I’m ditching Windows in favor of Linux on my personal desktop. And so I’m looking for advice on which distro I should start with.

About Me

I use Linux professionally all the time but mostly to build ci/cd pipelines and for software development/operations. I’ve never been a Linux admin nor have I ever chosen the distro I use. I’m generally comfortable using Linux and digging into configs/issues as needed.

Planned Usage

I use this machine for typical home usage: Firefox, a notes app (currently Notesnook), maybe office style tools like word and excel. I also use this for gaming: Steam, Discord, etc. Lastly and least important, I use this for a small amount of dev work: VSCode, various languages, possibly running containers.

What I’m Looking For

I’d like an OS that’s highly configurable but ships with good default settings and requires very little effort to start using. I don’t want it to ship with loads of applications; I want to choose and install all of the higher level tools. Shipping with a configured desktop is perfectly fine but not required. Ideally, I can have all of this while still keeping the maintenance low. I think that means a stable OS, a good package manager, stable/automatic updates, etc.

Last bit. Open source is rather important to me. I prefer free and free.

Anyone have good suggestions??

Edit

I’m aware of tools like Distro Chooser. They’ve recommended Arch Linux and Endeavor OS to me so far. But I’m not ready to trust them yet. I’m looking for human input.

Edit 2: Hardware Info

I’m running on an ASUS ROG Strix GA15DK. It’s just over 2 years old. The hardware was shiny but not top-tier at the time. It’s not new at this point but also not old by Linux standards.

  • AMD Ryzen 7 5800X Processor
  • NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070
  • 16GB DDR4 3200 MHz RAM

Edit 3

It’s official. I installed EndeavourOS! I got it to work without any issues. Yup, first try. It definitely didn’t take me ~10 tries :D

Thanks for all the input all! Wonderful crowd here!!!

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Help me choose a distro, please!

    This is asking for trouble.

    “Gentlemen, I am new to the country, and I was hoping that you could help me choose a political party.”

    “I’m looking for a good text editor. What’s the best text editor to use?”

    “I’ve heard that various religions have a lot of things going for them. Which religion do you suggest I join?”

    Aside from very specialized distros (like, you probably don’t want Alpine Linux) most distros will work fine for what you want.

    I use this machine for typical home usage: Firefox, a notes app (currently Notesnook), maybe office style tools like word and excel.

    Firefox will run on everything. You can definitely take notes on anything, and there are tons of options. LibreOffice will be available for everything.

    Steam,

    Steam ships with its own set of libraries based on Ubuntu, and stuff targeting Steam will normally use them. It should be pretty distro-agnostic.

    Discord

    They apparently have a Linux app, which I’ve never used. The website should work fine anywhere. They have a “deb” or “tar.gz” and don’t specify any target distro for either. The deb probably is for Ubuntu, just because it’s the most-widely-used desktop distro that uses Debian packages, but I imagine that you’ve got good odds of it working on whatever. If you want to check, you could just throw a distro on a VM.

    I don’t want it to ship with loads of applications; I want to choose and install all of the higher level tools. Shipping with a configured desktop is perfectly fine but not required. Ideally, I can have all of this while still keeping the maintenance low. I think that means a stable OS, a good package manager, stable/automatic updates, etc.

    Everything outside of really specialized, oddball distros has package management.

    All the major distros that I’ve used have options to do various forms of a stripped-down install. If you want to install a distro without anything graphical at all, you probably can.

    You do have a differing release cycle; I’d probably tend towards a shorter one for desktop use. If you were setting up a ci server that you want minimal interaction with, you probably don’t care much about having newer software. But, again, distros tend to have at least options for a LTS release that just gets security updates, even if they have a pretty-frequent set of updates, like Ubuntu.

    There aren’t going to be particularly “unstable” distros in the sense of crashing. Debian stable is aimed at being software that’s passed through multiple phases of experimental testing use and is considered well-tested; it’s just their normal distro. There’s no pixie dust that makes some distros less-crash-prone. If you’re really determined to have more testing, you can use an LTS release, which many distros do but I would not advise for a desktop, especially if you’re planning on playing commercial games, which you say you are.

    Last bit. Open source is rather important to me. I prefer free and free.

    You can get open-source software on any distro. Debian is a bit more aggressive than some, turns off non-free repositories by default, but I think that most people turn them on anyway. They also have a separate non-free firmware repository, and I think that most people aren’t determined enough to refuse to use non-libre firmware for hardware that they have (though they might choose that hardware with libre firmware in mind). I don’t think that there’s any distro that is going to ram non-open-source stuff down your throat. Honestly, your largest source of non-open-source software is probably going to be Steam, which you said that you want to use.

    I use Debian myself these days. I’m hesitant to argue in favor of distros, because my own take is that the differences (a) tend to change over time, (b) most work pretty well regardless, and (c) I think that few people have actually spent enough time on many other distros to be able to have expert knowledge in their failings (which is something that I’ve seen in vi-vs-emacs discussions, where I’ve seen enthusiasts often talk about amazing features while unaware that the other editor can also do the same thing; it takes decades to master either).

    If I were picking a “first distro” for someone for desktop use, and disregarding your specific situation, my default is probably Ubuntu. I don’t use it myself these days, but it’s particularly-widely-used. It has a short release cycle on the non-LTS version (I know that you said you wanted low maintenance, but I’ve pretty consistently found that one winds up wanting to pull in newer software for desktop systems). It’s Debian-based. If one distro gets targeted by a proprietary software package (which I know you also said that you don’t care about) it’s probably going to be Ubuntu. Aside from past use of Upstart as an init system, it isn’t especially unusual. It doesn’t require some of the poking around (like enabling non-free repos) that Debian does. It may or may not be where someone wants to be long term, but it’s not going to bring a lot of complications. But it’s really not going to be drastically better than the other mainstream distros.

    Whether that is what one chooses or not, I’d stick to one of the more mainstream distros for a first-time user. There are legitimate reasons to use oddball, young, and specialized distros (tiny, security-hardened, real-time oriented, scientific-computing oriented, music-production oriented) but many of them die out after a couple years or impose constraints that aren’t immediately apparent to a new user.

    I’d suggest something that’s been around for at least ten, preferably fifteen years. A distro that’s accomplished that has enough of a track record that they aren’t just going to be a flash in the pan; they’ve been able to attract and maintain enough effort to keep up an ongoing release cycle, which is not easy and I think is often more effort than would-be distro maintainers realize. Most distros that have come out since I started using Linux in the 1990s have died off. If yours gets discontinued, then you gotta migrate off it, which is a pain. But again, if you choose something new and it never sees another release, migrating off it isn’t that bad. You’re gonna maybe have to learn a new package manager and some new ways of configuring things and new conventions, but most distros don’t vary that incredibly much.

    • Lodra@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      If it wasn’t already known, I currently have no real opinions on various distros. But within a day or so, there will be one correct answer and all other distros will be simply evil! :)

    • Lodra@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well this is much more commentary than my post deserved :)

      Thanks for all the input! If only I could give more than one upvote. Much appreciated!

  • hiddengoat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    32
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Fucking any of them. Seriously. It doesn’t really matter. Eventually you’ll come to the realization that until you’re talking about oddball shit designed for one douchebag’s personal proclivities it’s all the same shit under the hood. They just have fourteen incompatible package managers because, again, douchebag personal proclivities.

    • Noctechnical@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      True, honestly, I have used a lot of Linux distros in the past 3 years and landed in Debian after realizing that many things done on others, can be done on anyone of them.

      • Discover5164@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        already chose it a couple years ago… i will replace it with endeavour soner or later, maybe later because i’m lazy

  • muhyb@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You described EndeavourOS if you ask me. It’s Arch but preconfigured, so ready to use after install while being as configurable as Arch if you want to go further. Has AUR so you won’t have problems finding a program.

    • Lodra@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Thanks! Especially for the “You described EndeavourOS” comment. This helps me a lot. I’ll give it a close look!

    • iHUNTcriminals@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fedora and gnome were my set up for a long time. I recently tried endeavor (arch), and MX Linux (debian).

      Both seem great. Basically I chose mx Linux with KDE due to it being based on debian which was simple to get back into for me. PLUS mx comes with some back up apps that are super simple. Like you can make a live USB, and a redistributable iso of your current installation with a few clicks. (You can probably do this in the terminal somehow if you’re savvy in there.)

  • GreenMario@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Leaning on SuSE Tumbleweed for a set it and forget it without the Arch weirdness. Kubuntu for “I really just need an OS and don’t wanna play with it”. Or Linux Mint. Idk I lean more .deb based distros. I love apt.

    Depends on desktop Environment honestly.

    I’ve seen arch install and I wouldn’t wish that on anybody. All the “arch,btw” people are just bragging that they went with the hard mode install setup (probably cheated and used Endeavor lol).

    • Jumuta@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      arch install/usage isn’t even that hard, it’s just that it’s not as stable as things like Debian. It’s definitely not a beginner distro and I wouldn’t recommend it here, but except for the times it broke grub and whatnot, it’s not too bad

  • Queue@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    Hi OP, I would like to state that my personal distro of choice is Arch, but I have used a wide selection of the more popular and some niche distros.

    First of: Just remember that as long as your distro works for your workflow and requirements, you’re doing fine. Don’t fall for some guilt of “This one is way better because of [subjective opinion for their needs].”

    If you want to experiment with distros, just remember to backup your files. One is none, two is one.

    Do you have newer hardware such as a brand new NVIDIA or AMD graphics card, or perhaps a new CPU chipset from Intel that came out this year? Then a rolling distro is probably best for you. There’s many tempting options, but my personal “sane default” is of course Arch. There is an installer once you load the ISO on a flash drive. Just ensure you have an internet connection. There will be a learning curve.

    If you want to have something to guide you along, then Endevour OS is good. While 99% of your questions can be found on /r/archlinux and Arch’s forums, they (rightfully) expect you to use Arch for Arch-based questions. It’s kind of like asking a question for Ford Mustangs when you drive an F-150. While there’s a lot of overlap, it’s not 1:1.

    But if you have something like a laptop from the last few years or more, or just need to focus on your tasks such as your programing and web browsing, and don’t need the latest and greatest, then something more stable is probably best. My top two “I just need it to stay there and remain the same without any worry” distros are:

    • Fedora Linux

    • Debian Linux

    Fedora is going to offer a nice mix of stable yet forward thinking, with major updates rolling out about every 13 months, and it’s a pretty smooth experience upgrading.

    Debian is the grand daddy of modern distros, and it is considered the gold standard. They recently made it so 99% of firmware support needed is now included for easier installation. The only thing that you’ll really get update wise is security fixes and any backports you enable.

    Keep in mind, Arch/Endeavor itself will not implode if you don’t update daily/weekly, it’s just intended to be refreshed often so when anything big is planned, it’s done in smaller chunks. If you install Arch and then go to a remote island for a few months, you’ll most likely be fine once you get back, but there might be some hiccups.

    So if you want more triple A gaming, I think something along Arch/Endevor is “better”, but if you don’t care about the latest and greatest, then I’d say Fedora is a solid foundation.

    Sorry for the small novel, but I wanted to state that there is no explicitly wrong option, all that matters is what you consider important. The defaults, the packages, and your workflow. Anything else is secondary.

    • Lodra@programming.devOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Hardware has come up a few times in this post now. Seems I should share a bit about what I’m running 🙂

      I bought an ASUS ROG Strix GA15DK just over 2 years ago. The hardware was shiny but not top-tier at the time. It’s not new at this point but also not old by Linux standards.

      • AMD Ryzen 7 5800X Processor
      • NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3070
      • 16GB DDR4 3200 MHz RAM
    • flashgnash@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Hi OP, I would like to state that my personal distro of choice is Arch (btw)

      Ftfy

  • BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m going to ignore your “Planned Usage” section. Why? Because that’s more-or-less about which software you install, not about the distro (well, not if you choose a well-enough maintained distro at least). If it was a question of family of OSes (windows, mac, linux, BSD) that might be different.

    You want Debian, here’s why:

    I’d like an OS that’s highly configurable

    That’s most distros

    but ships with good default settings

    That’s Debian. I installed it when i was still a newbie to computers in general, and it hasn’t bit me in the ass yet.

    and requires very little effort to start using.

    See previous answer.

    I don’t want it to ship with loads of applications; I want to choose and install all of the higher level tools.

    My first Debian was a headless install on my laptop so I could customize the graphical stack. In hindsight, I wouldn’t recommend going that barebones unless you actually do take advice and RTFM. I went without a compositor for several years, as an example of why.

    Shipping with a configured desktop is perfectly fine but not required.

    On the flipside, Debian has GNOME, Xfce, KDE Plasma, LXDE and MATE as installer options. You can also install any Desktop Environment that works on linux, as it is more higher-level software than OS-dependent software.

    Ideally, I can have all of this while still keeping the maintenance low.

    My other PC is also a Debian (need that on a bumper sticker). It’s my daily driver desktop (the aforementioned headless install is a laptop); I set it up based on installer defaults and have not had to do any low-level maintenance on it for the past 2 years that I’ve had it.

    I think that means a stable OS,

    Debian is stable af. The downside is that they don’t really have bleeding-edge software on the default Stable repository. Testing is newer, and still 99.9% stable, but also not the absolute newest. Unstable lives up to its name, I’m told, but haven’t felt bold enough to experiment.

    Really though, I’m going to guess that any fixed-release update cycle distro will be as stable as Debian, and any rolling release will be about squashing compatibility issues to make sure you can have bleeding edge software. There are some distros that strike a balance more in the middle of those two, so that’s up to your preference and you should probably try out a few before you settle for what someone on the internet says is “The Best.” (The main difference between the others and Unstable is that Unstable is a rolling release, instead of fixed)

    a good package manager, stable/automatic updates, etc.

    Apt is mostly a positive experience. As I mentioned, before, using thr Stable repository will ensure updates are stable and don’t break compatibility. I have never had the Pacman experience of not being able to update because there are unresolvable conflicts; the few times I had issues, they were simple enough to fix with a dpkg --configure -a and/or apt --fix-broken install. It can be slow, but frontends like Nala have made that less of a dealbreaker for me.

    Last bit. Open source is rather important to me. I prefer free and free.

    Debian’s core driving principal is FOSS. You definitely can still download and run non-free software on it, and there’s even a small section of the main repository that includes non-free sofrware, but the primary guiding principles of the Debian repository are the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Note that these principles are more restrictive than the FSF’s definition of Free Software, but the most part there is a large overlap.

    Here’s a link to the installation page, which includes links to various installers and the installation guide.

    The wiki isn’t as likely as Arch to come up in searches if you just search terms like “linux [software]” or “linux [issue]”, but it’s an invaluable resource, almost as thorough as Arch’s, and the Debian Project’s recommended way for ensuring accuracy to your system.

    Finally: I’m going to do that annoying thing nerds online do and tell you that you asked the wrong questions, then answer the questions they claim you should have asked. The linux community as a whole supports and encourages experimentation. You’ll find your journey more fulfilling as a whole if you go outside your comfort zone and try new things, do it differently instead of sticking to recommendations and what you know. I know this message is at odds with how much I’ve talked up Debian, but I was answering the questions you asked.

    The truth is that your tools should suit you and your needs and your style of problem solving. All softwares, including the most basic parts of an OS, are tools and therefore benefit from trying different options. Do you want “eh this is okay enough to get the job done” or “this is a fun and fulfilling way to complete projects”?

  • LinuxSBC@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’d recommend Fedora, but the suggestion of EndeavorOS is also good.

  • ayam@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I can’t recommend enough EndeavourOS. It has a very good defaults and its softwares is very up-to-date since it’s based on Arch Linux. Their community is also very nice.

    Of course you can try Arch Linux too, it’s minimalistic and you have to configure most thing yourself. It’s not really hard, but gonna take some time.

    Fedora and Linux Mint is also a very good choice.

  • Guenther_Amanita@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think saying “I’m a newcomer, recommend me a distro” will pretty much always result in everyone saying “Linux Mint”,
    and saying “I have quite a bit of experience, what’s your recommendation?” will result in everyone recommending their own distro of choice.

    But, to be honest, distro choice doesn’t matter that much anymore. You can get every software package in form of Flatpaks, Nix and in Distrobox anyway.

    For example, you can get the newest Gnome or Hyprland with the Arch Distrobox on your stale Debian base, or access the AUR on Tumbleweed. Doesn’t matter.


    So, what’s my recommendation?

    Fedora Silverblue (or the “normal” variant). Why?

    The normal variants (Workstation and Spins)

    • Very sanely configured, works out of the box
    • Extremely wide spread, huge community
    • Pretty much one of the default choices
    • Reliable
    • Good balance between stable and new

    Silverblue

    • The new cool kid on the block
    • Immutable distro
    • “Your” stuff is decoupled from the “OS stuff”
    • Extremely reliable, you can’t break it
    • And if you break it, you can roll back with one single reboot in a few seconds
    • Very flexible, especially with the uBlue project
    • Auto updates without intervention (no prompt to reboot), changes get applied when you reboot into the newly created image
    • Less buggy, since every OS install is the same
    • Ideal for “just using” your PC and not worrying about anything

    But yeah, as I said, there are many other good recommendations here in the comment section. I personally wouldn’t use something arch based if you want something simple and low-maintainence, but even that is your choice.

    There are pretty much no bad choices.

    • dragnet@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I agree with you overall, but not your final conclusion. There are some distros with a history of security problems, like Manjaro. And some smaller distros may have a development team with a higher probability of shipping bugs, stability issues, or again security problems. So doing a little research on any distro of interest would be a good idea before installing.

      I’d reccomend searching for “(distro) security problems”, “(distro) bugs”, and " (distro) controversies" before settling on an option.

  • DSX@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I recommend Linux Mint (21.2), which a based on Ubuntu (22.04) and Debian. The cinnamon desktop environment it comes with is pretty similar to windows 7, which makes it easier to use. I think 21.2 will remain supported until 2027 as LTS.

  • Chais@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    If you’re ready to take a bit of a dive, take a look at NixOS. As a CI/CD guy it might be right up your alley.
    It allows you to configure your entire system via a single, declarative config file, including any configurations for installed software. You could even develop the config in a VM and, once you’re happy with it, use the same for to configure your host machine.
    Be warned, though: the wiki is nowhere near as good as the Arch wiki.