Why does nobody here ever recommend Fedora to noobs?
I have tried Linux as a DD on and off for years but about a year ago I decided to commit to it no matter the cost. First with Mint, then Ubuntu and a few others sprinkled in briefly. Both are "mainstream" "beginner friendly" distros, right? I don't want anything too advanced, right?
Well, ubuntu recently updated and it broke my second monitor (Ubuntu detected it but the monitor had "no signal"). After trying to fix it for a week, I decided to wipe it and reinstall. No luck. I tried a few other distros that had the same issue and I started to wonder if it was a hardware issue but I tried a Windows PC and the monitor worked no problem.
Finally, just to see what would happen I tried a distro very very different than what I'm used to: Fedora (Kinoite). And not only did everything "just work" flawlessly, but it's so much faster and more polished than I ever knew Linux to be!
Credit where it's due, a lot of the polish is due to KDE plasma. I'd never strayed from Gnome because I'm not an expert and people recommend GNOME to Linux newbies because it's "simple" and "customizable" but WOW is KDE SO MUCH SIMPLER AND STILL CUSTOMIZEABLE. Gnome is only "simple" in that it doesn't allow you to do much via the GUI. With Fedora Kinode I think I needed to use the terminal maybe once during setup? With other distros I was constantly needed to use the terminal (yes its helped me learn Linux but that curve is STEEP).
The atomic updates are fantastic too. I have not crashed once in the two weeks of setup whereas before I would have a crash maybe 1-2 times per week.
I am FULLY prepared for the responses demanding to know what I did to make it crash and telling me how I was using it wrong blah blah blah but let me tell you, if you are experienced with Windows but want to learn Linux and getting frustrated by all the "beginner" distros that get recommended, do yourself a favor and try Fedora Kinoite!
edit: i am DYING at the number of "you're using it wrong" comments here. never change people.
requires a fair bit of post-installation configuration (suboptimal OOTB experience for newbies)
I'm not the biggest fan of Gnome's defaults but the regular, non-techie users want a browser (maybe Chrome instead of Firefox, depending on preference) and possibly Steam for gaming. Both are on Flathub, available from Gnome Software.
Less software availability compared to Ubuntu or Mint
The software that isn't available, isn't of interest to newbie/non-techie users.
More likely to break than Ubuntu or Mint
If anything causes breakage, it's those web tutorials telling inexperienced users to add a bunch of PPAs to do shit. "So you use Ubuntu but video playback is a big laggy on your super new, hardly upstream-supported Radeon graphics card? Easy, add this PPA with untested git snapshots of Mesa and Kernel." Yeah, no.
requires a fair bit of post-installation configuration
This is crazy to me because of all the distros I've tested over the years Fedora Kinote is by FAR the one I've had to do the least amount of tweaking with. It's almost boring how "just works" it is. It's honestly changed my perspective of what a distro can be.
Wait until you try out bazzite for gaming or just the regular kinoite ublue images. Both are basically kinoite with more tweaks and added software on top.
Uses btrfs by default but comes with no snapshots or GUI manager pre-configured for system restore
False on Fedora Atomic.
Less software availability compared to Ubuntu or Mint
Distrobox and Nix exists.
More likely to break than Ubuntu or Mint
Mint, perhaps. For Ubuntu, this was only true in the past. And only if PPAs were used sparingly. But Snaps have been a disaster for them in this case. So much so, that even Valve told Ubuntu users to use the Flatpak for Steam instead of the Snap.
A crash 1-2 times a week sounds very strange no matter what Linux distro you're using. I would suggest testing your RAM right away, it could be a hardware problem.
Yeah that’s not a distro’s fault that’s something wrong. I run several machines with a variety of distros and nothing crashes ever, unless I’m testing partially working software.
If you did a full memtest and it came out good then OK.
I'm just saying don't discount hardware issues. Bad RAM blocks are notoriously hard to diagnose by use alone because there's not just one symptom you can point at, and they can manifest themselves wildly differently on different apps and different OS depending how large the blocks are and how they are spread.
Luckily there's a very simple and straightforward test you can make to put it out of your mind.
Curiously that's not as accurate as you might think. Different systems use memory differently, even just between different Ubuntu flavors or customizations. 1-2 crashes a week is not normal, unless it was consistently happening when you did something specific. Also, what exactly do you mean by crashing? Did you get a black screen with some error or the computer would just freeze or reboot?
That being said I don't think this is likely to be a hardware issue. One thing that comes to mind is maybe swap, did you had swap on Ubuntu and do you have swap on Fedora now? If Linux runs out of memory it freezes, having swap prevents it from doing so, so if you have low enough memory it's possible that it would get filled up and freeze your system without swap (Windows has the equivalent by default)
That doesn't mean anything. I once had an issue where every few hours, a random application would crash on Arch Linux, but not on e.g. Debian or Windows. But this wasn't an Arch issue per se, but was instead related to an UEFI overclock setting (which defaulted to on). After turning it off, everything worked fine.
So while it seemed like an Arch issue, it was actually hardware/overclock related, it's just that the other OS wouldn't run into the trigger for the crash.
Crashes aren't normal even in Windows. Rare crashes mean a hardware problem 99.7% of the time. Typically RAM as others have pointed out. The only way to figure that out is 4 passes of Memtest86+ without red. Yes 4 because the the first pass is a short one made to spot obviously bad RAM quickly. Less bad RAM might need more. I've had a case of 4 sticks that each pass on its own. Every two passed on their own. All 4 failed on the third or fourth pass. And if you think I tested for shits and giggles, I did not. I was see checksum errors on my ZFS pool every other day. No crashes. Nevertheless, if it wasn't for ZFS I'd have corrupted files all over my archive.
Yeah that’s not a distro’s fault that’s something wrong. I run several machines with a variety of distros and nothing crashes ever, unless I’m testing partially working software.
People generally recommend Debian-based distributions because they tend to be more popular, have more applications designed first and foremost to work on them, and tend to have the most community support because they are more popular.
This has been my experience. I used Fedora for a while years ago, but rpm was already second fiddle to deb. Plus, I was already selling into my "old man distro" so I kept ending up with some Ubuntu version.
I did recently Manjaro and Linux Mint, but ended up with Ubuntu again, although this time Kubuntu, Ubuntu with KDE!
I've also found that the documentation online is much better, or at least easier to search, with Ubuntu in particular than any other distro. This is probably mostly due to popularity at this point as you said, but I think they got that popularity because of the straight forward and easy to digest documentation. And I'm not just talking about self-help support forums, I mean published and polished wikis and guides hosted by the distro itself.
I've actually tried Zorin and was really impressed! My favorite use of GNOME I've seen for sure. Though it's technically Ubuntu based (which is Debian based).
What do you mean the installer is awful? I have found it quite straightforward. Select the disc, your keyboard setup, timezone and then it install itself..
It caters to a middle ground that barely exists, meaning it doesn't have enough options for a power user and too many for a newcomer.
For example, a newcomer doesn't know what a root account is and doesn't have to care, yet they have to choose if they want to enable or disable the account. They can also remove their administrator privileges without knowing what it means for them. I get asked what a root account is every time somebody around me tries to install Fedora.
I recommend spinning up a Ubuntu 24.04 VM and taking a look at their installer.
They have a clear structure on how to install Ubuntu step by step while Fedora presents you everything at once. They properly hide the advanced stuff and only show it when asked for it. They have clear toggles for third party software right at the installer and explain what they do. Fedora doesn't even give you the option to install H264 codecs or Nvidia drivers.
It also looks a lot cleaner and doesn't overload people with too much info on a single screen. And yet it can still do stuff like automated installing and has active directory integration out of the box, where the Fedora installer miserably fails for a "Workstation" distro.
The Fedora installer works, but it doesn't do much more than that and the others do it better in many areas.
Half of your complains are fixed in newer releases. For instance it asks you if you want to enable third party repos. If you hit yes it enables the repo for chrome, Nvidia and others plus it setups stock flathub.
That only applies to the GNOME variant, the KDE spin is missing the third party repo toggle.
At least the Flathub repo is fixed on the GNOME variant now. The Nvidia repo is added but the driver is not installed, meaning you still need to use the CLI to install the drivers.
Because on Fedora sometimes you are required to use terminal for some stuff like installing nvidia drivers and you dont really want to send a total beginner to Fedora
What were you using the terminal for that now you don't need it? I personally prefer KDE to GNOME as well, and I think lots of it can be related to that and not the distro itself.
I'm a little lost here...when I started using Fedora I was pretty much a complete beginner (used Ubuntu a little bit before but not extensively, only GUI applications) and stuff like this wasn't an issue. Just copy and paste from some online guide. Didn't have to use the terminal frequently either.
Why does nobody here ever recommend Fedora to noobs?
It does happen. It's simply not the popular choice for the following reasons:
Fedora and its predecessors were until relatively recently simply more cumbersome in use compared to Debian and Ubuntu;
There was a time (like at least over 10 years ago) in which package managers didn't necessarily know how to resolve dependencies. However, Debian's package manager at the time did it earlier than the package manager found on Fedora's predecessor. Hence, this was a clear reason to prefer Debian or Ubuntu over Fedora('s predecessor).
Freezing packages and offering stable releases with two years of support (like Debian does), has been and continues to be a very pleasant way to run your Linux OS. That's why, even in the past, Fedora's slower cousin (i.e. CentOS) was very popular (though being RHEL clone didn't hurt either). Fedora, on the other hand, offers a semi-rolling release cycle of 6 months with only 13 months of support since release. With semi-rolling release, I refer to the fact that some packages are frozen and some are not frozen. Hence, you should expect daily updates. Access to the latest and greatest software is great. However, every update is a possible cause/reason for something to bork/break on your system. It's therefore unsurprising that some prefer the predictability found on other distros. Though, for the sake of completeness, one has to mention that Fedora Atomic does a great job at tackling this problem; especially the uBlue projects.
A couple of years back, Fedora switched in quick succession to systemd, Wayland and GTK4. Thankfully, I didn't experience this for myself. But, from what I could gather, it was a mess. Users, perhaps rightfully so, questioned Fedora's decision-making. While Fedora wasn't particular loved, this didn't help to retain new users, nor did it help to cultivate a trusted environment.
Due to the previous reason, Fedora has not particularly been a very popular distro. Hence, troubleshooting your issues through Google is less straightforward compared to Linux Mint or Ubuntu. Additionally, as Fedora's user base has primarily been more experienced users compared to the ones found on Linux Mint or Ubuntu, it's unsurprising to find less discussion on elementary stuff. Simply by virtue of Fedora's user base already being past that.
Fedora, like Debian and openSUSE, offers a relatively bare bones experiences. It does make a lot of sane decisions for you. However, it doesn't focus on being particularly GUI-friendly or newbie-friendly. By contrast, distros like Bazzite, Linux Mint, Manjaro, MX Linux, Nobara, Pop!_OS and Zorin OS (amongst others), do put thought and effort into streamlining the experience as much as they can; especially for newer users.
While Fedora is primarily community-driven, Red Hat's influence is undeniable. As such, people that hate corporate interest and/or Red Hat and/or IBM will favor the use of Arch and Debian.
Having said all of that, I've been using Fedora Atomic for over two years now. Heck, Silverblue was my first distro. And it has been excellent so far. Furthermore, with Bazzite (based on Fedora Atomic) and Nobara (based on Fedora) often mentioned in conversations regarding beginner friendly distros, even if Fedora itself isn't explicitly mentioned, the ecosystem is clearly healthy and will continue to flourish.
Yeah, package manager is a big one. Many of us got burned by rpm's early on and just avoided all rpm-based distros since then.
Of course as you say that hasn't been a problem for over 10 years but the scars haven't gone away.
I'd only recommend Ubuntu to someone if I knew they knew some else using Ubuntu (so I could tell them to hassle that person instead of me when they have problems).
Otherwise, I'd absolutely recommend Fedora, because it's actually up to date unlike Debian. I use it myself because it tends to have the best of what the open source community has to offer while not needing constant tweaking
When the time came to pick which boring old man distro to use, the people who picked and would recommend fedora all got jobs supporting rhel. They don’t have time or energy to devote to computer touching when they get home from their serious business jobs making sure the computer keeps increasing shareholder value.
I do, Fedora is simply the best and meets the most use cases. It combines good privacy and security out of the box with a clean UI (at least with Workstation and KDE spin) while having a package manager that's easy to learn and easy access to Flathub and up-to-date apps (can't stress this enough, even windows and Mac keep apps up to date and don't hold them back for the sake of LTS (sorry Workstation Debian fans). It also brings in newer and better technologies without breaking almost anything (at least for me).
This is just my opinion though, I know people like to reccomend Mint but I personally do not like it, and despise it's desktop options (I am one of the people that do not and never have liked Cinnamon).
I decided the nuclear option using mint with kde plasma 5
Well I did switch to opensuse tumbleweed, liked kde plasma a lot so while setting up weekly backups, I ended up... uh... "overwriting" it and my last external backup was a month old mint backup, so to not set things up again I just install kde on mint and said F it.
Just finished moving all 3 of my computers to Fedora and WOW it is so good compared to ubuntu. I was missing out. Everything is working on both AMD and Nvidia, even wayland.
Newer, less stable packages. I've been on Fedora as a daily driver since 2009 and have had yum updates break things. I do RHEL full-time so I've got the know-how to unravel it, but it's not for the noob / non-technical, at least not at first.
I’ve been on Fedora as a daily driver since 2009 and have had yum updates break things.
Ah yes, when yum was the package manager, you had some breakage. As context for the readers here: dnf replaced yum in 2015, almost a decade ago: https://lwn.net/Articles/640420/
I do RHEL full-time so I’ve got the know-how to unravel it, but it’s not for the noob / non-technical, at least not at first.
Also, "noob / non-technical" users just use Gnome Software and not command line package managers.
Because distros from the Debian family are more popular, any random help article aimed at beginners is likely to assume one of those distros. (If you know how to map from apt to rpm, you're probably not a beginner.) Plus, I don't trust Red Hat, who have a strong influence on Fedora.
(Note that I don't generally recommend my own distro—Gentoo—to newcomers either, unless they have specific needs best served by it.)
Not the original commenter but Red Hat took steps a few months ago to make it harder to make complete bug-for-bug clones of their Enterprise product ( RHEL ). Basically, they stopped providing the exact build instructions and exact patch sets ( SRPMS ) to their competitors. You now have to jump through more hoops to do it ( like Rocky does ) or you have to fork your own Enterprise distribution from CentOS Stream ( like Alma now does ).
You still get everything you always did as a Red Hat subscriber ( even if you do not pay them — they have a free tier ). All the actual software is still Open Source for everybody ( subscriber or not ) and available free in CentOS Stream and Fedora. Red Hat is still one of the biggest contributors across the Linux ecosystem and, ironically, one of the biggest proponents and providers of GPL software in particular.
However, if you are a Red Hat subscriber and you share the RHEL SRPMS, Red Hat may not renew your subscription. That is their big evil move.
Many people did not like this change and the most extreme detractors have accused Red Hat of betraying Open Source or of even trying to take Linux proprietary. In my view, this is totally wrong. Read my second paragraph.
What many people do not seem to understand is that Red Hat founded the Fedora Project and, much later, the CentOS Stream Project explicitly to be open, community distributions so that they ( Red Hat ) could pursue their commercial interests with RHEL without friction from the community. I say people do not understand because some people now say they do not trust Fedora to stay Open when the entire reason it exists is to be that ( as an explicit strategy of Red Hat ).
One of the things that is annoying ( to me ) about Fedora is that it insists on being completely anti-commercial ( avoiding patented codecs for example ). The idea that Fedora is for businesses or will be “taken over” by IBM is silly. Red Hat employees have always been the biggest contributors to Fedora. It has always been Free ( as in freedom ).
The most extreme damage Red Hat may eventually do to Fedora is to stop paying so many people to work on it and the important packages it relies on. That has not happened and probably will not anytime soon ( in my view ).
Red Hat's interests often don't seem to be aligned with those of the average user. The result is that they push for the adoption of software and conventions that make things better for businesses running RHEL, but worse for almost everyone else. This goes back a long way, and makes me question the long-term suitability of any distro Red Hat is involved in for any user who is not paying them for support. It's the pattern that bothers me, not any single event (and yes, part of that pattern does arise from the fact that they're a for-profit corporation).
It's the sort of thing that many people won't really care about, and if the alternative was Microsoft or even Canonical (which is prone to weird fits of NIH and bad monatization ideas), then fine, I would go with Red Hat. Still, I would recommend a community distro above anything that a corporation has its fingers in.
I've been having a tough time with it. Maybe I'm unlucky with my hardware and setup. Spend hours this week recovering from a black screen after upgrading to F40. Issue with Plymouth + Nvidia + Luks at boot. Also getting Nvidia to work on F39, my first install.
Secondary computer (laptop) macbook 2017, keyboard doesn't work with Fedora compared to Linux Mint.
I'd recommend Linux Mint for beginners after my experiences. imho
Thanks for the recommendation, I just installed Bazzite. Had been trialling LMDE but found it frustratingly lacking. No Driver Manager on that edition made NVIDIA drivers a nightmare. Meanwhile that's handled in Bazzite and it has a shortcut to install Moonlight? Awesome.
I think Fedora is solid choice. I will tell you why I do not recommend it to new users myself.
1 - Fedora is very focused on being non-commercial ( see my other comments on its history ). This leads them to avoid useful software like codecs that I think new users will expect out of the box
2a- the support cycle is fairly short and whole release upgrades are required
2b - Fedora is typically an early adopter of new tech. It is not “bleeding edge” but it may be moreso than new users need.
3 - it is does not really target new users like say Mint does though it does target GUI use
4 - I do not use it myself anymore and I do not like to recommend what I do not use. What I do use has a reputation for not being new user appropriate ( not sure I agree ).
Nothing wrong with Fedora though in my view. I would never discourage anybody from trying it.
Fedora is generally liked by the corporate world for testing environments and desktops. As long as people understand that it moves quickly then they are happy. I'm not sure why you think it is anti commercial. The Fedora trademark is owned by Redhat
I wouldn't recommend fedora plain, but the ublue atomic spins are great. Really solid lots of choices (use case, DE, hardware...) personally I use bazzite on the desktop and aurora on the laptop.
I love Fedora. But, part of my day job is also managing linux servers. I tend to recommend things that I think are the easiest to get running. Although Fedora is super easy to get running (at least to me), I find the installation process of mint or pop os to be much easier overall. Between those two OSes, I have moved several people from windows to fulltime linux and I'm not entirely sure that the conversion would have been as successful with fedora and without more help from me during the install process.
I do. Nobara specifically since it has the non-free repos and codecs by default, and a bunch of tweaks for gaming and editing already set up or easily added in the Welcome app.
I would not encourage anyone to join the EL universe as I don't consider it as stable as others.
TLDR; Redhat's being absorbed into IBM and they don't care about RHEL. RHEL (in my view) is dying a slow death. Without RHEL, there is no Fedora or Centos Stream. There'd also be no Rocky or Alma, as things currently stand.
(Although if that happened, I'd not be surprised if the users of Fedora merged with Rocky and Alma in some form of new and fully independent distro - we've already seen how well such disasters can be worked around)
Longer reasoning:
Redhat, in my view, have made some unpredictable and frankly terrible decisions over the past few years with RHEL which have caused a great deal of concern in the business sector about its stability as a product. (Prematurely ending Centos 8 six years early, paywalling the source code, and more recent anti-rebuilder steps. They also treated the community team working for Centos appallingly throughout these leading to many resignations.) Further more, these were communicated without warning or consultation and have sometimes come across as petty and spiteful, rather than as professional business decisions.
IBM bought Redhat shortly before this happened, mostly for its cloud services. It seems from the outside that RHEL is being squeezed. There have been two major rounds of layoffs. In all, this paints a picture of a company that is in decline and we've seen a reduction in contributions to the excellent work done by Redhat in the foss world. IBM have a long history of buying and absorbing companies - I don't see why Redhat would be any different and RHEL doesn't make enough money.
Our company is moving away from EL and I know of several others who are doing so. We're all choosing Debian.
For anybody that does not know, Fedora was founded by Red Hat to be their “community” dostro. Before Fedora, there was only Red Hat Linux and it was trying to be both commercial and community. Red Hat founded Fedora to be an explicitly community distribution and then released the first version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux ( RHEL ). This resolved their commercial / community conflict.
Fedora is explicitly NOT an enterprise distribution. They are annoyingly committed to only free software. They release often and have short release cycles. Fedora is certainly not aimed at enterprises.
Rocky and Alma are RHEL alternatives and are absolutely aimed at the enterprise. Fedora merging with either of these projects would be super surprising indeed. It would make no sense whatsoever.
The “community” enterprise option from Red Hat is not Fedora, it is CentOS Stream. Alma has rebased onto CemtOS Stream ( which is what RHEL is also derived from ). That makes sense.
I have fewer comments on the health or future of RHEL or Red Hat itself or how much IBM. Ares about it. I guess I will say that I have never seen so many ads for it. I think revenues are at record levels. It does not feel like it is dying.
I don’t use Fedora or RHEL but Red Hat is one of the biggest contributors to Open Source. So, I hope this cynical poster is wrong. GCC, Glibc, Systemd, Xorg, Wayland, Mesa,SELinux, Podman, and the kernel would all be massively impacted by less Red Hat funding.
Rocky and Alma are RHEL alternatives and are absolutely aimed at the enterprise. Fedora merging with either of these projects would be super surprising indeed. It would make no sense whatsoever.
It would make a lot of sense to Rocky and Alma though - as if RHEL went there would be a huge vacuum and their models would be impossible. I know there was a lot of talk in both companies when the source was paywalled about building directly from Fedora's sources (Alma may actually be doing that, I'm not sure). Both R & A have significant user bases, both Enterprise and Community, and there would be considerable desire to keep the wheels turning. Some sort of collaboration (or just downstreaming directly from Fedora) feels inevitable as a choice if that were to happen.
The “community” enterprise option from Red Hat is not Fedora, it is CentOS Stream.
Centos Stream is not community by the way - it's entirely owned and run by Redhat (AIUI, They took over the name from its community origins and replaced the board with its own employees. The vote to end traditional Centos (which was community run) was given as an ultimatum with a great deal of bad feeling) Stream's purpose is as an upstream staging area for new releases of RHEL. Redhat state it's not suitable for production use, so it's of no real benefit to anyone that isn't part of that test cycle. (In some defence of Redhat here, Centos was struggling with low resources for a long time before this and point releases often took weeks or even months to appear behind RHEL)
RHEL don't publish sales figures afaik, so they're the only ones who could say whether they're up or down. I'm just one guy who's worked in a mostly EL based world which has been negatively affected by these decisions, so I'm keeping half an eye. I could be completely wrong, but the facts we do know aren't healthy for someone wanting to enter into a business relationship with them, which is what a corporate company does when choosing a supported distro like RHEL.
And yes, I am quite cynical - you're right to point that out. I also hope I'm wrong. If I'm not, I have a lot of confidence that the world will continue with or without RHEL, but yes, it would be a big loss to the FOSS contributions they have made and continue to make - as well as a lot of good people losing their jobs.
I actually agree with you, it would survive. It would change, but it's big enough to have that critical momentum.
Historically Fedora has been suggested as a free way to learn Enterprise Linux skills for a career. RHEL now provide free licences so that doesn't apply. Has this hurt Fedora at all? Probably not and may no longer be relevant.
The problem with Fedora and especially the atomic versions is that when you Google "how to do X on Linux" you pretty much always get information for Ubuntu and Debian derivatives. The atomic versions have it mildly harder because now you also have to learn how immutable distros work, and you can't just make install something from GitHub (not that it's recommended to do so, but if you just want your WiFi to work and that's all you could find, it's your best option).
It's not as bad as it used to be thanks to Flatpak and stuff, but if you're really a complete noob the best experience will be the one you can Google and get a working answer as easily as possible.
Once you're familiar and ready to upgrade then it makes sense to go to other distros like Fedora, Nobara, Bazzite, Kionite and whatnot.
I don't like Ubuntu, I feel like Mint is to Ubuntu what Manjaro is to Arch, Pop_OS is okay when it doesn't uninstall your DE when installing Steam. But I still recommend those 3 to noobs because everyone knows how to get things working on those, and the guides are mostly interchangeable as well. Purely because it's easy to search for help with those. I just tell them when you're tired of the bugs and comfortable enough with Linux then go start distrohopping a bit to find your more permanent home.
if you’re really a complete noob the best experience will be the one you can Google and get a working answer as easily as possible.
Those Ubuntu "as easily as possible" answers on the web often revolve around adding random PPAs which cause breakage over time, especially the more PPAs are mixed and mashed. If anything, those easy answers from random Ubuntu forums and websites, last updated 2014, cause more harm than good.
I’ve actually had someone thumb their nose at linux because of that name. “You mean the hat OS? The one those weird guys use? No thanks.” I’m paraphrasing but ya, that association is there for some people.
I've been running Fedora OStree variants for over two years. I version upgraded and rebased between entirely different spins, rawhide and over to ublue variants then back to fedora mainline. All off the original install, keeping my userspace intact. Never once has it self destructed.
Years ago major upgrades and to lesser degree even minor upgrades made me to give up trying to keep installation running. I don’t even remember if it was Red Hat or Debian.
Eventually I realized, that I like running newest version of Desktop and I ran into cases of getting frustrated with lack of newer versions, which had fixes for issues I ran into. Then I realized that best wiki was not a snapshot distribution.
In the end I tried rolling distribution and remain happy for years.
Debian or derived distribution is easiest to get google help for and it is the simplest choice for me, when running on the cloud.
Although, Alpine is pushing through containers quite forcefully.
Usually people recommend what they use and like. A majority of people is on ubuntu/mint. Hence, they recommend that. I don't like apt and I'd never send someone in the debian world unless they want a server. But nowadays the package manager doesn't matter too much anyway. You should use flatpaks first, and then distrobox, nix, or native (rpm). You won't feel a real difference between major distros because you don't interact with the underlying system too much.
Fedora is perfect for beginners. And especially atomic versions as you said are great for beginners. Atomic versions are not good for tinkerers, so if you send someone who wants to customize his experience heavily, he's going to have a hard time on atomic versions as a beginner. A casual pc user who will edit docs and browse internet prpfits immensely from fedora and atomic version. Fedora has awesome defaults and a new user does not need to care about recent advances in linux because fedora implements them already. Especially ublue improves upon fedora's ecosystem.
Fedora still feels like Redhat sort of to me (I'm old) and I wouldn't have recommended Redhat in 2001 either, I would have told someone to use Mandrake or Suse. Redhat was the "corporate/govt" OS and I know it's changed, but that's why it's usually not the first recommendation that comes to my mind. I still need to adapt.
If you were using Red Hat before Fedora, that makes sense. The Red Hat of old split into two: Fedora and RHEL.
Fedora was founded to be an explicitly community and non-commercial distribution. Then Red Hat released Red Hat Enterprise Linux ( RHEL ) to be an explicitly enterprises focused and commercial distribution.
In recent years, CentOS Stream has been added which is still enterprise focussed but meant to the “community” precursor to RHEL. If anything, the need for CentOS should re-enforce that non-enterprise nature of Fedora.
I find it pretty problematic how Ubuntu is messed up and still used as default distro.
Fedora has issues with always being a bit early. I prefer it a lot over buggy Kubuntu, as I use KDE, but for example now 6.1 is too early and still has bugs, while Plasma 6 was really well tested (with Rawhide, Kinoite beta and Kinoite nightly being available)
Fedora has tons of variants and packages, and COPR is full of stuff. The forums are nice, Discourse is a great tool.
It uses Flatpak, but adds its legally restricted repo by default.
The traditional variants... I think apt is better. I did one dnf system upgrade to F40 and it was pretty messy.
The rpm-ostree atomic desktops are really good, but not complete. For example GRUB is simply not updated at all. This is hopefully fixed with F41.
Or the NVIDIA stuff, or nonfree codecs, which are all issues even more on atomic.
So the product is not really ready to use, while rpmfusion sync issues happen multiple times a year. This is no issue on the atomic variants, but there you need to layer many packages, which causes very slow updates.
I am also not a fan of their "GUI only" way, so you will for example never have useful common CLI tools on the atomic variants, for no reason.
It is pretty completely vanilla, which is very nice.
I always recommend Pop_OS! for beginners. It's IMHO a lot closer to what Ubuntu used to be, uses apt and/or flatpaks (and no snaps), has sane defaults, a good installer, a decent company behind it, nvidia drivers included and their upcoming Cosmic desktop environment looks sick.
Also, I feel like this is a better Fedora-based distro for beginners since it's harder to break:
Yes probably agree on PopOS, even though never used it. Also their DE will need a lot of time, I hipenthey dont ship it too early. I dual boot it, actually the Fedora Atomic image.
Yes, Silverblue is the GNOME Atomic desktop but as I said it is not finished. There are many things not done.
I've recently converted two people from Windows to Linux with Fedora Kinoite. One of them has been using it for maybe two months now without a single issue and the other just started using it with positive first impressions. I find it very modern, simple, and familiar. The atomic system just works too. I enjoy it much more than Mint
I had a similar experience on my laptop. I tried Ubuntu which broke after trying to throw on Nvidia drivers (using the official docs). I tried Mint and Debian, both of which couldn't detect my laptop's wifi card (after hours of trying to fix - apparently a common issue but the fixes did not work for me!). I landed on Fedora, worked great. I'm now on EndeavourOS, but Fedora was the stepping stone I needed.
My desktop I built recently is Bazzite, which is Fedora based and I love it.
There are couple of concerns and how Fedora Workstation is designed for… well, development workstation. There is SELinux, that sometimes gets in a way, now they ditched codecs with loyalties by default, some default configs are a bit controversial and maybe not perfectly suited for home computer and non-tech savvy users, 3rd party packages are sometimes lacking and when you want to go beyond what’s in stock repo and rpmfusion, you can even break the system by installing random COPR packages (I mean AUR is not a whole lot better, but is more complete and less needed given how much there is to stock repos, PPAs are just as bad) or end up compiling stuff manually. But I still think that Fedora can be pretty nice for many people out of the box.
I tried a bunch on distros when I switched to Linux full time. Currently I have OpenSUSE in my laptop but I don’t think that will last too much longer. I’ve been running Fedora on my main machine for months now and it makes a lot of my other distros just feel clunky.
As I run openSuse and plan to introduce it to a few friends who want to switch: where did it go wrong for you? What pitfalls should I be aware of, that I might be blind to by now?
My først linux experience is actually Fedora 39. I was just hooked on how it looks, (Gnome) but I don't know anything under the hood. But I wio recommend it to noons like me, because I know there is a lot of help in the internet, and we all have to start somewhere. And BTW I'm not someone who understands all the technics and coding orstuff.
I have never touched Linux/GNU and I installed Linux after the Microsoft recall and when with standard workstation (GNOME) as a dual boot. After the first two weeks reinstalled fedora over top of windows and haven't looked back.
That was 2 months ago and and having no issues even gaming on my machine works great.
I’m probably going to get downvoted for this but I’m a Linux noob overall…. Windows has historically been what I’ve used. Or Ubuntu. I did distrohop to antixLinux and other really super small distros, but they didn’t fix my problems and I ended up back on relatively bloaty Ubuntu for further testing and sadly it solved bout a third of my problems (the hardware is ancient enterprise shit with a whopping 4gb ram and 16 usb ports)
I’ve been looking for a Debian based system to replace Ubuntu because I’m a noob and Debian-based is super different from the fedora.
I’m sure fedora is great! Tons of people love it! But for a noob is can be really daunting. Especially when most Linux instructions come in three flavors “Ubuntu/debian” and 2 other things. Who knows which two. You, the advanced Linux user, probably know which two but your noob doesn’t. And doesn’t understand the difference.
I’m not a total noob but I prefer Debian because I know a person who gets Debian and can help me. If I knew a fedora user that was actually willing to help me, I’d use that, but I’ve never met one so I’ll stick with what I know.
I haven’t tried those, but I did hop a bit on a bad hard drive. mint was too much (also o just hate it, tbh). Antixlinux was too much and that’s meant to run off a flash drive so the drive was failing, and now it isn’t (new 15 year old drive!!!!!!) and Ubuntu is still a bit too much. But it runs a web browser which is all I need for a bedroom media device. I’d like more, but it’s enough.
But since then I’m seeking a different end goal. I was looking to optimize that old pos, but now if it just runs a browser and runs Plex web, I’m happy because it’s so old I can’t expect it to download for me.. it can do, but not well and I have other machines for that. I tried to use it as a download device but lol, nope, can’t handle that many p2p connections on 4g ram.
But I’ll try those on flash drives and see what they can do for me! Thanks for the recommend!
The distros that everybody builds off of are Debian, Fedora,Arch, and maybe SUSE ( common roots with Fedora but long ago ).
I did not mention Ubuntu as Ubuntu is actually built from Debian but actually Ubuntu is the most popular and is itself used as a base by other distros ( most notably Mint ).
If you are looking for an Ubuntu alternative, Debian is the most similar. However, pure Debian is not as new user friendly.
Arch is considered an advanced distro. I think Fedora and its derivatives are solid choices.
If you are really running on a system with only 4 GB of RAM, I would actually recommend trying out a 32 bit distro. The 32 bit version of AntiX or the 32 bit version of Q4OS with the Trinity desktop are the two I would recommend.
I was recently reminded of Adelie Linux though and have been meaning to try it on an old system myself:
https://www.adelielinux.org/about/
That’s why I don’t swap for fedora. That’s the kind of help you tend to get unless you know someone who knows the distro, so I guess thanks for exemplifying :)
Here's the deal, most people from yesterdays started on Ubuntu or something similar. So, they suggest what worked for them. I just moved my wife away from Windows and straight into Fedora, I haven't had to help her on anything other than once she could not find the printer (it's on another VLAN and she was not connected to it 🙄). She is loving it and just last night told me, and I quote, "I should have changed sooner".
Fedora just works, but another factor may be that Debian and Ubuntu based distros are LTS what le Fedora is more semi-rolling, this helps with stability, thus it makes sense to suggest something with less probability of breaking suddenly than something they may need to roll back.
As for atomic distros, YMMV. I find them sluggish during install, boot and when starting an app for the first time, and in my case, broken after a few updates (would not work on Wayland forcing me to log in over X11).
Curious how your atomic distro broke, since you can rollback and rebase pretty easily after a problematic update. I'm running Bazzite on a 10yo laptop, and it's been great; I even rebased to a completely different DE, then did a rollback when I decided it didn't work for me.
Yeah, I've no idea what happened either, as I'm not that smart, lol. I just tend to move away from stuff that breaks easily. I searched a bit around to see if I found anyone else with this issue, but found nothing even remotely similar.
Could be that my hardware is the issue? I was running it on a Gazelle 16 (System76) with an RTX3050Ti. But Fedora Workstation has always worked flawlessly on it.
I tried it when the first one I tried didn't work out.
Ctrl+C hard locked it instantly every time I pushed it. I could right-click and choose "Copy", but pushing Ctrl-C just froze whatever image was on screen. No response at all after that. Plus it was giving me a headache trying to get Nvidia drivers installed.
So then I moved to Pop since the correct driver was baked in, and it's been mostly smooth since.
Not really. RH provides all the hosting for the Fedora project, pays multiple people to work on it full time, and on top of that, the RPM specs (which are used to actually build packages) are all MIT licensed. It’d be like complaining bluehat steals the Linux kernel by cloning it from a git repo and making/distributing their own version of it, which is exactly what they do.
That is not really the case. They are totally separate with different designs. Also podman is way more performant with less overhead. It also runs per user which is nice for least privilege.
I'm a big fan personally. I an experimenting more with OpenSUSE's distro including microOS but that not because of Fedora but more so I want to recommend options that are easy to scale into FOSS professionally for people too and unfortunately RedHat no longer offers that path for Fedora users.
Nice to hear that recommended! Slackware was the first distro I installed at home, thanks to it being included on a special cover CD from one of the magazines some time in the late 90s? Not touched it for about 20 years but glad to hear it's still going.
i discovered it around the same time, but i forget how. It's been my only daily driver since then. I can fumble my way through a .deb distro if I have to, but slackware is my comfort zone.
You should throw -current up on a distrohop partition and re-live your youth.
Fedora's always run really sluggishly for me on whatever hardware I've tried it on, so I don't recommend it in general because my personal experience with it hasn't been great.
Even ignoring this, I'm not sure I'd recommend it for beginners due to how it tends to jump on the latest hip new software. For some users this is a massive point in Fedora's favour, but I'm not sure how much I'd trust a beginner to, say, maintain a BTRFS filesystem properly. Not to mention the unlikely, but still present, possibility of issues caused by such new software.
Because Ubuntu LTS works very reliably and because there's a huge body of information and large swathes of people who can help on the Internet, and because every project and vendor tests and releases their stuff for Ubuntu/Debian and has documentation for it.
Despite the hate you see around these shores, Ubuntu LTS is among the best if not the best beginner distro. Importantly it scales to any other proficiency level. The skill and knowledge acquired while learning Ubuntu transfers to Debian as well as working professionally with either of them.
Also, with the fuckery RedHat pulls lately, it's a disservice to new users to get them to learn the RedHat ecosystem, unless they plan or need to use it professionally. If I had to bet, I'd bet that the RH ecosystem would be all but deserted by volunteers in the years to come. I bet that as we speak a whole lotta folks donating their time are coming to the conclusion that Debian was right and are abandoning ship.
Ubuntu pulled a blinder many years ago with their LTS model. You get a new one every two years with five years support for each one and a guarantee of moving from one to the next. That gives you quite a lot of time to deal with issues, without requiring you to live in the stoneage.
For example: Apache Guacamole is a webby remote access gateway thingie. It currently requires tomcat9 because TC9->10 is a major breaking change. Ubuntu 22.04 has TC9 and Ubuntu 24.04 has a later version (probably 10). However Ubuntu 22.04 is supported until 2027. So we stick at Ubuntu 22.04 and get security updates etc.
Guacamole is currently at 1.5.5, and the next version will be 1.6.0. The new version will have lots of functionality additions. The devs will then worry about Tomcat editions and the like. Meanwhile Ubuntu will still be supported.
In my opinion the two year release/five year supported model is an absolute belter.
Also, with the fuckery RedHat pulls lately, it’s a disservice to new users to get them to learn the RedHat ecosystem, unless they plan or need to use it professionally.
We and several other companies that I know are migrating away from EL entirely directly because of those Redhat decisions. We can't trust them not to be stupid again.
I run Bazzite, which is Fedora Atomic, that hibernates just fine. In fact, so far it's the only one that does. Arch and Mint both would never come back from sleep.
Been running bazzite for about a month and.ooving it but, for me, it does not wake from sleep ever. Easily the most frustrating thing about switching to Linux so far
That has not been the case anymore for months. We have 3 different Fedora Workstation 40 computers/laptops and 1 Nobara laptop, and they all sleep and hibernate just fine, and wake up just as well.
There was a time when I thought about switching to Fedora when I ditch Windows in 2025, but the frequent release schedule of Fedora has made me worried if those updates risk breaking my setup.
It will break a little but I've never had anything crazy major. If you are worried either run Linux Mint or update to the next version of Fedora a month after release. Also Fedora doesn't ever release releases on time.
I quite often recommend the atomic flavors of Fedora to people and have it set up for a few people (my mother for example).
I think atomic distributions are perfect for tech unsavory people, because they can't really damage anything and it mimics/reproduces lots of the things they are already used from their phones.
I didn't have any problem using Arch Linux which many say is much more newbie unfriendly but I had several problems using Fedora most related to Intel video drivers and I couldn't solve them in any way. The fan of my Intel Nuc started to run on maximum when I opened the browser lol. All drivers were correctly installed
I generally do mention that I like my Fedora KDE, but I'm a little worried about SELinux. I have had two or three run-ins with it, and I think that would be hard to diagnose for a noob.
Generally Fedora's purpose is to make sure nothing gets into redhat (RHEL) Linux. So if there are breaking changes to things, you'll be getting them.
Historically if people had wanted to learn I'd push them towards Ubuntu because its Debian based, meaning familiar enough to most of what runs the modern internet that I could eventually (I'm not a Linux admin) fix.
These days if you just want to use it I'd pick Linux mint, just since they seem to be orienting towards that way. Arch or SUSE based something if you want to learn more about how the packages you install work together. But the choice in distro honestly feels more like an installer and package manager choice than anything. a distro is just a choice of which thousand things to hide in a trenchcoat.
I just ideologically don't like IBM and would rather hand in my bug reports to the volunteer ecosystem.
So if there are breaking changes to things, you’ll be getting them.
No, Fedora has a policy against compatibility breaking updates mid-cycle. That's why Gnome is never updated to a new major release on a Fedora release. You'll have to wait for the next Fedora release to come out for such upgrades.
I didn't mean to imply they'd roll in buggy packages, by virtue of release; just that Fedora's function is typically regression testing for the money making product.
The testing is for the much more marketable enterprise window.
Debian is not afraid to create its own version of default configuration. Take some mail software as example.
Arch on the other hand is most likely just going to ship original application configuration.
Debian might be nice and easy, until configuration change is necessary. Suddenly, original application documentation doesn’t apply. Debian documentation may be obsolete or absent. And that is the beginning of reading all of the configuration files. Normally, it is not a problem until something like email system configuration is necessary.
That’s when Arch philosophy of making fewest changes to software comes to shine. Original documentation usually works and applies well.
I dunno if I'd say any distro of Linux is really beginner friendly.
It takes quite a bit of learning the ins and outs of operating systems before Linux makes sense in any capacity.
If you're just looking to run a few basic apps like discord/slack/teams/zoom, and run a browser, then sure, just about every distro can do that without trouble, and can be configured to be as "friendly" as Windows, with a few exceptions.
But anybody who wants to do intermediate/advanced stuff with little to no prior Linux knowledge? I'm not sure any distro is much easier than others. Again, with a few exceptions.
The exceptions are distros that are almost intentionally difficult to use, or that require a high level of competency with Linux before you can attempt to use it.
There's always a learning curve, that learning curve is pretty much always pretty steep.
I've been using Linux for dedicated servers for a while and I don't use Linux as a desktop environment, in no small part because despite having a fairly high level of competency with Linux, I don't feel like I know enough to make Linux work for me instead of the other way around.
I have always wondered what advance is when ppl say Linux is difficult when you have to do something advance. Isn't that the same for all oses? A os no matter what os (mac, android, Windows, iOS, linux) is difficult to use the first time. It doesn't matter witch os it is everyone will have a hard time the first time until they learn how it works. Mac for example, it was extremely hard for me to find how to get to my root folder without using the terminal and when I told a friend about it who use mac didn't they know either... I found out by accidently by miss clicking.
Android depending on brand (what you had before) can also be annoying to use the first week or weeks until you have relearned.
Linux is the same, it isn't more advance than windows or Mac the first time, it is all about learning how it works (most ppl build their Ikea furniture first and then read the manual) and windows and Linux in that regard is at least kinda similar because they don't hide stuff as mac os does (you still ned a lot of knowledge to use windows too) and they are kinda alike, Mac is completely backwards in my opinion. I think everyone forgets how it was the first year they used a computer for the first time. Ppl laugh when studies shows that the younger generation do not know or do not understand the folder structure. It is all about experience and knowledge, if you know something exist then it is easier to find it.
The biggest problem i had using Linux for the first time was finding good alternatives for programs. And learning these new programs.
You don't have to use a terminal with most distros now days but it is a very nice and fast interface to use. It is also easier for everyone to learn and use because it is less dependent on what kind of environment you are in.
But I think we both are kinda agreeing with each other I just want to point out that all os are difficult the first time and you don't have to make it harder than it is, linux is beginner friendly just like any other os.
Fedora has been my default choice for non-techies in my family the last couple of years and it has been glorious!
All they need is a browser with uBlock, maybe an email reader and LibreOffice. With Silverblue, eveything updates automatically, and upgrades between major versions is a one-click operation. Easy rollback gives me peace of mind.
All they need to know is where the Super key is located on the keyboard. When pressed, it shows the dock with all apps they use and all open windows. Double-tap the Super key and you see all apps, but that is usually not necessary.
I also use the built in remote desktop feature (RDP) in conjunction with a Wireguard connection to my home network. So nice and a joy to never have to fight teamviewer again 😝
Not true at all. For one dnf is very solid which is why many organizations like RHEL. Also Fedora has recent packages but still has stability and is willing to test new ideas. They also are very secure.
I tried it, but Firefox didn't play some videos. As it turns out, it was an issue with non open source codecs. I'm not helping anyone navigate those issues, I'd rather point them out to a ready to go kind of distribution.
I just tell them to google first thing to do after installing Fedora and say "follow the guide except 'fastest mirror' just ignore." Hasn't failed anyone yet, and since I didn't have anyone to help me it is what I did when I was new, except I've learned the fastest mirror part since then, so I pass along that knowledge.
Actually I think I may try and write up a script that'll do all this for them, and make it even easier. I already have like half of it in my "new install" script but they don't need all my packages.
There are several things like that in Fedora, which is already a good reason not to recommend it to first timers. They most likely won't know or care about nonfree codecs, they will just see a broken machine. Linux Mint understands that as a use case and has a "magic make it work" checkbox during install.
That all being said, I run Nobara and love it, but i wouldn't recommend it for new people.
Your second monitor was not broken by Ubuntu. Your second monitor was no longer receiving a signal. The distinction is that the second monitor was functional but not compatible.
Yeah I’m seriously sensing there’s a massive bit of info we haven’t been given. I can’t even conjure up a way that a distro would “break” a monitor lol.
It works with Fedora, Windows and Macintosh. It worked with Ubuntu until a month ago. It doesn't work with a fresh install of Ubuntu with default settings.
There, now you have all the same information I have.
You don't seem to understand the distinction. You monitor isn't "broken." It wasn't rendered inoperable by Ubuntu. It simply wasn't compatible with the way you set it up.
Yeah, it might be easy to install but you are also a beta tester of things that will be in more stable distros two years from now.
But with that said, I love Fedora, but with Gnome. I use Nobara for the gaming simplicity but with the vanilla Gnome spin. I'd recommend it to anyone, most Linux distros these days are pretty user friendly once installed.
Maybe GNOME got more stable... but the non LTS kernels often cause issues, and KDE is currently unstable again (while it worked perfectly on Plasma 6.0)
I'm generally more of a Debian user, when I use Linux at least, so anything red hat based doesn't even occur to me to recommend. I generally don't get involved in distro discussions though.
My main interaction with Linux is Ubuntu server, and that's where my knowledge generally is. I can't really fix issues in redhat, so if someone is using it, I'm mostly lost on how to fix it.
There's enough difference in how redhat works compared to Debian distributions that I would need to do a lot of work to understand what's happening and fix any problems.
When I started learning Linux years ago when I studied IT I was actually taught UNIX but the first Linux distro I was exposed to was Red Hat back in school around 2000. Fedora was derived from that and for a while I was more familiar with that. However with the popularity of Debian and Ubuntu, it seems most of the instructions out there are geared around that so I'm now pretty much just sticking with Debian.
Back when I moved over to linux I wanted to get away from the mainstream. Fedora/Red Hat were too mainstream for me at the time but I have never had any real objections to it. I eventually ended up settling on Debian and ever since then i've stuck with descendants of that distro because having the same toolchains of software as Debian makes transitioning distros slightly easier.
the ubuntu installer has always been the key difference for me specially with zfs and multi-monitor/fractional scaling/nvidia setups that it has configured well over the years where other installers leave you with a lot still to do
Long story short, Fedora is RedHat, RedHat is mostly aimed at companies, so most random users haven't encountered it. I used Fedora for a few months, a Friend of mine was very passionate about it, I personally didn't find anything special about it and disliked rpm at the time, so I ended up switching back to Mint (I think it's what I was using at the time).
So, long story short, people are not recommending it because they're not using it, but I know a few people who use it and swear by it, so it looks like you're on the road to join their club, and don't let anyone tell you you should be using any other distro, as long as you find something that works for you, that's what matters.
That being said have you tried Kubuntu? I feel lots of what you had issues with could be the old GNOME vs KDE argument.
“Fedora is Red Hat, Red Hat is mostly aimed at companies”.
I said this in another comment but Red Hat Linux used to target both the community and commercial interests. Fedora was founded to be an explicitly community distribution that was NOT aimed at companies. Red Hat then created Red Hat Enterprise Linux ( RHEL ) which absolutely targets companies ( for money ). The whole point of founding the Fedora project was for it not to target companies.
Fedora release often, has short support cycles, and is hostile to commercial software. It would be a terrible choice for a business in my view. It is a leading community distribution though.
The top foundational distros that all the others are based on are Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, and Arch ( and maybe SUSE — I am not European ).
In my view, Ubuntu’s best days are behind it. Fedora has never looked so good.
I use one of the other distros above but I used Fedora long ago and it treated me well. I think it is a solid choice. My impression has been that it is gaining in popularity again.
I typically run fedora kde, both server and desktop. I've a laptop using hyprland which is great once you remember all the shortcuts you've setup, but fedora kde is worth its weight.
Fedora has one of the more confusing installers, it requires you to know some technical things such as repos and Flathub to set it up, and package names are different to the standard. It's just not targeted to beginners so why recommend it to beginners? There are better options out there to show them the full power of Linux user friendliness.
@flork I would say the main reason is that the best of Fedora is under the hood, and goes completely unnoticed by the general public. Beginners don't care how and when Wayland, PipeWire, zram or SELinux were implemented.
Other reasons:
- The system requires manual intervention after the initial installation (e.g. RPMFusion)
- Some choices, such as firewalld and Anaconda, are not so good for beginners
- Bad marketing
I can't honestly recall or put my finger on it what I did wrong.
Choose fedora because it used my laptop subwoofer and wasn't a rolling release. I remember each time (x2) reading about how to update the distro and each time my system was completely borked.
I went to debian, read upon alsa, made my subwoofer work with a homegrown script and never looked back.
To this day I am wondering if people recommending redhat are trolls or paid.
Things might have changed, but I personally avoid it. GTK is just as good. If you're a linux newb this might not be good advice, but I'd recommend XFCE if you hate GNOME.
I am not sure what do you mean.
I use fedora with Nvidia (it's a different repo to activate) and my main rig is for gaming...
No problem what so ever.
Using Fedora since 37, what a smooth ride.