I see often people say that the distro you are using doesn’t matter. One can turn any distro into another. And I do not agree with that. If that was true, why do we even have so many distributions? I always said, if distros don’t matter…
- … why distro hop?
- … why don’t you use Ubuntu then?
- … why don’t you recommend Archlinux to a newcomer?
- … why don’t you use Kali Linux as a server?
- … why don’t you use Batocera or SteamOS as your daily driver?
- … why do you trust a community distro more than a corporate distro? (or vice versa)
I don’t think that distros only matter to newcomers. Maybe it matters for experienced users even more.
Agreed. I distro-hopped for months before settling on Void. It took a while for me to figure out (with help from the internet) that systemd was causing a lot of the problems I was having. It’s been smooth sailing since I found Void and I’ve never been happier with an OS.
It really isn’t difficult to install or use, and I think experienced users would probably appreciate it as much as I do. It does what you tell it to, out of the box. Nothing more, nothing less.
Are you bored? Did you just build a strawman version of your own community to argue about something that is trivially easy to answer for everyone in this community? I am seriously confused. I have never ever heard anyone say that you could turn any distro into any other. That is just obviously not true. And every single question on your bullet point list is equally easy to answer.
When people say that it doesn’t matter which distro you use what they obviously mean is that the desktop environment has the way more immediate and tangible impact on the user experience. So as long as the newcomer choses one of the many distros that have an intuitive installer (so obviously not Arch), are reasonably up to date, have a broad software package repository, and come with one of the major environments pre installed, it really does not matter that much.
In a very technical sense, you can turn any distro into any other distro, in the same way you can turn Windows into OpenBSD.
It’s probably also true in a smaller way, where you could technically reengineer a distro manually by replacing components and reconfiguring things until it works, but why? Someone already did that.
ontop of other user comments where it boils down to trust in the maintainer and code reviewers of the project, another reason depends on the use case that you plan on using your Linux system. for example, if I were to setup a nextcloud server, i’d generally go with alpine for it’s lightweight design, or Debian for it’s stability. I wouldn’t necessarily use Kali Linux, because with those features it also uses a lot of resources for it to function, and I don’t need that for a server.
in terms of my personal device I generally build those from the tty and add other modules (like DE, utils, etc…) to give it more functionality. Much like my servers I like to have my laptop optimized – take as minimal resources as possible – which is a rather controversial take after seeing users bash at me that I’m not taking advantage of all my memory. anyways, I don’t think there is a specific distro that has everything that I want. I want a system that works that doesn’t use 2 GB from the DE alone and that is accomplished by adding the modules myself.
I don’t trust any other sub-distro other than myself. I generally go with one of the corporate base tty installer (arch) and I build the system from that. I’m not going to switch to say cachy OS for it’s aesthetics, or ease of use, I couldn’t really care less.
Why would you want your OS to use you’re memory? My browser already takes too much, and I really push my system trying to run dev-builds of games built for desktops.
Ive been using fedora, my first distro, for about 5 years. I’m about to switch because it just doesn’t do some things I want, or not without a ton of config. I got it because it came up as “best distro for coding” when I googled it, and I was just beginning to code.
I can’t imagine its that much better than like Ubuntu though, which is what I think I’ll switch to. Meanwhile there’s several just complete and total roadblocks ive hit because of the distro. Kubernettes and Docker just doesn’t work for me. I was trying a teat install of CiviCRM and never got past the download. Recently, when trying to install Graphene on a new phone, Fedora in fastboot just refuses to recognize it. In the process of trying to work around this limitation, I somehow removed myself from the sudo su group, and fixing it has been a chore.
Its like every time I want to do x, it isn’t supported. Coding and developing on it is fine, for my personal projects. If I wanna do anything more than run a script though, its been nothing but hardship.
Its been a pretty good distro for me, but I have a dislike for extended config and sysadmin tasks and troubleshooting, and on my personal projects I keep hitting roadblocks over and over on Fedora. Open to other suggestions, but Ubuntu seems the most straightforward
For me it comes down to trust, since the distro maintainers have root on your system. You’d better trust their competence and alignment with your values!
This is actually critically! I love little distros, but it does break my heart that they cannot give the same reassurance on potential malware as Mint would. Many here we are anti-AI but FOSS could benefit a lot from it… it can automatized checking for malware on peanuts. DistroWatch, Flatpak store, Debian backports, etc should be using AI already across the board to check for malware and that would level dramatically the plain field for all.
I love little distros, but it does break my heart that they cannot give the same reassurance on potential malware as Mint would.
Don’t forget their ability to patch critical security issues in a timely manner.
Weak.
If you’re needing to ask this question then you don’t understand Linux and it’s eco system.
Try and think real hard and you might be able to understand why you are wrong.
I wanted to say Kubuntu but cloud not during the transition to Wayland. A few key features were missing. That required kde 6 to be fixed. At the time the next Kubuntu version were a LTS release so it was not going to include kde 6. Only solution were to choose something else that offered that but still were not bleeding edge. Fedora were the answer. Kept using since then. Also alogns a little better with my value of how things should be done like not so bloated , no snaps fight and BTRFs for backup.
It all comes down to the repositories after all. Different distros have different update cycles and policies.
Oh, also some distros apply a little bit different graphics and customisation on the default setup.
After that, it is all the same. Distro choice does matter, but to the common user/newcomer is basically irrelevant.
why distro hop?
Fun waste of time, good way to learn how to setup a Linux system by doing that repeatedly.
why don’t you use Ubuntu then?
It’s a good system, go ahead with it. I don’t like very much their customisations, but it is cool system after all.
why don’t you recommend Archlinux to a newcomer?
He will have to read through a few guides and webpages in order to get a working system, compared to reading a single webpage which explains how to flash any other distro on a usb and be done with it.
why don’t you use Kali Linux as a server?
The advantage of Kali is that it is designed to live in ram and everything you do is destroyed when you switch off the computer, this is a bit of a pain in the ass if you want to run a server.
why don’t you use Batocera or SteamOS as your daily driver?
Don’t even know what those are, but pretty much because I don’t care: the system I have is good and I know there’s little difference between distros.
why do you trust a community distro more than a corporate distro?
They’re for different purposes (mainly). Redhat provides tech support. Canonical, well I don’t know what canonical does. If you want good support for maybe a large installation with many computers, paying for red hat may very well be worth it.
I think this kind of supports his argument though, kali would make a bad server by its design. Whereas you followed that point by saying there isnt much difference in distros.
I think its just that they are designed to take some of the leg work out of set up in most instances and in others they are designed for specific uses that conflict with other uses.
Distro choice does matter, but to the common user/newcomer is basically irrelevant.
Anything else that should be pointed out?
A new user will be fine with basically anything that isn’t Gentoo or with some very very specific applications.
People who have specific needs will choose a distro which makes the things they need easier. In most cases a newcomer won’t have such specific needs as to have to choose a specific distribution.
designed for specific uses that conflict with other uses.
Don’t see much conflict between uses. You can use any distribution to do anything you’d do with any other.
Do you want a very stable system but rolling release with the latest updates? Not possible. Do you want a system that is flashed on ram but that will be stable with 100% uptime without ever touching it? Not possible. Do you want a super light system with the best DE animations and graphics? Not possible.
Sure those are conflicting uses, but just because you’re choosing among two opposite things.
I see often people say that the distro you are using doesn’t matter.
For certain things it doesn’t. Usually this is brought up in the context of someone wanting to choose between 5 possible valid alternatives to start using Linux, and the advice is “it doesn’t matter, just pick whichever and when something annoys you you might understand the difference”
One can turn any distro into another. And I do not agree with that.
You can disagree all you want, it’s 100% possible, stupid, but possible.
If that was true, why do we even have so many distributions?
Because philosophy matters. You don’t pick a distro because it’s technically superior or because it has features others don’t have (with some exceptions like NixOS). You pick a distro because it’s philosophy speaks to you, be it “I aim to be user friendly” or “I aim to follow KISS”. This is why for the most part distro doesn’t matter for newcomers, because they’re looking at 5 examples of “I aim to be user friendly and…” distros.
- … why distro hop?
Because I want to try something different and see how I feel about it.
- … why don’t you use Ubuntu then?
I did, for a long time, then I decided that building my system up was easier than tearing it down. If I was using Plasma or Gnome I wouldn’t have switched probably.
- … why don’t you recommend Archlinux to a newcomer?
Because Arch philosophy is KISS, meaning you have to build everything from the ground up and you’re expected to understand the steps and read the manual. This is why I believe distros like Manjaro or CachyOS cause issues, they remove the initial hurdle of Arch but don’t change the core philosophy, making them ticking time bombs for people who don’t know their way around Linux.
- … why don’t you use Kali Linux as a server?
You do you, my servers don’t usually need all of the extra tools a distro with the philosophy of “I’m a pen tester tool” has.
- … why don’t you use Batocera or SteamOS as your daily driver?
Because usually I want my daily driver to do computer stuff, and those distros philosophy is “I’m a gaming console”
- … why do you trust a community distro more than a corporate distro? (or vice versa)
I don’t trust either more inherently than the other, I trust distros that have a track history of good behavior.
I don’t think that distros only matter to newcomers. Maybe it matters for experienced users even more.
Distros matter, they tell a lot about what you’re trying to accomplish. But most newcomers are debating for days whether they should use Ubuntu, Pop, Mint, Fedora or CachyOS, and realistically they’re unlikely to even understand the difference between those. Think on distros like clothes, if you’re just going to the market it doesn’t matter what clothes you wear, if you’re going to a job interview it matters, and if you’re going to do something very specific like swimming some clothes are simply better than others. But if someone asks you “do clothes matter?” You will probably reply no, because for most stuff you do as long as you’re not wearing clothes with holes in them you’re fine, but you can tell a lot about people by the clothes they decide to wear. It’s a similar thing for distros, for most stuff it doesn’t matter, for certain things it’s important for others it gives some information and for some specific cases it makes a huge difference, but for the most part it’s a personal choice.
One can turn any distro into another. And I do not agree with that.
You can disagree all you want, it’s 100% possible, stupid, but possible.
You misunderstood my disagreement. I’m not saying its not possible, I am disagreeing that his is a valid point as an argument for “the distro does not matter” statement. My bad for not being clear about it.
You pick a distro because it’s philosophy speaks to you … Because I want to try something different and see how I feel about it.
These are not the only reasons, but good reasons WHY the distribution matters. BTW I also think that some distributions are technically superior for certain use cases. In example CachyOS is more up to date, has optimizations even on Kernel level, compared to an old Debian distribution that is focused on stability. These are technical differences that matter, for whatever you want to achieve. It’s not just a personal taste.
I don’t understand why you answer all questions, because not all questions are meant for a single person. I chose many questions that are meant for many different people, just to illustrate some points. They are thetorical questions, like why you don’t use Kali as server.
But most newcomers are debating for days whether they should use Ubuntu, Pop, Mint, Fedora or CachyOS, and realistically they’re unlikely to even understand the difference between those.
If they don’t understand the differences, then they SHOULD research and debate until they do. Choosing a random distribution and hopping until they understand is not only waste of time and resources, it will teach them wrong lessons this way. I for myself researched for months before I landed on Ubuntu in 2008 as the default, to replace Windows XP. Then I kept using it for… I think 15 years straight or so (forgot the exact numbers).
I don’t like the analogy of “clothes” or someone else with “colors”. Distributions are extremely complex and there is way more work and knowledge involved, they have way more impact and dependencies. And to your point if someone asks me “do clothes matter?” i will say “off course”. Not just to contradict you, but because I think clothes do matter depending on how they fit to me, to the situation I am and how nice it feels, how it looks and so on. Even on practical side, if it rains or if I want to swim. While I don’t like this clothes analogy, I still wanted answer that question you assumed I would say “no”.
Just because it does not matter for most, does not mean that it does not matter at all. They don’t know it does not matter. I think there are choices better suited to them, even if they don’t know and say it does not matter - it does, they just don’t know it yet.
After the first year fully immersed in Linux, I would say most would agree with that statement “One can turn any distro into another”, at least in what matters to them.
To any newcomer I recommend to choose the environment (The tendency is for the tech-minded that come from Windows is to choose KDE, less tech-minded or straightforward thinking choose Cinnamon and exclusive Mac and Android users tend to choose Gnome).
The second thing to select is your stand on Stability vs Cutting edge. The rest of features are far, far less relevant and you can easily fine tune to your like and these is what people mean with that above statement (even the environment and stability could be customized too but most would not be able to do it).At the end, the distro is a choice where you pick the first two parameters and the exact distro you pick is more based in convenience and/or philosophical criteria.
My case: I played with 5 environments and KDE is my cup of tea. Then, I choose a distro in the middle of the road with updates (OpenSuse Tumbleweed) and while extremely happy two updates within 8 months gave me two hiccups (nothing mayor) but I decided I needed more Stability. While I consider Fedora to be the “best” distro by just a hairline, since it has the most resources, but philosophically I am against due to IBM being its main backer, not to mention, US may cause problems “exporting” in a near future… yes you can fork, but you still being dependent in the main source for a while, not to mention supporting IBMś aims. So I am Debian (MX Linux actually) all the way now. However, I recommend to most Mint (for the most conservative) and TuxedoOS (for those looking for a more contemporary look) to most people I encounter.
The rest of distros, or are just niche (for instance Deepin and Kylin cater for Chinese language, Cachy for gamers, etc) or are distros with far less resources to do it properly, but I passionately applaud their existence since they all are contributing with the good cause.
Who says that?
I think recommending archlinux as a first distro is fine if the person is so inclined. (CS students)
Who says that?
You with your next sentence.
if the person is so inclined
That means it does not fit everyone. So you agree with me, that the distribution matters. As long as there are reasons to choose one over another, it matters.
learn to read
Doesn’t matter if you come with that attitude.
If the distros didn’t matter nobody would have strong preference. Instead there are Distro wars raging for years now, with plenty of casualties.
For me the preference came from reliability. I tried many distros and they never worked well. They either had bugs or didn’t work the way I wanted to. When I finally found what suits me, you can be damn sure I will tell everyone who listens that its the best distro on the whole planet… FOR ME. But I will gladly recommend it as well 😊
I think the combo hardware + kind of person can create many unique preferences… almost distro-count amounts of preferences 😀
Distro wars?
Most I see is “my Debian system is very stable” Vs “I can setup arch in 5 seconds while blindfolded”.
Doesn’t look to me like a vim Vs Emacs case.
Yeah its not that bad, was an overexageration.
I’m just gonna say that Fedora has completely solved my distro hopping, for me it has the right balance between cutting edge and stability.
It’s been years since I changed distros
Exactly the same for me. Fedora is goat.
Just like your “opponents” are over-generalising, you’re deliberately picking the most extreme examples to make your argument. (Batocera as a daily driver - you know that’s what Hanna Montana Linux is for!)
My Linux axioms are: for most new users…
- choice of DE is most noticeable and decides whether they like their initial experience.
- choice of base distro family does matter a lot in the long run (Debian-based vs. Arch-based vs. Redhat-based); if you stay inside the same family (e.g. Pop!OS vs. Ubuntu vs. Zorin vs. Mint), choice matters a lot less (and DE is most impactful, c.f. point one).
- choosing a distro with specialised security hardening (immutable systems, Nix, Qubes, Bazzite) does matter; most of these will make new users unhappy or even question their sanity.
Where you are right: yes, the choices embedded within these three axioms do matter a lot and are noticeable, so it is helpful to have an experienced user recommend a distro to you when starting out.
Where the “distro don’t matter” people are right: there are a lot less choices to be made than meets the eye. Effectively, it can be boiled down to three.
choosing a distro with specialised security hardening (immutable systems, Nix, Qubes, Bazzite) does matter; most of these will make new users unhappy or even question their sanity.
Out of curiosity, as someone who’s never used Bazzite/other uBlue/SilverBlue/etc, what makes it difficult for new users? I definitely agree with Nix and Qubes though (and SecureBlue to some extent).
There’s a ton of added friction when doing things outside the basic ‘install Flatpak app’. Security generally comes at the price of being difficult to use.
For new users it also means virtually every guide or there on fixing an issue or installing extra software won’t apply.
If you install home brew 90% of the issues go away.
The problem is that most Linux software assumes it can do whatever it wants, and immutable distros do not let you write to the system files.
This creates confusion, because you see a guide for Fedora and it said
dnf install xyz, but dnf doesn’t work. The solution is to add it to your image tree (no) or to create a toolbox with that package (complicated, requires setup, gets complicated if your tool needs access to Wayland for clipboard or something).Bazzite solves this by using brew, which is a package manager built for macOS which has had immutable systems for years. Brew solves most of the issues.
For me by the time I went immutable it just made more sense to go full declarative with nix, but nix is also a steeper learning curve.
Basically, anything that isn’t packaged as a flatpak needs to be installed from the CLI using distrobox containers, which will go over the heads of the majority of new users.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to bonk the immutable Stans over the head with this logic, but it never works. They install bazzite, play their game of choice on steam and occasionally use their web browser and “ALL NEW USERS MUST USE BAZZITE ITS SO EASY”
Any distro is easy when you use it like a fucking Sony PlayStation.
Lol, but so true.
Not Arch or NixOS lol
Can’t you use homebrew?
You can and it works very well now
I have zero experience with that. 😄
FWIW, uBlue has been brewing for almost three years now for their CLI stuff: see this issue tracker and this blogpost from Bluefin’s creator.
The distrobox workflow overall has mostly been superseded by better alternatives[1]. Though, for completeness’ sake, openSUSE’s atomic offering continues to heavily rely on Distrobox. But, in their defense, I think their atomic offerings are simply better[2] suited for it.
There’s sysext with its (WIP) manager, Brew Tap to tap into homebrew casks and some peeps even use coldbrew. And last, but definitely not least,
nixsupport has improved over the years. And if you just want to usednf, RakuOS’ innovative hybrid design allows just that; an image-based core you can’t touch (like the other ‘immutables’), butdnfworks and is applied through a persistent overlay. ↩︎Fedora’s container images are tied to its major release versions. Hence, every 7-13 months you’re required to set them up from scratch if you’d like to continue using them 😅. Even if this process can be streamlined, it’s IMO very cumbersome regardless. In openSUSE’s case, the containers are based on Tumbleweed. Which, has a rolling release cadence. Hence, it was meant to be used indefinitely. ↩︎
Thank you very much for the detailed and well-sourced write-up! I’ve saved it for later when I get to drill down on this.
It kind of proves OP’s point though: distros do come with a lot of idiosyncrasies of “how things are done around these parts”.
Thank you very much for the detailed and well-sourced write-up!
It has been my pleasure 😊. I really appreciate your kind words 🤍.
It kind of proves OP’s point though: distros do come with a lot of idiosyncrasies of “how things are done around these parts”.
Absolutely. But, I think it’s nuanced and the lines are becoming increasingly blurry. If something based on Fedora can become something based on Arch (and vice-versa), if almost any distro has multiple releases/channels/braches, if software for/from any distro can be installed on every other distro, then… at what point is it truly “around these parts” rather than “with those not-hardcoded system specifications”? Kinda like how DEs can be (un)installed, and how those come with implications on how some stuff is done…
Not the one you asked, but I think the answer lies in the bold part:
most of these will make new users unhappy or even question their sanity.
For example, I can’t imagine any of the uBlue projects causing major difficulties. Though, edge cases do exist; adding kernel mods can still be a bitch, even if there are efforts to improve this.
There is another point, which makes this discussion very variable. Also the choice matters or does not matter a lot, depending on the person, expectations and what is being done. This is probably the biggest reason why we don’t agree on simplifications like these. And BTW, just because the examples I gave are extreme does not make them wrong in any way. They are just easy for illustrating my points I’m making.
If someone is coming from Windows, does not care much about trust and just want something that runs a browser, doesn’t care about community or technicalities, then yes it does not matter if the person chooses Ubuntu or Mint. On the other hand, if someone doesn’t like corporations, has strong opinions about standards and is a developer, then the choice suddenly matters a lot more.
While it is theoretically true that you can turn one distro into another, in practice it’s not worth it. It’s the same thing as trying to sell someone on “you never need to reboot to apply updates or fix things.” Ye, technically true, but unless you’re maintaining huge corporate servers where downtime is measured in dollars, 9 times out of 10, it’s just easier to reboot and see if it fixes the issue. And yes, it will often still fix the issue.
The reason for distro hopping etc is because picking a distro is essentially choosing your defaults/ideology/character alignment. There are no wrong answers. Just go with what feels right. Newbies should distro hop to see how they align, experienced users should do it for fun and to see if a different way suits them better.
We should be herding beginners towards beginner friendly distros so they don’t run into a cliff of a learning curve, but which specific one is basically arbitrary.
As for your other examples: Don’t let your dreams be dreams. You can 100% use batocera as server if you like, it’s entirely possible. You’re just going to have to dedicate a shitload of time coercing into a server shape… but nothing’s stopping you
If that was true, why do we even have so many distributions?
Don’t ignore the fact that part of the reason there are so many distributions, desktops, window managers, etc etc is because a large number of skilled coders have outsized egos
Why egos? Maybe they are having fun doing it? :)
