I understand the argument being made, but I kind of disagree. Yes, picking a DE in which you’ll be comfortable is really important (and often an undervalued aspect of using Linux for the first time), but I think that the time you need to spend self-maintaining your distro is more important, and is also prone to make-or-break your first-time Linux experience. That’s the most important factor on whether a new user says “I love Linux and want to continue using it” or “I fricking hate Linux, it’s filled with a bunch of problems, I’d rather just use Windows instead”. And that’s why it’s important to recommend beginner-friendly distros, as to avoid frustration of newcomers, because those are more manageable (unless those newcomers want the frustration of managing something that they don’t quite understand :)
Does it matter which one in specific? No, and it’s probably at this point that the DE and visual looks should kick in.
And for new users choosing a distro with big user base (thus having a better support system) should be a top priority. Instead newbies are often advised to use an obscure distro that in theory might be a good fit, but isn’t. Probably those who do the recommendations are Linux testers (using VZ) rather than Linux users and mostly evaluate a distro based on install process and out of the box usage.
Configuring a big distro to your needs is much better than choosing a nishe distro.
All major distributions offer all major Environments. I currently use either Debian or Ubuntu and usually install by booting the Netinstall.iso right from the official Servers which installs just the base system without any GUI at all. Then I use tasksel to select the environment. Ok, not every Environment is part of Tasksel but often it is just adding another Repository and running another apt install operation.
And yes, on my experimental computer I often install a dozen environments just because I can. Selectable at Login-Screen.
But now somethings VERY important from someone with 35 years of POSIX experience:
If you are a newby FOR GODS SAKE USE UBUNTU.
And if you are a pro… Ubuntu still is a very good option. Only if your have VERY GOOD REASONS which you COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, only then use something else. Which is Debian for me.
I used Ubuntu for about 2 years in 2006 to 2008, but have been on Windows since. I like Ubuntu, and looking in to dual booting with Windows now. Should I go for Mint instead of Ubuntu?
You should probably go for mint because of the reasons the other person that replied mentioned, but it’s your choice, go with whichever you like (you may also like zorinos)
Canonical, the company that has been taking care of Ubuntu, has made many bad choices (including Amazon launcher, telemetry, Snap packages…). Linux Mint rises as an alternative because of these bad decisions.
Oh damn, I wasn’t aware. Never using Ubuntu again if they try shit like that. But if Canonical goes under, won’t that effect Mint? I mean if it is based on Ubuntu? (If my understand of it is correct)
I’m a newbie, used a derivative of Ubuntu (xubuntu) since my computer is slow and old as fuck, it ended up somehow breaking my pc into only booting the drive with the Linux install on it and refuse to boot anything else not even live USBs (putting back in my windows drive just shows “success Ubuntu” in the top left corner)
If you think it’s bios related please tell me, because I tried to mess with every damn setting related to this (I didn’t try resetting the CMOS but I doubt it will do anything)
If anything it probably made me hate Ubuntu based distros in general (couldn’t try anything else because the pc is fucked)
Absolutely! I actually recommend Ubuntu for people used to MacOS, and Zorin (based on Ubuntu) for those used to Windows. Start simple and learn from there.
I’m a long time Linux user 20 years or so and have tried loads of distros in that time. Eventually I got fed up and settled on Mint for quite a few years, but about 6 months ago an old colleague told me about Zorin as he was impressed with how it felt ‘proper’ from a user perspective. I tried it and actually liked it so much I fully switched to it as my main OS. It’s got all the user friendliness for when you just want to use it for work tasks, but still everything else underneath for when you want to experiment etc.
I use Arch because not only am I into self abuse, I also enjoy being publicly flogged whenever I ask for help, which is never, because anytime I have a problem with it, there’s a pretty good chance someone else has asked before me.
All my hare-brained development ideas are more or less sandboxed in Docker containers. Rarely I need to schlep out to Sourceforge to get the right app for something. Most of the time there’s an apt or flatpack thing for what I’m up to, but I do go on a spree purging all that from time to time.
My only complaint is with Nvidia driver support/quality/maintenance, but I get that’s not Canonical’s fault.
Give NixOS a try. Imagine never even having the risk of a broken system ever again. Never getting stuck in the TTY because some update bricked to your shit. It’s a nice life on Nix.
Idk, I like NixOS but it’s not problem-free and the worst part about it is that for some problems you won’t have much luck finding help in many places and on top of that the documentation isn’t the greatest. That said I have found less very serious issues, but also because I haven’t messed with it as much as Arch.
I don’t like the nix package manager it updates too slowly, and though a config file for everything is a neat idea, i found that it was kind of clunky for use on a desktop, so i’m back on void (which tbf has way less packages than arch or nix but xbps has everything i personally need)
Are you willing to take a list of my requirements and giving me a functional set of nix / homemanager / flake files that fullfill those requirements? (It’s a long and very particular list) I’ll even pay you 150$ if you can manage to fulfill 100% of the must haves and over 80% of the want haves.
Because last time I tried it took over a week, was buggy (thus compromising about a quarter of the must have requirements) and provided no visible benefit over my current archlinux with a set of custom packages for dotfiles, config backups and bootable btrfs snapshots from my personal experience.
Seems familiar. Did you by any chance also not update the copy of grub in your EFI system partition since you installed it? Then you need to do that and afterwards everything works fine again.
While you are at it add a netboot.xyz EFI entry to fix that kind of stuff without a USB stick or your own network boot server.
linuxmemes
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.