably those who do the recommendations are Linux testers (using VZ) rather than Linux users and mostly evaluate a distro based on install process and out of the box usage.
Configuring a big distro to your needs is much better than choosing a nishe distro.
Both are important. I can't tell you how many times I've had to resort to containers, VMs, or compiling from source, just because some application decided to only provide packages for Arch or Debian.
Fedora with Gnome especially on newer hardware. Fedora has far fewer issues in my humble personal experience when it comes to hardware less than five years old. Gnome because trying to use something that looks like something you've used before but isn't just adds extra confusion. No need for Pantheon or Cinnamon.
That was definitely the case for me. There were definitely other factors that shaped my decision, but the biggest "click" was finding my preferred DE. So long as I can go about my day-to-day computing, everything else is easier to figure out.
In my case, it's GNOME with a couple extensions like Dash to Panel and ArcMenu. I know, some people would prefer not to use extensions, and yes, my system just looks like Windows now, but it works for me. :P
All major distributions offer all major Environments. I currently use either Debian or Ubuntu and usually install by booting the Netinstall.iso right from the official Servers which installs just the base system without any GUI at all. Then I use tasksel to select the environment. Ok, not every Environment is part of Tasksel but often it is just adding another Repository and running another apt install operation.
And yes, on my experimental computer I often install a dozen environments just because I can. Selectable at Login-Screen.
But now somethings VERY important from someone with 35 years of POSIX experience:
If you are a newby FOR GODS SAKE USE UBUNTU.
And if you are a pro... Ubuntu still is a very good option. Only if your have VERY GOOD REASONS which you COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, only then use something else. Which is Debian for me.
Ubuntu is VERY heavily invested in snaps at a very basic level. I think the recommendation is to not mix snaps and Flatpaks as they may not interact well. As a new Ubuntu user, I'm slowly discovering some of the random problems with snaps.
For example, just the other day, I was trying to configure my fish shell using the html-based fish_configure utility, but it just wouldn't work. Of course, I assumed the problem was with my fish install. After a couple hours fiddling with it, I finally came across a stack exchange comment indicating that the snap version of Firefox simply can't access the /tmp/ directory, which is where fish_config creates its html configuration page. WTF? Also, you can't even install a non-snap version of Firefox via apt because the official apt repository just links back to the snap version! I finally installed an apt-based version of librewolf, but had to get it from a non-Ubuntu repository, and then magically I could access to fish_config html page. That's a pretty long workaround just to view a simple HTML page!
So, if snaps have problems like this just interacting with the base Linux file system, I wouldn't be surprised if random weird behavior cropped up when trying to use Flatpaks.
Just hopped back over to linux mint again after years of making due with Windows
Went with cinnamon cuz pretty.
switched to CobiWindowList so I could see all windows on either of my monitor menu bars.
switched to CinnVIIStarkMenu for a more familiar menu system.
Not much change, I can lean on the habits I've gotten from windows, and now my switch is pretty much unnoticeable to me.
Funny enough, Lutris has made it alot easier for me to access games I usually would just have downloaded, like my itch.io library. Proton has tackled all my other games fine. Hell, I even got Tarkov running smoothly, even though you can only do offline raids on Linux ATM.
The most important thing for most new Linux users would be a pathway to getting support. Because of this the distro you use matters much more than the DE because each of the major distro's have different pipelines that the funnel users in to getting support. The package manager lock in is distro dependent and depending on the philosophy that they subscribe to can be the difference between how many steps a new user has to take to get a working system up and running. Thankfully, with the rise of flatpak, appimage and snap being more popular than ever package availability is much more streamlined but that is another layer on top of an already overwhelming package system for new users. The defaults for all of this depends on your distro which can be different. Heck we haven't even gotten to support cycles which depending on user needs can be different. Because not every user has or wants what comes with for example maintaining an rolling release distribution. Did they setup their system to have snapshots so they can roll everything back when the new kernel update breaks something system critical and they have a presentation at 2:00? None of these things are really DE dependent but are baked in to the defaults you subscribe to when you choose a disto. The good part is that if you don't like how something is configured you can change everything easily depending on how well documented it is. This is why it's more important to choose a distro with good documentation or at least a active enough community so when you run into hangups you can get some sort of resolution.
For new Linux users choosing a distro IS choosing a desktop environment. Installing a new DE that's different from the default is not a day one Linux task, so the default for the distro is what matters. Yes. the DE is the most important factor in choosing a distro, but saying that means the distro doesn't matter is just fundamentally incorrect and unhelpful.
I don't thibk op intended to imply that new users instal a new DE on whatever distro they choose, but rather it's clunky to explain that they should prioritize DE when choosing distro. like, imagine a new users asks what distro they should start with, I believe op is advocating we say "anything that uses KDE by default" (or gnome or xfce etc). plenty of distros have derivatives that are basically the same but use a different DE, so it's pointless to suggest one over the other when a new user is just going to use the DE to do everything graphically anyway.
That'd be nice and all, but they still have to pick a distro. You can't just install KDE without a distro. A good KDE implementation just becomes one of their considerations. If you don't suggest one over another they'll probably just stick with Windows due to analysis paralysis.
On Ubuntu it's just sudo apt install kde-plasma-desktop. I guess that means you think it's even easier there and everyone understands all the implications of that and nothing could possibly go wrong?
There are no implications to installing anything in NixOS because you can go back to a previous state at any point.
Running the software might change your settings, but can't really do anything about that since that's the software author's choice and it's in your home folder
Look, I understand how NixOS works. It has nothing to do with anything I've been trying to say though. I'm trying to have a conversation, and you keep derailing it with you NixOS sales pitch. What do you even want from me? Fine. NixOS is the most bestest at everything ever and everyone should immediately jump right into it with no help or context straight out of Windows. Are you happy now?
It's mostly true. Someone coming from windows may struggle with gnome, while cinnamon is pretty easy to them. If it comes down to the decision between Gentoo and Linux Mint this, of course, isn't true anymore, since Gentoo is way to complex for a beginner to understand.
Tl;dr: This is only true if you apply this to different distros with the same complexity(e.g. Pop_OS! or Linux Mint).
I'll go one further and say choosing applications is more important than choosing a Desktop Environment.
I'm typing this message on Firefox. I installed it (and updated it) with Debian's package management system. I clicked on a button on an XFCE panel to open it. But in terms of the time spent interacting with things on my computer I'm using the applications far more than anything else.
Too a certain point. I'll give you that this applies to the Debian and Ubuntu distro. Gentoo, on the other hand, is a completely different animal and will have a far greater impact on user experience than the DE.
You look at your DE all day and your distro holds everything together. Op didn't say distro is unimportant and I agree it makes sense for new users to look at images and videos of different desktops first, maybe try a live cd, and then choosing the backend that suits their willingness to interact with.
If your electricity and time are cheap, you want to learn and your pc-system is your playground not a productivity tool, Gentoo is a valid option. In this case, your choice of DE impacts your compile time massively and knowing alternatives beforehand gives you options.
I feel like the window manager is important, but for newbies I also consider the package manager and overall installation process to be very important.
I've had pretty distros that are basically busted after a package fails to install or video drivers are mucked with. An advanced user could fix most of these issues, but this is usually where a new user may go running back to their previous OS.
A good computing experience for me is all my hardware working with minimal fuss and all the software I expect to be available being a few terminal commands away (e.g. steam, developer tools, etc.)
I'm not sure if it is, but I don't see it as a hot take. And it sounds reasonable, specially when some distros offer different "flavours" out-of-the-box, and offer you the option of different DEs before you even installed it.
It's certainly not a hot take. Every "which distro should I try thread" is just a discussion of the different DEs out there. I would like to hear about different package managers. I always seem happiest with apt, and I don't know why.
Nowadays they're so many options, GNOME and Plasma are nice, but heavy, same for DDE(Deepin) and others fancy DEs I know why it's heavy, but xfce and lxqt looks better on my PC, xfce you can make looks beauty and fast too
For the WM guys: I'll try some day, for now only DEs :3
Sway is basically the wayland version of i3. I've switched to wayland on my new laptop and learning sway after using i3 for years has been relatively easy.
Yeah, the config syntax is exactly the same. The major difference is the wayland version of various programs can be hard to figure out with out some decent google-fu.
I'm on BSPWM on X11, but have been trying river wm and that is a much less friendly conversion than i3 to sway. I'd convert entirely were it not for certain applications still not quite working on wayland without considerable configuration (wacom tablet drivers don't work, screenshottung and eyedropper tools are available but still need more work to be feature comparable with equivalent tools on X11).
And I'm using proprietary NVIDIA drivers which are currently stuttering real bad on the wlroots protocol since driver update to 545 (sway/river both stutter bad whenever lots of movement on the screen, I've tried many tweaks to my environment variables to no avail).
So....just gonna wait for app, wayland, nvidia devs to eventually make the migrate worth while.
Yeah... but if the packagers dont test it, or ship "stable" KDE Plasma 5.27 which will simply not get most bugfixes (Debian, MX Linux and many more will have these issues for 4 years!) its actually important what Distro you choose.
It is not if
your Desktop relies on Xorg garbage which is "stable" and will not evolve
your Desktop is minimal and Distros orient their schedule on it (GNOME)
That is actually very true honestly but also needing sonething as stable as Debian, bleeding edge as Arch or right in the middle with Fedora and also which kernel the user made need for their hardware is also a factor in this as well. DEs take priority tho as it's literally the interface you interact with 90% of the time
I understand the argument being made, but I kind of disagree. Yes, picking a DE in which you'll be comfortable is really important (and often an undervalued aspect of using Linux for the first time), but I think that the time you need to spend self-maintaining your distro is more important, and is also prone to make-or-break your first-time Linux experience. That's the most important factor on whether a new user says "I love Linux and want to continue using it" or "I fricking hate Linux, it's filled with a bunch of problems, I'd rather just use Windows instead". And that's why it's important to recommend beginner-friendly distros, as to avoid frustration of newcomers, because those are more manageable (unless those newcomers want the frustration of managing something that they don't quite understand :)
Does it matter which one in specific? No, and it's probably at this point that the DE and visual looks should kick in.
I guess I'm open minded because I'm a noob with Linux yet I've worked with XFCE, LXQt, KDE, and GNOME (in that order), and none of them were a pain, except possibly LXQt, which was super clunky to customize, but it ran amazing on weak hardware, so I'm giving it a pass. I reckon I'd be cool with Cinnamon, MATE, Unity, or even one of the lightweight DE's.
Yet, all of these DEs I've used were on Ubuntu based distros. I feel afraid to encounter weird things with other distros. For example, doesn't DaVinci Resolve only run on Ubuntu based distros?
The “what you go for it’s entirely your choice” mantra when it comes to DE is total BS. What happens is that you’ll find out while you can use any DE in fact GNOME will provide a better experience because most applications on Linux are design / depend on its components. Using KDE/XFCE is fun until you run into some GTK/libadwaita application and small issues start to pop here and there, windows that don’t pick on your theme or you just created a frankenstein of a system composed by KDE + a bunch of GTK components;
While many can agree with a desktop environments importance, the desktop environment is rn closely tied to the distro's philosophy. Many who venture outside the major distros will need to set up their own environment.
nice to have choices. new users are better off with a polished install so they can get back to scrolling. takes work to do some desktops. ran a minimal thing for years at work. forget the name.
not really, compare installing something like Spotify on Ubuntu vs something Arch Based, something that allows you to access AUR packages with a few simple clicks.
the DE is more important. yes, arch has more options than ububtu, but as long as the new person chooses anything that allows using flatpaks (like mint and anything that isnt from canonical), theyll have an easier and better experience since they would already get the DE they want preinstalled and flatpak would help with any proprietary software they want that isnt on the main distro's repos
I can't imagine that there is any overlap between Linux users and Spotify users, considering what a shitty piece of software Spotify is. I think you must be the only one.
many people use linux because they dont like windows and still use proprietary software like spotify, discord and steam (mostly steam, just because of how good it is)
Both made possible by librespot. Not only do some Linux users use Spotify, some great open-source devs have worked to make clients for it. I honestly prefer Spotify-qt to the official one.
Meh, I feel that the only important choice is the type of distro; source, rolling, stable, immutable, reproducible, etc. as that'd impact difficulty to some degree.
Beyond that, it's not a big deal. Newbies will just pick the DE their most comfortable with. The popular DEs don't really have difficulties, just differences.
Linux users fall into three categories. People who want stability over everything else, people who want everything to be bleeding edge, and people who don't use desktop environments.
The most important thing for a new user is understand which of those three they are.
I'll be honest, unless you have been using Linux for...a long time, of your job requires you to manage servers, your probably not that last category.
If you enrolled in the windows insider/test doohickey then you might want look into the rolling release distros. If not, something with a standard release cadence will be better.
I my self? All of the servers I manage have no desktop environment (core infrastructure does not need graphics). But if I am on a workstation? LMDE - Because I care about the graphics getting out of my way so I can do my job.
What about people who want something up to date AND stable? I don't want to be stuck on an ancient Debian base when I want up to date goodness for running newer packages. This is what Manjaro promises, but I think we all know the problems with what they're trying to do. Fedora is probably the one distro that most closely fits imho, but I've never liked RPM distros too many bad memories from 25 years ago.
EndeavourOS or raw Arch would both fit that bill, you don't need to run updates every day just because they're available. Manjaro delays packages to "increase stability", but that's what causes it to break.
side note i like the use of calvin over that other guy
yeah fuck crowder
don't fuck him tho
Crowder's one of my favorite musicians... Oh wait, different Crowder.
The louder one.
Steven Crowder, the assshole from Louder with Crowder. If you don't know about him you're lucky.
Honestly in this case it’s fine not knowing.
That Covfefe got cold a long time ago.
Not a hot take at all. Asking someone to go from a GUI heavy operating system to a command line heavy one and be just as productive is lunacy. Like all major changes it is important to ween off the old thing.
My biggest hurdle with the switch has been permission related issues, and you can't deal with those cleanly with a UI, and every help thread under the sun throws out a bunch of command line commands giving a solution without explaining why those changes are needed. It may seem like Unix 101 to experienced Linux users, but it is really cryptic to newcomers coming from operating systems that are...cough more lenient with their permissions.
There is also a mentality that UIs are much more idiot proof than command line. UIs are written by people who actually know the OS so we can't accidentally delete our home folder because of a typo. It is a very legitimate concern.
Yesterday morning i installed Mint xfce on an old laptop.
I wanted to install synaptics drivers for the touchpad because i use the trackball as mouse but need the touchpad for clicking. Something that isnt configureable in the default driver.
When i copied an example config file and added my line, i rebooted the computer.
The GUI broke because in the example config file, there were "..." To indicate writing further options, but xorg couldnt interpret or ignore it, so i had to figure out how to edit textfiles in the command line.
No fun times, and definetely a risk for new users.
This story is literally every experienced Linux users first horror story.
I still remember the first time I broke my xorg config on my shiny new slackware 10 install in early 2005.
It's so common there's an XKCD about it.
I agree, BUT that is only because the average windows user never even had to bother with permission. I find permissions on Linux A LOT easier to handle than on Windows. Basically the way Windows does permissions is garbage, so they made it so that people can just do whatever so they won't complain about permissions. That is... one way of doing things, I guess.
Not really, the vaaaast majority of PC users don't need the linux commandline.
Do any of those actually match this one? I looked through the first few pages, and there was nothing related to Linux.
You are correct, which is why I deleted it about a minute after I posted it. Unfortunately deletion of a comment does not propagate to other instances as well as creating one.
Which does not change the fact that this "hot take" IS a repost.
I didn't mean to plagiarize but if I did I apologize
it is not about plagiarism as in "stealing someone's ip" but about the fact that being a repost is in itself a proof that is not not really that hot take.
New Linux Users don't even know the difference.
Ha! Yeah, I remember that phase. I was planning to install LXDE as my first distro, simply because I thought the wallpaper looked cool.
I agree - was switching to Fedora about month and a half ago, and only learned about KDE vs Gnome like a week ago, when I was reinstaling to Nobara to fix some NVIDIA issues.
I did hear terms like KDE or Gnome thrown around, but never really realized that it's actually and important choice. And once you add X11 vs Wayland to the mix, it's suddenly so confusing I just subconsciously choose to ignore that choice and went with whatever the OS installed for me. I though that DE chouse is similar to X11 vs Wayland choice, i.e something tha is more about back-end than front-end, and didn't realize that's literally how your OS UI looks and controls, instead of how it works in the background (which I now know is what X11 vs Wayland is actually about)
Turned out I really don't like Gnome (Which was default for Fedora), but love KDE, which was thankfully a default for Nobara.
So, if you're ever recommending Linux to someone, be it in a comment or somwhere else, or someone is asking for a recommended distro, please include a short paragraph about the importance of choosing the correct DE, and explanation of what it is and that you can change it!
Yeah hi that's me - I just use pop_os and everything works so I just roll with it
PopOS is great! I have used a few other (but never strayed far from APT), and I also did some light reading when doing my final decision . PopOS was the best fit for and easy-to-use OS without Snaps. Linux is great and all with how much control you have, but I want as little maintenance as possible for my daily driver.
Yeah that's all I need - I'm super into everyone else hyper customizing what they use, I love seeing everything that can be done, but I just need something that works and pop_os is it, and as I've said before, my games run better on pip_os than they ever did on win 10/11
i love K⭐D⭐E
KDE FTW!
Arguably you can't beat Debian + KDE
Aktually, I prefer Arch + KDE. I say if you like your current desktop, then stay with it. I've hit the sweet spot with what I've got because I love the AUR, pacman, and paru.
Arch btw
I've used Arch before and I still keep an Arch distrobox container but my current usage requires stability.
Tbh i do this for over half a year now and only had 2 issues were I had to reinstall the kernel after an update via a chroot
Maybe installing system packages through the AUR was a mistake but it's so tempting
OpenSUSE + KDE
I feel you. I don't agree but I feel you.
And I have installed hundreds of opensuse systems, many for new linux users.
But that was my choice as the sysadmin (well really one of my predecessors some decades ago). It isn't as amazing for self-administering newbies.
Another very good option
i read that like it was in the history of the world video
Just became a first time user (~48 hours ago) of KDE on Sparky distro and I'm pretty impressed.
Great take. But you know the real sneaky one that trips you up? File system.
I wouldn't call myself a beginner, but every time I install a Linux system seriously I see those filesystem choices and have to dig through volumes of turbo-nerd debates on super fine intricacies between them, usually debating their merits in super high-risk critical contexts.
I still don't come away with knowing which one will be best for me long-term in a practical sense.
As well as tons of "It ruined my whole system" or "Wrote my SSD to death" FUD that is usually outdated but nevertheless persists.
Honestly nowadays I just happily throw BTRFS on there because it's included on the install and allows snapshots and rollbacks. EZPZ.
For everything else, EXT4, and for OS-shared storage, NTFS.
But it took AGES to arrive to this conclusion. Beginners will have their heads spun at this choice, guaranteed. It's frustrating.
I did NTFS because both windows and Linux can read it. Do I know literally any other fact about formatting systems? Nope. I'm pretty sure I don't need to, I'm normie-adjacent. I just want my system to work so I can use the internet, play games, and do word processing.
I once tried to install my Steam Library in Linux to an NTFS partition so I wouldn't have to install things twice on a dual boot system. Protip: don't do that.
chkdsk -f (or r or whatever the third option is), reboot twice, but do it multiple times because steam on linux asks you to reinstall the games in the exact same spot and you accidentally do it because you're not paying close attention due to the mild panic windows threw at you?
https://github.com/ValveSoftware/Proton/wiki/Using-a-NTFS-disk-with-Linux-and-Windows
There is a guide here that says you can do it, but my experience was that I installed the games in Windows on my D drive, mounted the drive in Linux (Mint, I think), and when I tried to play them The system locked up. Rebooting into windows, Steam said the game files were corrupt and I had to reinstall them. I've always just kept two separate game libraries on any dual boot systems ever since.
Interesting. I was able to use the files perfectly fine from linux, but windows threw a tantrum when I tried to boot and removed everything linux had touched.
Oo! That's definitely a gotcha. Good tip!
I once heard that the trick to this is you need to let Steam "update" every game before you switch OSs. If it doesn't get to finish this, it will bork. That's also highly impractical I feel though.
So yeah on my dual boot Linux is for making things and doesn't see my main Steam library. Win10 is just for games. :p
EDIT: Win11 or 12 won't be a problem because I'm confining them to a VM for only the most stubborn situations, and doing everything including gaming with Linux. :D
Ext4 is the safe bet for a beginner. The real question is with or without LVM. Generally I would say with but that abstraction layer between the filesystem and disk can really be confusing if you've never dealt with it before. A total beginner should probably go ext4 without LVM and then play around in a VM with the various options to become informed enough to do something less vanilla.
This part is skippable, right? Any reason a user should ever care about this?
(note: never heard of LVM before this thread)
It makes adding space easier down the road, either by linking disks or if you clone your root drive to a larger drive, which tends to not be something most "end users" (I try not to use that description but you said it heh) would do. Yes, using LVM is optional.
It's all skippable if you want... Just put a large / filesystem on a partition and be on your way. There are good reasons for using it in some cases (see my response now).
This would absolutely be my thinking too. When I was still newish to linux, I remember lots of confusion with LVM and trying to reformat drives.
What is LVM?
Can you explain LVM in practice to me? I used ext4 and now Fedora Kinoite with BTRFS, the filsystem never makes any problems and some fancy features just work.
Lending my voice to this as well for most, my thought is EXT4, without LVM, deferring to the preferred FS for the distro. It is a mature, stable, and reliable choice and logical volumes complicate things too much for beginners.
If dual-booting, yeah, definitely an NTFS partition for shared storage (just be aware that Windows can be weird with file permissions and ownership).
Honestly, I'd say the defaults most distros use will be fine for most users... If they don't know why they should use one filesystem over another, then it's almost certainly not going to matter for them
If I read
lsblkcorrectly, I am usingext4for my whole drive. I have used linux for some years now, but I never bothered to learn more than "next next next done" when installing my OS.Does BTRFS popOS allow BTRFS? Should I bother for a daily driver?
Unraid turned me on to BTRFS, but in the end, you have to want to use the features to make it matter.
Only have one HDD and using a laptop, ext4 has been working well enough so far. I only wonder if there is something else I should use for my home drive for better disaster recovery.
It really depends on the disaster. Snapshotting isn't strong disaster recovery protection. It's more like I'm about to do something stupid and need to undo. If you need real disaster recovery slap an NVMe in an external enclosure and sink them up occasionally. Or set up sync thing or something like that.
In practice BTRFS is a bit faster and on a Distro like Fedora or Opensuse they already integrate it to do system backups while running (copy on write).
In practice it just works and you dont use all the fancy possibilities, because a majority of the Linux world still sticks with ext4 for whatever reason, so Filemanagers and backup tools wouldnt reach everyone.
Its a perfect example of Linux slowing down itself by desperately refusing to change
Ext4 is from 2008. BTRFS is even older from 2007, but was only declared stable in 2013. More innovation, more testing time, more "dont use it yet, it is unstable". Ext4 probably never was as they didnt try that much.
I have heard good things about ZFS as well, but that is mostly for servers?
I'm still figuring it out. I know ExFAT works across all desktop OS's, NTFS works with Linux and Windows, and ext4 only works with Linux.
But it took a half hour of googling to figure out you can't install Linux on NTFS. I planned to do that to ease cross platform compatibility. Oops. I'm also attempting a RAID 1 array using NTFS. It seems to work, but I'm not sure how to automatically mount it on boot. I feel like I might have picked the wrong filesystem.
I've settled on btrfs a year ago and I'm happy with it. I like the compression and async trim.
Yes, I listened to a podcast about that recently. Linux was far with XFS or something, but then Apple came, improved their HFS and actually made tools for it and it got better.
BTRFS is just as established as etx4, just not as damn old. It also just works, and it has advanced features that are crucial for backups. But I have no idea how to use btrbk and there is no GUI so nobody uses that.
But as a filesystem that just works like ext4, plus the automatically configured snapshots in both regular and atomic Fedora systems and OpenSuse, BTRFS is awesome.
Only outdated Distros that fear change stick with ext4, at least thats my opinion.
Makes sense to go simplest as possible on a home pc and even home sever. More important with raid and production capacity planning or enterprise stuff.
Just installed Mint to try it out because it looks similar to Windows. Don't judge me.
Oh I’ve judged you! And I find you guilty of making an acceptable decision that suites your preferences.
I'll get the pool noodles!
i wonder how good noodles would be if they were made in a pool
The sentence, however, is still death.
To be carried out in 3283745405.
I installed Mint for the sake of trying it and I quite liked Cinnamon, but after that I did some distro and desktop hopping, I will not go back until it has proper Wayland support.
It has proper Wayland support.
Cinnamon? If you've seen the news that it's getting Wayland support, it doesn't mean it has now or anywhere in the near future.
I've been using Linux in different capacities since the late 90s. I use Mint with Cinnamon because it's stable, does all I need and I don't need to fuss with it. You're more than fine.
Installed it on a thin client instead of win10 iot for the same reason, basic functionality all there, being used as a media streaming browser machine, no regrets.
Had previous experience with fedora and others many years prior, definitely can tell how far it all progressed since
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
the freshmaker
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Is it just me or is every new distro just a base with a different DE? I started to notice this a few years back but not sure if it was my imagination or something developers starting doing because it was easier to ship the DE as "the OS" than it was to instruct users on how to switch to their DE.
Repositories and package versioning are also extremely important in ways newbies don't realize yet. There's a significant variety between using Debian, Ubuntu, Pop!_OS or Kali. They are all Debian based using apt but they are all decidedly entirely different systems with completely different purposes and uses.
They could be using different package managers or different repos
I think the default setting matters, if there is any. Looking at Gentoo.
Fun aside, I think Fedora might be a good choice, because Gnome is easy and polished!
Fedora also comes with a dozen different DEs prepackaged and installable with a single, simple command. Each user just can select and change their own desktop with a menu selection on the login screen
My problem with Gnome is if it were my desktop, I might as well run Windows, since Gnome shell/mutter is slightly less capable than Windows. Extensions exist, but are very much a second class citizen and get broken by shell versions frequently, and the author of an extension may be gone when it comes time to rework it for a new version.
Plasma/kwin have pretty much everything I want in desktop/window management baked in.
I love gnome overall and it's my favorite de, but the missing features and extensions being almost mandatory for basic functions definitely are a pain.
Extensions are cool but the basics should be built in.
Fedora has ten other desktops to choose from. I'm currently test driving Budgie
I do fedora with KDE/plasma.
Nowadays fedora is a decent "boring" distribution, that finally settled into blatantly prompting to add the non free repositories you will probably want.
Ubuntu was annoying with it's little adventures in "not invented here" with mir, unity, and nowadays snap. So nice to have a modern, boring distribution.
Are there (sizeable) distros that does not allow you to install multiple DE's and change between them?
That's not usually the problem. Usually you can generally do this on any distro, even ones that have a higher level of integration with their DE.
The problem is more likely to be issues caused by overlapping configurations and base libraries that can cause weird issues if they aren't swapped out or kept default. If they aren't default and are managed by the package manager, usually the package manager will mark it as modified and often won't touch it unless you purge the configurations. Some will ask and some will straight up nuke em.
To me the problem is actually removing the old one. You can easily uninstall gnome, but it will leave behind config files and various data. It's less clean.
Also, there's an overlap in the libraries required by DEs, so you should use the "replace" option in you package manager (if it has one) to let o t figure out the best way to uninstall one and install the other.
That's a problem with the package manager
Not entirely, for example you don't expect the package manager to remove the gnome folder from the .local of every user
AFAIK Fedora comes with Gnome and KDE, both in Wayland and X11 version, out of the box, and you can just select one when logging in.
someone who switches away from the distro's default desktop environment is not a new user.
Yes, but a lot of them have multiple DEs (Ubuntu/Lubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu...) and sometimes the DE is specific to the distros (Mint).
Linux Mint uses Cinnamon as the DE, which you can use with Fedora (and probably others).
https://fedoraproject.org/spins/cinnamon/
You can actually choose to download an Linux Mint iso with either Cinnamon, MATE, or Xfce, so you're not exclusively locked into Cinnamon.
TIL
You get to choose whatever in my distro's installer
only distro ive tried that had that was debian (and arch if you count a tty as an installer), which one do you use?
NixOS
isnt nix installed in a similar way to arch?
Endeavour OS offers these on install
But the post is more about recommending a DE to start with/them picking one they like since it’s visual. And then you recommend a distro where that is default
For windows users that go to Linux I always recommend KDE as it looks like windows and it's easy for them to understand and use it!
Start recommending Cinnamon then, it's the best DE when switching from Windows.
Whats better in cinnamon in your opinion?
It's really similar to Windows in how you use it. Switching between Windows 11 and Cinnamon is as seamless as it can be.
There's almost no configuration or anything necessary, you just install it and it's great.
Same applies for Manjaro with KDE and on top of that it has support for wallpaper engine which I really wanted.
Got it. Thanks for elaborating.
cinnamon is lighter and simpler and looks more like the best version of windows (7)
Okay. I can see that. Thanks for elaborating.
I can't see how looking like a 14 year old version of Windows (as opposed to a newer version) is an advantage for people coming from Windows.
windows 7 was simpler and lighter, and as far as i know, everyone i know prefers it over 10 or 11
7 just worked better, had a lot less bloat, so people who liked it will be happy and nostalgic when they see something theyre used to
It's very simple and stable
I can see that. Thanks for explaining.
Yeah np. For example my dad got bogged down by all the options and features in KDE, but cinnamon was great cause it just launches apps and shows the time lol
Got it! I tend to forget that not everyone can deal with tons of options. I am this person in certain config files like synapse and telegraf. The config files are just impossibly long and getting an overview of them is impossible in my mind.
i concur
I recommend KDE as when I switch from windows I tried multiple DE and that one felt the most like windows it also had support for wallpaper engine which I really wanted!
As a power user of windows I've lost faith in Ubuntu, though. Their DNS implementation alone is a disaster. So I've switched to Debian and KDE, but then I saw there is a Mint Debian Edition (LMDE) so that's probably what I would recommend if anyone asked me. I personally haven't used it yet tho as I'm enjoying KDE.
Cinnamon is not the Ubuntu DE, it's Linux Mint's.
Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu
I started with Ubuntu and slowly tried getting used to Gnome over the course of a few months (mainly using windows, every now and then hopping into Ubuntu when not gaming). I learned of KDE, tried it in Kubuntu, and it all instantly clicked for me. I switched over in about a week and haven't had much reason to boot Windows since.
It turned out that front-facing experience was incredibly important to me.
What do you mean by front facing? Like the DE is the FrontEnd?
Is it not?
Depends which way you are oriented. Sometimes I will work from behind the monitor to really get into the back end
Boy, do I have the product for you
It is I just think I found the sentence a little confusing
Got Ubuntu because all I wanted was to play/mod games and watch videos..... and Windows 10 totally shit the bed. Constantly on the green loading screens.
I'm so lost with installing, directories, hidden directories, learning how to uninstall things I can't find in directories I can't find. It's a massive headache and steep learning curve.
Still haven't really played a game yet that can't run on Ubuntu natively, and it's still better than Windows 10.
Well sure. My approach for looking for a distro was usually "which ones have KDE and pacman" and after that I start comparing.
And for me, AUR.
Which distribs have pacman but not AUR?
I just wanted to mention that if a distro (somehow) had AUR but not pacman, I wouldn't care.
Not a hot take, I keep saying the same thing in different threads. I was not able to switch to Linux for years before I understood that I have problems with Gnome not with Linux itself, tried KDE and given I was migrating from Windows it clicked immediately.
After you gain some experience, DE becomes mostly irrelevant, but it is crucial for starting off in an unfamiliar environment.
the DE is very important unless you have A LOT of free time and REALLY WANT to see something different from what youre used to.
my first distro (other than ubuntu in school computers, but we dont talk about those) was fedora server minimal install, where i installed dwm and had fun using it. i had just switched from windows and was happy to have so many options, even though i had (almost) no linux experience before. after trying most of the big DEs and distros, i ended up on arch with xfce, which i have been using for more than a year now.
most people really should go slower and try things step by step, as what i did would be really weird for anyone that tried it ...probably
I switched back to Linux about a year ago after taking about a 10 year break, and I installed gnome without even considering another option (because it’s good enough right?)
It’s completely different than what I remember and I hate it. I want to switch to something else but that is now a “someday” project.
I remember when it had a cute footprint where the “start button” used to be. It’s so different. I should have went with xfce or something. Maybe I should try cinnamon.
Cinnamon is the most Windows like DE, even more so than default KDE Plasma. Specially since the Mint team went the extra mile to make the OS settings and configuration 100% UI based in a Windows-lite way. It's currently the perfect Linux noobie distro.
This isn't a bad take. DE is what is going to keep people from running back to windows right away, mostly. I do think it is better for people coming into Linux not to try to emulate the Windows experience. It is easier to learn when you accept it is going to be different from the start.
I think that SteamOS is a great place to start people off with Linux.
edit: I mean if you plug a steam deck into mouse and keyboard and use it as a linux box.
it has the support of another company hiding as "games" and can WINE pretty easy with Steam controlling the WINE.
So Arch with KDE
I don't think they will officially support it outside of the deck IMO, having used one in the flesh they have hardware optimization down to a tee - which to me really rounds off the deck experience.
The rapid sleep/wake and some options in the quick access menu would likely need some ironing out on other hardware configs, not sure how nvidia card support would work too...
There's Two Main Choices:
Packages....
Choose Pacman for rolling release, bleeding edge. Pick aptitude for servers and pick RPM if you want something that 'just works'.
Desktop....
High end machines with lots of fancy features and ease of use pick a full DE. WM is good for speed and low-end hardware but harder to use.
Disagree on picking RPM distros for an absolute beginner (this is what the image is about at least). SUSE maybe but you don't want a newbie having to deal with US patent bullshit and especially SELinux. Similarly, no newbie will ever pic a barebones WM as a first time user.
I have used Fedora for nearly all the time I've daily driven Linux, and haven't encountered any problem that a newbie would encounter and couldn't overcome, excluding distro-agnostic stuff. Yeah, the h264 shit sucks, but if you use flatpaks you shouldn't have to worry about it. And if you ever have to face SELinux, then you're probably doing something that's beyond beginner level.
It's a very rough guide I threw together. There's all sorts of wedge cases you could use to argue against it. E.g. you could use RPMs on slack Linux. Not exactly user friendly.
Bit on the whole fedora or Suse do the job.
Also desktops are better for newbies. I thought I'd mentioned that but yeah I agree deffo better for newbies while WM managers more for tinkerers/power users.
I dunno, I picked RedHat 5.2 as a complete beginner along with fvwm95 and afterstep, and that worked out okay. Of course, that was 25 years ago.
25 years ago the viability of options were slightly more prescriptive
Same. I remember getting interested in Linux in like 1997 or so, and it seemed like RedHat was preferred for newbies.
Of course, what were the alternatives then? It was basically Slackware (or Suse), Debian, and RedHat (or Caldera). There was no RHEL or Canonical or SElinux back then. It was a different time.
Hell one of the language packs for installing RedHat was “Redneck”. It was a gimmick to demonstrate localization options.
I started on CentOS and don't remember any issues but that was a long time ago. I flirted with Suse, Ubuntu, and Arch when RH started being a super dick. I finally settled on Rocky, rpm is the devil I know.
Apt, not Aptitude. Aptitude is just one of many front ends for Apt. I usually go for Synaptic.
Started using Debian because I only used it for servers to begin with. Learned APT and never dared to learn anything else. So now I just stick with any distro using APT and a DE I like.
So for gaming.... Pacman? I thought mint and kubuntu use aptitude, and was under the impression those are two of the better gaming distros.
I hate windows, but am sick of trying Linux every 5-6 years and finding out that I cannot get half the games I play to work. Admittedly, with you guys I might not be going it alone this time.....
The package manager is usually tied to the distro, but the point above is to let the package manager inform your distro choice.
You'll notice a running theme in my lecture here is "choice." You can switch Desktop Environment and other stuff on just about any distro and make it feel like yours. Switching package managers isn't recommended though! 😅
So for instance, Arch (btw lol), or Manjaro, or Endeavour use Pacman.
I've switched to Endeavour recently which is essentially "User-friendly Arch-based" with an installer and stuff, and it's absolutely lovely for games. My old 960M laptop runs plenty of stuff great. :D
On my main rig I've used OpenSUSE Tumbleweed for years, which is also a rolling release (constantly updated) distro that technically uses RPMs, but uses its own package manager called Zypper, which I find mostly user friendly. Packages are also a bit more thoroughly tested.
Both use KDE Plasma desktop environment and it's gorgeous.
Alternatively, especially for laptops with hybrid Nvidia graphics, POP!_OS is alright if you're okay with GNOME desktop environment. (You can always change, but it's geared toward GNOME). It used Aptitude, and the updates trail behind a bit, but generally that's supposed to make a more stable system.
(Note that when I say "lags behind", latest security fixes tend to be backported, but you won't see fancy new shiny features as fast.)
For gaming specifically though:
Win10 is gonna be my last Windows. 11 is invasive and opinionated, and 12 is gonna have a forced Ai fetish. Gross.
Good news: Steam games work wonderfully. Thanks to advances with Proton and all their support for the SteamDeck (which runs Linux btw!)
For other platforms, look into Heroic Launcher, which takes a lot of the headache out of managing stuff like GOG games. :)
With rolling releases you usually want to update cautiously and check news updates and stuff, because newer versions aren't as thoroughly tested and some stuff might break...but you get new features faster so that's fun.
That being said: If you're willing to learn a little as you go, OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a big win in my book for getting the latest fun stuff while still being stable! It's also thoroughly security-minded.
And by default, it includes "Snapper" set up for you, so you can just roll the system back to a working version in the rare case something goes wrong. You can install snapper on any distro, but it comes pre-configured and ready to go, as long as you use the default "BTRFS" file system.
I won't get into filesystems because hoo boi...but TL;DR: BTRFS allows "snapshots" and rollbacks that don't require literally doubling your disk space for rolling back, so it's a great safety net.
That being said: ALWAYS have more than one backup, in multiple locations, of anything you find important!
Good luck and have fun. I will say, Endeavour, OpenSUSE, and Pop_OS all have great communities that are eager to help if you're eager to learn! :)
Debian-based systems (including Ubuntu and its forks such as Mint) uses dpkg and APT (APT does all the communicating with repositories, dependency managment etc, dpkg actually installs and removes packages.) Aptitude is a TUI front-end for APT that gives you a menu-based system in the terminal. Synaptic (not to be confused with the trackpad driver) is a GUI front-end for APT.
I game on Linux Mint. Now it might be my tendency to play single player and/or cooperative multiplayer (think Stardew Valley or Unrailed!) games often made by smaller studios and indie developers as most of the AAA space has otherwise offended me, but...I don't really have a problem. The vast majority of things just install and run from Steam.
I'd say, just use Ubuntu if gaming is your main concern.
Imo the main problem for games are 1. hardware drivers (afaik only if you have brand new hardware), 2. game launchers (fuck those fucking game launchers, fuck; except steam) and 3. anti- cheat software.
Otherwise gaming is really good under Linux nowadays.
Steam on linux has tons of games. But not all of them (Baulder's Gate 3.)
BG3 running fine on my Ubuntu box.
I play Baldur's Gate 3 on my Fedora KDE Linux system just fine.
Most new Linux users if not all, are unable to make an educated decision on package management. The UI that they think they will like better would be more important.
Cinnamon is epic dekstop environment
Agreed. I used to be the tech support for my family members. Everyone I switched to Mint Cinnamon stopped calling me. (That's also when I realised my relatives never call me to share good news or to ask about me.)
Start installing malware on their machines that reminds them to call every once in a while.
I feel that in my bones, mate
Perfect gateway for Windows migrants. This and Mint are excellent starter distros.
I mean you don't ever have to switch but many people do, if only to explore their options
After using Mint for quite a few years, I've switched to NixOS. Still using Cinnamon, though, that DE won me over.
I 100% agree! Am a pretty new user of Nobara as a daily driver, switched like a month ago (I did have extensive CLI experience with Linux servers, along with Kali VM for work), and I've only realized what DE actually is only a week ago, because no one mentioned how important choice it is - it was usually just a note, that wasn't given enough importance.
So please, if you're ever recommending any linux distro to somenone who's asking, please include a short paragraph about what DE is and how importnant choice it actually is, and that they should not ignore it. I hated Gnome, and KDE feels so much better (only found about it when reinstalling broken first Fedora install to Nobara), but I didn't know I can switch or that there was that choice in the first place - I though KDE vs Gome is a back-end thing, similar to X11 vs Wayland. It's not, but people don't usually explain it when recommending distributions.
It's like learning how to interact with Lemmy, and then deciding which app you want to use to interact with it.
I’m a noob using the default Ubuntu DE for a few months now and I’ve gotten used to it, at this point I’m afraid to ask what are the other DEs and whether I should swap over
I particularly like Cinnamon, it's very simple and nothing fancy (while still looking great and modern).
The other popular choices include:
There are others, but I can't speak for them as I've never tried them. I can't really describe modern Gnome as well, because the last version I used was 3 and it doesn't look at all as the same DE, so someone else will have to provide that info.
I‘ve recently used lxqt in a project. Very cool and the successor of lxde afaik at least for lubuntu.
modern gnome is simpler to learn and more polished than basically all other DEs. i think its better for someone that wants something new and for people who just started using a computer, because of just how easy it is to use. its not good if youre switching from windows or mac and want something similar.
I tried it recently and it was confusing as hell.
first time i tried it, i felt it was easier than any other de ive tried, though different people of course wont have the same experience
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Desktop_environment
You can use the list there to look up images or videos of the DEs
If you think you’d prefer one then you can try it but you aren’t likely to find an advantage over what you’re used to (there are some like old hardware wanting lighter weight) it’s mostly preference.
If you changed your Window Manager to i3 then you would probably hate it just for being so different
Don't. It's a trap. Most of them have compatibility issues with software. Stock Ubuntu is the benchmark for every piece of software these days. Deviating is fun until it isn't.
Unless you want to go a non Debian based distro, always pick Ubuntu.
Compatible issues on desktop environment level? This is the first time I ever hear about that.
Tried switching to KDE Plasma and then OpenCV broke because of outdated QT version or some shit. Same with another distro. And I couldn't install two versions at the same time.
It's all fun until you get dependency conflicts.
Bro. I think you would benefit from sticking to Chrome OS.
That's a great insult, I love it :D
Nice comeback when you get evidence of how a different DE breaks software compatibility.
It's clear that this is a forum of people that only install Linux to open their terminal and type neofetch.
Fair, that reply above is not helpful at all. I mean yeah, I have had my fair share of dependence hell as well. Mostly when trying to install an external deb package. I know how to prevent it nowadays but it ain’t user friendly at all.
Also I would be hesitant to use Linux as a workstation. If I had the luxury of time I would for ideological reasons alone. But I don’t have that kind of time. Troubleshooting can become costly when you get paid by the hour.
Depends on what you do, most of the deep-learning world and scientific computing is based on Ubuntu. And not just Ubuntu but currently 22.04. Even upgrading the distro can bring compatibility conflicts.
I have a massive hate boner for development on Windows for things such as the \ in the paths and needing to install a 10gig IDE to do cpp development. Or they tell you WSL "just works" while it doesn't "just work" because it can't cv2.imshow your images because there's no X11 passthrough etc.
…for nothing this days. The only people using Ubuntu now are dinosaurs and system managers running cheap servers or locked into Canonical's ecosystem, and the latter are using headless servers, remotely managed, not the DE. Variety is the spice of life. All mainstream DEs are perfectly serviceable, 100% compatible with everything and completely stable and reliable. FFS, Ubuntu's snaps don't even work well on their own DE. Stop fearmongering for Canonical, let people live life.
You do you. Just stop wasting other people's time with this worthless false hope. What I'm saying here is what I would have liked people to tell me before I wasted my time troubleshooting issues caused by custom Desktop Environments. What's next you're going to tell me Wayland already runs without issues too?
The stock Ubuntu environment looks pretty decent to begin with.
Wow, you really are aggressive and hostile for no reason. You can use Ubuntu all you want. But don't go around spreading lies just because you are too cognitively challenged to change your DE without breaking the OS. Most people are fine making a fresh install with the DE they want to try preinstalled and it works fine 100% out of the box. It's trying to make two different DE live on the same system at the same time that is only partially supported and thoroughly discouraged by every single DE developer. Most of the time installing a new DE on a system and uninstalling the old one is a pretty straightforward, although dirty process. Guess who is particularly bad and incompatible with that process? Ubuntu. It has the worst support for alternative DEs, because Ubuntu is not the benchmark for squat shit anymore. Use a real end user distro, and you'll be able to change DE to your heart's content without issue.
I'm only on Linux for a few months (as a daily driver, always used headless servers before that), and I'm almost certain that my Fedora install came with both KDE and Gnome in Wayland and X11 flavors pre-installed out of the box, and I could just choose between them at login screen. Or am I wrong, and I do I just not remmeber installing the other manually? I mean, that's also possible, it's been a while.
Because advice like this is an enormous waste of time. Calling people dinosaurs for using Ubuntu instead of KDE is a pretty out there take. The only more modern option is arch based distros like Manjaro but since every programming tutorial assumes you have APT and are running Ubuntu I don't see much of a reason to deviate from that.
it seems you should be using debian or distros based on it. ubuntu, as far as i know, uses apt as a mirror to snap, so as long as the tutorials youre following letter for letter arent too recent, you really should be using debian for actual apt packages, since ubuntu used those a couple of years ago.
you can also use fedora or arch, but it seems you dont want to check what package youre downloading at all, and just want to follow tutorials blindly.
People here are under the illusion that a DE changes nothing about the base OS. It seems like those people have never actually been using their OS.
I won't argue with you. You obviously just want a fight. And the glaring ignorant sentences in this particular comment convince me that either you're too greenhorn on Linux to understand anything I have to say. Or you are an intentional troll looking for negative engagement. So, goodbye and enjoy the downvotes.
OK dude good luck bye.
Dude...I build my desktops from a bare Debian text only terminal by installing it piece by piece and only what I need. This current install has bee running fine for three years and I have no issues installing and configuring anything you can on Ubuntu.
This is a skill issue on your part, not an OS issue. At a certain point, if you've been using it enough, the distro literally doesn't matter anymore. Linux is Linux is Linux.
That's like saying that you run Gentoo but you don't even have the street cred of running Gentoo.
Noobs gonna noob
Ubuntu is shit. It used to only be shit under the hood if you were an enterprise sysadmin building your own packages and managing versioned repos for thousand machine fleets, but now it is shit from a user experience, too. Fuck snaps, fuck walled gardens, and fuck vendors attempting lock-in.
I hate everything but Matlock!
Yeah I agree.
And for new users choosing a distro with big user base (thus having a better support system) should be a top priority. Instead newbies are often advised to use an obscure distro that in theory might be a good fit, but isn't. Probably those who do the recommendations are Linux testers (using VZ) rather than Linux users and mostly evaluate a distro based on install process and out of the box usage.
Configuring a big distro to your needs is much better than choosing a nishe distro.
I use xfce btw
Both are important. I can't tell you how many times I've had to resort to containers, VMs, or compiling from source, just because some application decided to only provide packages for Arch or Debian.
Switch to NixOS, sometimes it feels like we have every package there is.
Not following what you mean by the breakdown analogy.
Have you tried the fedora KDE spin? I love it.
Do you know what's even better? Fedora Kinoite. Or Bazzite. Or Nobara…
I'd go Fedora with KDE. Gnome is not Windows like, and harder for people to get used to when they're switching over from Windows.
Fedora with Gnome especially on newer hardware. Fedora has far fewer issues in my humble personal experience when it comes to hardware less than five years old. Gnome because trying to use something that looks like something you've used before but isn't just adds extra confusion. No need for Pantheon or Cinnamon.
That was definitely the case for me. There were definitely other factors that shaped my decision, but the biggest "click" was finding my preferred DE. So long as I can go about my day-to-day computing, everything else is easier to figure out.
In my case, it's GNOME with a couple extensions like Dash to Panel and ArcMenu. I know, some people would prefer not to use extensions, and yes, my system just looks like Windows now, but it works for me. :P
#You are perfectly right.
All major distributions offer all major Environments. I currently use either Debian or Ubuntu and usually install by booting the Netinstall.iso right from the official Servers which installs just the base system without any GUI at all. Then I use tasksel to select the environment. Ok, not every Environment is part of Tasksel but often it is just adding another Repository and running another apt install operation.
And yes, on my experimental computer I often install a dozen environments just because I can. Selectable at Login-Screen.
But now somethings VERY important from someone with 35 years of POSIX experience:
If you are a newby FOR GODS SAKE USE UBUNTU.
And if you are a pro... Ubuntu still is a very good option. Only if your have VERY GOOD REASONS which you COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, only then use something else. Which is Debian for me.
Haha, true. Started with Mint, now on Kubuntu. Same pig, different makeup.
isnt kubuntu worse for installing flatpaks? thats the only thing i can think of that differs and i wanted to know.
Ubuntu is VERY heavily invested in snaps at a very basic level. I think the recommendation is to not mix snaps and Flatpaks as they may not interact well. As a new Ubuntu user, I'm slowly discovering some of the random problems with snaps.
For example, just the other day, I was trying to configure my fish shell using the html-based fish_configure utility, but it just wouldn't work. Of course, I assumed the problem was with my fish install. After a couple hours fiddling with it, I finally came across a stack exchange comment indicating that the snap version of Firefox simply can't access the /tmp/ directory, which is where fish_config creates its html configuration page. WTF? Also, you can't even install a non-snap version of Firefox via apt because the official apt repository just links back to the snap version! I finally installed an apt-based version of librewolf, but had to get it from a non-Ubuntu repository, and then magically I could access to fish_config html page. That's a pretty long workaround just to view a simple HTML page!
So, if snaps have problems like this just interacting with the base Linux file system, I wouldn't be surprised if random weird behavior cropped up when trying to use Flatpaks.
You do have to add flathub to the discover store, but that's a one time thing and you're good afterwards
I'm new to Linux. Mint Cinnamon being very windows-like is what braved me into finally trying it. Love it
Just hopped back over to linux mint again after years of making due with Windows
Not much change, I can lean on the habits I've gotten from windows, and now my switch is pretty much unnoticeable to me.
Funny enough, Lutris has made it alot easier for me to access games I usually would just have downloaded, like my itch.io library. Proton has tackled all my other games fine. Hell, I even got Tarkov running smoothly, even though you can only do offline raids on Linux ATM.
The most important thing for most new Linux users would be a pathway to getting support. Because of this the distro you use matters much more than the DE because each of the major distro's have different pipelines that the funnel users in to getting support. The package manager lock in is distro dependent and depending on the philosophy that they subscribe to can be the difference between how many steps a new user has to take to get a working system up and running. Thankfully, with the rise of flatpak, appimage and snap being more popular than ever package availability is much more streamlined but that is another layer on top of an already overwhelming package system for new users. The defaults for all of this depends on your distro which can be different. Heck we haven't even gotten to support cycles which depending on user needs can be different. Because not every user has or wants what comes with for example maintaining an rolling release distribution. Did they setup their system to have snapshots so they can roll everything back when the new kernel update breaks something system critical and they have a presentation at 2:00? None of these things are really DE dependent but are baked in to the defaults you subscribe to when you choose a disto. The good part is that if you don't like how something is configured you can change everything easily depending on how well documented it is. This is why it's more important to choose a distro with good documentation or at least a active enough community so when you run into hangups you can get some sort of resolution.
For new Linux users choosing a distro IS choosing a desktop environment. Installing a new DE that's different from the default is not a day one Linux task, so the default for the distro is what matters. Yes. the DE is the most important factor in choosing a distro, but saying that means the distro doesn't matter is just fundamentally incorrect and unhelpful.
I don't thibk op intended to imply that new users instal a new DE on whatever distro they choose, but rather it's clunky to explain that they should prioritize DE when choosing distro. like, imagine a new users asks what distro they should start with, I believe op is advocating we say "anything that uses KDE by default" (or gnome or xfce etc). plenty of distros have derivatives that are basically the same but use a different DE, so it's pointless to suggest one over the other when a new user is just going to use the DE to do everything graphically anyway.
That'd be nice and all, but they still have to pick a distro. You can't just install KDE without a distro. A good KDE implementation just becomes one of their considerations. If you don't suggest one over another they'll probably just stick with Windows due to analysis paralysis.
Really? On my distro it's
And you can just comment out the gnome line
You can get even more fancy and have a boot option for both with specialisations!
But let's not pretend NixOS is in any way beginner friendly.
1, that's not something a day one Linux user would understand, and you shouldn't encourage people to use commands they don't understand.
2, I guess you're arguing that distro is important, so thanks for agreeing with me.
It literally says enable plasma 5, how is that hard to understand?
On Ubuntu it's just
sudo apt install kde-plasma-desktop. I guess that means you think it's even easier there and everyone understands all the implications of that and nothing could possibly go wrong?There are no implications to installing anything in NixOS because you can go back to a previous state at any point.
Running the software might change your settings, but can't really do anything about that since that's the software author's choice and it's in your home folder
Look, I understand how NixOS works. It has nothing to do with anything I've been trying to say though. I'm trying to have a conversation, and you keep derailing it with you NixOS sales pitch. What do you even want from me? Fine. NixOS is the most bestest at everything ever and everyone should immediately jump right into it with no help or context straight out of Windows. Are you happy now?
The important thing is the package manager really. Then you can install and uninstall whatever DE you want
Actively choosing a package manager is way beyond a Linux beginners capabilities IMHO.
I agree with this, which is kinda why distro is more important than DE at the end of the day.
It's mostly true. Someone coming from windows may struggle with gnome, while cinnamon is pretty easy to them. If it comes down to the decision between Gentoo and Linux Mint this, of course, isn't true anymore, since Gentoo is way to complex for a beginner to understand.
Tl;dr: This is only true if you apply this to different distros with the same complexity(e.g. Pop_OS! or Linux Mint).
I'll go one further and say choosing applications is more important than choosing a Desktop Environment.
I'm typing this message on Firefox. I installed it (and updated it) with Debian's package management system. I clicked on a button on an XFCE panel to open it. But in terms of the time spent interacting with things on my computer I'm using the applications far more than anything else.
Too a certain point. I'll give you that this applies to the Debian and Ubuntu distro. Gentoo, on the other hand, is a completely different animal and will have a far greater impact on user experience than the DE.
You look at your DE all day and your distro holds everything together. Op didn't say distro is unimportant and I agree it makes sense for new users to look at images and videos of different desktops first, maybe try a live cd, and then choosing the backend that suits their willingness to interact with.
If your electricity and time are cheap, you want to learn and your pc-system is your playground not a productivity tool, Gentoo is a valid option. In this case, your choice of DE impacts your compile time massively and knowing alternatives beforehand gives you options.
I feel like the window manager is important, but for newbies I also consider the package manager and overall installation process to be very important.
I've had pretty distros that are basically busted after a package fails to install or video drivers are mucked with. An advanced user could fix most of these issues, but this is usually where a new user may go running back to their previous OS.
A good computing experience for me is all my hardware working with minimal fuss and all the software I expect to be available being a few terminal commands away (e.g. steam, developer tools, etc.)
I'm not sure if it is, but I don't see it as a hot take. And it sounds reasonable, specially when some distros offer different "flavours" out-of-the-box, and offer you the option of different DEs before you even installed it.
It's certainly not a hot take. Every "which distro should I try thread" is just a discussion of the different DEs out there. I would like to hear about different package managers. I always seem happiest with apt, and I don't know why.
Fair. But "Lukewarm take" just doesn't have the same punch.
I don't use a DE, BTW.
Nowadays they're so many options, GNOME and Plasma are nice, but heavy, same for DDE(Deepin) and others fancy DEs I know why it's heavy, but xfce and lxqt looks better on my PC, xfce you can make looks beauty and fast too
For the WM guys: I'll try some day, for now only DEs :3
Try hyprland, learn the shortcuts, and you never want a DE again.
I knew only a MW would reply lol
XFCE 4 Life.
I do not fear OpenBSD, but FVWM... it scares me.
on a related note, help I'm too used to my i3wm config and now I cant switch to wayland at all, what do I do when xorg gets fully depreciated
Sway is basically the wayland version of i3. I've switched to wayland on my new laptop and learning sway after using i3 for years has been relatively easy.
Yeah, the config syntax is exactly the same. The major difference is the wayland version of various programs can be hard to figure out with out some decent google-fu.
I'm on BSPWM on X11, but have been trying river wm and that is a much less friendly conversion than i3 to sway. I'd convert entirely were it not for certain applications still not quite working on wayland without considerable configuration (wacom tablet drivers don't work, screenshottung and eyedropper tools are available but still need more work to be feature comparable with equivalent tools on X11).
And I'm using proprietary NVIDIA drivers which are currently stuttering real bad on the wlroots protocol since driver update to 545 (sway/river both stutter bad whenever lots of movement on the screen, I've tried many tweaks to my environment variables to no avail).
So....just gonna wait for app, wayland, nvidia devs to eventually make the migrate worth while.
Wayland being so Nvidia hostile while Nvidia is the only name for AI is kind of a kick in the balls
I've heard sway is a drop in replacement of i3 for wayland. Only going off what I've heard though since I haven't tried it myself
Yeah... but if the packagers dont test it, or ship "stable" KDE Plasma 5.27 which will simply not get most bugfixes (Debian, MX Linux and many more will have these issues for 4 years!) its actually important what Distro you choose.
It is not if
This doesnt apply to
cinnamon eh?
That is actually very true honestly but also needing sonething as stable as Debian, bleeding edge as Arch or right in the middle with Fedora and also which kernel the user made need for their hardware is also a factor in this as well. DEs take priority tho as it's literally the interface you interact with 90% of the time
I've picked xfce on basically every distro I've used and I've hopped through like 30 distro's.
I understand the argument being made, but I kind of disagree. Yes, picking a DE in which you'll be comfortable is really important (and often an undervalued aspect of using Linux for the first time), but I think that the time you need to spend self-maintaining your distro is more important, and is also prone to make-or-break your first-time Linux experience. That's the most important factor on whether a new user says "I love Linux and want to continue using it" or "I fricking hate Linux, it's filled with a bunch of problems, I'd rather just use Windows instead". And that's why it's important to recommend beginner-friendly distros, as to avoid frustration of newcomers, because those are more manageable (unless those newcomers want the frustration of managing something that they don't quite understand :)
Does it matter which one in specific? No, and it's probably at this point that the DE and visual looks should kick in.
I guess I'm open minded because I'm a noob with Linux yet I've worked with XFCE, LXQt, KDE, and GNOME (in that order), and none of them were a pain, except possibly LXQt, which was super clunky to customize, but it ran amazing on weak hardware, so I'm giving it a pass. I reckon I'd be cool with Cinnamon, MATE, Unity, or even one of the lightweight DE's.
Yet, all of these DEs I've used were on Ubuntu based distros. I feel afraid to encounter weird things with other distros. For example, doesn't DaVinci Resolve only run on Ubuntu based distros?
I agree with that take until...
The “what you go for it’s entirely your choice” mantra when it comes to DE is total BS. What happens is that you’ll find out while you can use any DE in fact GNOME will provide a better experience because most applications on Linux are design / depend on its components. Using KDE/XFCE is fun until you run into some GTK/libadwaita application and small issues start to pop here and there, windows that don’t pick on your theme or you just created a frankenstein of a system composed by KDE + a bunch of GTK components;
I just installed Kubuntu over my Ubuntu partition because of this meme haha
I use i3wm btw
I don't disagree, but it's so much easier to change environment: just logout and login with the new environment.
Well if you really want it, you don't even need to logout, but that is not the point...
ask your manager to allow you to use linux
I RDP to a windows machine to work, from Pop_OS!. It's nice because all the little stuff like web browsing can be done in my linux environment
While many can agree with a desktop environments importance, the desktop environment is rn closely tied to the distro's philosophy. Many who venture outside the major distros will need to set up their own environment.
nice to have choices. new users are better off with a polished install so they can get back to scrolling. takes work to do some desktops. ran a minimal thing for years at work. forget the name.
I recommend GNOME because it has a very good philosophy on Free/Libre software and it doesn't stray far from it.
Agreed, because for most practical purposes there are only two valid distros in the first place (apt-based and pacman-based)
Sudo alone should be the deciding factor.
not really, compare installing something like Spotify on Ubuntu vs something Arch Based, something that allows you to access AUR packages with a few simple clicks.
the DE is more important. yes, arch has more options than ububtu, but as long as the new person chooses anything that allows using flatpaks (like mint and anything that isnt from canonical), theyll have an easier and better experience since they would already get the DE they want preinstalled and flatpak would help with any proprietary software they want that isnt on the main distro's repos
Preinstalled DE, you mean like this?
https://endeavouros.com/
idk i havent used endeavour yet
I can't imagine that there is any overlap between Linux users and Spotify users, considering what a shitty piece of software Spotify is. I think you must be the only one.
many people use linux because they dont like windows and still use proprietary software like spotify, discord and steam (mostly steam, just because of how good it is)
Spot, a native Spotify client for the GNOME desktop
Spotify-qt, a Qt-based Spotify client
Both made possible by librespot. Not only do some Linux users use Spotify, some great open-source devs have worked to make clients for it. I honestly prefer Spotify-qt to the official one.
Statistically unlikely, mate
Believe it or not, there are people who use Linux who don't shun everything mainstream.
Meh, I feel that the only important choice is the type of distro; source, rolling, stable, immutable, reproducible, etc. as that'd impact difficulty to some degree.
Beyond that, it's not a big deal. Newbies will just pick the DE their most comfortable with. The popular DEs don't really have difficulties, just differences.
For short-term comfort yes, though eventually the hassle of switching may outweigh that, and some users may prefer a longer-term view?
Linux users fall into three categories. People who want stability over everything else, people who want everything to be bleeding edge, and people who don't use desktop environments.
The most important thing for a new user is understand which of those three they are.
I just want to get away from the future hell that will be AI-controlled Win 12
I'll be honest, unless you have been using Linux for...a long time, of your job requires you to manage servers, your probably not that last category.
If you enrolled in the windows insider/test doohickey then you might want look into the rolling release distros. If not, something with a standard release cadence will be better.
I my self? All of the servers I manage have no desktop environment (core infrastructure does not need graphics). But if I am on a workstation? LMDE - Because I care about the graphics getting out of my way so I can do my job.
What about people who want something up to date AND stable? I don't want to be stuck on an ancient Debian base when I want up to date goodness for running newer packages. This is what Manjaro promises, but I think we all know the problems with what they're trying to do. Fedora is probably the one distro that most closely fits imho, but I've never liked RPM distros too many bad memories from 25 years ago.
EndeavourOS or raw Arch would both fit that bill, you don't need to run updates every day just because they're available. Manjaro delays packages to "increase stability", but that's what causes it to break.
I'm quite happy with Tumbleweed. It's best of both for me, but still RPM based.