What do you think about this?

It's just clickbait like most of his videos, I never really liked Chriss' videos, the tip of the iceberg was when he told people to disable kernel mitigation for a presumable performance boost (I tested it with disconnected network, it was like 2% on my machine), which is just plain dumb.

Use whatever distro you like, just know that you don't have to distrohop for some program (DE or WM or whatever). I personally use endeavour, simply because I've used arch (and derivatives) for a while now and endeavour is just arch with sensible defaults and a lot of the configuration one would do anyway already done.

yeah i guess this one didnt scream clickbait as much as the other videos of his. I got some in my feed afterwards and quickly realised that this guy doesnt shy away from using clickbait titles.

What is DE or WM? Is it actually that easy to change distro? Dont you have to basically install everything again from scratch? I read somewhere that you can seperate your directories on your SSD so that you can just change the kernel but i dont know how easy or true that is
- DE is desktop environment (like gnome, kde, xfce,...) And WM is window manager (like i3, sway, xmonad,...) Which is just a slim version of a de, they usually don't include things like guis for settings, file managers, ... and you just pick what you like and use that. The window manager is responsible for placing the windows in your workspace and most standalone wms are tiling, so they use your monitor space efficiently instead of putting floating windows all over the place. Basically the DE (or WM) is what you interact with most on your PC and a lot of beginners distrohop just to use a different DE when in reality you can just install the other de on your existing system, log out and select the new DE in your login screen.
  
  The biggest differences between distros nowadays are their release cycles and their package managers (and the tepos they're using, like Ubuntu and Debian both use apt, but have separate repos)
  
  And no you can't really change distro without reinstalling, you can change kernels tho, every distro will update their kernels from time to time and it's just a matter of install the new package and reboot into the new kernel.
  
  With separate directories you probably mean partitions, which I'd also say it's advisable to have your /home partition separated from your / partition. That way if you ever have to reinstall or want to change distro you can just install into the root partition and afterwards add your old/home partition to /etc/fstab and keep all you're user data and configuration
While I admit most of my arch reinstalls are mostly the same,I feel that archinstall script is genuinely good now with most defaults I need. The rest I can just add it in the installer extra packages or chroot post install (which is offered as a choice at the end).

I just could never bring myself to use distros that are technically the same distro with calamares slapped in top and whatnot. I mean 'pacman -S {packages}' is straightforward enough for me.

Imo, Chris Titus should just stop making Linux content... His windows content is genuinely useful, yet his Linux content boils down to "arch and debian good, ye old packages good, Wayland not ready, snaps/flatpaks/everything else sucks, Gnome bad, gnome bad (again), fedora bad... He's the literal definition of a gatekeeper.

Weird, I agree with most of those points.
- Cool

While I find that I agree with his takes like, 55% of the time, I do agree that Debian and Arch are basically the S-tier distros. So many of the other ones are basically just opinionated Debian or Arch, and while those can be useful when you’re getting started, I’ve found that for the long haul you’re better off just figuring out how to configure the base distribution with the elements of the opinionated ones that you like rather than use those distros themselves. Also, RIP CentOS. I would have put that in a high tier before the RHELmageddon (not top tier mind you, but it had a well defined use case and was great for that purpose).

I've been using Arch for years and can't pull myself away because everything just works. Whats the difference between arch and whatever the derivatives are? I don't even know what distros to arch are the Ubuntu / mint to debian
- EndeavourOS is easy-mode Arch. You get a liveboot with XFCE and a graphical installer with quite some choices, from a wide selection of desktop environments and window managers to the init system and filesystem. You get pacman and yay, with the AUR preconfigured.
  
  Manjaro is the easiest way to break Arch. It has its own repos which are just Arch but 2 weeks behind. This causes problems when (not saying if) you add the AUR, which is not 2 weeks behind but in sync with Arch main repos. Thus causing breakages due to migrations not happening at the same time.
  
  Garuda is not as widely used as Endeavour and Manjaro, but from those who've used it, I've only heard good things.
  
  I am using EndeavourOS Sway Community Edition. Was nice to have a starting point for my first pure WM and my first Arch install. The Sway Community Edition is looking for maintainers but I am a bit disappointed by some things in upstream Sway and am not sure I want to stick with it long-term yet. Might try Hyprland at some point.
Ah ok i gues si can understand it makes sense that if you really wanna learn linux you gotta be ready to get your hands dirty aka figuring out how to configure the distribution. Maybe its just very overwhelming because a beginner doesnt even know what you can / can't configure. But probably everything
- Yeah basically all a "distribution" is is a selection of software and configurations, and they distribute (hence the name) that software and configurations as a bundle. It definitely can be daunting to learn all of this at once as a newcomer, but on the other side of that coin I've seen many people begin their Linux journey on a "beginner friendly" distribution who come to see that distro's configs as default and need to unlearn/relearn many habits as they progress through their journey. I think, too, that often people who are immersed in the Linux world don't have a great perspective on what is/isn't confusing for a new user and often end up obfuscating things with other things that are just as complicated, if not more.

The video is clickbait and a few of the distros are in categories just for dramatic effect. I personally share Chris's criteria for "pointless" distros however, and I hope that his main "clickbait motive" was trying to stop people from hopping around from gimmick distro to gimmick distro when the real magic has always been with the Debian/Arch base underneath the hood. I don't care to give Chris the attention he wants so I'd rather answer your questions instead of talk about the video directly:

I agree that Debian and Arch are "S-tier" distros. Not that they're better than everything else for every usecase but they are very high quality community-run distros with large package bases, and they accomplish their mission statements with ease. If you're a Linux power user for long enough you may eventually settle into one of these two distros because they give you a lot of room to mold your configuration without being opinionated by downstream distro maintainers.

Linux Mint is very good, and it's probably the only "fork distro" that I recommend people use because it makes Debian/Ubuntu very simple and usable for new users, and it's done so for many years with a great track record. I currently run Debian Stable but if you put a gun to my head and said "you can only run Linux Mint from now on" I'd be fine with it. Specifically, I prefer the LMDE edition but the normal version is good too.

You can run cutting-edge gaming stuff on Debian Stable and Linux Mint by using Flatpak Lutris/Steam, which uses its own cutting-edge Mesa package instead of the system's, and you can also install a cutting-edge kernel on these stable distros by using Debian backports or e.g. XanMod. I prefer using stable distros like Debian Stable and pulling cutting-edge versions of your important packages through Flatpak or other means, which gives you a "stable base and rolling top".

I think the general usecase for Arch has diminished from half a decade ago due to Flatpak's popularity, and IMO a stable base setup makes more sense if you can get everything important that you need from Flatpaks. With Arch, not only are the programs you care about bleeding-edge, everything is bleeding-edge, and you may end up with annoying bugs from packages you didn't even know existed.

If you want a more modern version of the Linux desktop without the bleeding-edge of Arch I think OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is a great cutting-edge distro. They have extensive automatic testing that ensures high system stability even while living near the edge of package freshness. The main downside is OpenSUSE's smaller package base compared to Debian/Arch-based distros.

thanks for the explanations. I only used Ubuntu like 5 years ago and since then never again. From what i understand flatpak is a linux command to install applications. Ubuntu uses apt / apt-get (whatever the difference is there). Why does this guy shit on apt so much? I dont know whats wrong with it and why is flatpak so good?
- Flatpak is like an alternative packaging system that exists outside of your distro's normal packaging model, e.g. apt/dnf/pacman etc. The killer features are that Flatpaks work on any distro with a single universal package, and that the software versions will be cutting-edge without needing cutting-edge system dependencies. Flatpaks run in their own dependency network and generally don't rely on anything from the host system - this means that you can have arbitrary software on your machine that your distro/repo maintainers don't need to compile/quality-control/stability-test/etc. It also comes with an easy sandboxing framework out of the box as a bonus.
  
  In my case I usually use Flatpaks to get more current versions of software without totally messing up Debian's "Debian does not break" stability model - Debian is meticulously maintained so that its "Stable" branch only has ultra-stable versions of software, at the expense of those packages being older and frozen. If you use a distro with smaller package repos (e.g. OpenSUSE/Fedora/etc) you'll probably appreciate finding Flatpak versions of software that you'd normally need to manually compile.
  
  Flatpaks are cool, and they have a specific use. They're not the end-all be-all of packaging and they're (hopefully) not going to replace apt/dnf/pacman. As for why they hate apt I have no idea. apt is good, and you can even make it a little nicer by installing nala and using that instead of apt.
  
  If the basis of this thread is that you're digging for distro recommendations I'd personally steer you towards Linux Mint and OpenSUSE Tumbleweed for their ease of use. Debian is a little more difficult to set up than Linux Mint but not tremendously so. Arch is more of an "intermediate" difficulty distro where the main challenge is that your system packages are fast-moving and can break/change in small ways from day-to-day. If you aren't comfortable with Linux you might get frustrated with minor bugs that you don't know how to troubleshoot. Conversely, if you want to learn Linux then dealing with Arch's shenanigans will help expose you to various parts of the system naturally.

when this was originally posted, it got a lot of flack because Linux users were unhappy Chris Titus dares to use both Linux AND Windows
as @bbbhitz pointed out, “Pointless” was probably a poor choice of words, but Chris’ definition for that tier was basically “distros that install a couple stock packages and give it a new name”
as for the Devil tier
- RedHat for closing their source
- CentOS Stream because it’s not CentOS
- Fedora guilt by association (they are actually a separate entity from their founder RedHat)
- Ubuntu because snaps
for Debian and Arch, not only are they good distros on their own, but they’ve each also become parents (and grandparents) to a huge number of offshoots
for gaming
- for beginners, Linux Mint is a really popular place to start just in general
- for the more experienced, options like Nobara or customizing SteamOS

Fedora is a separate entity with RedHat employment as a prerequisite for some of the key leadership roles. It's ran and designed to feed into RedHat.

I love Fedora, heck I like RHEL too, but they have gone from my top recommendation for enterprise solutions to me having to research whether their offering is even FOSS and constant concern that a EULA will put us in legal jeopardy for treating our FOSS product choices like FOSS.
- Red Hat created Fedora specifically to be the “community” distro. There used to just be Red Hat which tried to be both free and paid. Now they have Fedora and RHEL.
  
  Red Hat releases all their own software as GPL. They are one of the few players releasing new and important GPL software. As you state, they employ and pay people to spend most of their time building an emphatically free and community based distro. I cannot think of a company that does more for Open Source.
as a noob, why are snaps so bad? Thanks for the bullet points btw, it cleared a bunch of stuff up :)
- Linux Experiment released a whole video this morning comparing packaging formats
  
  the main issue with snaps is (generally) not the snaps themselves or the snap daemon, it’s that the Snap Store itself is closed source
  
  a combination of rampant enshittification of online platforms, losing faith in Canonical’s direction, and lack of transparency into ranking/promotion/filtering of apps in the Snap Store (there’s already been a few claims that they’ve replaced an already installed native app with a snap package 🤷 )
In time, I've come to realise that people that complain about snaps are not worth listening to.

99% of the complainers of snaps don't understand their full use case, they are an invaluable resource for servers and embedded systems, snaps support features that flatpak never will do.
- The thing is Snaps are pushed on the desktop, and the server world already uses containers like Docker, so there isn't much Snap does that's truly unique and useful.

Downvoted for clickbait title. Do better.

In my opinion what hes saying is true, but has to be taken with a grain of salt. The choice of the word "pointless" is a little harsh but i understand what he means. They are only derivatives that dont accomplish anything that the distro they forked cant accomplish, ergo they are useless because you could make Ubuntu on debian.
As for why debian and arch are the best, they are the two most well established community maintained distros. That means they have the most people working on them, the most support out there on the internet when you encounter issues, they tend to be the most stable, AND they have no corporate backing which can be seen as "evil" by some people (like Chris in this video).