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.
Are you bored? Did you just build a strawman version of your own community to argue about something that is trivially easy to answer for everyone in this community? I am seriously confused. I have never ever heard anyone say that you could turn any distro into any other. That is just obviously not true. And every single question on your bullet point list is equally easy to answer.
When people say that it doesn’t matter which distro you use what they obviously mean is that the desktop environment has the way more immediate and tangible impact on the user experience. So as long as the newcomer choses one of the many distros that have an intuitive installer (so obviously not Arch), are reasonably up to date, have a broad software package repository, and come with one of the major environments pre installed, it really does not matter that much.
I found certain hardware to be a problem with Debian based distros and had to install Fedora or OpenSUSE. There was a bios bug that those distros worked around, the debian distros either failed the install process or threw bug on boot that killed everything.
So sometimes you are forced to distro hop.
I just thought that the phrase “the distro you are using doesn’t matter” is used to combat the analysis paralysis that many new users experience.
And -to be frank- while Ubuntu and NixOS don’t even remotely resemble each other, I can’t be the only one that feels that most traditional distros do feel kinda same~y.
There are lot of people who really believe that, not just an answer help with choice paralysis.
I also agree that lot of distributions feel similar. And that is not a coincidence. First most distros follow same rules, often have the same underlying technology or act the same, even if its different. And then desktop environments makes up a lot of how an operating system feels to use, and most distributions default to the same one or two. So no wonder many feel the same, even if their underlying technology would be different. It just depends on what you do. Take X11 and Wayland in example. For most people who just use KDE and Firefox on one distribution with Wayland, will feel the same when using this combo on another distribution with X11.
For me it comes down to trust, since the distro maintainers have root on your system. You’d better trust their competence and alignment with your values!
This is actually critically! I love little distros, but it does break my heart that they cannot give the same reassurance on potential malware as Mint would. Many here we are anti-AI but FOSS could benefit a lot from it… it can automatized checking for malware on peanuts. DistroWatch, Flatpak store, Debian backports, etc should be using AI already across the board to check for malware and that would level dramatically the plain field for all.
I love little distros, but it does break my heart that they cannot give the same reassurance on potential malware as Mint would.
Don’t forget their ability to patch critical security issues in a timely manner.
Well, Void is not that large, but they quickly patch security issues, especially due to being a rolling release. OpenBSD, not Linux or rolling release though, is not a huge OS either, but they are patching - if there is a security issue - quickly. Similarly Slackware - if we want to come back again to a Linux distro.
In other words: No, the size of its dev team does not necessarily mean that they are behind with patching security issues. it depends on the commitment and skills of devs, and the community.
While it is theoretically true that you can turn one distro into another, in practice it’s not worth it. It’s the same thing as trying to sell someone on “you never need to reboot to apply updates or fix things.” Ye, technically true, but unless you’re maintaining huge corporate servers where downtime is measured in dollars, 9 times out of 10, it’s just easier to reboot and see if it fixes the issue. And yes, it will often still fix the issue.
The reason for distro hopping etc is because picking a distro is essentially choosing your defaults/ideology/character alignment. There are no wrong answers. Just go with what feels right. Newbies should distro hop to see how they align, experienced users should do it for fun and to see if a different way suits them better.
We should be herding beginners towards beginner friendly distros so they don’t run into a cliff of a learning curve, but which specific one is basically arbitrary.
As for your other examples: Don’t let your dreams be dreams. You can 100% use batocera as server if you like, it’s entirely possible. You’re just going to have to dedicate a shitload of time coercing into a server shape… but nothing’s stopping you
I see often people say that the distro you are using doesn’t matter.
For certain things it doesn’t. Usually this is brought up in the context of someone wanting to choose between 5 possible valid alternatives to start using Linux, and the advice is “it doesn’t matter, just pick whichever and when something annoys you you might understand the difference”
One can turn any distro into another. And I do not agree with that.
You can disagree all you want, it’s 100% possible, stupid, but possible.
If that was true, why do we even have so many distributions?
Because philosophy matters. You don’t pick a distro because it’s technically superior or because it has features others don’t have (with some exceptions like NixOS). You pick a distro because it’s philosophy speaks to you, be it “I aim to be user friendly” or “I aim to follow KISS”. This is why for the most part distro doesn’t matter for newcomers, because they’re looking at 5 examples of “I aim to be user friendly and…” distros.
- … why distro hop?
Because I want to try something different and see how I feel about it.
- … why don’t you use Ubuntu then?
I did, for a long time, then I decided that building my system up was easier than tearing it down. If I was using Plasma or Gnome I wouldn’t have switched probably.
- … why don’t you recommend Archlinux to a newcomer?
Because Arch philosophy is KISS, meaning you have to build everything from the ground up and you’re expected to understand the steps and read the manual. This is why I believe distros like Manjaro or CachyOS cause issues, they remove the initial hurdle of Arch but don’t change the core philosophy, making them ticking time bombs for people who don’t know their way around Linux.
- … why don’t you use Kali Linux as a server?
You do you, my servers don’t usually need all of the extra tools a distro with the philosophy of “I’m a pen tester tool” has.
- … why don’t you use Batocera or SteamOS as your daily driver?
Because usually I want my daily driver to do computer stuff, and those distros philosophy is “I’m a gaming console”
- … why do you trust a community distro more than a corporate distro? (or vice versa)
I don’t trust either more inherently than the other, I trust distros that have a track history of good behavior.
I don’t think that distros only matter to newcomers. Maybe it matters for experienced users even more.
Distros matter, they tell a lot about what you’re trying to accomplish. But most newcomers are debating for days whether they should use Ubuntu, Pop, Mint, Fedora or CachyOS, and realistically they’re unlikely to even understand the difference between those. Think on distros like clothes, if you’re just going to the market it doesn’t matter what clothes you wear, if you’re going to a job interview it matters, and if you’re going to do something very specific like swimming some clothes are simply better than others. But if someone asks you “do clothes matter?” You will probably reply no, because for most stuff you do as long as you’re not wearing clothes with holes in them you’re fine, but you can tell a lot about people by the clothes they decide to wear. It’s a similar thing for distros, for most stuff it doesn’t matter, for certain things it’s important for others it gives some information and for some specific cases it makes a huge difference, but for the most part it’s a personal choice.
One can turn any distro into another. And I do not agree with that.
You can disagree all you want, it’s 100% possible, stupid, but possible.
You misunderstood my disagreement. I’m not saying its not possible, I am disagreeing that his is a valid point as an argument for “the distro does not matter” statement. My bad for not being clear about it.
You pick a distro because it’s philosophy speaks to you … Because I want to try something different and see how I feel about it.
These are not the only reasons, but good reasons WHY the distribution matters. BTW I also think that some distributions are technically superior for certain use cases. In example CachyOS is more up to date, has optimizations even on Kernel level, compared to an old Debian distribution that is focused on stability. These are technical differences that matter, for whatever you want to achieve. It’s not just a personal taste.
I don’t understand why you answer all questions, because not all questions are meant for a single person. I chose many questions that are meant for many different people, just to illustrate some points. They are thetorical questions, like why you don’t use Kali as server.
But most newcomers are debating for days whether they should use Ubuntu, Pop, Mint, Fedora or CachyOS, and realistically they’re unlikely to even understand the difference between those.
If they don’t understand the differences, then they SHOULD research and debate until they do. Choosing a random distribution and hopping until they understand is not only waste of time and resources, it will teach them wrong lessons this way. I for myself researched for months before I landed on Ubuntu in 2008 as the default, to replace Windows XP. Then I kept using it for… I think 15 years straight or so (forgot the exact numbers).
I don’t like the analogy of “clothes” or someone else with “colors”. Distributions are extremely complex and there is way more work and knowledge involved, they have way more impact and dependencies. And to your point if someone asks me “do clothes matter?” i will say “off course”. Not just to contradict you, but because I think clothes do matter depending on how they fit to me, to the situation I am and how nice it feels, how it looks and so on. Even on practical side, if it rains or if I want to swim. While I don’t like this clothes analogy, I still wanted answer that question you assumed I would say “no”.
Just because it does not matter for most, does not mean that it does not matter at all. They don’t know it does not matter. I think there are choices better suited to them, even if they don’t know and say it does not matter - it does, they just don’t know it yet.
I’m not saying its not possible, I am disagreeing that his is a valid point as an argument for “the distro does not matter” statement.
But when the question is between Ubuntu and Kubuntu you can “convert” between them very easily. Not to mention that the fundamental difference between all Debian based distros is the version of the packages they offer, so you can very easily jump between them expecting most things to be the same.
These are not the only reasons, but good reasons WHY the distribution matters. BTW I also think that some distributions are technically superior for certain use cases. In example CachyOS is more up to date, has optimizations even on Kernel level, compared to an old Debian distribution that is focused on stability. These are technical differences that matter, for whatever you want to achieve. It’s not just a personal taste.
Yes, that matters for you, it doesn’t matter for someone who just wants something to use. That contributes to the decision paralysis of switching to Linux, when we say distro doesn’t matter we’re trying to remove that hurdle, because for the average guy that will just use his computer the difference between Debian and CachyOS is the name. Someone without experience in Linux doesn’t understand what stability means, they think it means the system won’t crash so they always try to use stable distros and get frustrated because they’re out of date, or alternatively they think they want bleeding edge until it cuts them. And that’s the crux of the issue, when we make a distro choice, it matters because we understand the differences, when a new user is trying to pick their first distro they’re essentially throwing a dice, it doesn’t matter where it lands, it matters how they feel about it.
It’s hard for us to put ourselves back in the shoes of someone just getting started,
They are thetorical questions
But they’re not, they might be to you or me, but for someone without Linux knowledge they’re very real questions. I have answered some form of some of those from people in the past.
If they don’t understand the differences, then they SHOULD research and debate until they do.
Oh really? Would you mind telling me what’s the difference between Pop, Ubuntu and Mint in a way that would matter for someone who doesn’t understand anything about Linux?
Choosing a random distribution and hopping until they understand is not only waste of time and resources, it will teach them wrong lessons this way.
Having to research what to use before understanding the difference will teach them nothing and make them give up before starting.
I for myself researched for months before I landed on Ubuntu in 2008 as the default, to replace Windows XP. Then I kept using it for… I think 15 years straight or so (forgot the exact numbers).
Yeah, but 2008 was a very different playing field than it is today. 2008 we were almost unanimously recommending Ubuntu or Mint, every forum you asked, every thread you found online it would have been essentially the same recommendation. It’s easy to make the decision then. Today if you open 4 different articles from 4 different sites you will likely get at least 4 different answers to which distro you should choose. And theyake it seem like it’s this big important decision that you have to get right the first time around, that’s the mentality we’re trying to fight.
I don’t like the analogy of “clothes” or someone else with “colors”. Distributions are extremely complex and there is way more work and knowledge involved, they have way more impact and dependencies.
An expert in clothes might tell you the same about them, and that’s what you’re missing, you are an expert, to you the difference between Mint and Pop is concrete and mensurable, to someone who doesn’t understand what I package manager is it’s just vague words without any meaning.
And to your point if someone asks me “do clothes matter?” i will say “off course”. Not just to contradict you, but because I think clothes do matter depending on how they fit to me, to the situation I am and how nice it feels, how it looks and so on. Even on practical side, if it rains or if I want to swim. While I don’t like this clothes analogy, I still wanted answer that question you assumed I would say “no”.
Cool, now explain to an alien who walks around naked why this jean and t-shirt is different from that jeans and t-shirt.
Just because it does not matter for most, does not mean that it does not matter at all.
And if the alien above asked you what clothes to wear to go to the supermarket, you would just say “any jeans and t-shirt would do”, only to have dozen of other people telling him “use this shirt and this pants”, “No, that’s a bad color combination for your eye color, use this one instead”, “No, that show is hard to lace, use this outfit instead”, “You’re not really dressed unless you wear a custom tailor suit”, etc, etc…
They don’t know it does not matter.
Precisely why we tell them it doesn’t.
I think there are choices better suited to them, even if they don’t know and say it does not matter - it does, they just don’t know it yet.
Yes, exactly, but they won’t know until they understand, and you won’t know until they understand, and they won’t understand until they do, and no amount of reading will make them understand. The initial choice between 5 different “noob” friendly distros doesn’t matter, the understanding you get from that will guide your next step, trying to take the next step before knowing where you’re standing is a recipe for disaster
After the first year fully immersed in Linux, I would say most would agree with that statement “One can turn any distro into another”, at least in what matters to them.
To any newcomer I recommend to choose the environment (The tendency is for the tech-minded that come from Windows is to choose KDE, less tech-minded or straightforward thinking choose Cinnamon and exclusive Mac and Android users tend to choose Gnome).
The second thing to select is your stand on Stability vs Cutting edge. The rest of features are far, far less relevant and you can easily fine tune to your like and these is what people mean with that above statement (even the environment and stability could be customized too but most would not be able to do it).At the end, the distro is a choice where you pick the first two parameters and the exact distro you pick is more based in convenience and/or philosophical criteria.
My case: I played with 5 environments and KDE is my cup of tea. Then, I choose a distro in the middle of the road with updates (OpenSuse Tumbleweed) and while extremely happy two updates within 8 months gave me two hiccups (nothing mayor) but I decided I needed more Stability. While I consider Fedora to be the “best” distro by just a hairline, since it has the most resources, but philosophically I am against due to IBM being its main backer, not to mention, US may cause problems “exporting” in a near future… yes you can fork, but you still being dependent in the main source for a while, not to mention supporting IBMś aims. So I am Debian (MX Linux actually) all the way now. However, I recommend to most Mint (for the most conservative) and TuxedoOS (for those looking for a more contemporary look) to most people I encounter.
The rest of distros, or are just niche (for instance Deepin and Kylin cater for Chinese language, Cachy for gamers, etc) or are distros with far less resources to do it properly, but I passionately applaud their existence since they all are contributing with the good cause.
It all comes down to the repositories after all. Different distros have different update cycles and policies.
Oh, also some distros apply a little bit different graphics and customisation on the default setup.
After that, it is all the same. Distro choice does matter, but to the common user/newcomer is basically irrelevant.
why distro hop?
Fun waste of time, good way to learn how to setup a Linux system by doing that repeatedly.
why don’t you use Ubuntu then?
It’s a good system, go ahead with it. I don’t like very much their customisations, but it is cool system after all.
why don’t you recommend Archlinux to a newcomer?
He will have to read through a few guides and webpages in order to get a working system, compared to reading a single webpage which explains how to flash any other distro on a usb and be done with it.
why don’t you use Kali Linux as a server?
The advantage of Kali is that it is designed to live in ram and everything you do is destroyed when you switch off the computer, this is a bit of a pain in the ass if you want to run a server.
why don’t you use Batocera or SteamOS as your daily driver?
Don’t even know what those are, but pretty much because I don’t care: the system I have is good and I know there’s little difference between distros.
why do you trust a community distro more than a corporate distro?
They’re for different purposes (mainly). Redhat provides tech support. Canonical, well I don’t know what canonical does. If you want good support for maybe a large installation with many computers, paying for red hat may very well be worth it.
I think this kind of supports his argument though, kali would make a bad server by its design. Whereas you followed that point by saying there isnt much difference in distros.
I think its just that they are designed to take some of the leg work out of set up in most instances and in others they are designed for specific uses that conflict with other uses.
Distro choice does matter, but to the common user/newcomer is basically irrelevant.
Anything else that should be pointed out?
A new user will be fine with basically anything that isn’t Gentoo or with some very very specific applications.
People who have specific needs will choose a distro which makes the things they need easier. In most cases a newcomer won’t have such specific needs as to have to choose a specific distribution.
designed for specific uses that conflict with other uses.
Don’t see much conflict between uses. You can use any distribution to do anything you’d do with any other.
Do you want a very stable system but rolling release with the latest updates? Not possible. Do you want a system that is flashed on ram but that will be stable with 100% uptime without ever touching it? Not possible. Do you want a super light system with the best DE animations and graphics? Not possible.
Sure those are conflicting uses, but just because you’re choosing among two opposite things.
There are two reasons why distro choice doesn’t matter.
- The majors are mostly fine. Ubuntu (not this one), Mint, Fedora, Arch, and Debian.
- They’re going to need to distrohop in the end anyway, and it’s naive to think they’re going to get it right on the first try.
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.
If that was true, why do we even have so many distributions?
Don’t ignore the fact that part of the reason there are so many distributions, desktops, window managers, etc etc is because a large number of skilled coders have outsized egos
Why egos? Maybe they are having fun doing it? :)
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
Why have you not done a basic search to understand the objectives of the various distros and posiilities, before posing these questions?
OP does understand that. They’re rhetorical questions.
So which one can I use for gaming? Which one can I use for development?
There are differences but they’re generally in user-space and not what most newbies think. Things like installers, package management, etc. But “generally speaking” all distros are capable of doing what the others can do. They just do it in different ways.
You’ve basically got categories.
- The mainstreams: Debian-like, RedHat-like, SuSe, Gentoo, etc.
- The Immutables
- “Specialty”: Kali, Raspbian, etc.
There are different philosophies on stability vs. being up-to-date, security, etc. But the same software and drivers are available for all of them “generally speaking”.
Edit: I’ll add that the biggest mistake most people make is distro-hoping. People will have trouble with something like “getting a printer to work” and just start installing new distros until one works. To learn something you need to spend time with it and fix things
Edit 2: I’ll also add that choice of distro matters less for experienced users since you realize that it’s mostly just about preference.
I mostly agree with this. The reason I stick with arch has nothing to do with finding it technically superior or more convenient to use than other distros. There is almost no way I would be using arch if their wiki wasn’t leaps and bounds more helpful than other distros’ documentation. Some other distros can meet my needs just as well or better, but arch’s documentation allows for a more straightforward learning process through tinkering.
I do think repository differences can potentially matter a lot. I have a lot of respect for hyperbola being ultra-hardline in removing proprietary packages and any hint of uncertainty in licensing, but the fact that that kills off texlive makes it untenable for me to use. Keeping manual installs up-to-date is a hassle, so I can definitely understand someone limiting themselves to distros supporting a certain set of packages.
To your first edit, having been a user since 2010, I’ve tried it both ways and sometimes just giving in to a new distribution is easier than spending a week or more combing forums and getting ghosted while your display resolution is broken.
When it comes down to it, unless you’re using Linux as a hobby, I say distro hop away until something clicks in your first few months. When you finally get your hooks into one you feel you understand, that’s when you start putting the effort into perfecting it.
The difference of distro is like the differences in a model of any item of the same make. This shovel might have that serated edge you like, but I like mine to have the kickstand for, camping.
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.
