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.
Not really, the vaaaast majority of PC users don't need the linux commandline.
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.
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.
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 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?
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?
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.
Hey there friend! Sorry to hear about your woes. From my understanding in practice, ExFAT is usually better as more of a universally readable storage system for external drives. Think, using the same portable drive between your PS5, friend's mac, and whatever else. Great for large files and backups! Maybe not as much for running your OS from.
My approach and recommendation would be that you don't want OS's seeing each others' important business anyway. Permissions and stuff can get wonky for instance.
So your core Linux install can be something like EXT4 or BTRFS. I like BTRFS personally because you can set up recovery snapshots without taking tons of space. It does require a little extra understanding and tooling though, but it's worth looking into. (There's GUI based BTRFS tools now though. Yay!)
EXT4 is nice and reliable and basic. Not much to say, really! Both can do RAID 1.
Next, a /home mounted separately, this COULD be NTFS if you really wanted that sharing. (BTW there's some Windows drivers that can read EXT4 I think?)
BUT I feel more organized using a different way:
What I do personally is keep an NTFS partition I call something like "DATA" or "MAIN_STORAGE" and I mount this into my /home on Linux. It's usually a separate, chunky 4TB HDD or something.
On Windows this is my D:\ drive, and it's also where I store my project files, media, and whatever else I want easily accessible. Both OSs see those system-agnostic files, but are safely unaware of each other's core system files.
In Linux, you can mount any folder anywhere, really! You can mount it on startup by amending your FSTAB on an existing install or setting the option during installs sometimes.
So the file path looks something like /home/MonkeMischief/DATA/Music
It's treated just like any other folder but it's in fact an entirely separate drive. :)
I hope this was somewhat helpful and not just confusing. In practice, it'll start to make more sense I hope! The important thing is to make sure your stuff is backed up.
... Perhaps to a big chonky brick formatted as ExFAT if you so choose. ;)
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.
I've settled on btrfs a year ago and I'm happy with it. I like the compression and async trim.
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.
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
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.
MintOS is fresh and full of life. It's the freshmaker!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
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).
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.
i concur
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 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!
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.
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.
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
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.
DE is how you interact with everything else on the computer for anyone thats not a 100% terminal hackerman.
a good, simple, easy to use windows-like DE is probably one of the most important things for a new user. Since it will influence how easily they can handle and do anything and everything else.
Its easier to learn if your muscle memory is still similar
- taskbar with apps, aligned to the left
- nearly no workspaces, everything through clicking
- normal Window decorations
- normal start& app menu
- filemanager with features
- firefox, thunderbird, libreoffice, inkscape, xnviewmp, freefilesync, kate, krita, ... all the cross-platform software you can learn before switching
I dont agree at all. I switched from KDE which is basically just the way better Windows 10. Windows 11 looks nice but is incredibly bloated, Windows is rock stable though which I admire. KDE is the exact opposite poorly.
But at the beginning the mix of familiarity and "wow a filemanager with tabs is so cool" made me stay with KDE immediately.
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 would recommend it to gamers but they still dont support it officially outside the steam deck...
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....
- Pacman-based - Arch, Arco, Endeavour
- RPM-based - Fedora, SuSE
- Aptitude-based - Ubuntu, Debian
Choose Pacman for rolling release, bleeding edge. Pick aptitude for servers and pick RPM if you want something that 'just works'.
Desktop....
- Full DE - Gnome, KDE
- Window Manager - Awesome, i3
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 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.
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.
(That's also when I realised my relatives never call me to share good news or to ask about me.)
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.
Voyager for the win!
"Die, Heretic!"
- Jerboa fan
I remember doing that for reddit back in the day. I downloaded a bunch of apps, then picked the one I liked best. Good to see devs doing the same for Lemmy!
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.
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.
Test them out on a virtual machine
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.
Stock Ubuntu is the benchmark […]
…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.
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.
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
I really, really wish that the Tweaks and extensions I use were defaults. I always have to mess around for a bit to make Gnome the way I like it.
Almost makes me go KDE. KDE has a lot of defaults I prefer. That said, having to go find the K version of whatever distro makes me a crazy person too. sighYeah, I get that, and honestly agree. I just like the rest of GNOME, so it's worth it. Plus I've tried KDE before, and it could be a bit finicky. Like, all the options are there, but it weirdly takes longer to get it set up in a way I like, and sometimes I run into issues along the way. With GNOME, yeah, I have to add the extensions, but once they're installed, it's pretty much exactly what I want.
That said, I totally get why someone would love KDE, especially if they like the tinkering and getting things just right. I also check it out every now and then, so maybe one day it'll grow on me. :)
#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.
I use Arch because not only am I into self abuse, I also enjoy being publicly flogged whenever I ask for help, which is never, because anytime I have a problem with it, there's a pretty good chance someone else has asked before me.
If you are a newby FOR GODS SAKE USE UBUNTU.
As an IT professional, I use Ubuntu LTS only because I don't want to spend my time tinkering around with the OS itself.
Basically, it's this comic:
All my hare-brained development ideas are more or less sandboxed in Docker containers. Rarely I need to schlep out to Sourceforge to get the right app for something. Most of the time there's an apt or flatpack thing for what I'm up to, but I do go on a spree purging all that from time to time.
My only complaint is with Nvidia driver support/quality/maintenance, but I get that's not Canonical's fault.
What's wrong with Debian?
Debian's great too. I find big applications tend to officially support Ubuntu tho, which is a big deal.
Unreal & Davinci Resolve come to mind.
I think Mint is great too. Havent actually tried it yet tho. Cant afford the down time to try it yet
I'm a newbie, used a derivative of Ubuntu (xubuntu) since my computer is slow and old as fuck, it ended up somehow breaking my pc into only booting the drive with the Linux install on it and refuse to boot anything else not even live USBs (putting back in my windows drive just shows "success Ubuntu" in the top left corner)
If you think it's bios related please tell me, because I tried to mess with every damn setting related to this (I didn't try resetting the CMOS but I doubt it will do anything)
If anything it probably made me hate Ubuntu based distros in general (couldn't try anything else because the pc is fucked)
If you are a newby FOR GODS SAKE USE UBUNTU.
As someone who only a couple of years ago made the jump to linux. I'd also recommend PopOS super easy to start with.
PopOS is a sure way of getting into ten times more problems than Ubuntu.
Seriously, I know them all. Started with NetBSD in 1991, used pretty much everything.
If your system isn't super weird then Ubuntu is the most relaxed experience you will ever have as a newby.
(And yes, I am not using Ubuntu currently. But then, I hat 35 years of POSIX/Unix/Linux experience)
I've had way more issues with Ubuntu than with Fedora.
Like after multiple updates I was stuck at some initramfs prompt
If you are a newby FOR GODS SAKE USE UBUNTU.
Absolutely! I actually recommend Ubuntu for people used to MacOS, and Zorin (based on Ubuntu) for those used to Windows. Start simple and learn from there.
I'm a long time Linux user 20 years or so and have tried loads of distros in that time. Eventually I got fed up and settled on Mint for quite a few years, but about 6 months ago an old colleague told me about Zorin as he was impressed with how it felt 'proper' from a user perspective. I tried it and actually liked it so much I fully switched to it as my main OS. It's got all the user friendliness for when you just want to use it for work tasks, but still everything else underneath for when you want to experiment etc.
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
Same here! I joined lemmy right around the time my main hdd took a dump--so there was probably a bit of influence coming from here...While scrambling to get another windows installed (and encountering a bunch of obstacles along the way) i finally decided to just try Linux Mint Cinnamon. Tbh, i wasn't sure if my computer was bricked by the time i finally got mint to start up via usb. When it started working, i tried a few basic things--browsing the web, playing music, videos etc. When it all worked with a minimal amount of fuss, i decided it was time to give up windows if i could. Haven't been back to windows since!
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.
Loved your comment, but please, next time use some paragraphs. It was a hard read.
I switched to Arch[-based distros] when I realized I had been getting 90% of my support from the Arch wiki for years
Getting "Linux" support online usually means Ubuntu, but I ran into a Mint problem back in the day (I wanna say about 2014 or so...) And Clem himself replied to me personally with, not just a link to a fix, but an actual "copy and paste this exact thing into the terminal" reply, and it totally fixed me up. Clem being the guy who is in charge of Mint.
Always left me with a warm feeling about Mint, and I keep coming back.
Using LMDE 6 Cinnamon on one of my boxes for that reason.
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.
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).
On the other hand, for someone just learning to use computer (ie. a child), GNOME in it's simplicity would be just great.
I feel like we've all been accustomed to the dumpster fire that is Windows, and selecting a DE that resembles it. GNOME feels and looks more like Android or iOS that have proven to be easy to learn from ground up and it still manages to offer a great desktop experience even if limited in customization many more advanced users want.
That's absolutely true. Windows managed to burn into our minds, that we have to look up how to install every single software.
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
services.xserver.enable = true; services.xserver.displayManager.sddm.enable = true; #enable KDE services.xserver.desktopManager.plasma5.enable = true;And you can just comment out the gnome line
You can get even more fancy and have a boot option for both with specialisations!
specialisation.KDE.configuration = { services.xserver.displayManager.lightdm.enable = false; services.xserver.desktopManager.cinnamon.enable = false; services.xserver.displayManager.sddm.enable = true; services.xserver.desktopManager.plasma5.enable = true; };
But let's not pretend NixOS is in any way beginner friendly.
I do not fear OpenBSD, but FVWM... it scares me.
fvwm95 is nice though...
But for me my secret forbidden love is still AmiFVWM, an FVWM clone with the look of AmigaOS 3.1.
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.
Fair. But "Lukewarm take" just doesn't have the same punch.
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
Try hyprland, learn the shortcuts, and you never want a DE again.
I knew only a MW would reply lol
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.
XFCE 4 Life.
I have an unholy combination of XFCE and Compiz lol.
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've had pretty distros that are basically busted after a package fails to install or video drivers are mucked with.
Ubuntu?
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.
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
I've picked xfce on basically every distro I've used and I've hopped through like 30 distro's.
I start with either xfce or cinnamon for the fam, then install a window manager for me.
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
cinnamon eh?
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)
This doesnt apply to
- KDE
- Cosmic
- Hyprland, Sway, Wayfire
- LXQt getting Wayland support probably
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 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;
most applications on Linux are design / depend on [GNOME's] components
[[citation needed]]
Not my experience at all. I've mostly used KDE, and when I need to use a Gnome/GTK app, it's just not an issue.
I don't like Gnome so I use KDE. also haven't had any issues.
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 remember running DaVinci resolve fine with Fedora ~2yrs ago.
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...
I use i3wm btw
I just installed Kubuntu over my Ubuntu partition because of this meme haha
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.
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.
Agreed, because for most practical purposes there are only two valid distros in the first place (apt-based and pacman-based)
idk man fedora does a lot well these days (i use arch btw)
I use fedora btw
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?
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)
Statistically unlikely, mate
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.
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.
