This has been beaten to the ground.
this post was submitted on 22 Nov 2023
58 points (77.9% liked)
Linux
48329 readers
639 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Gentoo because it's what I know, and I know enough to make it do what I want.
Linux Mint Debian Edition for reliability with some user-friendly additions, dual boot with Garuda’s gaming edition because it pretty much sets up everything on its own for that purpose and has the latest updates.
Arch because the packages are recent. Arch has no shiny innovation and even the performance is not that fast, but I always find a way to make everything working. It is the only distro like that for me.
Ubuntu because it requires the least amount of hack fixes to get working.
And snap has vastly simplified software installation.
That is a bold opinion my friend.
Manjaro, because it's rolling release and it's built on Arch, only the necessary stuff is installed (including a desktop environment), you can set it up with just a few clicks, and it works out of the box, and even proprietary GPU drivers are easily installable with mhwd. Stable and reliable.
In case anything breaks, there's quick help on their forum, which (when it happened to me once) outperformed customer support of proprietary software.
It's been my daily driver for almost 8 years without any major issue.
So in short, robustness, rolling release, simplicity, community.
Edit: I have to add, my use case is for a desktop PC for software design/development + a little gaming.
Same here, I used to use Arch but just got tired of constantly tracking down conflicts during upgrades. Manjaro may be hacky but their hacks seem to get things to work smoothly 99% of the time. I install it on computer illiterate relatives and friends because I know it's not going to create a support nightmare for me, and I still get all the software one could want via the AUR.
Hell, I have one cousin that's convinced that he has a Macbook because I set up KDE to look like MacOS. I haven't had to fix anything on that laptop (except printers) since I installed it for him 5 years ago. He just does his updates via Octopi and carries on.
zorin os. most out of box functionaility of any distro I know. its a lazy os and im lazy. just want to install and go.
Fedora Kinoite because it doesnt suck and doesnt break. Actually switched to ublue kinoite main, very close to upstream with minimal changes that always stay the same (its always the same difference, not weirdly diverging more and more from upstream).
But I dont know if it is the best model, as Fedoras BTRFS snapshots + ostree without the image based thing would sound better ? But this is not existing.
Btw Nix, Flatpak, Distrobox/Toolbox, Distrobox/Toolbox with root, Podman, Docker, layering, removal, are all things that work on Fedora Atomic. Maybe even snap if someone is brave enough to try
I don't really have a "better distro" preference -- all distros can be tweaked and optimized equally, with no benefits from one another. And yes, even Ub(l)untu.
That is factually incorrect. I bring to you the one and only - 🇬 🇪 🇳 🇹 🇴 🇴 :)
It may be a little behind on updates at this point, but HML is still the best.
Arch is great, but it needs longer explanations considering the user needs to do a lot more. Sometimes you find them, but other times you find a snarky superuser with zero people skills.
It's a shame they aren't government standard, so I could take a local course to become a snarky superuser too.
Most of it involves everyday Linux usages, but some of it is specific to Arch and it breaks so hard. It's not a great thing when you're stupid busy and don't have the headroom to get to the bottom of it. Sometimes all you get is vague theories on how a fix might occur. After that you're playing shell games trying to debug your problems.
Definitely recommend for pro-Linux people that have a breakable laptop that can go on the backburner.
I might have missed the part why you prefer it over others
In working through the installation I was the least disappointed I've ever been with an OS. The result was something I truly liked. If I nail down every single problem it could be my all time favourite machine.
Artix. I went Void -> Arch -> Artix. I can't help but feel that Artix is what Arch should be. Perfect blend between the Arch and Void experience.
I ran Artix for a while but went back to Arch. Maybe I missed something obvious, but it didn't seem like there was a nice way even to pacman -Syu on Artix because there were so many packages that were in both the Arch repositories and the Artix repositories. And you couldn't get away with only Artix repositories because there was so much they didn't have that the Arch repositories did have.
I assumed it was just that Artix kindof wasn't quite mature enough yet. But again, it's entirely possible I missed something obvious. I might well be interested to give Artix another try if so.
As far as I understand only Arch packages that depend on systemd need an Artix equivalent. You should be able to enable both Artix and Arch repos and everything should be fine, you should be able to run pacman -Syu without any problems. I never had problems in the last 3 years. If you tried it more than 3 years ago it might be a different story.
been rockin kde neon for the last little while, but also really like mint
I've moved to Ubuntu after getting burned pretty badly with CentOS's getting mistreated and eventually killed. Ubuntu feels stable enough, both in terms of their updates/quality and in terms of their corporate proceedings (such that I won't get absolutely blasted by mandatory repos being closed down, for example).
I prefer Arch (btw) due to the fun of installing it and If it breaks then you that process again with onother de or a different setup
void linux. it uses runit and it's a rolling-release. i like runit because i don't like the systemctl command for some reason. doing ln -s /etc/sv/serv_name /var/service and sv up serv_name is way nicer imo.
I was Arch for a long time but now I'm on Fedora. Most of my servers are Ubuntu server, but I'm switching some stuff to fedora server. I've always disliked Ubuntu for some reason.
Arch, because of the AUR and because I can't get fully used to NixOS. Also, I know my way around Arch better tban any other distro. I tried my luck on Debian and it didn't go that well, but I'm willing to try again soon. (If only I could get Hyprland on Debian....)
Advantages: has all the software I need, new versions as well.
Disadvantages: lacks a stable branch (I recently found myself with limited/no internet access for about 2 months; if Arch had a stable release, I wouldn't have had to rebuild my NixOS system over 100 times while I was trying to get a decent DWM setup.
Arch, because I can never be happy except when I'm bickering with a machine.
Seriously, though, I like the control and the learning factor. I enjoy knowing what my computer is doing and why, AUR is great, and the documentation is generally top-notch. Once you get past the point in the learning curve where everything is on fire and you don't know why (don't forget the 'linux' package when you pacstrap, kids!), it's a delight to use