Why do you use the distro you use?
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
I’ve been distro hopping for 15+ years but have settled with Mint for the last few, because I just want something that works. I’m too busy nowadays to bother with maintaining a distro, so I just want something that works out of the box and is easy to maintain. The laptop I use it on is connected to the TV as I use it to watch movies.
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
EndeavourOS because someone said it was Arch for lazy people, and I'm a lazy people.
I did use vanilla Arch before for a while, but just ended up being more work for the same setup with more issues from stuff like missing dependencies I didn't have to worry about with Endeavour.
Only other distro I've used was Pop!_OS when I first tried out Linux.
-
NixOS. My primary reason for switching was wanting a single list of programs that I had installed. After using ubuntu for 5 years I just lost track of all the tools and versions of software that I had installed...and that didnt even count my laptop. Now all my machines have a single list of applications, and they are all in sync.
What does that mean? Like there is one calendar app?
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
Variants and derivates of Debian on my servers and other headless devices because no reason except I know it, it is stable, it works.
Been trying linux for desktop every five-ten years for the last twenty odd years and went back to Windows every time because it was too bad experience despite I really tried to like it.
Except this time.
Fedora KDE on my laptop, soon on my stationary as well. No more Windows for me.
-
Mint here. It looks like Windows and runs the software and hardware I want. Simple as that.
Just installed it today. I had been using KDE Neon for the last 6+ months and really enjoyed it, but I had issues I couldn't google my way out of.
-
What does that mean? Like there is one calendar app?
NixOS configuration is done entirely through code, so all of your packages are in a list (although that list can be spread across multiple files; it's a bit to explain)
I've found it can be easier to manage what you have installed, since you can just look at that list and go "oh, why do I still have xyz installed, idek what that does anymore"
I appreciate the way things are configured a lot, but I would not recommend it unless you really like coding and you have time to tinker. It's not too hard to get simple config setup, but I spiraled down a deep rabbit hole really quickly.
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
Garuda - because like endeavor it's arch for lazy people, plus I got sold on the gaming edition by how much I like the theme and the latest drivers. But that's just what got me to try it, what sold me on it is when I had a vm of it that ran out of hdd space mid kernel update. I shut it down to expand the drive, booted it back up and no kernels present. Fiddling around in grub in a panic made me realize snappertools auto snapshots btrfs before updating. I think only once in my life (out of dozens of tries) has Microsoft's restorepoints actually worked for me. Booting to the snapshot was effortless, clicking through to recover to that snapshot was a breeze. I rebooted again just to make sure it was working and it did. Re-updated and I was back in action.
That experience made me love garuda. I highly recommend snappertools+btrfs from now on and use it whenever I can. Yes, preventative tools and warnings would have stopped it from happening, but you can't stop everything, and it's a comfort to have.
-
What does that mean? Like there is one calendar app?
NixOS is a declarative distro. Meaning it you can declare pretty much every aspect of it from what software is installed to how the system is configured from a config file.
Using you calandar example, you can list Thunderbird (or whatever) as a package you want in the configuration and it will be installed. You can also use that same configuration on another machine and produce the same environment.
Relevant to the original point, since all your software is listed in a text file, you can easily see exactly what's installed.
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
Debian because it just works. I am interested in trying NixOS though.
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
Ubuntu at work since it's well supported and we can expect any IT people to be able to deploy our packages.
Pop 24.04 because I think it'd be cool to see how performant and maintainable and customizable a desktop that isn't GTK or QT based. Something sparkly without the legacy choices of the past to consider in the codebase. Plus even though I've never touched Rust, it's so hyped that I'm interested to see how it all works out. It's my gaming desktop that also has a Windows VM for occasional trying something out. Also process RAW photos with Darktable. Every now and then use Alpaca to try out free LLMs, handbrake, ffmpeg, image magick, compile something
Fedora, stable to me and it goes on my minipc. I run Jellyfin on it and occasionally SAMBA or whatever. I like to see how GNOME changes.
On a Legion Go, Bazzite with KDE. Steam and seeing how KDE Plasma progresses over years. Bazzite introduced me to distrobox and boxbuddy which I now use on the gaming pop_os machine too.
-
NixOS. My primary reason for switching was wanting a single list of programs that I had installed. After using ubuntu for 5 years I just lost track of all the tools and versions of software that I had installed...and that didnt even count my laptop. Now all my machines have a single list of applications, and they are all in sync.
This is a big reason for me. Also because if anything breaks - even if my system becomes unbootable - I can select the previous generation from the boot menu, and everything is back to working.
It's very empowering, the combination of knowing that I won't irrevocably break things, and that I won't build up cruft from old packages and hand-edited config files. It's given me confidence to tinker more than I did in other distros.
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
Finally time to bust this out again.
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
Eh, it worked for me the best back when I was new to Linux, and I've never tried anything that was better, just different since then.
I went through the usual Ubuntu experiment, but their baked in DE at the time was just unpleasant. Tried manjaro? I think, it's hard to recall if that was before or after that initial flurry of trying things out. But there were a half dozen that got suggested back on the Linux for noobs subreddit when win10 came along amd I was noping out.
Mint did the trick. Cinnamon as a DE did what I wanted, how I wanted it. It came with the stuff I needed to get started, and the repo had the stuff I wanted without having to add anything. It worked with all my hardware without jumping through hoops.
I've tried other stuff and like I said, nothing better, just different, so why screw around?
Tbh, that's also how I feel about pretty much everything I tried though. If I had run into one of the others that happened to "fit" the same way back then, I'd likely still be with it because there's really not a ton of difference in day to day use between any of them. The de matters more in that regard, imo.
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
I look at distros as a base to make changes from. I can make my distro into whatever i want but its going to take varying amounts of effort depending on which distro I start with.
I choose Nobara because i really liked fedora and I wanted a fedora base but with someone(eggy) keeping up with the latest gaming tweaks and adding them. Ive been using it for 2+ years and so far so good.
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
Fedora strikes a good balance for me. I come from arch and opensuse. I like the stability of fedora, but I like that it also gets updates faster than Debian. Most software I have found has Fedora considerations.
However, I have been using Ubuntu LTS for my self hosted media server.
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
ArcoLinuxArchLinux (BTW) because I love tinkering with computers.Finding ways to automate tedious tasks is the fun part of the challenge. Scripts, systemd services, bash aliases are a great skill to learn. (Especially bash)
Also I'm too used to pacman and AUR to go back to APT.
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
I use Mint because I use lots of small project software that tends to only have packages for Debian/Ubuntu. Mint also works very well with an NVIDIA card. I've tried other distros but they fail to work well with nvidia.
When I get a new AMD laptop I want to try Vanilla OS as apparently it can use any package format but is also immutable which I like. I just hope they have the KDE Plasma edition out by then because I really don't enjoy Gnome
-
Yepp. Started using Debian around the Ham/Slink releases, haven't found any reason to change yet.
Oh wow yeah I started around the same time. 1998 was a magical time. I stated with a boxed copy of OG Suse but switched to Debian like 6 months later then never switched again. I learned a lot from the thick manual that came with Suse but once I tried Debian everything just clicked. It's like you learn the Debian rules and philosophy and any package you work with makes sense.
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
Artix because it is more Arch then Arch according to Arch's own goals: "focuses on simplicity, minimalism, and code elegance". There is no way systemd is more simple, minimal and elegant than its alternatives. I don't think systemd is bad, but I do think it is a bad fit and Artix is what Arch should have been.
-
Title is quite self-explanatory, reason I wonder is because every now and then I think to myself "maybe distro X is good, maybe I should try it at some point", but then I think a bit more and realise it kind of doesn't make a difference - the only thing I feel kinda matters is rolling vs non-rolling release patterns.
My guiding principles when choosing distro are that I run arch on my desktop because it's what I'm used to (and AUR is nice to have), and Debian on servers because some people said it's good and I the non-rolling release gives me peace of mind that I don't have to update very often. But I could switch both of these out and I really don't think it would make a difference at all.
debian bc i want a rock solid system that i don't have to worry about maintaining and i don't give a fuck about the most recent versions of stuff
