Windows is hell, i need to do something
Windows is hell, i need to do something
Yo linux team, i would love some advice.
I’m pretty mad at windows, 11 keeps getting worse and worse and I pretty done with Bill’s fetishes about bing and ai. Who knows where’s cortana right now…
Anyway, I heard about this new company called Linux and I’m open to try new stuff. I’m a simple guy and just need some basic stuff:
- graphic stuff: affinity, canva, corel, gimp etc.. (no adobe anymore, please don’t ask.)
- 3d modelling and render: blender, rhino, cinema, keyshot
- video editing: davinci
- some little coding in Dart/flutter (i use VS code, I don’t know if this is good or bad)
- a working file explorer (can’t believe i have to say this)
- NO FUCKIN ADS
- NO MF STUPID ASS DISGUSTING ADVERTISING
The tricky part is the laptop, a zenbook duo pro (i9-10/rtx2060), with double touch screens.
I tried ubuntu several years ago but since it wasn’t ready for my use i never went into different distros and their differences. Now unfortunately, ready or not, I need to switch.
Edit: the linux-company thing is just for triggering people, sorry I didn’t know it was this effective.
You're viewing a single thread.
I'm at the point whe recommending distros fir new comers its Debian, Arch, Fedora and Linux Mint.
Debian is my go to. Stable, I love the apt package manager. Desktop environment is a bit irrelevant with recommendations because you can easily install any desktop environment or window manager. You will figure out what environment you like along the way. Installation is simple, you can do minimal installs as well and it's what many big name distros are based on.
I really like Arch. Minimal, great package manager, AUR extends application availability even when you have flatpaks, snaps and app images and the repo. You can use the archinstall script these days so you don't have to worry about installing the old-fashioned Arch way. It will also teach you what to do when updates fail because it's a rolling release.
If none of those are appealing then I would advise Fedora. Great package manager, get newer packages if package versions are important for you and a solid distribution that is the upstream for Red Hat. It's the best of both worlds of Debian and Arch in my opinion.
The last one is Linux Mint. I've found myself avoid recommening forks. This is my exception. I can't say a lot because I haven't used it much. But I've installed it 2x to different family members who never used Linux before and use it and love it. I did it because they are forks and I can give support because I'm familiar with what it's based on and the high recommendation from the online community. It's great for beginners and veterans alike from what I can tell from the online community. Great team of developers.
I would not recommend Arch for beginners. I like it, but it's best for someone a bit familiar with Linux already. Yeah, the install is pretty simple now that Archinstall is a thing, but it's not the method recommended in the Arch Wiki and if there's something wrong with your install and you complain on the Arch Forum they might not be super helpful.
More generally, the mood on the Arch forum and Arch communities at large isn't super beginner friendly, and thay's understandable: In a distro meant to be user friendly and aimed at general user, if the user does what seems natural to them and the system break, the community will feel a responsibility towards them, because the system wasn't stable and user-friendly enough. In a distro primarily aimed at power users and devs, if the user does what seems natural to them and the system breaks, then the user is a fool and should've read the wiki.
Because it is a very fast rolling release, some updates can break stuff. It doesn't happen often, but it can happen at a bad time and be a big problem for someone who doesn't know how to deal with it.
Debian is more stable, and easier if you go with a D.E, but you still have to make several choices during the install, which might be a bit complicated for a beginner who doesn't know what any of these options mean... Tho of course, it's possible to go with all the defaults and it'll be alright.
But my prime recommendation would be Linux Mint.
I will not debate your thoughts on Arch though I personally have more problems on other distros. What I will say is that the EndeavourOS forums are pretty friendly. EOS is Arch for non-elitists.
I agree, they are friendly, but, oh man, EOS forums are a help vampire's paradise, an ocean of beginners with a couple of knowledgeable NPCs. Constant useless noise and back-and-forth everywhere.
EOS is "for intermediate users, and terminal first distro" paraphrasing here, but that's how they describe themselves, and they are a bit dishonest about it IMO. It's "just" Arch+Calamares+forked Artix scripts posing as apps (which are buggy as hell btw).
Generally speaking, I have nothing to really argue against that..but I can only recommend based on how I have learned Linux. I have found myself only enjoying the base distros and not forks because no matter all the time I wasted distro hopping, I felt like I was using the same thing over and over again beyond the package manager or installer.
One thing I would add is, when I used Arch, I avoided the Arch forums...specifically because of what you mentioned. In one way, one should expect that of the Arch forums. If you choose to use a distro that forces you to build the system yourself, you should expect to fix your problems yourself. So the forums I found useless and never posted there. The fact there is even an Arch forum that offers supports, beyond the wiki, I find funny. I would just use the wiki and search engines.
What about popos?
I've never used PopOS. I'm not into forks and it is based on Ubuntu. This isn't to say I think it's bad. I just don't recommend forks. If you want to try PopOS, go for it.