MagicCrayon9342 wrote:

Remember, stop distro hopping! Especially between distributions that are no more different than a custom desktop and theme!

Remember! Most distributions are based off Debian and Arch.

I think distro hopping is great xD

Each distro has something to it that sets it apart from the rest, and it can take time to find the perfect one for you.
And even distros that seem very similar can be quite different in other ways, such as Ubuntu and Pop!_OS. They don't seem very different, but Pop is considerably faster and less bloated, and is also not created by a large company. Similar looks ≠ Similar under the hood

LegoManiac04 wrote:

MagicCrayon9342 wrote:

Remember, stop distro hopping! Especially between distributions that are no more different than a custom desktop and theme!

Remember! Most distributions are based off Debian and Arch.

I think distro hopping is great xD

Each distro has something to it that sets it apart from the rest, and it can take time to find the perfect one for you.
And even distros that seem very similar can be quite different in other ways, such as Ubuntu and Pop!_OS. They don't seem very different, but Pop is considerably faster and less bloated, and is also not created by a large company. Similar looks ≠ Similar under the hood

faster as in a more lightweight GUI, under the hood? not faster.

MagicCrayon9342 wrote:

85.5% of these distributions are just forks… of forks… of forks … … …
no changes other than the included desktop environment and themes

The reality is that is most Linux distros.

I think that each fork of a distro allows developers to have a good base, and then be able to add their own features to it. The large amount of distros is definitely a cause of divide in the Linux community, some saying that we really don't need this many, as, like you said, there is little change between the forks, and others, such as myself, think that's great, as you can almost definitely find a distro that is perfect for you.

While distros like OpenSUSE and Fedora, for example, are extremely similar, they do have differences, such as that OpenSUSE has YaST, which is a well-regarded tool, as well as offers a standard release and a rolling release option, which is something you don't see outside of Arch at all(?). You also have the choice of the DE you want to use right in your installer, and you also have many other options within there as well.

And there are many other distros that, while are extremely similar, have differences that give them an upper hand. For example, Pop!_OS and Ubuntu. Both are quite similar, yet they are also quite different. Pop!_OS boots ridiculously fast, under around 20 seconds for me, whereas Ubuntu will take around 30 seconds. As I had highlighted in my other post, it also is less bloated, and isn't created by a big corporation. Now, Ubuntu has some benefits over Pop!_OS, that, in my eyes, being the official support of Ubuntu flavors, such as Lubuntu, Kubuntu, and Ubuntu Budgie, which give you an Ubuntu experience, just with a different UI. Pop!_OS also doesn't (unless that changed recently) have an option for you to install it alongside any other operating systems. Of course you still can, but you have to do it manually.

Moving on to Arch, Manjaro is well known as “Arch on easy mode”, which is definitely true. You get an Arch experience, without needing great knowledge on Arch and Linux to install it. There have been other Arch-based distros that have been becoming popular lately, such as EndeavorOS and Garuda, both of which are extremely similar to Manjaro, yet do have things that set them apart. I haven't looked into either of them much, so I can't speak much for myself, but I know there are some people who have covered comparisons (such as TechHut), and do have preferences over the three.

LegoManiac04 wrote:

MagicCrayon9342 wrote:

85.5% of these distributions are just forks… of forks… of forks … … …
no changes other than the included desktop environment and themes

The reality is that is most Linux distros.

I think that each fork of a distro allows developers to have a good base, and then be able to add their own features to it. The large amount of distros is definitely a cause of divide in the Linux community, some saying that we really don't need this many, as, like you said, there is little change between the forks, and others, such as myself, think that's great, as you can almost definitely find a distro that is perfect for you.

While distros like OpenSUSE and Fedora, for example, are extremely similar, they do have differences, such as that OpenSUSE has YaST, which is a well-regarded tool, as well as offers a standard release and a rolling release option, which is something you don't see outside of Arch at all(?). You also have the choice of the DE you want to use right in your installer, and you also have many other options within there as well.

And there are many other distros that, while are extremely similar, have differences that give them an upper hand. For example, Pop!_OS and Ubuntu. Both are quite similar, yet they are also quite different. Pop!_OS boots ridiculously fast, under around 20 seconds for me, whereas Ubuntu will take around 30 seconds. As I had highlighted in my other post, it also is less bloated, and isn't created by a big corporation. Now, Ubuntu has some benefits over Pop!_OS, that, in my eyes, being the official support of Ubuntu flavors, such as Lubuntu, Kubuntu, and Ubuntu Budgie, which give you an Ubuntu experience, just with a different UI. Pop!_OS also doesn't (unless that changed recently) have an option for you to install it alongside any other operating systems. Of course you still can, but you have to do it manually.

Moving on to Arch, Manjaro is well known as “Arch on easy mode”, which is definitely true. You get an Arch experience, without needing great knowledge on Arch and Linux to install it. There have been other Arch-based distros that have been becoming popular lately, such as EndeavorOS and Garuda, both of which are extremely similar to Manjaro, yet do have things that set them apart. I haven't looked into either of them much, so I can't speak much for myself, but I know there are some people who have covered comparisons (such as TechHut), and do have preferences over the three.

the whole ‘too many choices/distros’ thing is real. it's real, very very real. dangerously real. there ARE too many distros. It wasn't til a few weeks ago i settled for Fedora, permanently. I was tired of hopping, as I have been distro-hopping for years. I've mastered the terminal at this point In fact, my switch to linux wasn't all that bad. The software I used, I either didn't need or had a linux version. Most of the stuff I do is coding (better on linux than windows). Gaming (the games i play run natively on Linux). And web browsing (great on linux). When I first switched to Linux, I had a laptop that could barely even run Windows. It made things so much faster! I even tried to run apt on fedora in my early months on linux

MagicCrayon9342 wrote:

It wasn't til a few weeks ago i settled for Fedora, permanently. I was tired of hopping, as I have been distro-hopping for years.

Though it can be a bit better actually installing the distros, you could also try distros out with a virtual machine, such as VirtualBox ^^

MagicCrayon9342 wrote:

The software I used, I either didn't need or had a linux version. (…)When I first switched to Linux, I had a laptop that could barely even run Windows. It made things so much faster!

That is by far one of the best things about Linux. It can totally breathe life into old PCs. Had I had the knowledge of Linux I have now, I would never have replaced my now 10 year old 1st gen Core i3 Acer Aspire with a Chromebook, as I had tinkered around with Linux a bit on it before I got rid of it, and it worked AMAZING.
And I think what scares a lot of people is that Linux can't run their Windows programs, when in reality there are a lot of programs that do have Linux versions, or there are good alternatives.

LegoManiac04 wrote:

MagicCrayon9342 wrote:

It wasn't til a few weeks ago i settled for Fedora, permanently. I was tired of hopping, as I have been distro-hopping for years.

Though it can be a bit better actually installing the distros, you could also try distros out with a virtual machine, such as VirtualBox ^^

MagicCrayon9342 wrote:

The software I used, I either didn't need or had a linux version. (…)When I first switched to Linux, I had a laptop that could barely even run Windows. It made things so much faster!

That is by far one of the best things about Linux. It can totally breathe life into old PCs. Had I had the knowledge of Linux I have now, I would never have replaced my now 10 year old 1st gen Core i3 Acer Aspire with a Chromebook, as I had tinkered around with Linux a bit on it before I got rid of it, and it worked AMAZING.
And I think what scares a lot of people is that Linux can't run their Windows programs, when in reality there are a lot of programs that do have Linux versions, or there are good alternatives.

I'm pretty sure i learned VMs far after trying out Linux. I always prefer the experience on real hardware however, VMs are far too slugish for anything really.

i literally can't find a debian unstable nonfree-firmware netinstall ISO at cdimage.debian.org

I guess MagicCrayon9342 is right in that a great many of these Linux distributions differ little apart from the desktop environment.

If you have any of the most common mainstream Linux distros, you can switch desktop environments or get rid of unnecessary programs without installing the operating system afresh. So unless that seems difficult, the really important characteristics of a distro are just things like what package manager it uses, whether it's rolling release, how frequently do the distro's maintainers update packages, and what software is considered necessary (whether you're forced to use systemd). So the one Ubuntu derivative isn't going to differ from the next, but one independent distro can differ from another greatly.

But nonetheless competition between lots of slightly different user-friendly Linux distros is good, not because there's any reason to switch from the one to the other, but because experienced users can point casual computer users to them.

LegoManiac04 wrote:

MagicCrayon9342 wrote:

It wasn't til a few weeks ago i settled for Fedora, permanently. I was tired of hopping, as I have been distro-hopping for years.

Though it can be a bit better actually installing the distros, you could also try distros out with a virtual machine, such as VirtualBox ^^

MagicCrayon9342 wrote:

The software I used, I either didn't need or had a linux version. (…)When I first switched to Linux, I had a laptop that could barely even run Windows. It made things so much faster!

That is by far one of the best things about Linux. It can totally breathe life into old PCs. Had I had the knowledge of Linux I have now, I would never have replaced my now 10 year old 1st gen Core i3 Acer Aspire with a Chromebook, as I had tinkered around with Linux a bit on it before I got rid of it, and it worked AMAZING.
And I think what scares a lot of people is that Linux can't run their Windows programs, when in reality there are a lot of programs that do have Linux versions, or there are good alternatives.

just because chromeOS is based on gentoo doesn't mean its not a data collection super confined walled garden collecting your data every second

MagicCrayon9342 wrote:

just because chromeOS is based on gentoo doesn't mean its not a data collection super confined walled garden collecting your data every second

I never said it wasn't?

LegoManiac04 wrote:

MagicCrayon9342 wrote:

just because chromeOS is based on gentoo doesn't mean its not a data collection super confined walled garden collecting your data every second

I never said it wasn't?

chromebooks
bad

MagicCrayon9342 wrote:

chromebooks
bad

I disagree

u7p wrote:

MagicCrayon9342 wrote:

chromebooks
bad

I disagree

Why? They're made by a company that has zero respect for user's privacy, and will gladly make money off of your data.

Out of curiosity, has anyone tried any of Fedora's Spins? They're like Fedora, but they come with different DEs. Just wondering how the experience is with them, as I like KDE :P

LegoManiac04 wrote:

Out of curiosity, has anyone tried any of Fedora's Spins? They're like Fedora, but they come with different DEs. Just wondering how the experience is with them, as I like KDE :P

There's also a Fedora Remix for Windows Subsystem for Linux, I haven't tried it though.

I reinstall Linux even faster and more often then the average no-life gentoo user recompiling their OS again.

Hi there…
Next year I have to bring my own computer to school.
I don't really want to bring my MacBook…
Should I get a Windows computer or should I get a Windows computer and install a Linux distro on it?
I'm a bit confused on software compatibility and also…
Would it be possible to switch back to Windows fast? They don't have any OS requirements.

god286 wrote:

Hi there…
Next year I have to bring my own computer to school.
I don't really want to bring my MacBook…
Should I get a Windows computer or should I get a Windows computer and install a Linux distro on it?
I'm a bit confused on software compatibility and also…
Would it be possible to switch back to Windows fast? They don't have any OS requirements.

meh, use linux, that's what im planning to do

god286 wrote:

Hi there…
Next year I have to bring my own computer to school.
I don't really want to bring my MacBook…
Should I get a Windows computer or should I get a Windows computer and install a Linux distro on it?
I'm a bit confused on software compatibility and also…
Would it be possible to switch back to Windows fast? They don't have any OS requirements.

Dual-boot with Linux. That way you can still use Windows if you need to.

god286 wrote:

Should I get a Windows computer or should I get a Windows computer and install a Linux distro on it?

Dual boot Linux is the best thing you can do - you can use Windows, and you can also use Linux without virtualization.