Linux

I wanted to say Kubuntu but cloud not during the transition to Wayland. A few key features were missing. That required kde 6 to be fixed. At the time the next Kubuntu version were a LTS release so it was not going to include kde 6. Only solution were to choose something else that offered that but still were not bleeding edge. Fedora were the answer. Kept using since then. Also alogns a little better with my value of how things should be done like not so bloated , no snaps fight and BTRFs for backup.

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

If the distros didn't matter nobody would have strong preference. Instead there are Distro wars raging for years now, with plenty of casualties.

For me the preference came from reliability. I tried many distros and they never worked well. They either had bugs or didn't work the way I wanted to. When I finally found what suits me, you can be damn sure I will tell everyone who listens that its the best distro on the whole planet.... FOR ME. But I will gladly recommend it as well 😊

I think the combo hardware + kind of person can create many unique preferences... almost distro-count amounts of preferences 😀

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.

Ive been using fedora, my first distro, for about 5 years. I'm about to switch because it just doesn't do some things I want, or not without a ton of config. I got it because it came up as "best distro for coding" when I googled it, and I was just beginning to code.

I can't imagine its that much better than like Ubuntu though, which is what I think I'll switch to. Meanwhile there's several just complete and total roadblocks ive hit because of the distro. Kubernettes and Docker just doesn't work for me. I was trying a teat install of CiviCRM and never got past the download. Recently, when trying to install Graphene on a new phone, Fedora in fastboot just refuses to recognize it. In the process of trying to work around this limitation, I somehow removed myself from the sudo su group, and fixing it has been a chore.

Its like every time I want to do x, it isn't supported. Coding and developing on it is fine, for my personal projects. If I wanna do anything more than run a script though, its been nothing but hardship.

Its been a pretty good distro for me, but I have a dislike for extended config and sysadmin tasks and troubleshooting, and on my personal projects I keep hitting roadblocks over and over on Fedora. Open to other suggestions, but Ubuntu seems the most straightforward

Weak.

If you’re needing to ask this question then you don’t understand Linux and it’s eco system.

Try and think real hard and you might be able to understand why you are wrong.

Why have you not done a basic search to understand the objectives of the various distros and posiilities, before posing these questions?

No, I think you're missing the point. Distro really and truly doesn't matter at all. They all can do the same stuff as each other. It's entirely all about taste and personal preference, and nothing else. Each flavour has a different starting point, and those staying points make it quicker and easier to achieve different end goals, but they can all achieve the same end goals but with varying amounts of effort. But to stay with, just pick one and give it a try, learn how it works and what it does, then either stick or twist, but have fun learning and exploring.