A few beginner questions about the differences between distros.
-
That's weird, I've made over 20 fresh debian installs and they were all successful without such glitch. The commandline installer is more stable though. (had a few displaying distorted screen in gui mode for some reason)
-
i've never used linux mint and i'm curious, how does it differentiate from debian? Might not matter much, but i recall hearing they have their own package with the xedit name so one can't install the original xedit and that's not really great packaging.
-
I'll answer point by point, but the short answer is pick one and use it, if you have issues with it or want to try something different, switch, otherwise stick with it.
- Your understanding is mostly correct. There's the difference that each distro has a family tree which determines which package manager they use, Red hat based distros like Fedora use rpm, Debian based distros like Mint, Pop or Kubuntu use apt, etc. So it would be easier to switch from Mint to Kubuntu than from Fedora to Pop although not by much. The main difference between distros is philosophy, which honestly you shouldn't care too much currently as long as you aim at something beginner friendly.
- Probably not something to worry about, and if it comes to that you can just jump to another distro, trust me once you're familiar with Linux the distro matters less and less.
- Any of them (except for tuxedo which might be a good option but I don't know it) would be a good option. Personally I would recommend Mint, or at least a Debian based one since 3 of the ones you suggested are Debian based it would give you more options to switch easily if needed.
- It should, but your mileage might vary
- Any of them should be good for that, KDE/Plasma is a bit similar to Windows while also being very eye candy, so it's a good choice. Also it's the one used on the Steam Deck so you might be somewhat familiar with it already.
Extra: Nvidia should be fine as long as you use the official proprietary drivers (named
nvidia, NOTnouveau). Photoshop doesn't work on Linux, so you might need to jump through hoops there, if it's not a hard requirement I suggest looking at Gimp for photo manipulation or Krista for drawing, good luck either way since it's uphill battle either way, one against Adobe anti-piracy measures and the other against an unfamiliar software. -
try a bunch in live usbs and see for yourself
-
OP just bear in mind that gimp has a fraction of the functionality of Photoshop. So depending on whether you are power user or not, that may matter. If you just need basic image manipulation and then some, then it will do the job.
-
The main reason for Ubuntu against Debian is the packages. For Ubuntu, they're much newer, and with PPAs (launchpad.net), you can often get more and/or newer packages built by other users. For debian, good luck, you're stuck with old packages (which is the intent of Debian stable, but not nice as a user, that's for server)
-
Distros matter. Maybe less than you think.
For the most part, they all run the same software, including the desktop environment (user experience).
So, in many ways, choosing your distro is mostly choosing how it comes out of the box and how much work it will be to configure it how you want after the fact. Some distros will be closer to what you want out of the box. But you can basically turn any distro into any other distro with a little effort.
That said, some choices do run a bit deeper and are a lot harder to change. Package manager, init system, C library, and others are pretty baked in.
-
If you do not want your distro to force changes down your throat like Microsoft, maybe avoid Ubuntu.
“Stability” on Linux means two things. “Stable” distros like Debian or RHEL change their software infrequently. This is indeed stable. However, you will likely be unhappy with the old software and want to install newer stuff. Many of the ways this is done will cause actual instability (bugs and crashes). Also, old software may be missing features or hardware support. If you are a gamer for example, this could be a big deal—especially if you use NVIDIA.
Things are a bit better than they used to be with tech like Distrobox and Flatpak.
The frequently updated distros can actually be “more stable” for the same reasons as above. However, every once in a while some package is going to have a bug that may hit you before it is found. Arch or EOS are examples of such distros.
Distros that fall in the middle, like Mint or Fedora, are what I would recommend for a new user. Compared to Windows, you will find them very tinker friendly and tweakable.
HDR is very, very new and is part of a change in core graphics tech from something called X11 to something called Wayland. From this point forward, Wayland is the better bet but, today, the quality of your experience is going to be very dependent of the “age of your software” issue above. For Wayland, you want very up-to-date versions.
KDE Plasma is the most mature Wayland environments today, in my assessment. Others are coming along quickly.
Photoshop is going to be a problem for you. The most often recommended replacement for PS is GIMP. Unfortunately, GIMP has been on the verge of a major update for years. GIMP 3 has not shipped yet and most distros ship a far older version (2.10). Version 3 is a massive upgrade. However, you still find it an unsatisfactory PS replacement. Some people use Photopea online.
Gaming on Linux works really well now. However, multi-player anti-cheat systems are Windows kernel only and so these games are going to be a problem. So, your experience will depend on what you play.
The other stuff on your list will work well. Linux of course has a lot more to offer, especially if you are a dev.
Good luck!
-
None of that matters.
You need experience, not recommendations.
Install anything and play with it to learn.
If you will not go forward without a recommendation, Debian is fine and anything you learn will generally transfer to other distributions.
-
If you had asked me Q1 a month ago, I would have said yes (and in general, it is a yes, with enough effort). But i run endeavour (arch) and my partner runs mint (which ships with the Cinnamon WM), and a few weeks ago I recommended that she try out KDE Plasma for its wayland support. Turns out, this is not something the mint community supports, you can't just install it through their software manager, and the mint forums will all tell you to switch to another distro that supports KDE. Meanwhile, on arch, I expect to be able to install it through pacman, choose it from SDDM, and I'm done. Maybe tweak something in my
.config, but it's all downhill from there.Just a datapoint. Some distros (and their communities) seem to be more receptive to experimentation than others, which can make trying new things easier/harder.
I would recommend fedora, debian, or endeavour + KDE/gnome. Good luck!
-
Sure, perhaps it was the hardware, perhaps I just got unlucky. But Ubuntu worked flawlessly and thank goodness. Unfortunately this is not the kind of experience one forgets.
-
That's good advice.
-
I'm very new to Linux, and the two distros that seem the most appealing are Fedora and openSUSE. Do you know why Fedora gets recommended so much more often over openSUSE? I'd like to narrow down my choice between these two. If it helps, I'd like to use KDE.
-
Honestly a lot of it is just momentum and familiarity although I also think US vs Europe is a factor. Linux was popular in North America first and Red Hat was one of the most successful distros early on. The fact that SUSE uses the Red Hat package manager reflects this. Fedora is backed by Red Hat, the de facto standard Enterprise Linux.
Both have their fans though and trying to argue that one is better than the other would be a war of preferences. Many people believe that Tumbleweed is the best rolling distro.
-
Mostly because Fedora is more popular. I like both.
openSUSE Tumbleweed gives you much more control of what gets installed by default (you can customize every package during the GUI installer). It has been the most stable distro ive used. It is a "rolling-release" distro, meaning that packages usually get updates quicker from upstream. If you dont like getting frequent updates it may not be for you. A key feature of openSUSE distros is the system management apl Yast, which allows you to manage a lot of stuff from a GUI.
Fedora is also quite stable. I think it's more user-friendly in my experience. After Debian/Ubuntu based distros, Fedora is the most likely to have packages built for it by developers (I'm talking 1st-party builds, not repacks). Fedora is a semi-rolling release, meaning updates are frequent but not constant.
Fedora is currently my distro off choice, but I may soon use Tumbleweed again. I daily drove Tumbleweed for a year on both my general PC and my admin computer.
-
If you need a replacement for full fledged Visual Studio, JetBrains has you covered. Clion for C/C++ and Rider for C#.
Visual Studio Code works great on Linux.
-
It is pretty hard to find software not available in Arch / AUR.
On non-Arch distros, installing an Arch Distrobox is my favourite way to install software not found in the native repos.
-
re: Distros. Tuxedo is a strange one. I'm not saying it's bad or anything, it just doesn't normally feature in these discussions. I don't know much about it, so I couldn't say if it's a good option or not, but I'm curious what drew you to it?
-
The core packages, including the desktop environment are much more up-to-date than Debian. This addresses one of the core short-comings of Debian while maintaining most of its strengths. LMDE comes with Xapps as well, the core user applications.
