this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2025
168 points (96.2% liked)

Linux

53449 readers
617 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

Related Communities

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

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.

My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.

(page 6) 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] liliumstar@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 days ago

Arch on desktop/laptop because I'm very comfortable with it, and I can set it up the way I like.

Debian on servers because it's stable and nearly everything has a package available, or at least instructions for building.

Same as OP, but I'm not likely to change them out. I've tried a lot of distros over the years and this is what works best for me.

[–] Lettuceeatlettuce@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Depends on the use case.

I use Nobara on my gaming rig because I wanted up-to-date packages without being on the cutting edge like Arch. And I also wanted all the lower level gaming optimizations without having to set it all up manually. Plus, KDE is soooooo nice.

Debian on my servers because I want extreme stability with a community-driven distro.

Linux Mint on my personal laptops, because I like having the good things from Ubuntu without all the junk. Plus the Cinnamon desktop environment has been rock stable for me. It's my goto workhorse distro. If I don't need something with a specialized or specific use case, I throw Mint on.

Arch on my old junker devices that I don't use much because I like making them run super fast and look sexy and testing out different WM's and DE's.

Void on my junkers that I actually want to use frequently because it's super performant and light on resources without needing to be built manually like Arch.

Ubuntu server if I am feeling stanky and lazy and just need something quick for a testing VM or container host in my home lab.

[–] incogtino@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 days ago

I've been on Mint with Cinnamon for about 5 years across desktops, laptops, and home server

I had to update a machine with a version of Mint that was EoL this year, so I just upgraded through several major versions in a row with no issues

It was interesting seeing how much more polished each upgrade process was

[–] randomcruft@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 5 days ago

Fedora… it took way to long to figure out how to remove all the software I didn’t need / want and still have a functional system. I will not subject myself to that pain again 🙂

[–] UntouchedWagons@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago

Debian because it just works. I am interested in trying NixOS though.

[–] yaroto98@lemmy.org 2 points 5 days ago

Garuda - because like endeavor it's arch for lazy people, plus I got sold on the gaming edition by how much I like the theme and the latest drivers. But that's just what got me to try it, what sold me on it is when I had a vm of it that ran out of hdd space mid kernel update. I shut it down to expand the drive, booted it back up and no kernels present. Fiddling around in grub in a panic made me realize snappertools auto snapshots btrfs before updating. I think only once in my life (out of dozens of tries) has Microsoft's restorepoints actually worked for me. Booting to the snapshot was effortless, clicking through to recover to that snapshot was a breeze. I rebooted again just to make sure it was working and it did. Re-updated and I was back in action.

That experience made me love garuda. I highly recommend snappertools+btrfs from now on and use it whenever I can. Yes, preventative tools and warnings would have stopped it from happening, but you can't stop everything, and it's a comfort to have.

[–] bradd@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago

I'm an IT professional, I use what I support. RHEL based OS's, Rocky for servers, Fedora for workstations. That said I still love Debian and use them most often for container images when I dont have a reason to use something else.

[–] owenfromcanada@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

I've used Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, and Manjaro. All viable options. I'm currently using Mint on my daily driver, Ubuntu on my HTPCs, and Debian on my servers.

I liked the rolling release aspect of Manjaro, but I missed having a system that works with DEB files. I'm not a fan of flatpak/snap/appimage due to the size (I've often had to use slower internet connections). I settled on Mint for my daily driver because it has great and easy compatibility for my hardware (specifically an Nvidia GPU). It worked okay on Manjaro as well, but I've found it easier to select and switch between GPU drivers on Mint. And Cinnamon is my favorite DE, and that's sort of "native" to Mint.

I'm using vanilla Ubuntu on my HTPCs because I have Proton VPN on them, and it's the only setup I've found that doesn't have issues with the stupid keyring thing. And Proton VPN's app only really natively supports Ubuntu. The computers only ever use a web browser, so the distro otherwise doesn't matter that much.

I'm using Debian on my servers because it's the distro I'm most familiar with, especially without a GUI. Plus it'll run until the hardware fails, maybe a little longer.

[–] ProtonBadger@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago

I agree, only release schedule really matters, package managers are easy to learn.. I don't think the AUR is that special either, I've always found everything I needed no matter the distro, but maybe I don't have exotic requirements.

I'm fine with most distros, though I don't bother with the fast rolling ones anymore, I did for a few years but I don't see the point for me. I'm happy with Fedora or an Ubuntu derivative and major updates are one command which is trouble free unless you've changed something in a non-standard way.

Now using Pop 24.04 as it's on a stable base and I code COSMIC stuff, oh and they update kernel/nvidia/mesa on a regular basis (I use hybrid Gfx, Intel iGPU and NV offload). I'll probably stick with PopOS or Fedora COSMIC spin/copr moving forward.

Use case for me is coding and gaming.

[–] RotatingParts@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 days ago

I use Kubuntu. I like the KDE desktop and I like a Debian based OS. If someone is going to make their software for Linux, it will almost certainly be available at least for Debian. If, say you want it for Arch, you need to wait for someone to put it in the AUR or build it yourself.

[–] Crazyslinkz@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Arch, because it has what I want for gaming. Also its simple, lots of help in forums and community driven. Im not too big on rolling, but it's really stable and works.

I have distro hopped a bit, used fedora, ubuntu, debian, and manjora. Stopped on arch as, I like my xfce set up with arch.

KISS - keep it stupid simple or simple stupid.

[–] Raptorox@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago

Arch

Found it, love it

[–] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

I wanted a mainstream option but not Ubuntu, and one that was preferably offered with KDE Plasma pre-packaged.

So I ended up deciding between Debian and Fedora, and what tipped me to Fedora was thinking: Well SELinux sounds neat, quite close to what I learned about Mandatory Access Control in the lectures, and besides, maybe it will be useful in my work knowing one that is close to RHEL.

Now I work in a network team that has been using Debian for 30 years, lol. Kind of ironic, but I don't regret it, now I just know both.

And fighting SELinux was kind of fun too. I modified my local policies so that systemd can run screen because I wanted to create a Minecraft service to which I could connect as admin, even if it was started by systemd.

[–] fox@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago

Arch. I'm addicted to updating packages and Arch helps me stay sane.

[–] Spider89@lemm.ee 1 points 5 days ago

I like apt and is great stability for servers and unstable branch for desktops/laptops/Legion GO. (Debian with Xanmod).

[–] robber@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 days ago

TuxedoOS because my so-called "Linux-Laptop" turned out to not run mainline Linux very smoothly. But I hate that fact that it's Ubuntu-based.

I'd use Debian, Arch or dabble with Void if I could on my laptop, my servers run Debian or Alma.

I use Mint because I use lots of small project software that tends to only have packages for Debian/Ubuntu. Mint also works very well with an NVIDIA card. I've tried other distros but they fail to work well with nvidia.

When I get a new AMD laptop I want to try Vanilla OS as apparently it can use any package format but is also immutable which I like. I just hope they have the KDE Plasma edition out by then because I really don't enjoy Gnome

[–] AstroLightz@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

~~ArcoLinux~~ ArchLinux (BTW) because I love tinkering with computers.

Finding ways to automate tedious tasks is the fun part of the challenge. Scripts, systemd services, bash aliases are a great skill to learn. (Especially bash)

Also I'm too used to pacman and AUR to go back to APT.

[–] Fizz@lemmy.nz 1 points 5 days ago

I look at distros as a base to make changes from. I can make my distro into whatever i want but its going to take varying amounts of effort depending on which distro I start with.

I choose Nobara because i really liked fedora and I wanted a fedora base but with someone(eggy) keeping up with the latest gaming tweaks and adding them. Ive been using it for 2+ years and so far so good.

[–] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago

Eh, it worked for me the best back when I was new to Linux, and I've never tried anything that was better, just different since then.

I went through the usual Ubuntu experiment, but their baked in DE at the time was just unpleasant. Tried manjaro? I think, it's hard to recall if that was before or after that initial flurry of trying things out. But there were a half dozen that got suggested back on the Linux for noobs subreddit when win10 came along amd I was noping out.

Mint did the trick. Cinnamon as a DE did what I wanted, how I wanted it. It came with the stuff I needed to get started, and the repo had the stuff I wanted without having to add anything. It worked with all my hardware without jumping through hoops.

I've tried other stuff and like I said, nothing better, just different, so why screw around?

Tbh, that's also how I feel about pretty much everything I tried though. If I had run into one of the others that happened to "fit" the same way back then, I'd likely still be with it because there's really not a ton of difference in day to day use between any of them. The de matters more in that regard, imo.

[–] commander@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

Ubuntu at work since it's well supported and we can expect any IT people to be able to deploy our packages.

Pop 24.04 because I think it'd be cool to see how performant and maintainable and customizable a desktop that isn't GTK or QT based. Something sparkly without the legacy choices of the past to consider in the codebase. Plus even though I've never touched Rust, it's so hyped that I'm interested to see how it all works out. It's my gaming desktop that also has a Windows VM for occasional trying something out. Also process RAW photos with Darktable. Every now and then use Alpaca to try out free LLMs, handbrake, ffmpeg, image magick, compile something

Fedora, stable to me and it goes on my minipc. I run Jellyfin on it and occasionally SAMBA or whatever. I like to see how GNOME changes.

On a Legion Go, Bazzite with KDE. Steam and seeing how KDE Plasma progresses over years. Bazzite introduced me to distrobox and boxbuddy which I now use on the gaming pop_os machine too.

An old laptop with Linux Mint on it. I like to see how Cinnamon is. Used to favor it when I first tried Linux from Windows.

It's been a long time but I also used to really like Budgie but I feel like everything is pretty solid at this point and I no longer care to chase modern GNOME 2 or Windows XP/7 UI design

[–] Drito@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 days ago

After tried Alpine, NixOS, Archlinux...finally Im on MX linux because this is a no brain distro and I'm tired to search how to make things to work.

[–] ocean@lemmy.selfhostcat.com 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Ran Ubuntu and Ubuntu server first then switched to desktop fedora and liked it so I switched all my servers to fedora. Tried TrueNas Scale in the past and disliked it except for SMB shares. Also have an unraid server but hate it.

I guess I’m pretty superficial about just liking the base fedora DE. Idk beyond that.

[–] Crabhands@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago (5 children)

I run a headless Ubuntu server and Mint as my daily driver. I tried Pop OS first, which was great, other than I hated the task bar and had some problems with some apps. I also tried Kubuntu which gave me problem after problem. Mint made everything easy.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] CsXGF8uzUAOh6fqV@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago

Artix because it is more Arch then Arch according to Arch's own goals: "focuses on simplicity, minimalism, and code elegance". There is no way systemd is more simple, minimal and elegant than its alternatives. I don't think systemd is bad, but I do think it is a bad fit and Artix is what Arch should have been.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›