I feel like I'm missing out by not distro-hopping

ULS, 1 year ago

Just install windows.

tkk13909, 1 year ago

Why?

ULS, 1 year ago

Sarcasm.

walthervonstolzing, 1 year ago

Dinsdale?

ULS, 1 year ago

Wrong number? This is Gandolf of The Shire.

therealjcdenton, 1 year ago

Don’t. Arch, Ubuntu, Debian, OpenSUSE, and Fedora are used in the exact same way. Pick one of them and then trf different desktop environments, if you want you can download the configurations for distro from their source code

therealjcdenton, 1 year ago

The only distro that is unique off the top of my head is NixOS since you use it and think about it backwards

maxprime, 1 year ago

Can somebody ELI5 what the difference between Linux distros is? I’m ashamed to admit I don’t truly understand, aside from different package managers and DEs but even then there are only a handful of those.

NateSwift, 1 year ago

As far as I’m aware the only real difference is what repositories are available and what the default settings/programs/etc are

superfes, 1 year ago

It’s mostly just package management, you can install as many DEs as you want on just about every distro.

You’re not stuck with whatever default DE any distro uses.

maxprime, 1 year ago

Yeah but don’t Debian and Ubuntu (for example) use the same package manager?

Dran_Arcana, 1 year ago (edited 8 months ago)

Yes but they use different repositories with different maintainers. Think of a package manager like steam, epic, etc, except instead of games it’s everything. Some package managers get different applications, some have different versions of the same applications. In the case of Debian/Ubuntu it’s more like steam in China vs steam in the rest of the world. Same steam, different games, different maintainers of who decides what games get to go in which steam.

maxprime, 1 year ago

Oh, so if you install software with apt, you might get a different version based on the different maintainer/distribution?

I always figured you’d just get the latest version of the software.

Are there instances of software packages available for one distro but not another?

Dran_Arcana, 1 year ago

Generally end-user applications like Firefox would be the latest/same version, but system libraries might be a few versions different. Generally security patches are written for a few major versions of libraries/daemons at the same time. So features might be different but it’s all the same security for the most part.

That’s the major draw between one distro to another, they will have different philosophies on what to include, and what major version to use. Debian for example is much more reluctant to upgrade something unless there’s a large demand for a new feature. The theory is it is more stable and consistent to use that way.

Ubuntu on the other hand features much more modern versions of libraries because they want to be more hip and modern, expecting users to learn new things more often because they think the new features are worth it and they want to support all the things.

dan, 1 year ago

Ubuntu on the other hand features much more modern versions of libraries because they want to be more hip and modern

You can use the “testing” release of Debian if you want newer stuff. It’s still more stable than rolling distros. Packages have to be in the “unstable” release for 10 days with no major bugs to get promoted to testing.

CrabAndBroom, 1 year ago

It can sort of depend on the distro, there are a lot of Debian-based ones such as Debian (obviously), Kali, Ubuntu, and then ones based on Ubuntu like Mint and Pop!OS, those all largely work the same under the hood, ie you’d use .deb files and something like sudo apt-get install to install something.

Then there are Arch-based ones like Arch and Manjaro, which are a bit more different, you’d use pacman or yay or paru to install things instead, and they have things like the AUR, which is a big user-maintained repository or software that has just about everything on it.

Then you have the Fedora based ones and SUSE based ones, which are different again in other ways. And some more unique and weirder ones like NixOS which is having a bit of a moment, whereby you sort of configure the entire system in one single config file and rebuild it each time (as I understand it, that might be a bit off 'cause I’m still learning.)

So yeah it sort of depends. And then you have desktop environments like GNOME and KDE which aren’t distros, but do affect how the whole system looks (and functions, to an extent.) And these are largely agnostic of the underlying distro, so you could have say a machine running Debian with GNOME next to a machine running NixOS with GNOME which would look very similar from the desktop but would be hugely different under the hood, and two machines running Arch, one with GNOME and one with KDE which would look totally different but be functionally the same.

I won’t even start on Display Managers lol.

pixelscript, 1 year ago (edited 8 months ago)

The way I understand it is like this:

The grand theory of classic package managers is the idea that lots of programs all need the same core libraries to function. An analogy would be like noticing most construction jobs need nails. So instead of making everyone bring their own copy of nails, resulting in dozens of redundant copies of it lying around, they have a single nails package that everyone can use.

But there are different versions of nails out there. Each version picks up unique new features, and drops legacy ones. Recent builds may incorporate and thus require the new features, making them incompatible with old versions of nails that don’t have them. On the other hand, some builds may still use and rely on legacy features of nails, and are thus incompatible with the new versions. You may run into a scenario where you want Software A that needs nails version 14+, but also Software B that can only run on nails v <13, and you just can’t, because they don’t overlap.

Additionally, there may just be a totally different competing package out there, screws, that does largely the same job as nails, but in a completely different way that is totally incompatible with projects that expect nails. So if you need Software C that relies on nails, but also Software D that relies on screws, you might cause problems by installing both.

What a distro is is essentially a group of devs declaring that they are putting together some specific list of libraries (like, say, nails v14), and then sculpting up a bundle of software around those specific libraries. Can’t cope with nails v14? That sucks. No package for you, then.

In that sense, distros are differentiated by what libraries and other low-level system softwares are available to the programs you wish to install on them. If you want your program to be available natively on every distro, it needs to be compatible with every competing set of libraries each distro has elected to use.

It is possible to just say “fuck it” to the distro’s built-in libraries, and instead bundling the specific version of nails or screws or whatever you project needs directly with it. Build your own with blackjack and hookers, as it were. That’s exactly what Flatpak does, among others. But it’s trading flexibility for redundancy. In the age of cheap and plentiful storage memory, many people think this trade is well worth it. But it makes many formalists cringe.

xarexyouxmadx, 1 year ago

Honestly. I don’t think you’re missing much. It’s not like if you go to a different distro suddenly you’re going to have all these new applications you can’t get on mint or anything.

I started with mint and played around with other distros (mostly Debian/Ubuntu & Arch based ones) and I ended up settling on an Ubuntu based distro with kde desktop.

Using something like Arch might make sense if your PC is super new as they tend to have support for the newest hardware.

At most you might want to try a different desktop environment but if you have no reason to hop I would say don’t waste your time unless you’re bored and want to experiment just for the hell of it.

there’s a site that will let you play around with different distros/desktop environments over the Web (it’s going to be slow and you can’t use a VPN when connecting) but that might be a good choice before going through the trouble of downloading a distro, flashing to USB and possibly installing it on your PC/laptop just to find out you hate it.

xarexyouxmadx, 1 year ago

Btw I’d still use mint…I only switched away because I wasn’t a big fan of how much it looked like windows and how green everything was. Lol. But I was still a noob at the time and hadn’t fully comprehended how customizable Linux distros are. I could’ve changed a lot with the appearance if I knew what I was doing

Molten_Moron, 1 year ago

how green everything was

Lol, first thing I did was change my keyboard to the same green as the desktop.

ipsirc, 1 year ago

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/efe7969e-e264-4f63-97c8-69bfbea51e7f.jpeg

sag, 1 year ago

5

Shady_Shiroe, 1 year ago

When I started using Linux I distro hopped a few times before finding mint, now I have been stuck on mint for a few years, but I still dream of hopping again.

When I was hopping I was in high school, so I had time, now I got to work and hopping takes too much time and effort to set everything up again. If I had a second pc or a laptop I would do it.

dan, 1 year ago

now I got to work and hopping takes too much time and effort to set everything up again.

This is the same reason I haven’t switched to Linux again even though I want to. Limited free time.

I also switched to playing games on a console for the same reason. I don’t have to worry about system specs or driver issues or anything like that… I can just launch the game and play it.

JustEnoughDucks, 1 year ago

If it aint broke, don’t fix it.

I have used arch on this same install since 2019, before that, 2016. (Just because I wanted to get my old system back ASAP and was comfortable with the process)

If I had to do it over, I would test out openSUSE tumbleweeb or endeavor, but if you have your system that works and you like it, there is absolutely nothing to gain by switching.

If you just want to explore or do it as a hobby, use an old SSD and test out different configs on a seperate drive (you can pick up a 128 or 240GB SSD for like $25) but the only differences are package managers and DE.

TheFriendlyArtificer, 1 year ago (edited 8 months ago)

I used to think that I wanted to distro hop. Turns out that what I wanted was a bare bones OS that gave me the freedom to rice in strange and unnatural ways.

After 25(!) years of battling X11, dependency hells, and the early days of desktop compositing, I finally realized that what I wanted was Arch, and a few window managers to play with. SwayWM, and now Hyprland.

Unless you have some niche needs (real-time audio encoding) or want to play with more esoteric experiments (Nix, OSTree, etc), distro hopping is overkill.

But most distros have homogenized to the point to where all you need is knowledge about systemd to go from one to the other.

Just pick your favorite, non-snap distro and hack on it.

cmlael67, 1 year ago

I try different distros just out of curiosity. I’ve used several that look promising, but there always seems to be some little thing I end up not liking. I usually end up going back to Zorin, which to me feels a lot like Mint. If Mint works well for you, use it. While many Linux users tend to distro-hop quite a bit, if you just want a computer that works for what you need it to do, stick with what does that for you.

LunaCtld, 1 year ago

Own story (skip to the “—” if not interested):

Don’t worry yourself. If Mint works for you and you don’t have a good reason to switch. Just stay.

I started out with Mint as well. Switched from Cinnamon to Mate early on because I wanted to run a fancy compositor called Compiznand stay on that for like 2 years.

I still had a lot of free time, so I got “bored” by everything being so low maintenance compared to Windows 8. I checked out Arch and ran it for a bit with KDE 4 I think.

At some point I got a proper PC (was a crappy Laptop before) and wanted to Continue running KDE, so I chose KUbuntu because of that. I ran into some issues and a brick when upgrading that I couldn’t solve, so I went back to a rolling release distro to not need to worry about major updates again. I went with Manjaro as I thought it would be more stable than Arch (I didn’t have a problem with Arch, just craved max stability in general then).

In the meantime I since learned that Manjaro and Arch are about equally as stable from problems I needed solve and me sometimes running Arch on my old laptop when out.

I have been on Manjaro for about 7 years now (never re-installed), love it, KDE and don’t care about all the political stuff. I don’t care that people hate on Manjaro, never encountered a problem I couldn’t solve and will happily continue to use the distro until it breaks on me.

---

You can use whatever you like. Distro hopping can be fun, but is also a burdon and might prevent you from making your PC your home.

I wouldn’t switch especially for political stuff. Just use what you like. If you don’t wanna miss out, just watch some YT Videos of people testing out Distros/DEs or run some in virtual machienes. If you have a secondary device, you can also do hopping on that.

---

I hope this can help somewhat. Use whatever you like, don’t fret about political stuff. I used to kinda distro hop (not really) and now couldn’t care less about it.

You can easily check out other Distros using VMs, Docker Containers or even rented Servers for the most part.

If you have the time and are truely interested in Distro hopping (or just testing out a new DE) just go for it though. Just don’t let others dictate what you run.

TeddE, 1 year ago (edited 8 months ago)

Let’s start simple: You should consider hoping from Linux Mint to LMDE if you haven’t already.

As a user, you have no obligation to participate in the politics between the Ubuntu and the Mint Development team, but if you’ve followed the controversy and agree that Ubuntu is being a bully, this would be a small yet material way to show support.

what am I missing?

Every Linux distribution has a purpose - a reason its author thought it was worth the effort of creating it. Some are grand, others are silly, etc. When you explore distros, you’re telling the community which ideas resonate with you. Popular ideas will replicate, unpopular ideas will be abandoned.

Also, switching distributions makes it harder for business to ‘capture’ the Linux demographic. The mere act of switching occasionally means that tools to import/export/manage your data stay relevant. This literally fights enshitification.

Finally, and this is a matter of personal taste, but I like trying different versions of Linux for the same reason I try different flavors of ice cream: It’s fun; and even if now and then I get a bad flavor, I feel enriched by the experience.

(Edit: it’s to its)

mvirts, 1 year ago

Nothing, unless you’re not using nixos, then everything 😹

Rossphorus, 1 year ago (edited 8 months ago)

I was surviving with Ubuntu, I had my complaints but I figured ‘that’s just how it is’ on Linux, that it was the same everywhere. I didn’t even realise what I was missing until I switched.

I got a hardware upgrade at one point, so in order to get those new drivers ASAP I tried an Arch-based distro, with plans to switch back once drivers became available. I never moved back.

The two big reasons I stayed was ironically enough the lack of good Ubuntu documentation, and the PPA system. Ubuntu is used a lot, but there’s not really formal documentation anywhere, only random tutorials online (most likely out of date and never updated) and people on forums talking about their problems. By contrast the Arch wiki is the gold standard of Linux documentation, there’s just no comparison. Even on Ubuntu I found myself using it as a reference from time to time.

Regarding PPAs, the official Ubuntu package list is strangely small so if you’re like me and find yourself needing other software, even mainstream software like Docker, you’ll be faffing about with PPAs. So if you want to install Docker, instead of typing sudo apt install dockerYou instead have to type:

<span style="color:#323232;"># Add Docker's official GPG key: 
</span><span style="color:#323232;">sudo apt-get update 
</span><span style="color:#323232;">sudo apt-get install ca-certificates curl gnupg 
</span><span style="color:#323232;">sudo install -m 0755 -d /etc/apt/keyrings 
</span><span style="color:#323232;">curl -fsSL https://download.docker.com/linux/ubuntu/gpg | sudo gpg --dearmor -o /etc/apt/keyrings/docker.gpg 
</span><span style="color:#323232;">sudo chmod a+r /etc/apt/keyrings/docker.gpg 
</span><span style="color:#323232;"># Add the repository to Apt sources: 
</span><span style="color:#323232;">echo  "deb [arch=$(dpkg --print-architecture) signed-by=/etc/apt/keyrings/docker.gpg] https://download.docker.com/linux/ubuntu  $(. /etc/os-release &amp;&amp; echo "$VERSION_CODENAME") stable" |  sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/docker.list > /dev/null sudo apt-get update
</span>

These are the official install instructions, by the way. This is intended behaviour. The end user shouldn’t have to deal with all this. This feels right out of the 90’s to me.

Instead of PPAs, Arch has the Arch User Repository (AUR). Holy moly is the AUR way nicer to work with. Granted, we’re not quite comparing apples to apples here since the AUR (typically) builds packages from source, but bear with me. You install an AUR package manager like yay (which comes preinstalled on my flavour of Arch, EndeavourOS). yay can manage both your system and AUR packages. Installing a package (either official or AUR) looks like yay packageNameHere. That’s it. A full system upgrade like sudo apt update; sudo apt upgrade is a single command: yay -Syu, a bit cryptic but much shorter. The AUR is fantastic not just for the ease of use, but for sheer breadth of packages. If you find some random project on github there’s probably an AUR package for it too. Because it builds from source an AUR package is essentially just a fancy build script based on the project’s own build instructions, so they’re super easy to make, which means there’s a lot of them.

You might argue ‘but building from source might fail! Packages are more reliable!’, which is somewhat true. Sometimes AUR builds can fail (very rarely in my experience), but so can PPAs. Because PPAs are often made to share one random package they can become out of date easily if their maintainer forgets or simply stops updating it. By contrast AUR packages can be marked out of date by users to notify the maintainer, and/or the maintainer role can be moved to someone else if they go silent. If a PPA goes silent there’s nothing you can do. Also, since an AUR package is just a fancy build script you can edit the build script yourself and get it working until the package gets an update, too. PPAs by comparison are just a black box - it’s broken until it gets updated.

Moral of the story? Don’t be afraid to just give something a go. Mint will always be waiting for you if you don’t like it.

not_amm, 1 year ago

I used to “virtual distro hop” because I tried a lot of distros in VMs before dualbooting. I installed Tumbleweed and haven’t changed ever since.

I don’t regret keeping my distro, I’ve been curious, of course, but I think i already have it all:

• Stability
• The newest updates
• I know my system very well
• By knowing my system, I can fix most problems and I know where to go if I can’t.

I sometimes try distros in VMs, but with that and Distrobox I think I already have everything I could need to learn and try them in case I need to work with them in the future :)

lemmyreader, 1 year ago

Arch Linux, rolling Linux distribution, would give you the newest stable software, with probably new application features, but you can use distrobox, podman-toolbox, VirtualBox, KVM (QEMU) or a live Linux cd image to play with Arch Linux every now and then, without having to install it :)