For me
Mint
Manjaro
Zorin
Garuda
Neon
You must log in or register to comment.
All of them: communities are so used to blow their own horn that every Distro becomes overrated in the public debate.
Each single distro is “fine” at best.
Except for Debian.
Debian is Great, Debian is Love.And arch. Arch is godly.
(I use Arch btw.)
I’m gonna say “no”, but just by personal preference.
I agree that, if you’re skilled enough, 90% of distributions out there are completely useless once Arch and Debian are available.Couldn’t agree more. Arch is great if you need a malleable distro, Debian is for everything (else).
Debian is great if you want a stable distro. If you want the latest software run… Debian + Flatpak
I’ve used Arch on many different computers over the years. It’s not stable, it breaks. I don’t understand why it’s great. Debian (minimal install) is better.
I’ve only had one problem with arch (it broke after an update once) except for that one problem it was always very stable and solid in my experience.
Debian is too “old” for me. I prefer bleeding edge and i refuse to use any flatpaks or such because they are a pain in the ass to set up right in my experience
Been at Ubuntu for a couple of years but I was pleasantly surprised when I went back to debian. Sticking to that one like shit on shingles.
Manjaro. It just breaks itself randomly, and performs poorly. Endeavour / ARCO Linux are more stable
Still no breaks on my side after 3 years of daily use.
Gonna go with Manjaro. I can’t, for the life of me, understand why it gets the support it does. It’s not fantastic to begin with, with an apparently incompetent management team. Add in that all the theming is flat and lifeless, and I’m just confused.
I mean, any Arch derived distro with an “easy installer” kinda confuses me. Archinstall is fairly easy to use (although a bit ugly), and most other Arch based distros seem to miss what I see as the main point of Arch: getting to know and personalize your system. So things like Endeavor, Xero, etc. Don’t make a lot of sense to me either. But at least they’re not effectively accidentally DDOSing the AUR…
One good reason to have distros like EndeavourOS is if you have to use an Enterprise WiFi network while installing Arch. Pain in the ass to get iwd to work with them.
Arch
-
Being 64-bit doesn’t make you special, my Nintendo 64 is 27 yrs old and it’s 64-bit
-
Being bleeding edge doesn’t make you special, all I have to do is sit on a nail and now I’m bleeding edge too
-
Rolling releases don’t make you special, anyone can have those if they take a shit on a steep slope
/s (was hoping we’d be able to leave this behind on reddit, but alas, people’s sense of humor…)
-
I already gave mine. They’re in the video.
For me, every non-mainstream distro. IMO every fork which is just a rebuild .iso should ratherly be an install script and extra repos. Simply because the lack of maintenancers and userbase tends to make those projects to die or getting updates way less often tahn should. People should join any existing project rather than creating new ones.
Or: meta packages! (Debian nomenclature, but it probably exists on non-Debian distros as well)
Much more secure than executing random code online, usually with root privileges. And reuses the existing infrastructure of the “parent” distro.
MX Linux.
I don’t know why it gets recommended so often, I don’t actually think many people use it, but for some reason it’s brought up all the time. I blame Distrowatch.
I was an MX user. It looks nice out of the box (better than Mint at the time) and the “flagship” version runs smooth on old laptops, probably thanks to Xfce. Side note, MX has a rare feature, it provides a choice between two init systems.
Only Manjaro. Every distro has something different. Unfortunately, regular breakages isn’t a differentiation people are after.
Removed by mod
Maybe. Mint came first, and I wonder what purposes those other ones were trying to serve. I don’t know or care enough about the others. Do they differentiate enough to bother with?
At first, ElementaryOS was really trying to be for MacOS refugees what Mint is for Windows refugees. Later on they were trying to be their own ecosystem, and I haven’t heard from them since. Zorin…yeah Mint exists, what are you doing.
Haven’t heard of Rhino.
Elementary OS and Manjaro are the big ones IMO. Sure, they’ve had their heydays, but it’s time to move on.
Fedora, in the sense that I often see it widely recommended, especially to new users.
It’s not bad by any means, but it’s a very opinionated distro that requires end users to install a bunch of additional repositories and packages just to make it useable for the average user.
It also still doesn’t come with out-of-the-box system restore functionality that works well with btrfs even though it is the default filesystem, unlike OpenSUSE Tumbleweed.
I ran Fedora 33, and upgraded it in place through to fedora 36. Ran pretty well the whole time.
I had snapper running for btrfs snapshotting, and did a double hop release jump to 38. Somehow I messed up my high water mark config for snapper in the mean time, and ran out of disk space mid-install without realizing. Symptom was firefox crashing. So I rebooted. Borked.
I agree with all of your complaints about it, and there’s plenty to dislike, but it’s still probably a good landing point for new users.
For me, it was the right amount of itjust.works at the right time, coming from debian (an update in 2018 killed my gdm, and I rage switched to fedora). Next stop is Gentoo!
My list overrated list additions:
-
Ubuntu: They break shit, it’s half baked, snaps, and Canonical is really into vendor lock in.
-
Arch: I really have better things to do then baby sit my install.
-
RHEL: Containers were created for reasons, and one of them was RHEL.
-
Any Linux without systemd or glibc: Mistakes were made, and then different mistakes were made trying to prove systemd made mistakes. Musl based Linux distros are going to have compatibility problems, so I might as well run a different OS. The BSDs are *nix-like systems without glibc with a history and larger communities.
The BSDs are *nix-like systems without glibc with a history and larger communities.
You can run programs requiring glibc on musl-based distros using a simple chroot though (not to mention using Flatpak/Snap or similar solutions).
Also, as someone who uses a distro without systemd (Void) - my boot and shutdown are both very fast and service management is simple (I didn’t need to read any documentation to define new daemons, I just looked at existing definitions); this is in contrast to my experience the last few times I used systemd distros.
I even had a Debian setup I used regularly with SysV init a few years ago, which also had way better boot/shutdown times than with systemd (on the same exact setup otherwise). Service management was a pain with SysV though.
“It’s Linux with extra work!” isn’t a convincing argument for musl based distros.
I ran FreeBSD as my desktop for a long time, and I’m quite fond of it. However, most new software is written for GNU/Linux, and I got tired of fighting against it. (I still run FreeBSD on my personal servers.)
I ran Alpine for a while, and as much as I wanted to like it, software had to be ported to it. It’s the same problem the BSDs have. Software has to be ported to them, and if that’s the case, there’s not much of a point in running Linux for me.
It’s cool people are trying an alternate libc with the Linux kernel. Alpine seems to have made some good progress on porting software, and musl has progressed from what I’ve heard.
That life isn’t for me. If I wanted that, I know where to get it.
Runit still uses shell scripts to start the services, like most alternate init systems, and I’d rather not write shell scripts for services.
There are other niceties with systemd, like timers are an upgrade over cron, as well as some very idiotic decisions, especially for the server side. Overall it’s a nice init for desktops.
-
Mint works and you can recommend it, but it is a mess with its two versions. The “normal” version is based on Ubuntu, but Ubuntu is already an user friendly distro. Mint also has LMDE version, it makes more sense because directly based on a “rough” Debian, but it seems less popular.
Yes, but Ubuntu has snaps. Cinnamon is preferred by many to Gnome. It has clear differences.
Arch in general. As well as Manjaro (the most unreliable distro ever)
Mint isn’t a bad ditro its just overhyped for new users.
Nobara is very overrated. Comes with so much bloat apps and is confusing for new users. Don’t understand why people recommended it.
It has some kernel tweaks and niche bug fixes for certain games but its just overrated.
Ubuntu is decent but definitely lost its touch over the years.
I think Pop!OS is a better Ubuntu than Ubuntu is now.
Also I definitely agree about Mint. I don’t think it really sets out to hype itself up to be fair, it’s just a nice-looking, easy to use and stable distro that does exactly what it’s supposed to, and people tend to over-sell it a bit.
I definitely agree when it comes to Nobara. I’ve used Fedora for some time now, and I was curious about how it would be tailored to gaming. I made up my mind within three minutes using a live USB to go back to standard fedora. Too much preinstalled nonsense.
Arch is for sweaty fanboy memes, not workflow
