What made you decide to use a certain distro?
Posted by anonymous_lurker-@reddit | linux | View on Reddit | 203 comments
I'm going down the rabbit hole of choosing a distro for home use. In the past, I've always used Linux in a VM, primarily Kali (I'm in cyber, I would never use Kali as my home OS) or Ubuntu. I've tried plenty of others, from installing and using Mint for a year at university, to throwing all kinds of distros in a VM just to play around.
I'd vaguely narrowed it down to Debian or NixOS, but if you asked me why I'd struggle to really say. At best, it being difficult to bork a NixOS system is appealing, but the learning curve is not. Conventional advice seems to be either:
- Pick something popular that's user friendly, well documented and you're likely to get help when needed
- Try a bunch of distros until you find something you like
But what does it mean to find something you like? I only see the OS as a tool, and yet I still have opinions on design philosophy, security, stable vs bleeding edge and so on. I know I can pick whatever I want and make it mine, but coming from Windows where I basically just left everything stock the analysis paralysis is real
So I'm curious to hear, what made you choose a certain distro? Did you pick it for a reason? Or if you tried a bunch of stuff, what made you settle?
Sybbian-@reddit
NixOS because of Rollbacks. Whenever something breaks I just rollback to the previous version. It allows me to experiment a lot without having to use a VM or being a having to do the same thing with extra steps.
anonymous_lurker-@reddit (OP)
How did you find the learning curve? This is the main reason I'm considering NixOS, since the last thing I want to do is break my personal machine. I'm sure other distros have ways of doing backups and snapshots and such, but NixOS seems to integrate it really well. The offputting thing is the learning curve, but I do wonder if since I'm a Linux noob anyway, I might find it easier since I'm learning from scratch rather than trying to change existing habits
ianspy1@reddit
I think regardless if you have no prior experience, the learning curve will be steep.
What I would suggest is just using the configuration.nix and getting comfortable with that. Before you use things like home manager or flakes :D.
But the learning curve was actually quite enjoyable to me. The documentation is bad though.
But with "search.nixos.org" you can just check if there is a option for what you are trying to do. And if not just add the package.
You can also try chatgpt for some help.
But be warned, it likes to just make up options a lot... So most I use it for is "I want to do xyz, what tools exist to do this". And then just see which fits my needs and install it my self.
DavidJohnMcCann@reddit
Five years ago my hard drive died — well, it was 15 years old — and my CPU was getting a bit underpowered, so I bought a new computer — bare metal, no OS. My decision making went like this
And PCLinuxOS won. It's rolling release, so no sudden changes when a new version is installed, but far more cautious than other RR distros, so no nasty surprises. It has a good implementation of Xfce, it was easily configured, and it just works. No distro-hopping for me!
Maykey@reddit
Just two points
It worked with my hardware when I tried.
It didn't break unrecoverably yet
Which is why when I got new ssd I didn't distrohop to a new one - no need
Agreeable_@reddit
i picked arch, moved from garuda because i wanted to chose what was on my system. also the package manager and aur helpers are nice. depends on what you want your system to be.
TheNormalEgg@reddit
Picked Fedora because I want something more up-to-date than Debian/Ubuntu, but not as bleeding-edge as Arch. I have to do minimal babysitting and everything just works.
rockymega@reddit
One install is 20 gigabytes, I hate that.
RepentantSororitas@reddit
Why?
That's still smaller than Windows or Mac
Considering you can get a terabyte hard drive for like 50 USD, I don't really see what's the big deal on using $1 of storage.
rockymega@reddit
It's just so bloated. And most of the time it's slow, too. I still remember switching from Zenwalk to Slitaz. Chromium didn't even run on my rig, and Midori just worked super well. I'm also a fan of using old hardware and not screwing people who own that. And this crap is so fast, it should just boot and work immediately.
RepentantSororitas@reddit
The storage size has nothing to do with speed unless you are searching that entire drive.
> Chromium didn't even run on my rig
Chromium is only 250 MB. The actual demand is your memory and processor not your storage.
> I'm also a fan of using old hardware and not screwing people who own that
Being slow isnt screwing you over. Do you get mad a 1993 Toyota Corrolla struggles to hit 90mph?
rockymega@reddit
I didn't say "screw over". Those people aren't betrayed or anything, they're just left in the dust with hardware that would work perfectly fine with sane web browsers and operating systems. Why is it every time I run an older version of software, be it a program or an OS, it's blazing fast? Why can't modern software be like that?
RepentantSororitas@reddit
You did say screw over. I was directly quoting you.
It does less things. Either graphically or behind the hood.
I never had a performance issue with firefox in the 15 years I used it. It loads faster than I can blink
rockymega@reddit
I didn't say "screw over", as in "betray". I said "screw" as in "leave to the wayside", "be indifferent towards". Like I said, they aren't betrayed, they're just left to the wayside.
RepentantSororitas@reddit
I'm directly quoting you brother
rockymega@reddit
I wrote it. I know what I meant. I wrote it like that on purpose. I don't think people get betrayed.
RepentantSororitas@reddit
You wrote it and then you claim that you didn't write it and then you claim that you wrote it and then you claimed that you didn't write it.
rockymega@reddit
No, I claim that I wrote "screw" not "screw over" and that I wrote that deliberately. I never changed my words. You just understood this wrong. That wording is a tad nuanced.
rockymega@reddit
I would like computing and web browsing to be accessible. I find it stupid that stuff hangs on modern hardware when it used to be faster and used to use much less processing power and RAM. Every mobile device should be super-fast these days, since even low-end ones have 8 cores and 4 gigs of RAM. I don't like that attitude of "screw people with older or slower hardware". Does that mean Linux and Windows should still run on 80386 processors? Nope. But it should still run smoothly on a Core2Duo. Also, about storage size. That's because I would find it cool to just load the entire OS into RAM. That's a trick lightweight Linux distros use to escape the slow HD speeds on old machines. I want to see it.
RepentantSororitas@reddit
You just said you are using old hardware but here you are saying you are using modern hardware. Which is it?
I have used 100 dollar androids. I never had chrome fail to open.
Just use an ssd..... You cant be complaining about fucking storage when you waste memory doing stupid things like that.
rockymega@reddit
I was talking about my old computer, which used a Celeron D clocked about 3 GHz. I thought web browsing should be possible on that. I have long since upgraded, but I still have a penchant for lightweight software. I just think it's more elegant. I'm not a fan of loading 16 GB of Windows into memory, but something with 150 MB fits into almost any configuration. And it loads much faster even if not put into RAM. You're right though. The best course of action is using an SSD. My gripes are from the standpoint of finding it more elegant and flexible, and seeing less code as more maintainable. But like I said, you're right. Most 100$ handsets today will give you a good web browsing experience and sufficient internet capabilities. In fact, they have done so for a long time. What I don't like is older hardware, which used to give a good experience doing something, giving a worse experience doing that same thing now. Really makes you want to go out and buy old versions of Flash and Photoshop. But it really isn't that big a deal.
Hanabi-ai@reddit
Which DE? My fedora workstation(gnome) installation took 8.6 gigs
rockymega@reddit
I installed GNOME too, in a VM. I may be remembering wrong, but I remember expecting 10 GB and being shocked.
AlarmDozer@reddit
Well, Windows is at least double that.
rockymega@reddit
Windows 10 64 bit takes 20 GB.
rockymega@reddit
And the best thing is, we basically still use computers for the same stuff. It's not like the OS comes with GTA5. The challenging new stuff gets downloaded before using. Why did browsers and websites and word processing and business software just get slower and use more disk space? I mean, I don't expect Windows 95 speeds and size, but what about Windows NT 4.0? Or double that? You can't tell me a network stack or 4k graphics take 16 GB.
fankin@reddit
why? 20 G is respectable for an install and forget distro. (4G is just gnome)
rockymega@reddit
Debian is 3,5 GB SliTaz is 80 MB with LXDE, graphical package manager and GUI settings, no compression of everything (you have a normal filesystem where you know where everything is, even when looking at the system partition from another OS) and GParted.
Interesting_Bet_6324@reddit
Only if you use Atomic Desktops with a bunch of packages layered. My Kinoite system takes 23GiB and that's 2 deployments (my current system and a rollback) + some system stuff. Each of my deployments take \~7,5GiB with all layered packages.
When you install Fedora Atomic it comes with half the stuff that normal Fedora has with all the advantages of image-based updates (so even less babysitting!)
Captain_Faraday@reddit
Couldn’t agree more! And with KDE Plasma, I love it even more! chef’s kiss
rockymega@reddit
KDE is awesome, it just takes a bit more RAM and processing power than I like.
Captain_Faraday@reddit
That is true. I run that setup on my Beelink SER5 Max with 32gb RAM and an old Lenovo Yoga 710 with 16gb of RAM. I do notice a dip in performance of KDE on the laptop sometimes, but was not as usable to my desire before I upgraded the RAM in my laptop from 8gb to 16gb.
rockymega@reddit
I try to use XFCE or LXDE or LXQt if available, simply because I like low-ram software, but KDE is still awesome. It's like types of chocolate. They're all nice.
Rosenvial5@reddit
Same here. Also, if Fedora is good enough for Linus Torvalds then it's good enough for me
fek47@reddit
Indeed, this summarizes my reasons for using Fedora.
Formal_Candidate_648@reddit
Packages that it has pre installed.
KOM_Unchained@reddit
Had Windows as I grew up. During uni studies got to play with Linux, and fell in love with it and its servers. Tried different flavors and stuck with Ubuntu, as it had the community and I got everything done I needed. Fast-forward some 15 years, still happy with it and using it for everything.
While I love Linux, it still serves me as an operating system running everything I need to solve the problems. It gets the stuff done and until it doesn't, I'm content.
DystopianImperative@reddit
Mint because everyone says it's baby's 1st distro. I felt right at home from day 1.
inbetween-genders@reddit
The one I picked just works. I got better things to do than tweaking my stuff 24/7.
proton_badger@reddit
Same, I've use Linux in some form since the nineties, I've used Gentoo, Arch, etc. so I know my way around but I realized there was really no need, I don't need latest versions of everything constantly.
Most bigger distros just works really and I could pick any of them. I am using a Ubuntu LTS derivative that get kernel and Nvidia updates on a regular basis. No fuss, good for gaming and writing some COSMIC stuff.
Sometimes I spin up another distro in a distrobox if I want a contained dev environment.
AntiqueConflict5295@reddit
Amen to that too.
anonymous_lurker-@reddit (OP)
This is likely the route I'd go. But did you choose a distro that's known to be reliable? Or did you choose something, find it didn't break stuff and just stick with it?
inbetween-genders@reddit
A little bit of both. Back in the 90s tried Linux for the first time and ended up liking Debian. So when I started using Linux again 10 years or so ago, I went with the familiar name and it just happens to be stable. I don’t need latest and greatest so I’m fine with older stuff.
PublicDomainKitten@reddit
I hear you. I went with practicality.
average787enjoyer@reddit
Started with Mint, moved to Fedora for KDE, attempted to move to Arch for hyprland, gave up and installed OpenSUSE (still hyprland), works like a dream.
Putrid-Geologist6422@reddit
Most of the time debian will just work and its great for daily use, if you want to mess around with stuff 24/7 and spend 3 hours trying to get wifi working try arch linux
right_makes_might@reddit
NixOS - because I like to tinker, and the declarative configuration makes it trivial to rollback to an earlier state when I break things. It also stops random configuration cruft from building up over time.
Airprince440788@reddit
Debian 13 testing. It's fast, stable and mostly up to date, plus apt is fast
G0ldiC0cks@reddit
I'll be honest, I first Linux around 2007/8 when everything was ... Different. I worked in IT back then and it was still too much work for me to give up windows's "just working."
When I wanted some simple tools recently that would have either been expensive or impossible on windows and ran them through a VM running Mint, I was blown away just how frikken simple everything had gotten. Now Mint is my daily driver on that same PC. I'm considering moving over to Debian or something I can fuck with a little more -- I've since had some hiccups with mint (well, more grub and a kernel update being predictably unpredictable) and the "hard stuff" really isn't all that hard, and compared to 20 years ago, everything seems to "just work" to a pretty great extent.
Cursor_Gaming_463@reddit
I decided on Arch, as it fits my needs, well documented, light, bleeding edge and not that difficult.
rgsidler@reddit
Avoidance of systemd, Debian based and extremely stable - Devuan 😀
4fter1mage@reddit
I installed Pop!_OS 76 several weeks ago, the reason i installed it, because i got too many "blue screen" from Windows, and i think that Pop!_OS 76 is one of the distro that has similar feeling as Windows, i need just a little time to adapt with it.
LarsBenders@reddit
Arch for rolling release
Longjumping-Poet6096@reddit
I have an Asus ROG STRIX G18 with the i9 14900hx with an Nvidia 4080 laptop, for hardware context.
After all of the hate, jokes of the people using Arch, I figured I’d try it to see what all of the fuss was about. The installation was awesome. I loved all of the customization that you can do, even using the archinstall script. Having to manually setup your network wasn’t really that big of a deal. I went with the Hyprland DE with the ml4w dotfiles and fell in love with it and have been using it now for a few months. Nearly every application I could want is on a pacman or AUR repo, even android studio was easy to install and set up. I use this as my primary development environment.
For gaming I was using Windows 11 pro for a long time but I hate windows. It’s so slow, uses up a lot of resources and not to mention all of the spying and data collection. For gaming I went with Nobara. Fedora has been my favorite distro for a long time so using a Fedora-based distro was the cherry on top. I love Nobara. I tried Bazzite but it had major issues with my keyboard after trying to install asusutil with rog-gui so much that it was unusable. I finally fixed the issue by just removing asusutil and rog-gui but that meant I couldn’t control my keyboard lighting or fan curve. But the real issue I have is apparently I fucking hate Atomic OSs. I have too must have control issues because I can’t stand having to find work around a just to install something like discord without using a flatpak (which I also apparently dislike).
MentalSewage@reddit
I'm a Red Hat Certified Engineer... So I use Fedora personally. Its what I'm most knowledgeable with
Xu_Lin@reddit
How did you land that job, if you don’t mind me asking.
MentalSewage@reddit
Well, it wasn't really a job, it was a test. I worked as a sysadmin for a local company, they paid for a Red Hat Learning Subscription for me. So I studied, got my RHCSA, then studied and passed the RHCE exam.
From there, for a few years at least, the jobs more or less landed themselves. Up until the last year, where everything wants more could focus I don't have. I'll be getting my next Red Hat cert to be OpenShift so a step in that direction at least
SOSUS-OP@reddit
I've tried bunches of distros for over 20 years. I've settled on the Cinnamon version of Linux Mint. Now running 21.1.
AllanJacques@reddit
I'm using fedora because it works on everything I need
jarmezzz@reddit
You can absolutely still bork Nix, believe me. I went with Fedora, and I spin up their security lab for Cyber work. This can be done either by downloading the iso, or you can just run:
sudo dnf group install "Security Lab"
It’s comparable enough to Kali that I no longer bother with Kali. Has all the tools I need anyway, your mileage may vary.
ygames1914A@reddit
it was my first distro to use it for extended period it was nobara but after a while i started to see some glitches so i switched to the base of nobara which is fedora to this day i use fedora
dudeness_boy@reddit
I picked Debian because my dad recommended it to me, but switched to Fedora because I was getting tired of having such old packages.
kompetenzkompensator@reddit
After trying everything Debian and Ubuntu based and also a short excursion into Fedora I currently use OpenSUSe Slowroll.
Why? Just because I wanted something a bit different. It's a rolling release, a bit more stable than Tumbleweed and I can get everything I could ever dream of installing. It's something else than the usual Ubuntu/Debian stuff, I like looking up stuff from time to time, and I am not in danger of fucking things up.
In the end it's just another very nice, well thought out linux distribution that just does the job it is supposed to.
Dude, this isn't getting married, just pick one. It's probably gonna be fine.
P.S. If you go for Debian, give Sparky Linux a try. Not too polished (but Polish, pun intended), their semi rolling releases are a good compromise between ultra-stable and bleeding-edge and they put a lot of love and care into it.
Ok-Sprinkles-2157@reddit
I chose fedora for an OP reason, Torvalds uses it
musta_ruhtinas@reddit
I started at the end of the '90s with Slackware, then all sorts of minor and long gone ones, then Kubuntu and when someone wrote about Arch on the Kubuntu forums back in 2009 tried it only wanting to take a look and that was it. Still tried a whole bunch more, Debian, Fedora, Void, but somehow always returned to Arch, so there is that. Might one time try a BSD just to see what it's like, but so far I am happy with my setup.
Reason I picked/stayed? It just works for me. When it does not, I know what to do, so it's got extremely comfortable to run it. Will probably take more time to learn a new distro's ways than fixing whatever got me to switch in the first place.
UnicornJoan@reddit
the firts one i used was Ubuntu, i liked it alot but after a while i got bored and installed manjaro. I used it for a long time until i finally decides to install pure arch with cinnamon and now i went back to ubununtu because i'm very lazy
Junky1425@reddit
I was using the software ROS from 2019 to 2023 and it was supported on Ubuntu and recommended.
I started quickly disliking Gnome so I switched to KUbuntu for KDE and use it till today.
Currently I try openSuSE Tumbleweed but it still doesnt feel home there so I think I will switch back
Suvvri@reddit
Cachyos just works, easy to start with and is a great platform to learn more about Linux
FuntimeBen@reddit
Yeah. I’ve been running Cachy for about 3 months and have no complaints, although I use it purely for a personal messing around with Linux machine. I also have a legacy Win10 drive in the same computer which I use for occasional oddball gaming. The rest runs on CachyOS. Love the crispness of Arch without all the futzing around. Just power up, update, and tinker.
May not be what I use if I was using the computer for work, but for a personal machine it makes my 14 year old machine feel brand new.
Any_Manufacturer_463@reddit
Speed and how much documentation was available. Fedora is my current one.
evanldixon@reddit
Different distros are good at different things. What I use:
mrtruthiness@reddit
Ubuntu LTS.
It "just works".
LTS means very few upgrades. I only upgrade roughly every 4 years (sometimes 2 years) and I've never had a serious issue. Even though I have a separate user partition and it should be easy, I haven't had to do a "clean reinstall" ever. The initial install was 12 years ago.
redonculous@reddit
Mint. Because it worked out of the box and wasn’t as ugly as Ubuntu.
reveil@reddit
Debian because it is stable.
Jojos_BA@reddit
I like to break stuff, take it apart read about stuff amd have it as i see fit even if it is terrible. And the name of the package manager was fin
Last-Assistant-2734@reddit
20 years ago my friend's suggestion (and YaST). And there really were maybe 3 viable options for newbie at the time.
global-assimilation@reddit
I'm a huge fan of Fedora Silverblue spins. Currently going strong on Bluefin-dx:stable on all my systems, some with open-nvidia, one with the asus/hwe image. It just runs. Having all needed files synced with Nextcloud is awesome too. Turn one system off and use another one to start where I left before.
arthursucks@reddit
The longer you use Linux, the more you learn that most of the distributions are the same. I use Debian because I'm lazy and I need stability.
rockymega@reddit
Yeah, that "just works" experience really is awesome. I use Debian too.
Physical_Arm_722@reddit
Many years ago, I worked with Linux on Mainframe, and I had only little access to a mainframe where I could fool around.
Debian had Hercules, which is a Mainframe emulator, so I went with Debian and have done so for the past 20 something years
ben2talk@reddit
My use case. I was using Plex Home Theatre (forked form XBMC) until it died... and had multiple issues using PPA repos on Mint, as many are not meant for Mint...
I also got bored with seeing many broken or held back packages, so I figured I should try something else - and with AUR, I guessed Manjaro might be good.
One week in to a Manjaro Cinnamon install, I did a clean KDE install - and that was 8 years ago... everything just works, and at the time when PlexHTPC came out on Snap, I had the AUR option to download and install that snap without enabling snapd... then it went to flatpak, now it's back in AUR with a binary install.
Add to that the plethora of apps I previously had via PPA or other repos, which just install the latest versions... I'm in no mood to go hunting for new pastures.
jort93@reddit
I think pacman is the best package manager, I've only ever had issues with apt, and I like the aur, so I was gonna pick something arch based.
Currently I am using endeavor os, but I have also used vanilla arch for some time.
PruneJuice2401@reddit
I chose Gentoo because I get a noticable performance boost while running a brick solid distro. I like being able to mix stable and unstable packages, anything to do with Portage, and the general ease I can get a system up and keep it running.
Alenicia@reddit
A friend of mine absolutely loves ArchLinux but they spend so much time reinstalling and getting the "fresh" experience often so they actually never got to sit down and do too much of their work before things just break on them because they tinker too much.
I've got them settled down on Fedora at the moment which isn't what they wanted .. but it's at least a stable operating system where you can get work done and not have to worry about rebooting and finding out that things are broken enough you have to do a fresh reinstall. >_<
fearless-fossa@reddit
That's quite never the case with Arch, your friend is doing something wrong.
Alenicia@reddit
Oh, I definitely know. They're the kind of person who loves to experiment, break things, and then get to a point beyond return .. but she has so much fun doing it so she never really minded the reinstalling and fresh experience.
ImBackAgainYO@reddit
For me, it was back in 1994. Slackware was one of the few distros available. I fell in love with it and I am running it to this day. I run it on my main machine at home, my laptop, and on my work pc.
I knew there are better distros, but there are no better distros for ME.
kcirick@reddit
I started with Slackware circa 1999, and it still has a special place in my heart. I keep telling myself I’ll go back to it after they release a new version but it’s been 4(ish) years since the last release. In a meanwhile I’ve found a happy home on Gentoo.
RedditMuzzledNonSimp@reddit
There is NO BETTER DISTRO than the one that does everything you need it to do and is stable. Preferably with the lowest resource usage.
0riginal-Syn@reddit
Ran the first releases of Slackware and Debian. Was on Yggdrasil prior.
Those were fun times.
anonymous_lurker-@reddit (OP)
I do get this. I feel like if I chose a distro today, and then daily drove it for years I'd become an expert. Might not have been the best choice initially, but I'd be efficient due to experience. Kinda like how as a Windows/Android user I'd have a hard time using MacOS/iOS, not because they're bad but because they're not what I'm used to
ImBackAgainYO@reddit
Yeah. I know Slackware like the back of my hand
esaum0@reddit
We standardized on RHEL at work.. so I stick to Fedora for personal use. The experimentation I do at home translates well when I design stuff at work due to the similarities with the distros
AntiqueConflict5295@reddit
Linux Mint Xfce becausr it has Windows vibes and is forgiving with newcomers like me.
PALKIP@reddit
tried ubuntu, installing packages was difficult, but managing them was worse, everything broke often and i had no idea why. tried arch once (1), everything is extremely easy, if i have any problem i also have the solution. i also tried mint (not enough), but it seemed just as confusing as ubuntu.
Bubobubootyzjeti@reddit
I've picked a distro recommended to me as a good starting point for a former windows user.
It's Arch based.
From what I've heard it shouldn't be boring and I'm all for it.
prog-can@reddit
Arch btw, its a clean slate you can perfectly fine tune for your own likings, if that's your thing, I personally love that
BDRadu@reddit
No-Information-5454@reddit
Basically every distro I've used was based of debian ether directly or indirectly (fork of a fork). I decided one day that I was just gonna go completely upstream. And how here I am
Davi_19@reddit
I use endeavour because it has easy nvidia driver installation and i don’t like pop os even though it does the same, probably even better.
thatgeekfromthere@reddit
Landed on Debian when I worked on the HPC at my college. Debian has the best docs for setting up a cluster at the time, and I just never stopped using it. I think that was in Debian 6 days,
EverythingIsFnTaken@reddit
Currently playing The Alters with an Nvidia GPU on Kali. When will people get a grip and realize that It's. JUST. Debian. Debian plus a few tools that a "hacker" might use. It's no more of a "specialized tool" than Studio Ubuntu (Stubuntu, if you will) is a personal consultation with Rick Rubin. Fuckryin' out loud. I don't give a shit what the one unspecific line in some white paper written by the creators says, because they didn't actually say any way that it differed, because it doesn't. The repo's the only OOTB difference, and you can use any repo you want on any distro. It's the same kernel, same package management, same underlying system as Debian, just with a different default software selection and some theming.
And bare metal installations can use the GPU.
And for those whose argument relies on user incompetence, timeshift will have your native installation back up and running faster than spinning up a new vm.
Pepi4@reddit
Distro hopping for years. Then Linux Mint Cinnamon was my pick
PoetOne9267@reddit
After starting with Ubuntu like almost everyone else, I wanted to try rolling distributions. I tried Arch and derivatives, but I had problems with updates too often and at that time no rolling distro came with an easy system recovery tool in case of update failures, except Tumbleweed.
And for the last 5 years I have been using Tumbleweed for its snapper tool, for its enterprise quality code and for having one of the highest levels of security in Linux with apparmor and now selinux.
Long live the chameleon!!!!
Background-Train-104@reddit
My dad used to record shows from the TV on the computer using a TV Tuner PCI card. One day, he installed a new one, and suddenly, my Fedora 2 wasn't booting up. I knew it had something to do with that new card but didn't know how to fix it. My immediate response was to try out another distro. There's no way I'm gonna be using Windows again. SUSE Linux happened to be next in-line for my distro hopping. I installed it, and not only did it boot without issues, but I was able to install a driver for that card and record from the TV too. And that first impression of SUSE - and later for OpenSUSE - got stuck with me.
ShitDonuts@reddit
NixOs . Reasons :
Native Containerization
Perfect Reproducibility
Easily manage multiple versions of same package
User specific services, packages, configs
Atomic or Full upgrades and rollbacks
SquaredMelons@reddit
I picked Opensuse Tumbleweed because all the fixed release distros I typically use don't support my new 9070 XT without a bunch of hacks that are probably gonna break in the future, but I didn't want something as unstable as Arch. So far, it's been working out. I'll keep running it until it breaks. Hopefully all the fixed release distros have caught up to my machine by then, but if it never breaks, I might not go back.
Marasuchus@reddit
I actually had problems with Tumbleweed and the 9070XT. Nothing serious, but here and there frame rate drops or strange scaling. I then switched to CashyOS because I use Vanilla Arch on other machines anyway and I'm really more than impressed.
MyCheeses@reddit
Experience and time. Everyone should try many of them, as they all have a different taste. You may like one or two, but another may really click for you. I've swapped every 6-12 months for decades. I prefer Debian derivatives for user friendliness. And Arch for fun - ie, breaking and fixing things on the regular. Ubuntu used to be my favorite for day to day, but it has become bloated - and I despise snaps and flatpaks, which are definitely the ultimate bloat.
ProPolice55@reddit
I've used Mint, Zorin and Ubuntu before in VMs, so I started with Mint and it's been solid so far. I'm considering moving over to Fedora or OpenSUSE, but really, Mint works fine
natermer@reddit
I tried several different distributions until I found one that allowed me to get what I wanted done with the least amount of friction.
As far as "general purpose Linux distributions" like Debian, Arch, Gentoo, Fedora, Suse, etc etc... they are all about as capable of one another. Meaning what one can do all can do.
The differences boil down to things like default install configuration, installers, default security posture, release cadence, the size and scope of their respective repositories, regulatory compliance/support for third parties certifications, and how the project itself is maintained and organized.
So whatever one makes the most sense for what you want to accomplish and is the best match for you should be the one you go for.
geirmundtheshifty@reddit
Personally, I have jumped around a lot. For the distros Im currently using, here’s my rationale:
My laptop is running Linux Mint with XFCE. It’s fairly old and underpowered, so I wanted something with XFCE because I like that desktop environment and it’s pretty light. I use my laptop for pretty simple stuff, so I went with Mint because I care more about stability than having the latest updates of everything on it.
For my Desktop, Im using OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. I wanted to try out KDE (and I really like it), and I wanted a rolling release distro, but I wanted something a bit “slower” than Arch, so I tried this. I also really like that it uses BTRFS and sets up Snapper for you by default. That has already saved me from a pretty weird mess I somehow got myself in.
In both cases, the fact that the distros are popular was also a draw. It’s nice being able to easily look up guides for things online. OpenSUSE also has community builds for a lot of software that arent in the repository.
normaldude8825@reddit
As I tried different distros at different points in my life I realized few things. Finally been daily driving Fedora KDE for a bit over a month, having only booted Windows maybe 2 or 3 times to troubleshoot (or just play a game without having to troubleshoot). Wanted something that was up to date, so that removed Debian based distros. After having Nobara for a while, When I troubleshoot on it I realized I had no idea what my system had or was. I knew it was Fedora based, but that was the end of it. Wasn't familiar with what changes were done and all that. Realized I wanted as close to vanilla experience as possible and learn the changes that need to be done to get my stuff running. Wasn't really a fan that Nobara was a project mainly lead by one person, and would prefer to use an OS that has more backing. From my perspective Ubuntu has canonical, Fedora has RHEL, Archhas its community and somewhat has Valve (Steam OS being based on Arch). Basically I wanted something that was as close to being the base OS (Debian instead of Ubuntu) so I could build from it, or at least have its own large enough base and/or backing. I did consider Arch at one point. It got the updates very quickly/bleeding edge, and it has extensive comprehensive documentation. My issue was that it seems to be more build your own system than what I want. I am still learning what Desktop Environents, eindow managers and display managers are, and from what I had read at the moment Arch is waiting for me to pick and choose between the different options which I don't know exists. So in the end I went with Fedora. Decided the KDE versions since from what I had read is that KDE natively allows for customizing the system more than Gnome which requires extensions. Beyond that it has been a learning experience. Do want to eventually try Arch, but maybe once I have decided to fully wipe Windows off my system.
birchmouse@reddit
I wanted a distro with an emphasis on freedom, with no forced snap crap, that works fully on my laptop and is reasonably stable, and the ability to get a local mirror of the repository, in order to be able to install and work fully offline. Debian.
Typical-Chipmunk-327@reddit
Got tired of fiddling, wanted something for fresh than Debian or Ubuntu, settled on Fedora.
rockymega@reddit
*grammar
RedditMuzzledNonSimp@reddit
Freedom, the ability to change whatever I want, its that simple.
killchopdeluxe666@reddit
Hot take: I use Ubuntu for my almost all of my personal computers because there's a ton of community support, and I don't actually want to do a lot of labor to get my home computers to run whatever software properly.
housepanther2000@reddit
I chose Arch Linux because it’s heavily customizable and just stays out of your way. For me, it’s a joy to use on the desktop as my daily driver and has completely replaced Windows. On the server, I’m all about rocking Alma Linux.
AnomalyNexus@reddit
Arch cause I wanted to be close to steamos part of ecosystem to make gaming part smooth
BrianaAgain@reddit
Every time I wanted to know the answer to something I ended-up on the Arch Wiki, so I took the hint and went with Arch. I really like the rolling-updates and starting with something minimal. Before that I used Debian.
Alice_Alisceon@reddit
When I was but a wee lass I hopped around quite a bit. A friend had introduced me to Linux via arch, so that was my starting off point. Hopped around in that camp for a few years, I occasionally miss the carefree vibe of it all. Then I went to school and got a job at a company where fedora and Ubuntu were the only supported Linux distros. So I ran fedora at work and some arch derivative at home. But it didn’t take long to realize the advantages of fedora so I switched over at home and that’s where I’m still at. The relative degree of just-workiness and support is just so nice when you want to spend more time on doing things than you do on tooling. I’ve become dreadfully boring in the sense that I just run things with ”sane defaults” nowadays. I just add back a couple of i3-style keybinds no matter the environment I’m in. Some habits just die too hard to change.
Fedora is by no means perfect, there are plenty of friction points still, but it’s overall the best linuxing I’ve experienced. For servers I moved to EL at around the same time, for much the same reasons. You CAN bonk it to do anything you’d want, but it strongly incentivizes best practices instead of the cowboy engineering which a lot of other platforms rely on. I very fondly remember the era of my life where everything was slapdash and nothing needed serious uptime, so I would implore anyone to live that whilst they can. It’s extremely educational. But when the bell of responsibility tolls it’s also wise to know when to quit.
Zuendl11@reddit
I was dead set on using an arch based distro from the very start because I wanted something that isn't even only by proxy controlled by a corporation. First tried vanilla arch but I had issues getting audio and networking going properly after installing (my fault for going with arch as my first distro tbh) and then landed on cachyOS which I've been using since, that one was more of a coincidence because I just went with it on a whim hoping it would work better and I could have just as well landed on endeavorOS
sens1tiv@reddit
Arch is probably the closest to an engineer's mindset imo so I went with that. I like the minimalist and DIY aspect of it.
Tolledo@reddit
1997 - FreeBSD. Best logo.
2004 - RedHat. Best docs.
2011 - CentOS. Best free server OS.
2017 - Fedora. Best dev workstations.
2019 - Debian. Freedom and free of drama stability.
spots_reddit@reddit
tbh I started with Ubuntu and I just kept using Debian based distros for the simple reason I am bad at remembering stuff. sudo apt install ... that's it for me.
I have since pretty much tweaked my i3-based workflow and to be honest, with some of my computers I don't even know (or care) if it is zorin or Mint or antix, it all ends up feeling and looking the same: my (!!) linux.
also I am not in the tech business and none of my people ever uses Linux. my colleagues think I am crazy
Common-Ad-9029@reddit
Started with Ubuntu and tbh, after switching to cachyos. Arch based distros aren’t that difficult tbh. It’s just instead of typing sudo apt install … I just need to type yay -S … and sometimes I type yay -Syu to update everything.
spots_reddit@reddit
yeah, I know. But terminal commands, syntax and stuff does not come natural to me. It is like "if you like Spanish, try Italian, it is not that different" :)
Common-Ad-9029@reddit
Didn’t come natural to me either bro, i miserabl mistakenly installed a DE that came with no file manager so i spent a few days googling the terminal stuff i needed
Wooden-Ad6265@reddit
Best thing to do hee is carefully and honestly examine your use case. NixOS is good for programmers and those who need reproducible systems. I have gone down the Nix rabbit hole. I have a full system config in nix right now. I am studying Computer Science Engineering now. Even I don't need nix now. Arch and Gentoo (the better of these two) have never broken, and these two distros have far far far (add in a few of those yourself) more support, stability and community (in code base maintainers, contributors, users and coders) than NixOS. NixOS has a great potential, but it's not yet ready. You might jump in and contribute yourself. But I myself don't have the time, and I don't know how you measure and value your time, so can't say on that. Even many high level programmers don't need nix, coz there are more traditional and convenient alternatives: chezmoi (for managing dots), ansible, terraform, stow, bare, etc. etc. I for myself that traditional distros provide more flexibility than declarative distros, because declarative distros are hard dependent on some things that cannot be changed. The distro of my love is Gentoo. But if talking about getting it done: Arch or Fedora. Debian is good but my hardware doesn't like it.
activepixel@reddit
Pop Os or Zorin. I usually choose between those two mainly and sometimes min. Reasons for Pop, I use Brew, Flatpak, Appimage etc for apps so I just needed something stable with recent drivers. (so ubuntu based). Currently on Pop with 6.12 kernel and nvidia 575.57 driver. It is basically rolling for those drivers XD.
Level_Top4091@reddit
I installed MX Linux on one of my computers after a long search. I stayed with it because it performs great on older hardware, has everything I need, many excellent proprietary tools, Debian's stability, and runs very fast. I tried other options a few times. For various reasons, RHEL (unclear policies), Ubuntu (snap), and their forks are not for me, while Arch-based distributions are great but I don’t need the latest software versions or frequent updates. That’s why.
_Sgt-Pepper_@reddit
27 years ago, I bought a set of SUSE CDs in a bookstore, because that was what was available...
Shortly after I was introduced to redhat in university.
A few years later I became sysadmin in our university, and my first order of business was to remove that crappy distro from our computer pool and roll out Ubuntu, because I found it much easier to maintain than redhat...
Stayed with Ubuntu for more than a decade.
Switched to Debian a few years ago, because Debian has reached a point where they offer such a modern and complete setup, that any Debian based spin offs are no longer necessary in my opinion...
smirkybg@reddit
A friend told me to install Slackware 14 years ago, so I did (with help). I cried. Ran back to Windows. Then he switched to Arch himself and I followed (without help). Never looked back. He did give me pressure, though. I was feeling skeptical that this could be a change I can live with, given the fact I was gaming quite a lot back then.
Mango_c00ki3@reddit
Mint cuz it just works and its super easy to mentain (might be easier than windows for me in certain aspects including instalation)
I kinda want to try debian vuz i hear its light and reliable
elijuicyjones@reddit
I use EndeavourOS because it’s Arch with the desktop and maintenance stuff I’d install anyway. Love it.
Ezmiller_2@reddit
I started with Suse 9.2 back in the day, but Suse does the same thing that Fedora does--sends new kernels every week it seems like, and my nvidia drivers don't always keep up. So I tried Debian. Didn't like it.
So I sat down and looked at distrowatch. MX worked, but I like Mint more. I realized I like a machine that everything works on and I never have to touch (gaming), and I like having something I try other flavors and OSes like BSD out on. Problem solved so far.
Majestic_beer@reddit
Built in btfrs and grub recovery options, garuda. Something always brokes down, just revert snapshot.
JMarcosHP@reddit
I picked Ubuntu but the 9 month support edition, because I need more recent packages to play games, better support for newer hardware and a similar upgrade cadence as Fedora Workstation.
Most of the time software developers and hardware manufacturers give their support first on Ubuntu, so it's easy to setup things with good documentation.
I don't care about snaps, I just use all kind of package distribution types which works better and integrates well enough in the system, say Flatpak, Appimage, debs, etc.
And... It just works :)
MadeInASnap@reddit
My main criteria used to be the desktop environment, before I understood that that was a separate variable. (And back when I was first exploring, distros didn't tend to come with multiple DE flavors.)
Now it's about the package manager, release policy, and swiftness in pulling in bug fixes and new features. Ironically, I've found LTS releases to be the buggiest and rolling releases to be the most stable because the rolling releases actually get bug fixes instead of letting them sit for two years.
eldoran89@reddit
That is absolutely my experience. For a private user a rolling release distro will usually be more stable than an lts. Because even if sth breaks its usually just a day and an update until it works again. If you hit a bug in an lts, and you will, good luck.
Tempus_Nemini@reddit
Arch out of curiosity - is it really THAT hard to isntall. It happened 4 years ago. Still there.
P.S. I still there not trying to install, but using it on all my machines (4 of them, 2 being Apple devices :-) .
Novero95@reddit
Wanted something up to date, stable, with wayland, KDE and btrfs, so it was between Fedora KDE and OpenSUSE tumbleweed. Went with Fedora at the end and happy with it.
Maykey@reddit
I've picked garuda because other distros didn't see WiFi or laptop's nvidia card. Stayed with it because it has preconfigured btrfs
eldoran89@reddit
I can only recommend btrfs for more users. A few weeks ago it saved my ass as I basically broke my home directory by accidently removing some important parts (remember to unmount a bind mount before rm -r its patent directory) but thanks to btrfs and its snapshots i lost not a single file.
eldoran89@reddit
Distro hopping l.
Bo but seriously if you come from windows you are usually not aware what you really want from a distro. I settled for an arch distro. Reason is that I like the rolling release guaranteeing bleeding edge packages and the aur means every imaginable package is available even if it is not precompiled in the sources. Also I use KDE because I can customize the gui as i want.
And I can only recommend chachy for anyone interested but kept off because of archs supposed difficulty.bthe installation isn't more difficult than for any other distro, it comes with a desktop of your choosing and i can only emphasize that arch isn't the expert distro it's made out to be
Bruceplanet@reddit
I base the choice on the specs of the machine I'm putting it on. What ram it has what processor what graphics card type of memory that kind of stuff.
nastran@reddit
Because I no longer have the passion to tweak many parameters like I did when I was younger. It felt like major achievements, but in reality I achieved nothing but wasting time. I am still not a programmer, and all I could remember was simple conditional programming.
lKrauzer@reddit
I tested a shit ton of distros and ended up with one that requires zero to no maintenance, even though I liked the "adventure" of dealing with Linux technical challenges, nowadays though, I just want things to work, because I find it more appealing to improve what already works instead of trying to fix what has recently broken
So I choose Bazzite, I wanted to use Fedora but I didn't wanted to deal with the offline updates, nor I wanted to turn it off, and I also didn't wanted to have to layer packages via rpm-ostree, so Bazzite is the perfect fit, the updates happen automatically in the background, and it has all apps pre-installed without needing to layer them
ha9unaka@reddit
Arch. Installed it purely to scoff at the Ubuntu normies and say "I have se Arch btw". /s
mdins1980@reddit
Slackware has been my desktop distro of choice since 2001, and I’ve yet to find another distribution that gives me a compelling reason to switch. It comes with a steeper learning curve, but the level of control and customization it offers is unmatched. For servers, though, I prefer the stability and convenience of Debian.
Big-Afternoon-3422@reddit
Pop OS, because I think it does a lot of things right and Cosmic is very interesting.
Square-Mile-Life@reddit
Having previously used Redhat, SuSE, Mandriva and Fedora, I went to Slackware. The lack of systemd was the main reason for my choice.
BornInTheCCCP@reddit
Started on Ubuntu when the internet was slow and their CD/DVD mail program was the simplest way to get up and running. Stayed with it, as it worked.
kombiwombi@reddit
I use Fedora at the laptop at work because it is the leading edge of RHEL, so developing for that means no terrible surprises. But Fedora is both the sharp cutting edge and intended for use by professionals. That's fine for us engineering staff. But the first thing a wider corporate use of Linux would need to do is to change distro.
My workplace uses RHEL on servers where it wants to pay for OS support, and Debian on servers where it does not. The choice of Debian is purely corporate risk management: someone could buy Canonical and do a SCO, IBM could discontinue Centos Stream and Fedora.
PGleo86@reddit
I use Debian because it just works, and more importantly, continues to just work. It's well-documented, it's stable, it performs well, and it's familiar to me - my first Linux experience was with Debian 16 years ago, and through decades of using Debian- or Ubuntu-based systems on my secondary devices, its quirks became second nature. It makes my PC feel like home, and that's why I love it.
kalanchoeee@reddit
my dad gave me a netbook with mint on it as a kid. i try other distros but i just always end up using mint. it's a little nostalgic for me, and i'm used to it because of how long i've been using it.
omeguito@reddit
Mint mostly because of cinnamon and compatibility with Ubuntu. I tried Fedora but it used so much RAM without nothing running that it didn’t make sense for my hardware at the time.
rire0001@reddit
I'm not a distro fanboy. Started with slackware back in the day, meandered to Ubuntu at one point, and seem to have settled on Fedora - but that's only because the systems I was directing were running Red Hat. But seriously, if someone said, Hey, this distro is the bomb, I'd try it out.
daemonpenguin@reddit
You're really over-thinking this.
Install one of the main distributions (Debian, maybe since you mentioned it).
If it does everything you need, then you're done.
If it doesn't do everything you need, look for a distro that does the thing you are missing.
Revisit step 2.
anonymous_lurker-@reddit (OP)
Oh absolutely, I will just pick and try stuff. I'm just curious what this journey looked like for other people and how they ended up on whatever they're using
BinkReddit@reddit
My brief summation after trying a few distributions:
https://www.reddit.com/r/voidlinux/comments/1gzrhsd/void_praise/
OverappreciatedSalad@reddit
I picked Ubuntu because it's the most straightforward Linux distro. Everything works, I don't feel like I have to tweak stuff all the time, and it has some of the most support. A lot of Linux enthusiasts on here have their opinions on it, but if I listened to them, I probably wouldn't have even tried Linux in the first place.
buttershdude@reddit
Did some massive distro hopping. For about a year or so. Tried them all. Ok, but close. In the end, I chose the one that represented the least pain in the ass. And that was Mint. By a long shot.
El_McNuggeto@reddit
Tried others but had nvidia driver headaches, arch was far less off a headache somehow
azeoUnfortunately@reddit
Picked CachyOS because I distro hopped and now I am pretty sure it’s my home. Can customize like Arch with the ease of being able to change things in a settings menu rather than the terminal.
usctzn069@reddit
Kubuntu Studio - I'm an artist, photographer and musician.
I started with Ubuntu on a Lenovo laptop because everything just works and then migrated to Kubuntu studio
AlarmDozer@reddit
I chose Debian (release) because it's not like Ubuntu versions where every day there is an update to the packages. I also use Fedora (workstation) on my laptop because it worked the wireless.
tentigoheptathorpe@reddit
I wanted a distro on which I would have to properly learn how to use, with a bigger learning curve, knowing all its' bells and whistles, and having to know why I was doing whatever I would be doing. I went for Slackware.
smeech1@reddit
Started with Mint on a magazine CD as Windows XP support ended. Switched to Xfce because of my aged hardware (now 12 year old ex-business SFF PC) and saw no reason to move, despite SSD & RAM upgrades.
I've tried several other distros in VMs to assist users on r/espanso, but not yet come across one I like better.
theaveragemillenial@reddit
I tried all the other distros, eventually settled on arch and then i3wm went through different tiling window managers for awhile and then jumped onto pop_os! And cosmic de when they released alpha.
Haven't changed since.
RegisterdSenior69@reddit
I was using Linux Mint and I was having issues playing some games on my 43 inch 4K TV for some reason. I decided to try Manjaro KDE, and it ran my games perfectly. I started to do some work with SwarmUI and found it easier to use Kubuntu and its Ubuntu base for dealing with python dependencies. KDE is awesome and it just works for me.
luizfx4@reddit
I just wanted one that made me comfortable and didn't show problems or only few very manageable problems. Once I found those two things, I didn't hop anymore. Linux Mint did the trick and I really have no reasons at all to change.
Siege089@reddit
I used to distro hop, then I tried arch and never could leave. The wiki + aur is the perfect combo to keep be around. I feel empowered to both get work done, and to tinker when I want to. I still occasionally check out new distros just to see what's up, but I keep coming home to arch.
ChocolateDonut36@reddit
used Debian on my phone
used Debian on wsl
used Debian as first distro
never had an issue
I love Debian
Von_Lexau@reddit
I've briefly tried out Ubuntu touch, and I could not use it as a daily in its current state. How does debian work for you on your phone?
ChocolateDonut36@reddit
no no, I don't mean like Ubuntu touch, I mean installing the distro inside termux on android, wasn't the best possible experience but it was the first time I actually used linux
Bibs628@reddit
I started using Linux a year ago, got a headstart with using arch (EndeavorOS) and kinda liked how things work out of the box (mostly) and had a great experience with it generally. Sometimes later I upgraded my SSD and then went distro Hopping for about 3 Month using NixOS, Ubuntu, TuxedoOS) and then back to EndeavorOS. I mostly liked a few things in every distro and got a feel for different things.
I kinda like Plasma Interfaces but prefer dynamic tiling, i like rolling release (but I don't need to be on the bleeding edge like NixOS). I got mostly better with using EOS and kine like how things are done here. I love how the app updates work and the huge pool of apps which work with mostly minimal effort but also some niche stuff since arch is pretty good supported.
King_of_the_light@reddit
I chose openSUSE because I wanted something up to date without the regular problems associated with most rolling releases.
79215185-1feb-44c6@reddit
I need virtual machines for work. There is only 1 good web frontend for VMs on Linux, and the only other option would be to use a bad Type 1 Hypervisor in Hyper-V, a deprecated Type-1 and commercial Hypervisor in ESXi, or to use worse alternatives.
FattyDrake@reddit
I default to Arch or Fedora, use Debian on a couple systems. I stick to the "top level" distros and customize them how I want. I personally don't really see a point to derivative distros, but I know that opinion of mine is in the minority.
debian3@reddit
I started with Debian a long time ago, never saw the need to change.
TheDarkerNights@reddit
At the start I distrohopped for a while until settling on BunsenLabs because I liked the clean UI. Then later down the road I installed Arch for the memes but learned I really enjoyed using it. That's still my go-to for personal devices. I've started using RHEL-based distros for homelab stuff lately because it mostly matches what I use at work.
okktoplol@reddit
I use arch because it's bleeding edge and pretty much a blank canvas for me to paint on. I can do whatever I want in that system. Also pretty well documented and easily understandable due to the arch wiki.
Also pacman and the AUR are awesome.
Not everyone likes messing with their computer a lot though, some people just want a plug-and-play solution, and arch is not really for that. It's not that hard to pick up though if you have _some_ familiarity with linux at least. Since you mentioned you left everything stock on windows, arch is probably not for you.
Von_Lexau@reddit
I really enjoy plasma 6 and Wayland is an absolute must, so I went with OpenSUSE Tumbleweed on my gaming desktop. I somewhat regret that decision, because some things always break when I do zypper dup. Yast is nice, the setup is alright, and Snapper is nice to have when the update breaks stuff.
I'm going to go with something more stable like fedora on my new laptop. Will probably switch to fedora on my gaming desktop down the line.
Business_Reindeer910@reddit
I used Fedora because it (most of the time) hits the sweeet spot with update cadence and is somewhat opinionated. Now I use Bluefin (based on Fedora) because now I don't have to think much about my base system at all. I let that get managed, and then do all own work in a toolbox or distrobox. I can use any distro's packages there or even nix's package manager.
Something nix based would be my ideal though. I want a curated nix based distro, but that doesn't appear to exist yet.
I'd go with nix, but I don't wanna learn nix lang.
AceOfKestrels@reddit
tbh I haven't found NixOS particularly difficult. It wants you to do things The Nix Way™ a lot of the time, but a lot of it is well documented at this point. You just have to approach it with an open mind and be willing to relearn some things you might be used to
I tried out NixOS on a whim after I broke my Arch installation and just stuck with it for now.
Your choice of distro is shaped by a lot of different factors. I've had one too many issue with APT to ever consider a Debian-derivative again. I like my software very up to date, which is why I used Arch and its derivatives for a while. After recent fiascos tinkering with my system I wanted something I can't easily break, and NixOS has been the perfect fit so far.
You can't know what you want if you haven't properly tried out different things. So my advice: pick something. Roll some dice if you can't decide, but don't overthink it. Try something, approach it with an open mind, and after a while look back at what you learned and the issues you encountered.
0riginal-Syn@reddit
Fedora, EndeavourOS, and Solus are what I use on my different systems. Solus is growing on me for general use as it is a rolling release but is curated and scheduled realest once a week unless needed for security.
Fantastic-Code-8347@reddit
I picked mint because it’s the most simple one and I’m stupid so I chose that one because it’s easy
seventhbrokage@reddit
I played around with Ubuntu a bit back in 2012-ish, jumped to Mint when I needed a daily driver in college because it was supposed to be rock solid, then moved to Manjaro because I didn't understand the concept of DEs at the time and thought it looked cooler. Went back to MacOS and then Windows for a bit after that, but got really tired of it so I started playing around with distros again. I found that I really wanted to stay with the leading edge of software, especially for gaming, so I ended up gravitating toward Arch. Poking around in that family led me to EndeavourOS because I didn't trust myself to set up everything myself, so I got the peace of mind of a setup done by people who know more about the distro than I do, while also getting the newest updates and features with the flexibility of the AUR.
librewolf@reddit
well, not that deep really. was 16 at the time, looked up most of them, chose debian as it was very stable, popular enough to have problems fixed and soft awaylable and didnt have any extra crust on it (ubuntu+).
stayed with it for 8 years, then had to go mac route because of a big client.
now my home laptop runs linux mint as its easy for my 6yo son to operate
Cyberpunk_2025@reddit
After checking a few distributions for now I ended up with Kubuntu, rolling release. So far no special issues, a little tinkering for some things but would be the same with other distros, mainly personal and SW related adaptations. It's Debian based, KDE and wayland which supports my relatively new setup, multi monitor and games pretty well. Also I definitely prefer KDE over Gnome or Cinnamon. The SW package it comes with is pretty much what I'd use anyhow, so it suits me well just right out of the box. For me it's also important that the system is working stable. The time I was playing around with SW a lot are gone, it needs to work. But also needs to support latest tech and some gaming as well, that's why I decided for the roling release of Kubuntu.
tonibaldwin1@reddit
It’s European, rolling released, stable enough, and I can fix it when it breaks
Enzyme6284@reddit
Yeah, I have struggled with this also. Been bouncing around since the late 90’s 😫 I have settled on Debian. My rationale is it mostly just works. A little tweaking but not Arch level. It’s a happy balance for me. I game using steam and lutris and it works perfectly. I can write, surf, email, whatever and it’s keeps on trucking.
I am on testing (Trixie) but it is rock solid and will probably stay put once it releases. I like that it’s popular and won’t “vanish overnight” as is my fear with some small distros but that’s probably an unfounded fear.
The third party software I use works well with it: Mega cloud client and 1Password client. We shall see if I stay put…I am running it on both my big gaming desktop and my Thinkpad T14.
Mister_Magister@reddit
I was using SailfishOS and I liked zypper and obs.
Is this one of the most unique reasons? perhaps.
Hosein_Lavaei@reddit
Decide which package manager and release model you like
ImWaitingForIron@reddit
I chose Gentoo because I don't want unnecessary stuff in my system, I'm used to systemd and compilation time isn't a problem for me. Gentoo also has all packages I need + overlays. And it's stable
Robsteady@reddit
A) GRUB used my native resolution instead of stretching a smaller resolution by default. B) Screen positions in my multihead setup were correct by default (other distros would give me problems trying to correct the screen positions) C) No major version upgrades to worry about breaking things and D) Leading edge (not bleeding edge) versions that don't leave me feeling like I'm missing out on the newest tech.
Outrageous_Trade_303@reddit
I switched to linux back at 2000 (the windows ME era). My first distro was suse just because I got a CD with that (back then downloading entire CD ISOs from the internet wasn't a thing). Some years later when I got my first ADSL internet connection I did some distro hopping and tried all mainstream distros of that time (redhat, mandriva, debian and even linux from scratch). Then I tried kubuntu and linux mint kde and I used mint kde until they decided to not develop it anymore and since then I use kde neon, just because I like KDE and I already was contributing to KDE.
thieh@reddit
Last time a version upgrade of a machine broke so I switch all my stuff to rolling release distros. It's more or less which problems you don't want to tolerate because process pet peeve or something.
anonymous_lurker-@reddit (OP)
Gonna assume that's openSUSE?
thieh@reddit
Arch and OpenSUSE tumbleweed. I haven't tried Leap.
polkurz@reddit
I stopped enjoying customizing stuff and eventually stuck with fedora. It was moreso a decision to stop switching around than anything specific to fedora.
I’d imagine there are a lot of users here that are in similar positions (i.e. their computing needs are satisfied pretty easily so they just pick arbitrarily and stick with it)