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.
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 😀
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.
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.
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
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.
Just like your “opponents” are over-generalising, you’re deliberately picking the most extreme examples to make your argument. (Batocera as a daily driver - you know that’s what Hanna Montana Linux is for!)
My Linux axioms are: for most new users…
- choice of DE is most noticeable and decides whether they like their initial experience.
- choice of base distro family does matter a lot in the long run (Debian-based vs. Arch-based vs. Redhat-based); if you stay inside the same family (e.g. Pop!OS vs. Ubuntu vs. Zorin vs. Mint), choice matters a lot less (and DE is most impactful, c.f. point one).
- choosing a distro with specialised security hardening (immutable systems, Nix, Qubes, Bazzite) does matter; most of these will make new users unhappy or even question their sanity.
Where you are right: yes, the choices embedded within these three axioms do matter a lot and are noticeable, so it is helpful to have an experienced user recommend a distro to you when starting out.
Where the “distro don’t matter” people are right: there are a lot less choices to be made than meets the eye. Effectively, it can be boiled down to three.
choosing a distro with specialised security hardening (immutable systems, Nix, Qubes, Bazzite) does matter; most of these will make new users unhappy or even question their sanity.
Out of curiosity, as someone who’s never used Bazzite/other uBlue/SilverBlue/etc, what makes it difficult for new users? I definitely agree with Nix and Qubes though (and SecureBlue to some extent).
Basically, anything that isn’t packaged as a flatpak needs to be installed from the CLI using distrobox containers, which will go over the heads of the majority of new users.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to bonk the immutable Stans over the head with this logic, but it never works. They install bazzite, play their game of choice on steam and occasionally use their web browser and “ALL NEW USERS MUST USE BAZZITE ITS SO EASY”
Any distro is easy when you use it like a fucking Sony PlayStation.
Lol, but so true.
Not Arch or NixOS lol
Can’t you use homebrew?
I have zero experience with that. 😄
FWIW, uBlue has been brewing for almost three years now for their CLI stuff: see this issue tracker and this blogpost from Bluefin’s creator.
The distrobox workflow overall has mostly been superseded by better alternatives[1]. Though, for completeness’ sake, openSUSE’s atomic offering continues to heavily rely on Distrobox. But, in their defense, I think their atomic offerings are simply better[2] suited for it.
There’s sysext with its (WIP) manager, Brew Tap to tap into homebrew casks and some peeps even use coldbrew. And last, but definitely not least,
nixsupport has improved over the years. And if you just want to usednf, RakuOS’ innovative hybrid design allows just that; an image-based core you can’t touch (like the other ‘immutables’), butdnfworks and is applied through a persistent overlay. ↩︎Fedora’s container images are tied to its major release versions. Hence, every 7-13 months you’re required to set them up from scratch if you’d like to continue using them 😅. Even if this process can be streamlined, it’s IMO very cumbersome regardless. In openSUSE’s case, the containers are based on Tumbleweed. Which, has a rolling release cadence. Hence, it was meant to be used indefinitely. ↩︎
Thank you very much for the detailed and well-sourced write-up! I’ve saved it for later when I get to drill down on this.
It kind of proves OP’s point though: distros do come with a lot of idiosyncrasies of “how things are done around these parts”.
Not the one you asked, but I think the answer lies in the bold part:
most of these will make new users unhappy or even question their sanity.
For example, I can’t imagine any of the uBlue projects causing major difficulties. Though, edge cases do exist; adding kernel mods can still be a bitch, even if there are efforts to improve this.
There is another point, which makes this discussion very variable. Also the choice matters or does not matter a lot, depending on the person, expectations and what is being done. This is probably the biggest reason why we don’t agree on simplifications like these. And BTW, just because the examples I gave are extreme does not make them wrong in any way. They are just easy for illustrating my points I’m making.
If someone is coming from Windows, does not care much about trust and just want something that runs a browser, doesn’t care about community or technicalities, then yes it does not matter if the person chooses Ubuntu or Mint. On the other hand, if someone doesn’t like corporations, has strong opinions about standards and is a developer, then the choice suddenly matters a lot more.
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.
