Yeah a lot of this chart just doesn’t make sense to me. You trolling op?
That's rude, man. If you don't like it, do it better. I've spent half my weekend for it, and gave my best. I wouldn't invest so much time if my sole purpose is only trolling.
But, that's what the comment section is for - if others think the same way as you do, yours will be one of the top comments.
I made a post a few days before, where I collected some opinions and double checked if I'm wrong.
If others think differently about certain points, feel free to correct me or add information.
For example, pop os uses a very opinionated version of gnome? Since when? Seems barely modified to my eye.
Yes, it is highly modified compared to the vanilla Gnome, for example, in following ways:
Pop shell tiling
Minimize button
A dock
Different workspaces
Extensions
Different themes/ look
and more.
It looks and feels completely different. Not worse, just different. I don't say it's a bad modification, it feels coherent and adds value for many people.
Also you recommend kde plasma to Mac users? Gnome seems WAY closer to me.
Gnome looks only similar to MacOS on the surface, but, philosophy and usage wise, it behaves completely different.
It's completely unique in its own way, you can't compare it to anything else, except you want it to be that by using extensions.
KDE on the other hand is often compared to Windows, only because of the out-of-the-box look with the task bar on the bottom.
But, if you modify it for less than 5 minutes, it looks and behaves almost like MacOS does, e.g. ALT + space opening up KRunner (Spotlight).
I don’t get why you’d spend so much time if your info is all just going to be a little bit wrong
Tell me exactly what is wrong, and I'll correct it if the need arises.
Thank you very much! ❤️
Depending on what games you have in your mind, you might not even need Windows anymore for that, thanks to Steam/ Lutris and Proton. Have you checked protondb.com?
I mean, Gnome often gets compared to MacOS and KDE to Windows, but I find it to be only similar on the surface.
In reality, Gnome is totally unique in its own way and KDE has nothing to do with Windows, being more similar to Mac than anything else, especially after minimal customisation.
It used to be good and paved the way of today's Linux desktop world, but nowadays, the Corporation behind it, Canonical, decided to shit on its user base.
Once, they decided to make advertisements for Amazon a few years ago, which they've reverted
They now make ads in the terminal for "Ubuntu Pro"
And, mostly, they force their own and highly controversial package format (Snaps) onto users.
You almost can't get around them, even if you actively decide for it.
This isn't a complete full guide on ALL distros and DEs/ TWMs, just a small selection for newcomers.
Too much choice is overwhelming, and giving them basically a choice between A or B, where both options are great, was the best idea I came up with.
Regarding window managers:
I think that they are too different from the stuff most people are comfortable with.
They usually don't come with all stuff one might need, e.g. a settings menu, task bar, etc.
Too complicated to set up, requires a terminal and knowledge about how the WM works
Not necessary. Useful if you mostly do text based stuff, especially coding or terminal, but for GUI apps, not so much
And, last but not least, too big selection with all looking the same. If I mention i3, then another would say "Sway is better", and then I add Sway, and another one wants BSPWM, Hyprland, Herbstluft, and so on and so on. It's just a can of worms I don't want to open. If you ever come into contact with WMs, you probably are experienced enough and already have a good grasp.
Of course, you're right. I know I made some blanket statements, but I found it necessary to simplify everything a bit.
I personally have the feeling you contradict yourself tho. You basically say "Arch is super easy", but then list 100 reasons why it isn't.
As I said in the post, Arch is a fantastic distro, but nothing I would recommend for anyone.
Most people don't use their OS as a nerd hobby (sorry!), but as a means to get their software they need (browser, office, games, etc.) running.
They just want something that works reliably and doesn't get in their way.
They don't care if they use zfs or btrfs as filesystem or run the newest KDE framework.
Needing to check the news page on daily basis, or risking to brick their system otherwise, is a big no-go for most.
Of course, installing it isn't the hardest part.
But maintaining it reasonably is also important, which happens mostly passively on other systems.
Turning on the PC and getting greeted by GRUB emergency mode is the worst case for anyone, and would result in installing Windows again for most.
Also, it's very minimalist. For users who already know what they need, that's good.
I don't know if you know the greentext-meme with the Arch-guy who had to share his screen, but couldn't because of his missing component, and then got laughed at and overshadowed by the girl with her Windows laptop.
This "bloat" is what makes a comfortable computing experience for most other people, and needing to google "Arch no sound" and fixing something for two hours is just something not everyone is comfortable and willing with.
That's why I've made the big disclaimer and said it should only be chosen if you're ready for a big learning experience and have the patience for that.
Good advice!
I personally think tho, that Debian isn't the best beginner distro.
Not, because it's not user friendly or something, but more because of the complicated and unintuitive installer.
Take Mint or Zorin for example, where you basically only need to click "next next" and it's installed, and after that, you get a wonderful first start wizard where everything gets explained (how to download new apps, get updates, etc.).
I had a lot of issues when installing Debian after some days, because of a non-optimal suggested partitioning layout, misconfigured mirror-server list or network for example.
But once it's running, it's very solid!
As I mentioned in the post, Debian (+ Flatpaks) is a great choice, but I'd recommend something else as a base tbh.
My personal choice is Fedora Atomic, because of the reliability of the host system and the good balance between stability and moderness. Debian is a bit too stable (too old/ stale) for my own taste, but I respect everyone who likes that.
I'm a Gnome fanboy personally too, but not everyone likes it.
I've heard very often from other users, that they always thought Gnome is the Linux DE and didn't get warm with Linux in general because of that.
And when they discovered KDE/ another DE, they instantly fell in love and never looked back.
In my opinion, GTK apps look way better on KDE than Qt apps do on Gnome.
On KDE, they integrate a bit better due to theming, but look slightly off.
Qt on Gnome on the other hand is almost unusable.
But both improved.
TuxedoOS is basically the same as Pop or Mint.
Based on Ubuntu, but without Ubuntu shit (Snaps, etc.), focused on newcomers, and with KDE.
And Fedora Atomic (Silverblue, Kinoite, Bazzite, uBlue, etc.) are the same.
They're the immutable versions of Fedora. Silverblue is the Gnome variant, Kinoite the KDE one, uBlue a community project with some QoL-tweaks, and Bazzite is the gaming variant.
Nothing weird there. I basically only provided a small bunch of identical distros with other DEs.
Dude... As soon as anyone mentions image based distros, you come up with the same copypasta everytime.
You also never come up with any good counter arguments if someone disagrees with your statements.
While IBDs aren't the holy grail, they certainly can and will transform the Linux ecosystem for the better.
Do you think that those are great beginner distros?
I think TW is a very good distro, but not specifically for beginners. In your opinion, what redeeming qualities does it have for that use case, compared to other, more well known distros out there?
I especially think that the rolling release is not needed for the beginning.
For Debian, same thing. I mean, especially since the newest release, it's definitely a better ootb-experience than it was before, BUT:
the installer (first impression) is very ugly and needlessly complicated
Zorin has a similar release schedule, but looks better by default (Debian is very vanilla) and has some very useful tools for beginners specifically.
Debian is relatively lean, which might be good for intermediate and advanced users, but for noobs, I quite like the idea of "bloat", aka a lot of pre-installed software.
Thank you for your very valuable and helpful criticism!
I like especially your "what OS are you the most comfortable with?"-question, that one is very great!
The rest is also very well thought out, I will implement it as best as I can! :)
I quite like your idea, but I'm very afraid that if I also include Nix, Arch, Gentoo, etc., we increase the chance that some "I just want to play some games and do my school stuff"-person decides to go the route of frustration and pain.
I think we should mainly focus on "just works" and beginner friendly choices to give a good first impression, and if that's too lame for them, they can always go the other route.
But those cases are relatively rare I think?
I don't want to make the list of choices too big, as that could be overwhelming.
What do you think of including them completely separate and as honorable mentions with a big disclaimer?
That's rude, man. If you don't like it, do it better. I've spent half my weekend for it, and gave my best. I wouldn't invest so much time if my sole purpose is only trolling.
But, that's what the comment section is for - if others think the same way as you do, yours will be one of the top comments.
I made a post a few days before, where I collected some opinions and double checked if I'm wrong.
If others think differently about certain points, feel free to correct me or add information.
Yes, it is highly modified compared to the vanilla Gnome, for example, in following ways:
It looks and feels completely different. Not worse, just different. I don't say it's a bad modification, it feels coherent and adds value for many people.
Gnome looks only similar to MacOS on the surface, but, philosophy and usage wise, it behaves completely different.
It's completely unique in its own way, you can't compare it to anything else, except you want it to be that by using extensions.
KDE on the other hand is often compared to Windows, only because of the out-of-the-box look with the task bar on the bottom.
But, if you modify it for less than 5 minutes, it looks and behaves almost like MacOS does, e.g. ALT + space opening up KRunner (Spotlight).
Tell me exactly what is wrong, and I'll correct it if the need arises.