For me

Mint

Manjaro

Zorin

Garuda

Neon

  • Captain Beyond@linkage.ds8.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The notion of there being underrated or overrated distros is, itself, overrated. No, there should not (and cannot) be “one distro to rule them all” because different people have different needs.

    Remember that in the free software community we have the freedom to modify and share everything. Those “overrated” distros exist because someone saw a need for them, and they are widely used because other people agree. If Debian was good enough for every use case why do these other distros exist? Why doesn’t everyone just use Debian?

    • ShranTheWaterPoloFan@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The issue is new users.

      If you have a vague understanding that Linux has distros and to switch to Linux, you’ll likely Google “best Linux distro.” Results that say “they all are good for different reasons” are unhelpful. Having sort through 50 options isn’t helpful.

      New users want to know what to install. This means that some distros get hyped up as the best, and then people point out the cracks.

      Until there is a clear and objective list of distros with pros and cons labeled the cycle will continue.

  • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    All of them: communities are so used to blow their own horn that every Distro becomes overrated in the public debate.
    Each single distro is “fine” at best.
    Except for Debian.
    Debian is Great, Debian is Love.

      • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m gonna say “no”, but just by personal preference.
        I agree that, if you’re skilled enough, 90% of distributions out there are completely useless once Arch and Debian are available.

      • OrdinaryAlien@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’ve used Arch on many different computers over the years. It’s not stable, it breaks. I don’t understand why it’s great. Debian (minimal install) is better.

        • SaltyIceteaMaker@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’ve only had one problem with arch (it broke after an update once) except for that one problem it was always very stable and solid in my experience.

          Debian is too “old” for me. I prefer bleeding edge and i refuse to use any flatpaks or such because they are a pain in the ass to set up right in my experience

  • dotslashme@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ubuntu. I think of it as the Yahoo of linux distros. It used to be good, but then they made terrible decisions that ultimately made them irrelevant.

    • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      More like OpenOffice. It still has some power on its branding, but new users should stay away from it and go for LibreOffice, that is any other main distro (Arch, openSUSE, Linux Mint, Debian, etc.). There’s nothing exciting happening in Ubuntu anymore, but a lot of people still know its name.

  • moitoi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The good/bad Linux distro circlejerk.

    People are constantly speaking about what’s the best or worst distro in long argumentation loosing their time. Instead, it would nice to make people actually switch to a Linux distro and stay on a distro. Each people people switching from another OS is a win. This matters and how making Linux distros more accessible to everyone.

  • yrmyli@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    For me there is only two distros. They are Arch an Debian. But that is only me. I don’t think that any of those distros are overreted they just have their own user types and needs.

  • RagingToad@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m very critical of all the immutable distrubtions - as an old timer in tech I’ve seen so many things come and go. I’m also curious, ofcourse, and already tried out a VM with NixOS and everything seemed fine. But I’m going to wait it out before something like that becomes my main driver, I have a job to do (development, systems, stuff) and I cannot afford to say “sorry little to no progress today, my OS needs tinkering”.

    (Feel free to tell me I’m wrong :-) I love to tinker with new stuff).

    • Zatujit@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I feel like it is too complicated for a desktop user. Linux is already complicated enough. On Silverblue I had to do some mental gymnastic to make some things work because everything is just made for Workstation. I don’t think the advantages outweigh the benefits

    • Mollusk@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I still need to give NixOS the college try. The docs are slowly getting better but other than that I have heard great things from all over the Internet about it once you get your head around it. I failed at figuring it out on my own but the day will come where it makes sense I’m sure.

  • nerdschleife@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Manjaro. It just breaks itself randomly, and performs poorly. Endeavour / ARCO Linux are more stable

      • valentino@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Great, just in time. Uninstall it and try a serious distro like Fedora or Opensuse TW

        • the16bitgamer@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I wouldn’t consider Fedora or Opensuse TW better than Manjaro. Just trading one issue for another. Honestly I replaced my 1 year old Manjaro install (when I borked my DE) with Fedora.

          Fedora lasted 1 month before the btfs filesystem broke and I lost all of my files with no way to recover. Ontop of the difficulty of adding community copr repos for features like XPadNeo, DNF being so slow that Discover would barley function, and being about 2 months behind software fixes for a specific graphic driver bug that prevented me from playing some UE4 game.

    • Zucca@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Wasn’t Manjaro supposed to be the stable version of Arch? That’s what I’ve heard.

      The few years I had with Arch was pretty nice, but when something broke, it was pain to get it back working because downgrading wasn’t (isn’t?) supported. I guess I should have used snapshots of my whole system back then.

      • nerdschleife@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Honestly straight arch was more stable for me. I barely knew anything about the AUR back then, I didn’t break it installing or tweaking anything. I just customised KDE a bit. I didn’t even have a dedicated GPU - I was using Intel integrated

  • jollyrogue@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    My list overrated list additions:

    • Ubuntu: They break shit, it’s half baked, snaps, and Canonical is really into vendor lock in.

    • Arch: I really have better things to do then baby sit my install.

    • RHEL: Containers were created for reasons, and one of them was RHEL.

    • Any Linux without systemd or glibc: Mistakes were made, and then different mistakes were made trying to prove systemd made mistakes. Musl based Linux distros are going to have compatibility problems, so I might as well run a different OS. The BSDs are *nix-like systems without glibc with a history and larger communities.

    • notfromhere@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Having gone through the Arch install myself, what part dod you find you had to babysit? Boot the install media, format the drive, mount the mounts, install system, configure the system, and done. Maybe it’s just a more involved process than you’d like?

      • jollyrogue@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It’s everything after the install I don’t have time for. The install is the easy part. 😆

        There are distros which are semi-rolling (Fedora) or rolling (Tumbleweed) which make it easy to maintain the install without lots of configuration.

  • Bobby Turkalino@lemmy.yachts
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Arch

    • Being 64-bit doesn’t make you special, my Nintendo 64 is 27 yrs old and it’s 64-bit

    • Being bleeding edge doesn’t make you special, all I have to do is sit on a nail and now I’m bleeding edge too

    • Rolling releases don’t make you special, anyone can have those if they take a shit on a steep slope

    /s (was hoping we’d be able to leave this behind on reddit, but alas, people’s sense of humor…)

    • polygon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I know you’re making a joke but I was convinced recently to try out Arch. I’m running it right now. I was told it’s a DIY distro for advanced users and you really have to know what you’re doing, etc etc. I had the system up and running in 20 minutes, and about an hour to copy my backup to /home and configure a few things. I coped the various pacman commands to a text file to use as a cheat sheet until muscle memory kicked in.

      …and that was it. What is so advanced about Arch? It’s literally the same as every other distro. “pacman -Syu” is no different from “zypper dup” in Tumbleweed. I don’t get the hype. I mean it’s fine. I don’t have any overwhelming desire to use something else at the moment because it’s annoying to change distros. It’s working and everything is fine. As I would expect it to be. But people talk about Arch like its something to be proud of? I guess the relentless “arch btw” attitude made me think it would be something special.

      I guess the install is hard for some people? But you just create some partitions, install a boot loader, and then an automated system installs your DE. That’s DIY? You want DIY go install NixOS or Void, or hell, go OG with Slackware. Arch is way overrated. That doesn’t mean it’s bad, but it’s just Linux and it’s no different from anything else. KDE is KDE no matter who packages it.

      • Swiggles@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Arch is supposed to be used, it is a normal distribution. It is not hard, it is simple. That’s its whole philosophy.

        It is only difficult if you are new to Linux, because it doesn’t hold your hands and has no opinion about a lot of things hence you must make many decisions yourself and configure everything like you need it. You have to know what you need and want.

        The notion of a difficult distro for the sake of it is ridiculous. Who would ever want to use it? Arch is popular, because it is easy to use, but lets you configure the system to your desires for the most part.

      • LeFantome@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are saying that the elitist reputation of Arch overblown. I agree. It is not that Arch it self is overrated though. Arch is awesome ( and not as “hard” as people make it out to be - we agree on that ).

        My favourite distro right now is EndeavourOS and that is just easier to install Arch.

        • polygon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          I guess I used a whole lot of words to say what you just did in just a few sentences. Thanks for summarizing my thoughts. Just out of curiosity though, why EndeavourOS? See this is also something that tripped me up. I see quite a few Arch spinoffs that all claim to be easier versions which naturally lead me to believe Arch itself was complicated. Which again is probably a community/communication problem and has nothing to do with the OS itself.

          • Thorned_Rose@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I run Arch as my daily but I installed Endeavour as my teen’s first intro to Linux (and also because I couldn’t be arsed manually installing Arch). I really liked Endeavour’s Welcome screen thing. It has yay installed by dafault and you can run stuff like system update just from pressing a button on that Wecome UI. Which means my teen who is clueless about pacman and has no fucks to give for learning can run and install stuff just from clicking buttons.

            As to whether it’s better or worse than Manjaro (which is my usual go to for Arch based newbie distros), I’m not sure. I think Endeavour feels lighter on its feet than Manjaro but I haven’t dine any benchmarks to say for sure. I do like pamac and have it installed on my system and I do think it’s great for new folks or people who like a GUI. That said, you can still install EndeavourOS and plonk pamac on there too.

            • polygon@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ah, I see. That sounds like a completely fair scenario for using something a little more automated. Thanks for sharing.

              Arch seems fine and I’ll probably stay here for at least another few months, out of laziness if nothing else. If I’m not completely happy I’ll probably end up back on Tumbleweed which is my usual daily, but I can’t say I’ve had any problems that would drive me back immediately.

  • s20@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Gonna go with Manjaro. I can’t, for the life of me, understand why it gets the support it does. It’s not fantastic to begin with, with an apparently incompetent management team. Add in that all the theming is flat and lifeless, and I’m just confused.

    I mean, any Arch derived distro with an “easy installer” kinda confuses me. Archinstall is fairly easy to use (although a bit ugly), and most other Arch based distros seem to miss what I see as the main point of Arch: getting to know and personalize your system. So things like Endeavor, Xero, etc. Don’t make a lot of sense to me either. But at least they’re not effectively accidentally DDOSing the AUR…

  • Nefyedardu@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I realized Arch was overrated when I got a brand new 7900 XT and it didn’t work on Arch at all because their LLVM was a version behind. It was up-to-date on Fedora and even Ubuntu, but not Arch. Then there was the whole broken grub thing. Bleeding edge and unstable I get, but you can’t be unstable and also behind. You can run Arch in any distro with distrobox, I don’t see why you wouldn’t just do that.

    Ubuntu has ads in the terminal when you update. Runs a highly modified GNOME that doesn’t play well with some extensions. Snaps by default (although maybe not that bad now that they seem to launch a bit quicker). Unfortunately so many things only have Ubuntu support if they have Linux support at all, it’s such a shame.

    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      LLVM was held back for a good reason, it was breaking things left and right. Even so, if you really needed it there were always AUR packages for it, or lcarlier’s mesa-git repo if you prefer prebuilt packages, so it’s not as if you were just SOL. I got my 7900XT in december, and instructions on how to get it running were already all over the forums and subreddit at the time and it was working on the same day that I got it.

      I don’t know when you got your 7900XT, but it was broken on Ubuntu too for a good while, I’m not even sure that it currently works on 22.04 without using external PPAs. In the mean time, it now works with Arch out of the box.

      As for the grub thing, I’m not sure how that could have been handled differently. Upstream introduced a change that created a compatibility issue, so Arch could either not update to a newer version of grub ever, or update anyway and tell its users how to handle the compatibility issue. The latter is what they did.

  • taanegl@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    IMHO NixOS, which is what I’m using (full disclosure), is heavily underrated. His subposition was based on an hour of use “a long time ago”, which leads me to believe he doesn’t fully grasp the versatility of NixOS - or rather the “nix package manager”, which is more of a scriptable deployment tool.

    What I can do with a dotfile and a single command equates to many more steps in any other given distros. I can recreate a system simply by running said dotfiles on another install, or indeed convert it to a VM image if I wanted to.

    So it’s like if you took ansible, the aur and added the ability to configure everything from services, packages, filesystems, modules, virtualization, kernel’s, users, from a JSON-like dotfile consisting of booleans, arrays, strings and even functions.

    It is however overtly complex, there’s a disconnect between old nix (“stable”) and new nix (flakes, “unstable”, experimental but mainstream in the NixOS community) and the documentation needs work, which is what has been funded and is being worked on now.

    Thought I’d just chime in, because this guy’s take seems glib, uninformed and dismissive…

    …though I agree in regards to elementary and solus though.