73
Could we add "Distrochooser" to the sidebar? (distrochooser.de)
submitted 10 months ago by onlinepersona@programming.dev to c/linux@lemmy.ml
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Quite a few posts about selecting a distro to use. Maybe it's time to make that link a little more prominent?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] throwawayish@lemmy.ml 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

While I get why distrochooser.de is romanticized, in its current iteration it's simply not very good and anyone that is somewhat well-versed in how different distros operate and how Distrochooser works, will tell you the same. At best, it provides some orientation into what some of the more common distros are. But it fails to answer some fundamental questions in the process; like:

  • What is the relation between a distro and its derivative and (more importantly) how does that matter to a user?
  • How exactly does a distribution's chosen release model affect software and updates? And while we're into that, what's even the difference between the "stable" used when talking about point release distros that opt to freeze packages over longer periods of time vs the "stable" that's brought up in conversations regarding update concerns and how they might break software (I'm honestly not even sure if the one(s) responsible for writing the parts of Distrochooser even know(s) themselves)^[1]^.

There are a lot of other fundamental questions that are involved in the decision for picking a distro that would have made a lot more sense than the ones found on Distrochooser. E.g. Do you use an Nvidia GPU and want this to cause no issues in the process of installation and is this your biggest concern? If yes: then just use Pop!_OS. Otherwise, move on to the other questions etc. I think the fact that a flowchart isn't used for some uses and that ultimately priorities aren't brought up to finalize the decision are the two biggest issues that Distrochooser has in its current iteration.

And we haven't even gone over the many distros that despite having little to no user base are still included in the results, while (more recent) 'staples' like Garuda and Nobara are clearly left out for reasons most likely related to the maintainers not being able to keep up with the Linux landscape. Which, to be fair, is quite hard; so I don't blame them. I, in fact, applaud them for their continued contributions and hope that some day it will become something that we can proudly present to others for their first orientation.

Allow me to end this with a question to OP:

  • Do you feel the same way about excellent websites like DistroWatch.com and DistroSea?^[2]^
    • If yes; Why didn't you make a similar post for either of the two instead?
    • If no; Why not?
  1. Sure, there is some overlap in what they mean and how they're used, but it's a very important distinction; otherwise openSUSE's stable rolling release designation for their Tumbleweed wouldn't make any sense.
  2. If anything, I think these two actually make more sense to be included.
[-] onlinepersona@programming.dev -1 points 10 months ago

IMO you're thinking too much as an advanced user for a simple user. The only point I agree on is the NVIDIA GPU. If you feel up to it, contribute. The website's code is on Github https://github.com/distrochooser/distrochooser

I've never heard of nor used Garuda. As I said, feel free to contribute.

Do you feel the same way about excellent websites like DistroWatch.com and DistroSea?

Never heard of DistroSea. It seem like a good complement to DistroChooser. It works for most usecases:

  • narrow down what fits for you by answering a questionnaire (DistroChooser)
  • if you feel like it, test a few of the suggested distros from the questionnaire on DistroSea

DistroWatch as useful as statista.com for suggesting your next travel destination. If you had to travel somewhere and had a list of criteria, but didn't want to spend all day researching, would you go to a travel agent or open an encyclopedia?

I think many in the community, like yourself, have forgotten what it's like to give just enough of a fuck to change something but not to want to be too invested. A beginner isn't going to want to understand why a system is stable or not: they just want a stable system. You don't have to explain to them "Yeah, so the configuration is a file, you see? Only you edit that file. Then you run this command that interprets the file and build a dependency tree, downloads everything necessary, to a partition that's temporarily mounted as read-write, symlinks to....". Nobody cares. The average user DGAF.

Imagine if you just wanted to get a vacuum cleaner at the store with 3 criteria. Imagine you don't give a rat's ass about vacuum cleaner. You just want to point the thing at the ground, let it succ all the bits, but as quietly as possible, and not break down in 2 years to force you back out here. But the sales person you get harps on about the genius of the person who invented some internal component you've never heard of, goes on to explain why, ideologically, getting a certain brand is the only way because blablablabla. Maybe you'd buy a vacuum cleaner just to shut them up or walk out of the store.
My optimal experience would be the sales person listening to me, lining up the best candidates, and explaining, in bullet points, why they are there. Then finally, ask me if I have a favorite and to give me a test environment. If I don't understand something, I can ask more questions.

  1. narrow down options --> DistroChooser
  2. test them --> DistroSea
  3. more questions --> right here

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

[-] throwawayish@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

I got bored 😅. So here is my second response. But please, before reading this one, consider reading my other reply first. It's a lot shorter anyways 😅.

So fundamentally, I think we're misunderstanding one another. In your defense, I can understand it; as I'm just one of the many responders and you might simply not have been able to take the time to understand what it is that I'm trying to convey and why. In my case, I think it might be related to the XY problem; i.e. you're proposing a solution (adding Distrochooser to the sidebar) for which hope will resolve an issue that remains to be stated. For all we know, you actually try to solve something else and you perceive Distrochooser in being capable of playing a vital role in that without being aware of how else the actual problem should be tackled instead.

In this reply I will try to bridge the gap that might have made you misunderstand what I tried to say in my first comment under your original post.

IMO you’re thinking too much as an advanced user for a simple user.

I think you might be absolutely right. The thing is, though, that I have never been one of those users that post a question like "Which distro?" without providing anything beyond the most basic specifics.

Some insights from my personal Linux journey(FWIW, this is me. And this was more of a last-ditch effort in hopes of finding something to dual boot into. By contrast, for my first distro I had spent a week of my free time digging through (video-)guides and Reddit threads until I had dismissed everything besides the distro I landed on. It seems that I did a good enough job as I'm still confidently using it. And while I've used and experimented with other distros since (mostly as a dual boot), my first distro is the only one I refer to as home. And the interesting part is that I'm fully aware that chances are very slim that a random bystander would ever have suggested me (as a newbie) the use of Fedora Atomic. So by doing the research myself, I've actually enabled myself to start with my ideal distro from the get-go. And yes; that means I've revisited my choice a couple of times by now, but every revisit just made me more confident in my choice.

The only point I agree on is the NVIDIA GPU.

I therefore assume you disagree not with the entire post (as you seem to be taking a liking to DistroSea), but instead refer to the parts in which I go over some more fundamental questions. I think you've missed what I tried to say with that and have also missed the hint^[1]^ to make more clear why I even said those things.

Alright, let's dismiss for a moment that the Distrochooser's questions themselves need a lot of work done and proceed right to a 'results-screen'. This is probably how I would fill it in on an average day*. In the very first sentence, we're confronted with the word stable without giving any useful information on what this means and why this is even mentioned here. Similarly, the word unstable is used without ensuring that the (potential) newbie actually has a proper understanding of what it stands for. According to your logic^[2]^ these things shouldn't even matter! So why does Distrochooser even bother to spend a sentence on this for every one of their entries? And that's why I actually agree with you! But if Distrochooser chooses to include it, then they at least have to be precise and elaborate on what they mean with this and why the new user should care. So, to be clear, my two bullet points weren't meant as "Distrochooser should definitely somehow include these as they're vital to their choice.", but instead it was meant as "Alright, if this format for Distrochooser is chosen (with all of its faults), then the least Distrochooser should do is provide information on what the points (and used terms/words/phrases) in the 'results-screen' actually mean for the newbie user. And if it's not addressed, then this automatically discredits Distrochooser as a reliable introduction/orientation to distros for new users.". Because as it stands, a lot of the small niche distros that happen to be derivatives of Debian/Ubuntu are regarded as somehow "stable" while something like Fedora isn't. And thus the newbie that just wants a stable system will be fooled/misled into using any of those fringe distros over Fedora. Which is just straight up BS.

I’ve never heard of nor used Garuda. As I said, feel free to contribute.

Don't worry, others already took care of that. The fact that it hasn't been implemented yet just shows that this is not a productive endeavor. On that note, I didn't even notice how Garuda's more popular sibling EndeavourOS is also absent in Distrochooser's results...

Never heard of DistroSea. It seem like a good complement to ~~DistroChooser~~ anything that narrows down choice

Fixed that for you. Especially considering the fact that Distrochooser is (perhaps) more misleading than anything else. This point is a dead horse by now (at least under this post of yours), but I will be more elaborate at a later point.

DistroWatch as useful as statista.com for suggesting your next travel destination. If you had to travel somewhere and had a list of criteria, but didn’t want to spend all day researching, would you go to a travel agent or open an encyclopedia?

The response on this depends on the XY problem, therefore I will refrain from commenting on this for now.

I think many in the community, like yourself, have forgotten what it’s like to give just enough of a fuck to change something but not to want to be too invested. A beginner isn’t going to want to understand why a system is stable or not: they just want a stable system. You don’t have to explain to them “Yeah, so the configuration is a file, you see? Only you edit that file. Then you run this command that interprets the file and build a dependency tree, downloads everything necessary, to a partition that’s temporarily mounted as read-write, symlinks to…”. Nobody cares. The average user DGAF.

Imagine if you just wanted to get a vacuum cleaner at the store with 3 criteria. Imagine you don’t give a rat’s ass about vacuum cleaner. You just want to point the thing at the ground, let it succ all the bits, but as quietly as possible, and not break down in 2 years to force you back out here. But the sales person you get harps on about the genius of the person who invented some internal component you’ve never heard of, goes on to explain why, ideologically, getting a certain brand is the only way because blablablabla. Maybe you’d buy a vacuum cleaner just to shut them up or walk out of the store.

These two paragraphs are at best you misunderstanding/misinterpreting what I said and why I said those things and that's where I'll leave it (for now).

My optimal experience would be the sales person listening to me, lining up the best candidates, and explaining, in bullet points, why they are there. Then finally, ask me if I have a favorite and to give me a test environment. If I don’t understand something, I can ask more questions.

Generally-speaking, I agree with this. But I hope you're not (even remotely) insinuating that this is even remotely close to the Distrochooser experience.

  1. Hint: "I’m honestly not even sure if the one(s) responsible for writing the parts of Distrochooser even know(s) themselves" from my first reply.
  2. "A beginner isn’t going to want to understand why a system is stable or not: they just want a stable system." and "Nobody cares. The average user DGAF."
[-] throwawayish@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

ADDENDUM:

Alright, let's get to the elephant in the room (Distrochooser's questions).I'll go over every single question and offer my feedback.

  1. Software: Use case: This is one of the better questions. But, unfortunately, not without its faults. For one, it somehow thinks that "I want to use Linux for anonymous web browsing." and "I prefer a distribution which is supported by game publishers." is somehow mutually exclusive. The only way this would make any sense at all is if somehow "anonymous web browsing" implies strict adherence to Tails or QubesOS and their guidelines. But since when is it not possible to boot up a Whonix VM on any ordinary distro for anonymous browsing, while Valve's Proton handles everything on the gaming side of things. Furthermore, the inclusion of both "I want to execute all programs in an isolated environments." and "I want to use Linux for anonymous web browsing." on the very first question seems as if the audience that has watched Mr. Robot are somehow treated like first-class citizens, while I thought this intended to be useful for the more general newbie. This also somehow implies that Linux is for the h4ck0rs or something. It would make a lot more sense to pose a question like that after the security sensibility has been measured first. Why is this even the first question? Wouldn't it make more sense to know what hardware is targeted in the first place? Verdict: Fine question, but needs work.
  2. Computer knowledge: This question somehow implies that knowing your ways around a computer is better or something for when you want to use Linux. Why? Is it even important to know if one is adept with Windows or macOS before they use Linux? Aren't most people more accustomed to mobiles OSes anyways? If anything, I would argue that preconceived notions on how other desktop OSes work might be detrimental. Verdict: Pointless.
  3. Linux and you: This should be useful, right? Well..., didn't we already settle on the fact that we wanted this for new users? So then what does it add if we know they're complete strangers to Linux or (instead) have used it once like 5 years ago? Verdict: Pointless.
  4. Installation: Presets: Assuming that "I want to choose the settings by myself" and "I want to configure as much as possible using graphical applications" are the same except for how the former is more akin to an archinstall while the latter is basically the same but with a GUI, then for the new user we would always want the GUI-based, right? Alright, as for the choice that remains... I actually don't know why either one would be necessarily preferred over the other. Being able to choose sounds good, but what actually do we get to choose? This question is honestly too vague for me without grabbing any installer with it. I wonder if you think the same... Verdict: I, personally, don't understand the use (case) or what it tries to achieve. Pointless.
  5. Hardware support: The single best question on the list. I would argue the possibility should be explored in which something akin to a hardware probe should be implored in order to dismiss a huge bulk of the distros simply for not being well-optimized for the hardware. Verdict: MVP, while it's already useful in its current iteration, I do think it deserves more work before it can be actually useful for most people.
  6. Source for help: I guess this question tries to take into account the dynamic between how user interactions happen with on one hand well-documented projects with a small and non-vocal user base, while on the other hand we have projects that aren't well-documented but depend on user participation to bridge the gap. I wouldn't be surprised if this is yet another artifact from the times in which the "RTFM"-reply was to be expected for asking a stupid question. The 'meta' has changed so much since that this question simply seems outdated and doesn't deserve to be on the list. For beginners, we should always encourage the use of distros with both an excellent (or at least sub-par) documentation and a lively, vocal, active and helpful community. Verdict: Pointless.
  7. User experience: At best, it's an artifact of when ElementaryOS actually was a thing and rightfully deserved to be mentioned in recommendation lists. However, at the other end of the spectrum this is a false and misleading dichotomy between GNOME (and GNOME-like DEs) and KDE Plasma (and KDE-like DEs). Honestly, it's an insult to both GNOME and KDE Plasma (and most DEs for that matter) to be compared to macOS and Windows respectively. And I haven't even gone over how it affects oversimplification and the resulting false expectations. Don't get me wrong, I think that -conceptually- asking for how one would like to interact with their system is very important. And if anything, exploring DEs like GNOME, KDE Plasma, Cinnamon and Xfce (etc) is one of the most important steps a new user can take in deciding which distro they should pick. But instead of asking a question like that, we should instead put our efforts into making a test distro of sorts in which one can easily explore different DEs. I'm sure something like that already exists or can simply be achieved through using a bunch of ISOs and Ventoy. But I digress... FWIW, I even saw in your post history that you made the same analogy, which just shows how misleading it is if even a veteran user for 15 years can be misled. Verdict: Pointless. But, conceptually, deserves a lot more love.
  8. Distributions: Price: Why is this even included? Yes, I'm aware that Zorin OS Pro exists. But this, by itself, doesn't justify the inclusion of this question. Verdict: Pointless.
  9. Distributions: Scope: Does it even make sense to ask a newbie if they would like to choose their own basic programs? I think this question has potential, but requires a precursory question in order for it to be unlocked after it has been determined the user is in fact a 'tweaker'. Otherwise, this question doesn't hold any value. Furthermore, Distrochooser isn't even 'smart' enough to know that minimal installers for Fedora and openSUSE exist for those that seek more freedom in what is installed on their systems... Verdict: Pointless, unless newbie also (somehow) happens to be a 'tweaker'.
  10. Distributions: Ideology: For the Libre distros; sure, let's overwhelm the new user with this as well /s. Verdict: Pointless.
  11. Distributions: Privacy: I think this question is fine. I think it needs a couple of gentle touches to be actually useful, but there's potential and it deserves its place. Especially considering the amount of people that actually gravitate towards Linux for privacy concerns. Verdict: Fine question, but deserves some gentle touches.
  12. Administration: Any new user should be able to install software from something that looks like a storefront AND needs to educate themselves on how the terminal could be used to that effect. sudo apt/dnf/zipper install name-software shouldn't be too much to ask. Verdict: Pointless.
  13. Software: Updates: Good question. The conclusions Distrochooser takes from this are laughable, but it doesn't undermine that it's a good question. Verdict: Fine question, needs work.

Alright, so let's make up the score:

  • Deserve to be on the list: 3
  • Pointless: 8
  • The hardware probe should be explored to take over the function of hardware specifics (or anything that's similarly effective)
  • Finally, the question about User experience should be reworked to implore the user to try a bunch of different Desktop Environments.

As you should be aware, I wasn't as fire-y in the second half as I was in the first. This might be related to tiredness etc. Regardless, as it stands Distrochooser asks 8 questions too many that are not only pointless, but for their presence they also are misleading; thus they're ultimately bad. Two questions deserve a lot more love for what they're capable to bring to the table and one might argue that their current presence is nothing but a disservice to them. Finally, the remaining 3 questions... Surely, we should be able to ask those through a bot/template, right? Wouldn't that be a lot better and more efficient?

And we haven't even touched upon the myriad of questions that should be asked instead. Security vs Convenience? Which software they intend to use and if they've been able to actually find alternatives for those that simply aren't supported on Linux? Automatic upgrades in the background vs deliberate updates?^[3]^ Etc...

  1. Of course if the user even intends to use a distro that's not 'stable' like how Debian Stable is 'stable'.
[-] onlinepersona@programming.dev 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Thanks for the thoughtful response, but I disagree with a lot of things you said. I could quote everything I disagree with and write a paragraph, however it would be a meaningless endeavor as a moderator looking at the post would probably decide against adding distrochooser to the sidebar - regardless of my opinions.

Cheers

CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

P.S thanks for teaching me a new thing: XY problem :)

[-] throwawayish@lemmy.ml 1 points 10 months ago

Alright, let's first deal with unfinished business.

DistroWatch as useful as statista.com for suggesting your next travel destination. If you had to travel somewhere and had a list of criteria, but didn’t want to spend all day researching, would you go to a travel agent or open an encyclopedia?

I agree that DistroWatch is very useful as a more general resource rather than whatever you think Distrochooser is capable of. However, similar to DistroSea, it provides excellent information for anyone that is more interested in a specific distribution. Especially the reviews (by both the site maintainer(s) and visitors) are especially very valuable and the closest thing we have to an aggregated user reviews for distros. For good measure, I'm talking about the content of the reviews not the numerical representation.

but I disagree with a lot of things you said.

I'm so stoked to read these. I genuinely mean this btw*; every time someone informs me on why they disagree with me is an opportunity for me to learn new stuff.

I could quote everything I disagree with and write a paragraph

Please do. I mean it.

however it would be a meaningless endeavor as a moderator looking at the post would probably decide against adding distrochooser to the sidebar - regardless of my opinions.

This is very defeatist of you, though. And FWIW something which I didn't expect from you. If you can even make (just) one person (in this case, perhaps me) learn something new, then that should be worth the effort. As you should be aware by now, I'm a lot more active on Lemmy than I should 😅, but this also means that having me (or anyone for that matter) be on your side might just be the thing you need to have this succeed eventually.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
this post was submitted on 10 Jan 2024
73 points (80.2% liked)

Linux

48349 readers
444 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

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz