OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, because it's more up to date than Mint, it's a rolling distro, it works, and in the rare event of a problem it's easy to roll back to a snapshot.
My steam deck uses arch btw, and the main reason I didn't choose arch for my laptop was because I haven't had good experience with pacman. But I'll be honest that I haven't given it much of a chance, so I'd like to learn more. What is it that you like about pacman?
People think it's really challenging and brittle, but everything seems to always work no matter how often I update (or don't) and the wiki is top notch.
I actually chose arch initially because when you go to forums to troubleshoot problems there is always an ubuntu answer and an arch answer, and the arch answer is almost always shorter.
I cannot recommend NixOS enough, it's such a good distribution but on the other hand it's quite tough to learn as it deviates a lot on how distributions do things. It still uses a standard stack (glibc, systemd, GNU tools and all) but the nix tools which include the package manager are totally different from what other distributions offer. It's very solid, yet flexible. It offers a lot of packages by default. I've switched my machines to it because of the advantages.
Arch is great as a rolling release distribution with solid repositories (lots of packages and quite up to date) and it's very close to upstream with a more traditional approach to the distribution tools. In fact there aren't really any apart from the package manager by default. I feel this is one of the most comfortable distributions if you want to learn how a classic Linux system is structured. I ran Arch for about 15 years and didn't really have anything to complain about and I learned more about Linux there than with Ubuntu and Debian.
Please note that neither of these are what one would consider beginner-friendly distributions.
Tried it for the first time last week. I was hesitant because I'm forced into SLES for work, and I fucking hate it. But thats because all of the default configs for all packages are overly secure. Like, installing apache required a ton of extra steps to allow HTTP traffic. But I needed to test both HTTP and HTTPS for the feature I was working on, so I needed HTTP.
But overall I have been very happy with Tumbleweed. I like that the packages are more up to date than Ubuntu LTS (what I was using previously), and I haven't had as many driver issues either. Oh, and snapshots are amazing. It already saved me once when I accidentally deleted the wrong config file, I just cp'd it from my last snapshot.
Linux Mint: Debian Edition. After watching a YouTube review I decided to take a break from Arch and give it a try, I'd always like Cinnamon, and I really like this.
Cinnamon, last I tried it, has a bug which causes it to run games with compositing enabled. The setting that's supposed to disable it for games, only works until the next boot.
Ohhh, I'll have to check this out. I've been gradually moving away from Ubuntu toward Debian (w/ GNOME) for a while because Snap is hot garbage and I don't want to have anything to do with it. Were it not for Snap, I still really like Ubuntu.
I have been running OpenSUSE Leap on my home server for 3 years, and I moved from Fedora after many years to OpenSUSE Tumbleweed on both my work and home (gaming) PC. I am super happy!
I try so dang hard not to use Linux Mint because I have been using off and on since 2008 but always come crawling back to it when I run into some esoteric issue on another distro. It just hits the sweet spot of what I understand computing to be. I have desperately tried to use various forms of arch. OpenSUSE, fedora, debian, and a whole host of others and eventually get frustrated for some probably solvable reason and go back to my sweet, my love, my wart covered X11 using, 5.15 running, stale boring life mate Mint.
My main reason is that Debian is a very stable, very popular distro, that isn't a fork of another distro. The fact that it's stable means issues are more rare; the fact that it's popular means when issues do pop up, there are much higher odds that I'll find others who ran into them before; and the fact that it isn't a fork means that I can just prefix "debian" to any search, rather than say having to contend with it being potentially a "debian" issue, or an "ubuntu" issue, or a "mint" issue. In fact, debian is popular enough that most of the time I could just prefix "linux" to a search, rather than "debian".
While there are distros that market themselves on other merits, it seems to me that the main goal of an operating system is to be a stable foundation. I wanted to pick something that would let me have a good time with i3; Debian seems one of the most straightforward choices. I considered arch, but in the end Debian seems like the lower-effort option.
agree.
you mention debian and arch. I have also tried both of them.
the problem with arch (rolling distribution) is that you are forever updating and you never know what exactly has changed in the system and you have to look.
You can still have so much experience and solve problems, but they always cost time. all this from a daily user perspective is crap.
from a security point of view, new software can contain security loopholes just like old software.
i'd rather have a stable base where i can easily keep an eye on changes than daily updates.
I'm the wrong one to ask because every time I try something else, I end up returning to Fedora.
But what you switch to depends on why you want to switch:
Want to learn more about how Linux works? Install Arch the Arch Way, or try out Void.
Want a different DE? Well, you've got Fedora Spins if that's your main goal, but KDE Neon lets you try out the latest stable KDE stuff, which is fun!
Looking for a rolling distro but don't want the extra complexity of Arch's minimalist philosophy? OpenSuse Tumbleweed is fantastic.
Do you really want to dig deep and have total control of your system? Look into Gentoo or Linux From Scratch.
I've done most of these and more, and I'm happy to recommend something more specific, but I can't without knowing what you're looking for.
If you don't know what you're looking for, and just want to do something different, then do what I do when the distrohopping bug strikes: check out several distros' websites, pick a couple that appeal to you, then research those a little deeper, maybe rum them on a virtual machine for a bit. If you find one you like, back up your critical data and go for it!
I'm currently trying out Garuda on my gaming Desktop, and a already kind of want to ho back to my safe space after two weeks. Don't get me wrong, I totally see why folks like it, but it's not for me.
Everyone immediately want you to use their distribution of choice. However no-one can really answer this unless you include more information about yourself and your Linux experience, objectives, what kind of tinkering you're comfortable with, what you expectations are, etc.
EndeavourOS, it just works really well and never breaks. The only time I had an issue was when I was using the Zen kernel and it locked up installing league of legends and watching a YouTube video at the same time. Using the mainline kernel though gives me no issues.
I wanted to like Guix very much, but eventually found it extremely inflexible. You will miss a lot of packages that are not trivial to create in Scheme yourself. Also a lot of packages have issues that no one wants to fix, or it takes half a year (e.g. being able to use NetworkManager for an eduroam/university wifi connection).
It's also not possible to just compile a package yourself because the directory structure is totally different.
I don't think Guix will ever become more flexible, I've given up on it
No, the two aren't alike at all. The only parallel is maybe in terms of growth and popularity. I've noticed that NixOS is quickly gaining popularity among a lot of long-time Linux users, maybe in a similar fashion to how Arch did, but for completely different reasons. They aren't alike at all.
i like fedora a lot, but its updates got a little too far ahead for me. So i recently switched to debian 12, and with flatpaks and their more-current mesa components, everything is working on my desktop as well as it was before, especially games on steam (flatpak) and in bottles.
The biggest selling point for Fedora IMO is the way it handles UEFI and Secure Boot. I haven't found anything comparable. Securing the proprietary garbage running on your main board is critical regardless of your OS.
Can you elaborate or point me to some resources? I'd like to hear more about this because I've wondered for a while what to do about Secure Boot on my machine.
Linux Mint Cinnamon. Seriously, it's the best. Fast, light, Ubuntu based, stable, good looking, full featured. All the power of Ubuntu without the downsides (snaps, heavy, slow etc)
EndeavourOS is good, I was frequently using arch wiki on other distros so it's handy to have it actually apply accurately to my distro. AUR is super handy as well.
I could use regular Arch, but I appreciate the simplified installation.
I use btrfs actually as well, but mainly just for compression/deduplication. I've been meaning to get snapshots set up but haven't gotten around to it yet.
I need to settle on one for a bit. I like Fedora for it’s edge stability and embracing newer secure technology. But, I will be shifting to Debian 12 or Ubuntu LTS because I need to get real work done. I like Pop and Mint, but they don’t have secure boot which I desire.
I’ll probably enjoy arch when I get the time to play with it more.
You can have secureboot on mint. On mobile but I'll search up a link when at desk. It's not terribly hard given Mint is derived from Ubuntu. Should come up in a search if you're impatient
For now, it's Debian 12 with KDE Plasma. But I'm really interested in Immutable Systems. I like OpenSuse Kapla, but the KDE Integration is still in alpha. There are still a few shortcomings with the only flatpak approach, like the fact that the Steam Flatpak can't provide smooth wireless controller support because of lacking permissions.
I've found success installing Steam and other stuff using distrobox on openSUSE Kalpa. The initial setup isn't as easy as installing a flatpak, but after a quick distrobox-export it's totally seamless.
I've been switching between Arch and Debian for the past 5ish years. I don't really notice much of a difference, other than Arch has updates much more often than Debian Testing usually does. I like how meta-packages in Arch are more minimal than the ones in Debian, but that's a very minor thing.
Love that list. I am also old. I used SLS, Slackware, and stuff with the .99.x release numbers I switched to Red Hat around 4.1 I think and went to Mandrake from there. And then…
I built Arch (twice I think) but only ever in a VM to have a look around, never made it my daily driver. Used Manjaro for a couple of weeks, but I wouldn't say it was a daily driver either.
Linux Mint. Seriously, seriously good. Very fast, very light, looks amazing, has full access to all Ubuntu apps, runs Flatpak, is stable and solid. Sane defaults across the system.
For me it's tumbleweed at the moment it's defaults like btrfs and snapper are how I used to setup fedora. Then there's the tools like OBS and yast that are super useful it's rolling but well tested before it gets to you
I've been having a good time with Arch for the last 6 months or so and don't plan on switching. My luck with updating frequently has been excellent and everything runs smoothly.
If you are a KDE user or are interested in it, I've been running KDE Neon for a few months and don't plan on changing any time soon. Stable release, Ubuntu LTS based without the forced snaps (though snaps are in the repos if you want them), comes with the standard Ubuntu LTS repos and flatpak installed out of the box, with the one difference there being that it will update to the latest stable version of KDE software as it's released. Basically a de-snapped Kubuntu LTS with all the latest KDE stuff. Works great for me.
Manjaro with KDE. I've only been running Linux for a month, and found Arch a bit intimidating, so to me Manjaro was the closest I dare fly to the sun. Really liking it so far.
I used to love Manjaro. It seems great when you use it. Word of warning though, it will break on you at some point. When it does, instead of abandoning Arch distros completely, consider giving EndeavourOS a shot.
Thanks for the tips, and the heads up. EndeavourOS was on my list when I tried to figure out what to go for, so I'll definitely try that when Manjaro breaks.
Used Arch for over 5 years. I don't know if having a child changed me but I realised I'd lost a lot of time I had that I spent just fiddling with configs to get stufftpo my liking so went from Arch xmonad to PopOs and Gnome.
It has been stable and doesn't have the snap bullshit that comes with Ubuntu.
Documentation is not enough good for me to care and I hate when there are multiple ways to do things, I still did not understand how I should install programs on NixOS
Fedora (with Plasma) and I don't plan on moving to another distro until something tangible happens. Switching my distro based on hypothetical situations would keep me from ever staying on any distro for very long.
That being said if I had to use another distro, I feel like I'd try out Debian stable, while using Flatpaks and Distrobox to get up-to-date software. That feels like it would be a good approximation of the excellent middleground that Fedora has.
Whats a good way to start with nixos? Are there default configs to start from?
Everytime I go to the site to try I postpone for some reason, but mainly apprehension of deviating too mudh from debian base which has been my most used distros.
And how recommended is it to have nix package manager in popos or any debian based?
You could run a VM and plan to setup one service on it as an exercise. NixOS wiki is pretty ok in general, but it is a useful skill to read the code of the modules you use. Flakes are poorly documented and also controversial. So I wouldn't hop on that yet.
Nah, it's more of a "when it's ready" type thing. You can see updates on their blog but by the looks, it'll be another 6 months or so before a real release candidate is ready.
Arch on my main pc, and Ubuntu on my server, only reason it's Ubuntu is I needed 6.2 kernel for my Intel arc encoding card and debian based for the arrs
I use Debian with kde and its been great. Went from debian 11 to debian 12 without reinstall and then use void and devuan on my other computers and arch mobile on pinephone.
I'm pretty happy on Ultramarine. Its like Fedora but with more repos by default, media drivers, more DE options, and a bunch of more reasonable defaults for daily all-purpose use.
I've been running the same install for about four years. The same install has been in four different PC's now (I just rip the drives out of the old PC and install them in the new PC), and it's never once missed a beat.