Linux

65927 readers

569 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

Why choice of Linux distribution matters (lemmy.ml)

submitted 2 days ago by thingsiplay@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml

98 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

The thing with Fedora is they will not ship with anything that isn't FOSS. This means some things will be missing, like video codex as an example. You can add whatever you need to it, but you'll sometimes have a starting point that needs more things added than another distro would. Also, tutorials may not include Fedora directions.

Personally, I've been using Garuda for a few years, and it's been great. I used Fedora for a bit before and ditched it. Garuda is Arch-based, so Arch tutorials directions work, and you get all the benefits of Arch without the work. CachyOS should be similar.

Personally, I don't care for Ubuntu. I used it before Fedora and I preferred Fedora.

[–] Juice@midwest.social 2 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

What didn't you like about Ubuntu? Im still kinda hesitant, I like the idea of an arch based distro thats a little easier to use, I mean ive never used arch so I dont really know, I would just like to be able to spin up or install whatever I want without being gatekept out of seemingly anything I try that isn't just install program, run program. I'm comfortable with terminal but I dont wanna get stuck in config hell like every time I wanna do kinda basic shit for anyone tech-savvy and experimental minded

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

I just don't really care for the way Cononical does things.

Garuda at least was trivial to get going. You install it and it has everything you need, then it also has a tool where you can select any other packages you may want. It's pretty nice. I've heard CachyOS is really easy to get going too. You basically don't need to use the terminal for them if you really don't want to, but it is significantly easier to do a lot of things with it. If you managed to install Fedora, you'll be fine with either of these too. They're no harder than Fedora or Ubuntu except you get the bonus of the Arch Wiki for anything you might need.

[–] Juice@midwest.social 2 points 4 hours ago

Thanks for the insight, appreciate your input!