Hello guys, I have a question that I think that I should be asking over what is the best distro of Linux. That being what is really different between distros. I have watched a lot of videos about what distro new users should use and what distro one should use for work, but what really makes the distros different? Like why would I use Fedora over Arch or the inverse. or is it all just personal preference. I think i know what Puppy Linux purpose is, low end and/or older hardware it great for that. But why would I choose one distro over another when it not spec based. or is that something I will just learn over time? Jumping in to Linux over the last month I haven't really found why I would use one over another. I am trying to find the right distro for now. I thought it was Arch, but after using it for a week I found the only reason I have any preference to it was because it being hard to install it made me feel smart, but after it was installed and I started to do my normal task it just felt like any other distro I have tried. I then tried using i3wm for the same reason and after learning basics of that it felt kind of the same ( love the hotkeys and the feel of it though just for my tasks it felt pretty normal just more keyboard focused and i didn't learn vim so maybe that would change my mind). So what are the differences not in extream detail after all this is still my first month, but are they really significant.
I want to get involved with Linux and start working on improving it once I have a deep understanding of it and learn what I need to as far as programming. So i really want to learn as much as I can about it so that I can help the project as much as I can. I see learning what the distros differences as a place to start my quest and I feel like the information will let me rest easy on any distro i feel like i enjoy.
Nothing I said I mean to be offensive I am just still pretty ignorant about Linux and am trying to take the next step after just using a random distro for a while. I watched a good bit of Linux Fest Northwest and I really liked what OpenSUSE seem to be trying to do even though a lot of it i admittedly did not understand.
Philosophy. Does the distro offer only free software or not, etc.
Release model. Some are rolling (No major version updates, as long as you keep updating you're fine, like Arch.) Or fixed releases like Ubuntu.
Communities.
There may be distro specific installers and tools, but they're almost never exclusive.
You mention OpenSUSE, perhaps their huge unique factor is the Open Build Service. No other distros that I know have anything like it, and many distros are using OBS, which is OpenSUSE technology.
Is this something each distro would hav eon there site, like I know Arch is K.I.S.S. right, but what does that really mean.
I can see how that would effect the choice.
Makes since, haven't really looked into the communities just really been using the arch wiki, but that being said it is community driven from what i understand.
I can see how that is meaningful. Tools i will have to look into. see if it really matter for me.
That should be relatively easy to find. OpenSUSE doesn't make it obvious, though you'll find around the internet they focus on free software. Their mission statement is relevant: 'The makers' choice for sysadmins, developers and desktop users.'
Thanks I will look into it see where i fall on my current ideals of what i feel i am into linux for. Mostly just trying to get way from telemetry in windows and i find it fun.
I suppose OpenSUSE lets the philosophy decision up to the users, as they separate the Free software/non-free software in separate repos, like many distros as you mentioned.
Some other minor factors would include: a) focus - desktop, server, gaming, new to Linux, commercial support, specialty appliance (firewall, router), etc. b) environment - while there are literally dozens of desktop environments, there are only a handful that are truly popular. c) default programs - some want a turnkey install that's ready to go, others want a bare bones install, in order to minimize bloat.
At the end of the day, though, they all use the same Linux kernel and the same GNU utilities. It's somewhat akin to DNA, really. Although people and the apes share 98% of their DNA, that remaining 2% accounts for quite a bit of diversity.
Well opensuse pretty much gives you what ever you want. You have a stable release called leap, and a rolling release called tumbleweed.
The tools is the big reason to choose opensuse. Opensuse has Yast which is basically a really powerful control panel. No other distro has it as far as I know.
They also have openQA which is a testing suite. This means that all of the software that opensuse puts out is tested for stability. INCLUDING THE ROLLING RELEASE : D
I am probably the biggest opensuse nut on this forum, so I could sit here and talk to you about the wonder of opensuse all day long.
A is becoming less true as distros and software is starting to blur the line between those categories. Ubuntu for instance was all about desktop use when it first started. Now its probably one of the more popular choice for cloud servers.
B is also becoming less true simply because any environment that has enough popularity usually gets packaged for all the other distros. Arch is a great example. I don't know if there is a single DE that is off limits to arch users.
makes a lot of since maybe I am looking at this the wrong way and need to build my work flow up before locking to a distro to see what i really need.
learning programming so is there anything great for that, other than that have desided i have to use windows for gaming and photography, can't get away from adobe tried GIMP for a while can't get it quite right for what I do.
yeah still picking that too, really like using i3wm and gnome so far and KDE.
this i didnt not think at all about. That is actually huge for me I don't want anything installed that i did't install i really want bare bones.
Thanks for the great information.
That sounds really nice i may have to play with it before knowing if it is a big deal for me personally.
that is really nice I have heard this when i watched a video from Linux Fest Northwest.
I am on the edge for dropping Arch (been using it for most of the last month) for openSUSE from what I have seen it seems really nice since I can run tumbleweed on my personal computers and run leap on my dad's(only really uses browser. that way he wont have to deal with updates at random). That and the idea of the the Open Build Service seems really cool (admittedly i just read the wiki page for it). Only problem I have with arch is that is may be a bit ambitious for my first time REALLY using Linux as my daily driver.
AFAIK, Ubuntu still provides separate desktop and server ISOs. So, while you can obviously run "server" apps on a desktop (and vice versa), there are differences in the kernel and other configuration tweaks to optimize a distro for its intended use. Also, I don't think that I would want to spend the time to try to convert something like Smoothwall back into a general purpose desktop OS. Life's just too short.
Of course you are right about DEs, which is why I characterized it a minor consideration, but as the OP appears to be new to the Linux world, it may make sense for him to run a few live ISOs, or drop them into a VM in order to get the "feel" of KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, etc. before settling on a distro. Installing and configuring KDE, for instance can be challenging for a newcomer. Also, plain vanilla Cinnamon has a completely different feel than Mint/Cinnamon. Therefore, if a new user has his heart set on KDE, for instance, it's better to choose a distro that uses KDE in their flagship build. Once a new user gets some experience under his belt, he'll obviously learn how easy it is to install multiple different desktop environments and how to customize each of them to his liking.
Fair. But AFAIK, the "server" distro is nothing more than ubuntu without a DE and a couple apps added on. Its not really a full on distro as much as it is a time saver for server people.
I could be totally wrong on that, so take it with a grain of salt. I avoid ubuntu like the plague.
One of the things that might matter to you is who is behind your distro. Red Hat, a big, big company, is behind Fedora. Opensuse also has a big corporate backer (though who that is has changed over time) ditto for Ubuntu (Canonical and Mark Shuttlesworth.) Other distros are essentially the work of one person, or a very small group. Yet others have spawned vast communities of contributors...Arch and Debian spring to mind, as does Gentoo. Now, I'm not going to tell you which of these models you should prefer, but keep this info in mind when choosing...do you want your distro to be around five years from now? Do you want a company backing it (easy to imagine some people answering this in the positive, others in the negative.)
Somebody above mentions the importance of package managers, which is a point well taken. But you might equally well ask, how many packages are available in the repos?...some distros do better, others worse (Debian has many, many, Slackware and derivatives/descendants somewhat fewer.)
what is your hardware? Does the distro you choose keep its kernel up to the latest hardware? If, just to pick one example, you have a new Ryzen PC, you'd better hope that your distro gets to kernel 4.11 pretty quick...some lag far behind in that regard.