126
Which distro do you believe deserves more recognition?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
126 points (92.6% liked)
Linux
48040 readers
782 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I generally don't understand why people go for the smaller ones at all. I guess it's good that someone does to prevent the whole scene being dominated by a single distro, but with some exceptions (e.g. you hate systemd for some reason and really want systemd-less arch, or you have a super niche preferences). For 99% of distros it makes very little difference which one you use, except that you'll have fewer resources at your disposal (fewer packages, fewer stack overflow threads, fewer everything).
ubuntu pushing snap is what pushed me away. i had used it since warty and was a regular contributor in the official forums. i went back to pure debian, and have since added mint and manjaro (yes i know about its history) desktops, and a few dietpi on x64 (no sbc here), two of which run my piholes.
I don't know about it's history, can you enlighten me?
main source is ManjarNo
Doing changes right is a bit hard. With immutable Distros, some changes are easier like adding or removing packages, bur core OS adaptions are harder.
But for example how would you convert regular Ubuntu to
This all gets messy, so people choose small distros
I'm on arch, which I consider one of the larger distros, where most such configuration is very simple. Not sure what rolling mesa is. I probably wouldn't recommend Ubuntu to anyone who is against using Snap, but there are many distros to choose from if you want KDE as well? It's more a question of why people would go for Hannah Montana Linux (figuratively speaking, some very niche distro).
But to respond to your core point, sure. If you do have a lot of customization needs for whatever reason, then by all means. (I still don't get it)
I meant that its not easy to customize deep system changes and keep them working well, on your own.
There are Forks of Ubuntu like TuxedoOS, PopOS (?) and more that do rather big changes that could break things. So its best to have a community support them.
But I agree on your point. Currently I am on Fedora Kinoite but still dont switch to ublue, as I can do the changes on my own, on the official base.
If I had an NVIDIA card though, I think ublue is the only Distro thats reliable enough (if an update would break, you simply dont get it)
The nature of FOSS suggests (make that extra italic) that the most popular distros should be those that actually work the best. Totally agree that Ubuntu is an outlier, and even that is because of choices Canonical made -- and corporate decisions really aren't typically a part of FOSS.
That said, I truly enjoy smaller distros for hobbyism. I don't necessarily see a use case where they should be chosen over a larger one, except for the really annoying fact that distros with corporate backing will always also tend to get quicker adoption.