I see often people say that the distro you are using doesn’t matter. One can turn any distro into another. And I do not agree with that. If that was true, why do we even have so many distributions? I always said, if distros don’t matter…
- … why distro hop?
- … why don’t you use Ubuntu then?
- … why don’t you recommend Archlinux to a newcomer?
- … why don’t you use Kali Linux as a server?
- … why don’t you use Batocera or SteamOS as your daily driver?
- … why do you trust a community distro more than a corporate distro? (or vice versa)
I don’t think that distros only matter to newcomers. Maybe it matters for experienced users even more.
I just thought that the phrase “the distro you are using doesn’t matter” is used to combat the analysis paralysis that many new users experience.
And -to be frank- while Ubuntu and NixOS don’t even remotely resemble each other, I can’t be the only one that feels that most traditional distros do feel kinda same~y.
There are lot of people who really believe that, not just an answer help with choice paralysis.
I also agree that lot of distributions feel similar. And that is not a coincidence. First most distros follow same rules, often have the same underlying technology or act the same, even if its different. And then desktop environments makes up a lot of how an operating system feels to use, and most distributions default to the same one or two. So no wonder many feel the same, even if their underlying technology would be different. It just depends on what you do. Take X11 and Wayland in example. For most people who just use KDE and Firefox on one distribution with Wayland, will feel the same when using this combo on another distribution with X11.
There are lot of people who really believe that, not just an answer help with choice paralysis.
IMO, that’s the lesser of two evils. Start first, get annoyed with nuance and tedious internet arguing later, if you’re content enough before reaching the latter, that’s a win in my book.
Just like your “opponents” are over-generalising, you’re deliberately picking the most extreme examples to make your argument. (Batocera as a daily driver - you know that’s what Hanna Montana Linux is for!)
My Linux axioms are: for most new users…
- choice of DE is most noticeable and decides whether they like their initial experience.
- choice of base distro family does matter a lot in the long run (Debian-based vs. Arch-based vs. Redhat-based); if you stay inside the same family (e.g. Pop!OS vs. Ubuntu vs. Zorin vs. Mint), choice matters a lot less (and DE is most impactful, c.f. point one).
- choosing a distro with specialised security hardening (immutable systems, Nix, Qubes, Bazzite) does matter; most of these will make new users unhappy or even question their sanity.
Where you are right: yes, the choices embedded within these three axioms do matter a lot and are noticeable, so it is helpful to have an experienced user recommend a distro to you when starting out.
Where the “distro don’t matter” people are right: there are a lot less choices to be made than meets the eye. Effectively, it can be boiled down to three.
choosing a distro with specialised security hardening (immutable systems, Nix, Qubes, Bazzite) does matter; most of these will make new users unhappy or even question their sanity.
Out of curiosity, as someone who’s never used Bazzite/other uBlue/SilverBlue/etc, what makes it difficult for new users? I definitely agree with Nix and Qubes though (and SecureBlue to some extent).
Basically, anything that isn’t packaged as a flatpak needs to be installed from the CLI using distrobox containers, which will go over the heads of the majority of new users.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to bonk the immutable Stans over the head with this logic, but it never works. They install bazzite, play their game of choice on steam and occasionally use their web browser and “ALL NEW USERS MUST USE BAZZITE ITS SO EASY”
Any distro is easy when you use it like a fucking Sony PlayStation.
Lol, but so true.
Not Arch or NixOS lol
Can’t you use homebrew?
I have zero experience with that. 😄
FWIW, uBlue has been brewing for almost three years now for their CLI stuff: see this issue tracker and this blogpost from Bluefin’s creator.
The distrobox workflow overall has mostly been superseded by better alternatives[1]. Though, for completeness’ sake, openSUSE’s atomic offering continues to heavily rely on Distrobox. But, in their defense, I think their atomic offerings are simply better[2] suited for it.
There’s sysext with its (WIP) manager, Brew Tap to tap into homebrew casks and some peeps even use coldbrew. And last, but definitely not least,
nixsupport has improved over the years. And if you just want to usednf, RakuOS’ innovative hybrid design allows just that; an image-based core you can’t touch (like the other ‘immutables’), butdnfworks and is applied through a persistent overlay. ↩︎Fedora’s container images are tied to its major release versions. Hence, every 7-13 months you’re required to set them up from scratch if you’d like to continue using them 😅. Even if this process can be streamlined, it’s IMO very cumbersome regardless. In openSUSE’s case, the containers are based on Tumbleweed. Which, has a rolling release cadence. Hence, it was meant to be used indefinitely. ↩︎
Thank you very much for the detailed and well-sourced write-up! I’ve saved it for later when I get to drill down on this.
It kind of proves OP’s point though: distros do come with a lot of idiosyncrasies of “how things are done around these parts”.
Thank you very much for the detailed and well-sourced write-up!
It has been my pleasure 😊. I really appreciate your kind words 🤍.
It kind of proves OP’s point though: distros do come with a lot of idiosyncrasies of “how things are done around these parts”.
Absolutely. But, I think it’s nuanced and the lines are becoming increasingly blurry. If something based on Fedora can become something based on Arch (and vice-versa), if almost any distro has multiple releases/channels/braches, if software for/from any distro can be installed on every other distro, then… at what point is it truly “around these parts” rather than “with those not-hardcoded system specifications”? Kinda like how DEs can be (un)installed, and how those come with implications on how some stuff is done…
There’s a ton of added friction when doing things outside the basic ‘install Flatpak app’. Security generally comes at the price of being difficult to use.
For new users it also means virtually every guide or there on fixing an issue or installing extra software won’t apply.
Not the one you asked, but I think the answer lies in the bold part:
most of these will make new users unhappy or even question their sanity.
For example, I can’t imagine any of the uBlue projects causing major difficulties. Though, edge cases do exist; adding kernel mods can still be a bitch, even if there are efforts to improve this.
There is another point, which makes this discussion very variable. Also the choice matters or does not matter a lot, depending on the person, expectations and what is being done. This is probably the biggest reason why we don’t agree on simplifications like these. And BTW, just because the examples I gave are extreme does not make them wrong in any way. They are just easy for illustrating my points I’m making.
If someone is coming from Windows, does not care much about trust and just want something that runs a browser, doesn’t care about community or technicalities, then yes it does not matter if the person chooses Ubuntu or Mint. On the other hand, if someone doesn’t like corporations, has strong opinions about standards and is a developer, then the choice suddenly matters a lot more.
Are you bored? Did you just build a strawman version of your own community to argue about something that is trivially easy to answer for everyone in this community? I am seriously confused. I have never ever heard anyone say that you could turn any distro into any other. That is just obviously not true. And every single question on your bullet point list is equally easy to answer.
When people say that it doesn’t matter which distro you use what they obviously mean is that the desktop environment has the way more immediate and tangible impact on the user experience. So as long as the newcomer choses one of the many distros that have an intuitive installer (so obviously not Arch), are reasonably up to date, have a broad software package repository, and come with one of the major environments pre installed, it really does not matter that much.
The difference of distro is like the differences in a model of any item of the same make. This shovel might have that serated edge you like, but I like mine to have the kickstand for, camping.
While it is theoretically true that you can turn one distro into another, in practice it’s not worth it. It’s the same thing as trying to sell someone on “you never need to reboot to apply updates or fix things.” Ye, technically true, but unless you’re maintaining huge corporate servers where downtime is measured in dollars, 9 times out of 10, it’s just easier to reboot and see if it fixes the issue. And yes, it will often still fix the issue.
The reason for distro hopping etc is because picking a distro is essentially choosing your defaults/ideology/character alignment. There are no wrong answers. Just go with what feels right. Newbies should distro hop to see how they align, experienced users should do it for fun and to see if a different way suits them better.
We should be herding beginners towards beginner friendly distros so they don’t run into a cliff of a learning curve, but which specific one is basically arbitrary.
As for your other examples: Don’t let your dreams be dreams. You can 100% use batocera as server if you like, it’s entirely possible. You’re just going to have to dedicate a shitload of time coercing into a server shape… but nothing’s stopping you
As you said here a lot of people here either like to downplay the differences between the distros or use them in a way that makes them not notice those differences. I’m with them in saying that if you plan to distro-hop just to change the DE you should probably learn how linux works, but there are definitely differences. Some examples:
- If you want to run ROS2 then ONLY supported distro is Ubuntu
- Before choosing a distro which has systemd removed (like Artix) you should definitely make sure what you are doing, there are definitely differences here
- The frequency of updates of packages is an important thing. Last year it was almost impossible to install Hyprland because it used packages that were too new
Your choice of distro doesn’t matter insofar as you can fix any issues you have with one, and it can be modified to work like any other.
Your choice of distro does matter in the fact that your time is limited and you probably don’t want to spend days making your system work exactly like you want from a base point that was far away from that. You should choose a distro that minimizes the gap between what you want and what you get out of the box.
You just need to choose one that seems right, then you can make the modifications you need. Just make a choice though. It’ll be fine if you just picked something that seems close enough.
I don’t mind them, except Ubuntu. Broken by default since it started. I don’t know how or why, but it is the most fragile least user friendly one of the bunch.
I am not currently using it but it’s always been fine whenever I have. What’s broken?
For the last few projects I have been on, it has thrown errors during the install. It usually resolves itself, but the user should never be greeted with “something went wrong” or “error during install”.
I guess I could download the latest and play with it for 10 minutes and get some specifics.
I don’t actually care, but when I have in the past (around 2006 era) it “just worked”, while other distros i was using required more hand holding (gentoo, redhat, slackware). I suspect most distros are just fine now a days (using debian now and it seems just fine).
It all comes down to the repositories after all. Different distros have different update cycles and policies.
Oh, also some distros apply a little bit different graphics and customisation on the default setup.
After that, it is all the same. Distro choice does matter, but to the common user/newcomer is basically irrelevant.
why distro hop?
Fun waste of time, good way to learn how to setup a Linux system by doing that repeatedly.
why don’t you use Ubuntu then?
It’s a good system, go ahead with it. I don’t like very much their customisations, but it is cool system after all.
why don’t you recommend Archlinux to a newcomer?
He will have to read through a few guides and webpages in order to get a working system, compared to reading a single webpage which explains how to flash any other distro on a usb and be done with it.
why don’t you use Kali Linux as a server?
The advantage of Kali is that it is designed to live in ram and everything you do is destroyed when you switch off the computer, this is a bit of a pain in the ass if you want to run a server.
why don’t you use Batocera or SteamOS as your daily driver?
Don’t even know what those are, but pretty much because I don’t care: the system I have is good and I know there’s little difference between distros.
why do you trust a community distro more than a corporate distro?
They’re for different purposes (mainly). Redhat provides tech support. Canonical, well I don’t know what canonical does. If you want good support for maybe a large installation with many computers, paying for red hat may very well be worth it.
I think this kind of supports his argument though, kali would make a bad server by its design. Whereas you followed that point by saying there isnt much difference in distros.
I think its just that they are designed to take some of the leg work out of set up in most instances and in others they are designed for specific uses that conflict with other uses.
Distro choice does matter, but to the common user/newcomer is basically irrelevant.
Anything else that should be pointed out?
A new user will be fine with basically anything that isn’t Gentoo or with some very very specific applications.
People who have specific needs will choose a distro which makes the things they need easier. In most cases a newcomer won’t have such specific needs as to have to choose a specific distribution.
designed for specific uses that conflict with other uses.
Don’t see much conflict between uses. You can use any distribution to do anything you’d do with any other.
Do you want a very stable system but rolling release with the latest updates? Not possible. Do you want a system that is flashed on ram but that will be stable with 100% uptime without ever touching it? Not possible. Do you want a super light system with the best DE animations and graphics? Not possible.
Sure those are conflicting uses, but just because you’re choosing among two opposite things.
If that was true, why do we even have so many distributions?
Don’t ignore the fact that part of the reason there are so many distributions, desktops, window managers, etc etc is because a large number of skilled coders have outsized egos
Why egos? Maybe they are having fun doing it? :)
The big difference between distros is really how they build their distro and for what ends. Some distros are “general purpose”, some are focused on specific roles/tasks like gaming or programming or servers, some are about stability, others are about cutting edge features. And you also have different underlying design philosophies - OSS vs proprietary, or Ext4 vs BRTFS, or Immutable vs mutable, pre-packaged vs build yourself.
So yeah, distro choice really does matter. The wide range of choices don’t exist because people are being contrarian; they exist because linux can be shaped to different purposes and goals.
But I think the message to new users is also correct: distro choice doesn’t matter much if you’re starting out and just want a basic desktop environment. Whats going on in the backend or the design philosophy of the distro doesn’t change the experience for most end users doing day to day tasks. A KDE or Gnome desktop environment with Firefox will feel the same, and gaming or word processing will be largely the same. It’s when you want to go beyond generic use that the distro choice starts to matter…
Agreed. I distro-hopped for months before settling on Void. It took a while for me to figure out (with help from the internet) that systemd was causing a lot of the problems I was having. It’s been smooth sailing since I found Void and I’ve never been happier with an OS.
It really isn’t difficult to install or use, and I think experienced users would probably appreciate it as much as I do. It does what you tell it to, out of the box. Nothing more, nothing less.
Why have you not done a basic search to understand the objectives of the various distros and posiilities, before posing these questions?
OP does understand that. They’re rhetorical questions.
It doesn’t.
ontop of other user comments where it boils down to trust in the maintainer and code reviewers of the project, another reason depends on the use case that you plan on using your Linux system. for example, if I were to setup a nextcloud server, i’d generally go with alpine for it’s lightweight design, or Debian for it’s stability. I wouldn’t necessarily use Kali Linux, because with those features it also uses a lot of resources for it to function, and I don’t need that for a server.
in terms of my personal device I generally build those from the tty and add other modules (like DE, utils, etc…) to give it more functionality. Much like my servers I like to have my laptop optimized – take as minimal resources as possible – which is a rather controversial take after seeing users bash at me that I’m not taking advantage of all my memory. anyways, I don’t think there is a specific distro that has everything that I want. I want a system that works that doesn’t use 2 GB from the DE alone and that is accomplished by adding the modules myself.
I don’t trust any other sub-distro other than myself. I generally go with one of the corporate base tty installer (arch) and I build the system from that. I’m not going to switch to say cachy OS for it’s aesthetics, or ease of use, I couldn’t really care less.
