All of them except arch. It just strikes the perfect balance between being easy to pick up after a bit of reading and keeping its simplicity. Paired with vanilla gnome its uwu gang. I also looked at manjaro and stayed well clear of that, vanilla is so much simpler as I don’t have to worry about conflicts caused by man jar roe randomly holding back packages for no reason.
I daily drive Fedora, but I’ve used Arch, OpenSUSE, Debian, and more. Once you get used to how Linux works, distro doesn’t really matter that much aside from edge case distros that operate totally differently like Nix. I chose Fedora because I like the dnf package manager.
The only distro I don’t like is Ubuntu. I had to setup a Linux VM at work so I figured Ubuntu would be a good choice for that. Firefox is painfully slow to open because of Snap, so I uninstall it and run “apt install firefox” which Ubuntu overrides and installs the Snap again.
Fuck. That. Deleted the VM and installed Debian instead.
Yeah, over the years they’ve all become largely the same except for package management and the locations of some config files and system binaries (/bin,/sbin,/usr/local/sbin, etc…). Some attempt to be a one size fits all model and contain everything that you’d want, while others give you the bare minimum.
Garuda. I tried it because it’s supposed to be “gamer” oriented. I thought it meant it would make it easier/smoother for gaming. What they actually meant was it felt like being locked inside a gaming PC with flashing and spinning RGB lights everywhere. No fucking thanks.
It’s funny, I was really excited for Ubuntu when it first released, and actually quite enjoyed it. On the other hand, RPM distros seemed like an absolute mess, at that time. Now it’s the exact opposite. At least in regards to Fedora, it’s a very well thought out and maintained distro if you want things to just work, and Ubuntu makes me uncomfortable.
No downvote here my friend. I love arch, but that doesn’t mean it’s for everyone. Plug-and-play distros are great too, they just have different strong points.
Haha, I’ve been daily driving slackware since the late 90s. I like to tinker and install a lot of stuff. I seem to break anything with an automated package manager and dependency resolution.
Nah, I’m just a hobbyist. I’m a n00b compared to all the regulars in the slackware channel on IRC. But I love tinkering and learning. I’d need your help to install vanilla arch, just like you’d probably need mine to get started on slackware. (The slackware install is actually super easy).
I’ve been trying to distrohop the past couple months, see what else is out there. I wasn’t paying attention installing Garuda and borked my EFI partition. I did manage to chroot into my still working slackware partition, but I couldn’t figure out how to re-install grub. So I formatted and did a fresh slackware install.
Arch. Rolling release is too much maintenance and AUR can be a pain. I do like the minimalist approach though.
For those of a similar opinion and aren’t familiar with it, check out Void. Also a minimalist rolling release, but aims for more stable packages so less updating. Decent package selection in their repos as well.
pop!_os That’s what I run for desktop I like flatpak better than snap and it has some other nice enhancement over Ubuntu. For my servers I still use Ubuntu.
Ubuntu, after the third consecutive release that broke previously working hardware. That was a while ago and I haven’t tried it recently, but given snap I’m not really inclined to.
Add comment