Help me choose a distro, please!

This is asking for trouble.

"Gentlemen, I am new to the country, and I was hoping that you could help me choose a political party."

"I'm looking for a good text editor. What's the best text editor to use?"

"I've heard that various religions have a lot of things going for them. Which religion do you suggest I join?"

Aside from very specialized distros (like, you probably don't want Alpine Linux) most distros will work fine for what you want.

I use this machine for typical home usage: Firefox, a notes app (currently Notesnook), maybe office style tools like word and excel.

Firefox will run on everything. You can definitely take notes on anything, and there are tons of options. LibreOffice will be available for everything.

Steam,

Steam ships with its own set of libraries based on Ubuntu, and stuff targeting Steam will normally use them. It should be pretty distro-agnostic.

Discord

They apparently have a Linux app, which I've never used. The website should work fine anywhere. They have a "deb" or "tar.gz" and don't specify any target distro for either. The deb probably is for Ubuntu, just because it's the most-widely-used desktop distro that uses Debian packages, but I imagine that you've got good odds of it working on whatever. If you want to check, you could just throw a distro on a VM.

I don’t want it to ship with loads of applications; I want to choose and install all of the higher level tools. Shipping with a configured desktop is perfectly fine but not required. Ideally, I can have all of this while still keeping the maintenance low. I think that means a stable OS, a good package manager, stable/automatic updates, etc.

Everything outside of really specialized, oddball distros has package management.

All the major distros that I've used have options to do various forms of a stripped-down install. If you want to install a distro without anything graphical at all, you probably can.

You do have a differing release cycle; I'd probably tend towards a shorter one for desktop use. If you were setting up a ci server that you want minimal interaction with, you probably don't care much about having newer software. But, again, distros tend to have at least options for a LTS release that just gets security updates, even if they have a pretty-frequent set of updates, like Ubuntu.

There aren't going to be particularly "unstable" distros in the sense of crashing. Debian stable is aimed at being software that's passed through multiple phases of experimental testing use and is considered well-tested; it's just their normal distro. There's no pixie dust that makes some distros less-crash-prone. If you're really determined to have more testing, you can use an LTS release, which many distros do but I would not advise for a desktop, especially if you're planning on playing commercial games, which you say you are.

Last bit. Open source is rather important to me. I prefer free and free.

You can get open-source software on any distro. Debian is a bit more aggressive than some, turns off non-free repositories by default, but I think that most people turn them on anyway. They also have a separate non-free firmware repository, and I think that most people aren't determined enough to refuse to use non-libre firmware for hardware that they have (though they might choose that hardware with libre firmware in mind). I don't think that there's any distro that is going to ram non-open-source stuff down your throat. Honestly, your largest source of non-open-source software is probably going to be Steam, which you said that you want to use.

I use Debian myself these days. I'm hesitant to argue in favor of distros, because my own take is that the differences (a) tend to change over time, (b) most work pretty well regardless, and (c) I think that few people have actually spent enough time on many other distros to be able to have expert knowledge in their failings (which is something that I've seen in vi-vs-emacs discussions, where I've seen enthusiasts often talk about amazing features while unaware that the other editor can also do the same thing; it takes decades to master either).

If I were picking a "first distro" for someone for desktop use, and disregarding your specific situation, my default is probably Ubuntu. I don't use it myself these days, but it's particularly-widely-used. It has a short release cycle on the non-LTS version (I know that you said you wanted low maintenance, but I've pretty consistently found that one winds up wanting to pull in newer software for desktop systems). It's Debian-based. If one distro gets targeted by a proprietary software package (which I know you also said that you don't care about) it's probably going to be Ubuntu. Aside from past use of Upstart as an init system, it isn't especially unusual. It doesn't require some of the poking around (like enabling non-free repos) that Debian does. It may or may not be where someone wants to be long term, but it's not going to bring a lot of complications. But it's really not going to be drastically better than the other mainstream distros.

Whether that is what one chooses or not, I'd stick to one of the more mainstream distros for a first-time user. There are legitimate reasons to use oddball, young, and specialized distros (tiny, security-hardened, real-time oriented, scientific-computing oriented, music-production oriented) but many of them die out after a couple years or impose constraints that aren't immediately apparent to a new user.

I'd suggest something that's been around for at least ten, preferably fifteen years. A distro that's accomplished that has enough of a track record that they aren't just going to be a flash in the pan; they've been able to attract and maintain enough effort to keep up an ongoing release cycle, which is not easy and I think is often more effort than would-be distro maintainers realize. Most distros that have come out since I started using Linux in the 1990s have died off. If yours gets discontinued, then you gotta migrate off it, which is a pain. But again, if you choose something new and it never sees another release, migrating off it isn't that bad. You're gonna maybe have to learn a new package manager and some new ways of configuring things and new conventions, but most distros don't vary that incredibly much.

Fucking any of them. Seriously. It doesn't really matter. Eventually you'll come to the realization that until you're talking about oddball shit designed for one douchebag's personal proclivities it's all the same shit under the hood. They just have fourteen incompatible package managers because, again, douchebag personal proclivities.

You described EndeavourOS if you ask me. It's Arch but preconfigured, so ready to use after install while being as configurable as Arch if you want to go further. Has AUR so you won't have problems finding a program.

Leaning on SuSE Tumbleweed for a set it and forget it without the Arch weirdness. Kubuntu for "I really just need an OS and don't wanna play with it". Or Linux Mint. Idk I lean more .deb based distros. I love apt.

Depends on desktop Environment honestly.

I've seen arch install and I wouldn't wish that on anybody. All the "arch,btw" people are just bragging that they went with the hard mode install setup (probably cheated and used Endeavor lol).

Debian 12 with your favorite DE, I use XFCE

I'm going to ignore your "Planned Usage" section. Why? Because that's more-or-less about which software you install, not about the distro (well, not if you choose a well-enough maintained distro at least). If it was a question of family of OSes (windows, mac, linux, BSD) that might be different.

You want Debian, here's why:

I'd like an OS that’s highly configurable

That's most distros

but ships with good default settings

That's Debian. I installed it when i was still a newbie to computers in general, and it hasn't bit me in the ass yet.

and requires very little effort to start using.

See previous answer.

I don’t want it to ship with loads of applications; I want to choose and install all of the higher level tools.

My first Debian was a headless install on my laptop so I could customize the graphical stack. In hindsight, I wouldn't recommend going that barebones unless you actually do take advice and RTFM. I went without a compositor for several years, as an example of why.

Shipping with a configured desktop is perfectly fine but not required.

On the flipside, Debian has GNOME, Xfce, KDE Plasma, LXDE and MATE as installer options. You can also install any Desktop Environment that works on linux, as it is more higher-level software than OS-dependent software.

Ideally, I can have all of this while still keeping the maintenance low.

My other PC is also a Debian (need that on a bumper sticker). It's my daily driver desktop (the aforementioned headless install is a laptop); I set it up based on installer defaults and have not had to do any low-level maintenance on it for the past 2 years that I've had it.

I think that means a stable OS,

Debian is stable af. The downside is that they don't really have bleeding-edge software on the default Stable repository. Testing is newer, and still 99.9% stable, but also not the absolute newest. Unstable lives up to its name, I'm told, but haven't felt bold enough to experiment.

Really though, I'm going to guess that any fixed-release update cycle distro will be as stable as Debian, and any rolling release will be about squashing compatibility issues to make sure you can have bleeding edge software. There are some distros that strike a balance more in the middle of those two, so that's up to your preference and you should probably try out a few before you settle for what someone on the internet says is "The Best." (The main difference between the others and Unstable is that Unstable is a rolling release, instead of fixed)

a good package manager, stable/automatic updates, etc.

Apt is mostly a positive experience. As I mentioned, before, using thr Stable repository will ensure updates are stable and don't break compatibility. I have never had the Pacman experience of not being able to update because there are unresolvable conflicts; the few times I had issues, they were simple enough to fix with a dpkg --configure -a and/or apt --fix-broken install. It can be slow, but frontends like Nala have made that less of a dealbreaker for me.

Last bit. Open source is rather important to me. I prefer free and free.

Debian's core driving principal is FOSS. You definitely can still download and run non-free software on it, and there's even a small section of the main repository that includes non-free sofrware, but the primary guiding principles of the Debian repository are the Debian Free Software Guidelines. Note that these principles are more restrictive than the FSF's definition of Free Software, but the most part there is a large overlap.

Here's a link to the installation page, which includes links to various installers and the installation guide.

The wiki isn't as likely as Arch to come up in searches if you just search terms like "linux [software]" or "linux [issue]", but it's an invaluable resource, almost as thorough as Arch's, and the Debian Project's recommended way for ensuring accuracy to your system.

Finally: I'm going to do that annoying thing nerds online do and tell you that you asked the wrong questions, then answer the questions they claim you should have asked. The linux community as a whole supports and encourages experimentation. You'll find your journey more fulfilling as a whole if you go outside your comfort zone and try new things, do it differently instead of sticking to recommendations and what you know. I know this message is at odds with how much I've talked up Debian, but I was answering the questions you asked.

The truth is that your tools should suit you and your needs and your style of problem solving. All softwares, including the most basic parts of an OS, are tools and therefore benefit from trying different options. Do you want "eh this is okay enough to get the job done" or "this is a fun and fulfilling way to complete projects"?

Hi OP, I would like to state that my personal distro of choice is Arch, but I have used a wide selection of the more popular and some niche distros.

First of: Just remember that as long as your distro works for your workflow and requirements, you're doing fine. Don't fall for some guilt of "This one is way better because of [subjective opinion for their needs]."

If you want to experiment with distros, just remember to backup your files. One is none, two is one.

Do you have newer hardware such as a brand new NVIDIA or AMD graphics card, or perhaps a new CPU chipset from Intel that came out this year? Then a rolling distro is probably best for you. There's many tempting options, but my personal "sane default" is of course Arch. There is an installer once you load the ISO on a flash drive. Just ensure you have an internet connection. There will be a learning curve.

If you want to have something to guide you along, then Endevour OS is good. While 99% of your questions can be found on /r/archlinux and Arch's forums, they (rightfully) expect you to use Arch for Arch-based questions. It's kind of like asking a question for Ford Mustangs when you drive an F-150. While there's a lot of overlap, it's not 1:1.

But if you have something like a laptop from the last few years or more, or just need to focus on your tasks such as your programing and web browsing, and don't need the latest and greatest, then something more stable is probably best. My top two "I just need it to stay there and remain the same without any worry" distros are:

• Fedora Linux

• Debian Linux

Fedora is going to offer a nice mix of stable yet forward thinking, with major updates rolling out about every 13 months, and it's a pretty smooth experience upgrading.

Debian is the grand daddy of modern distros, and it is considered the gold standard. They recently made it so 99% of firmware support needed is now included for easier installation. The only thing that you'll really get update wise is security fixes and any backports you enable.

Keep in mind, Arch/Endeavor itself will not implode if you don't update daily/weekly, it's just intended to be refreshed often so when anything big is planned, it's done in smaller chunks. If you install Arch and then go to a remote island for a few months, you'll most likely be fine once you get back, but there might be some hiccups.

So if you want more triple A gaming, I think something along Arch/Endevor is "better", but if you don't care about the latest and greatest, then I'd say Fedora is a solid foundation.

Sorry for the small novel, but I wanted to state that there is no explicitly wrong option, all that matters is what you consider important. The defaults, the packages, and your workflow. Anything else is secondary.

I'd recommend Fedora, but the suggestion of EndeavorOS is also good.

I can't recommend enough EndeavourOS. It has a very good defaults and its softwares is very up-to-date since it's based on Arch Linux. Their community is also very nice.

Of course you can try Arch Linux too, it's minimalistic and you have to configure most thing yourself. It's not really hard, but gonna take some time.

Fedora and Linux Mint is also a very good choice.

I think saying "I'm a newcomer, recommend me a distro" will pretty much always result in everyone saying "Linux Mint",
and saying "I have quite a bit of experience, what's your recommendation?" will result in everyone recommending their own distro of choice.

But, to be honest, distro choice doesn't matter that much anymore. You can get every software package in form of Flatpaks, Nix and in Distrobox anyway.

For example, you can get the newest Gnome or Hyprland with the Arch Distrobox on your stale Debian base, or access the AUR on Tumbleweed. Doesn't matter.

So, what's my recommendation?

Fedora Silverblue (or the "normal" variant). Why?

The normal variants (Workstation and Spins)

• Very sanely configured, works out of the box
• Extremely wide spread, huge community
• Pretty much one of the default choices
• Reliable
• Good balance between stable and new

Silverblue

• The new cool kid on the block
• Immutable distro
• "Your" stuff is decoupled from the "OS stuff"
• Extremely reliable, you can't break it
• And if you break it, you can roll back with one single reboot in a few seconds
• Very flexible, especially with the uBlue project
• Auto updates without intervention (no prompt to reboot), changes get applied when you reboot into the newly created image
• Less buggy, since every OS install is the same
• Ideal for "just using" your PC and not worrying about anything

But yeah, as I said, there are many other good recommendations here in the comment section. I personally wouldn't use something arch based if you want something simple and low-maintainence, but even that is your choice.

There are pretty much no bad choices.

Debian! It sounds perfect for your use cases and requirements.

I recommend Linux Mint (21.2), which a based on Ubuntu (22.04) and Debian. The cinnamon desktop environment it comes with is pretty similar to windows 7, which makes it easier to use. I think 21.2 will remain supported until 2027 as LTS.

Fedora or Mint.
Fedora includes non-customized versions of stuff like desktop environments, which usually leads to better stability and more consistency. Also it "just works" out of the box. (as an arch user) I could start using it right away out of the box, the default config is perfect.

If you're ready to take a bit of a dive, take a look at NixOS. As a CI/CD guy it might be right up your alley.
It allows you to configure your entire system via a single, declarative config file, including any configurations for installed software. You could even develop the config in a VM and, once you're happy with it, use the same for to configure your host machine.
Be warned, though: the wiki is nowhere near as good as the Arch wiki.

From the sounds of it, you'd be happy and comfortable with almost any KDE based distro (Kubuntu, Debian w/ KDE, Fedora, Arch w/ KDE, etc). I think KDE fits the bill for your usecase because it's easy to use, has good defaults, and is incredibly customizable.

I thought you were describing Debian (FOSS only, stable and conservative, boring in the good way). It does take longer to get the updates because they build everything themselves, but that's part of the stability deal.

I'm no expert though; I'm mostly reading to get suggestions for when I make switch properly myself.

With that background and do you really need suggestions?

You didn't mention your hardware, but gaming in general benefits from a rolling distro for things like latest drivers, latest wine version etc. (Be aware though that if you have an Nvidia card you'll have to run the proprietary driver, the open source one performs poorly.)

I understand being wary of Arch-derivatives, but it sounds like you're the kind of user who would benefit from it and has plenty of experience with Linux, so I can sincerely recommend it. And since this is for a personal computer, nothing bad is really going to happen if it ends up not working out other than the mild annoyance of having to install something else.

But honestly, things don't break all that often, at least for me. For reference, I've been using Endeavour with KDE for a year, and the only real problem I can remember off the top of my head is that Steam was broken for like a week when the new UI rolled out that was somehow incompatible with the current Nvidia driver, but this got fixed with the next update and there was a workaround to make it run with the old UI so it remained usable.

I would recommend Linux Mint personally. And there are various reasons why:

1. Whether you use the tuning m Ubuntu base or Debian base, getting hold of software will be much easier because if something is not in the repo chances are there is a deb for it.

For example I use Vivaldi browser, 1Password and OnlyOffice. Neither is which are in the repos. But they all offer a deb installer on their website. Same goes for TeamViewer and many other non FOSS apps.

Who wants to waste time on arch or wherever trying to figure out how to get his of binarys?

2. Mint is free of snaps so you don't have that headache, and can run Fkatpak.

3. Mint has sane defaults and doesn't include unnecessary apps. I think I only removed 3 apps to replace with the apps of my choice. The rest of the selection is perfect.

4. The Cinnamon desktop looks good, is very fast, works intuitively and gets out of your way. Since The Mint Team make Cinnamon you've always got the latest and greatest.

5. Plenty support. Because Mint is based on Ubuntu and Debian there is TONS of information online to help you solve any issue. Plus Mint have a forum.

6. Reliability and low system requirements. Unlike Gnome desktop, Cinnamon uses less RAM so right off the bat you win back RAM on your system. It's very fast, light yet good looking and functional. Plus Mint is generally very reliable because the team focus on that.

They will take their time to carefully test and consider something and it's impact on users before releasing it. For example Wayland. They still use X11 because they are assessing Wayland and switching to Wayland only would break some users systems.

It literally has everything you want in a distro. Where new user or Linux Pro, Mint will suit both and everything in-between

I like the video by Chris Titus Tech: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyADkmRVe0U

He puts about 40 Distros into a tier list and I completly agree with him. Spoiler:

Supreme: Debian, Arch

Amazing for new users: Kubuntu, Mint, Zorin, Nobara

Devil: RedHat, Fedora, Ubuntu, CentOS

But it is a nice short introduction to the goal of each distro.

When you install, whatever you install, partition your drive so that /home is it's own partition. Then if/when you reinstall, distrohop, whatever, you don't have to worry about copying over your data. Just use the same /home partition, and format the others. You can actually use this to try multiple distros at the same time - you can install them in different partitions, but have every install use the same /home partition. This is a nice way to test new distros without blowing away your stable install.

Now, for my distro recommendation - Ubuntu gets a lot of hate, but honestly, after 15+ years of Linux, and having tried Mint, Fedora, Arch, Manjaro, and many others, I always end up back on Ubuntu. It's easy, it's stable, and it stays out of my way.

The defaults are good, but you can customize as much as you want, and they offer a minimal install (as of 23.10, it is the default) which comes with very few applications, so you can start clean and choose all the applications you want.

Unless you are excited to tinker, I'd really recommend starting simple. Personality, I just want the OS to facilitate my other activities, and I otherwise want to forget about it. Ubuntu is pretty good for that.

Distro Chooser is giving you great advice. I love EndeavourOS. First started out on it with KDE, now I'm on sway, everything just works perfectly, so I can definitely recommend it!

Once again I am gonna shill Garuda Linux. Use the KDE light version without all of their theming. Personal preference of course, but I absolutely cannot stand their theme.

I’m a beginner Linux user, without background in informatics, but after trying many distro, Ubuntu, Ark, Manjaro… the easiest to maintain and work as needed is Debian for me.

You might want to look at distrochooser.de. That said, Linux Mint and OpenSUSE are good, stable distros.

Slackware. Read the official installation guide and see what you think. YOU are the package and dependency manager, but there are several helpful tools. Nothing goes on or off the machine without your direct intervention.

You will probably find the open source nouveau (nvidia) driver lacking for gaming on any distro. The proprietary drivers help. But if you're passionate about foss then you may want to trade the 3070 for an amd gpu. I swapped me 3060 ti for a 7800xt recently and have been very happy.

Linux Mint.

In professional setting, you may not find the software you're looking for in the main repos. Your best bet would be to see if the developer provides Linux package. More often than not, it is provided as .deb format.

You should listen to the advice from Distro Chooser. Arch fits the bill. You'll just have to take care not to convolute the system too much with workarounds & all sorts of packages and it will take care of you.

PopOS or Endeavor

Nobara (which is Fedora but enhanced for gaming and streaming) or Debian/Debian testing or Mint

If you're fine with rolling release distros, go for EndeavourOS. It's based on Arch (uses the Arch repos as well as its own for its specific needs) but has everything configured for a working desktop out of the box. There's not much I can say that everyone else hasn't, if you like the Arch ecosystem but don't like the (potential) tedium of setting it up, EndeavourOS is good. The thing with rolling release distros is that the package release cycle is not stable. This is not to be confused with reliability, Arch can be a reliable distro, but where most distros stay on a particular version for its release cycle, a rolling release distro updates its packages as soon as the new version comes out. If you want that, then go full steam ahead on Endeavour.

I'm gonna throw another distro for you to try, if you're not a fan of the nature of rolling release: Nobara. You mention you wanted something stable with a good package manager, and IMO Nobara fits the bill. Like how EndeavourOS is based on Arch, Nobara is a gaming-oriented distro based on Fedora, which updates every six months. The guy who runs it works/worked for Red Hat and is responsible for the GE-Proton patches that help extend Steam Play compatibility unofficially, and he wanted to make something that was as easy as switching a game console on. There are a lot of patches and tweaks done to the kernel and apps as needed, to ensure that the user doesn't need to reach for the terminal as often, if at all. You can still do your productive work on Nobara, you can just think of it as Fedora (an already solid workstation distro) but with a gaming flair to it.

TL;DR: For stable releases, get Nobara. For rolling releases, get EndeavourOS. If one pisses you off in the future, go for the other lol

Given your background it should come to no surprise that it doesn't really matter much.

That said, I recommend Arch with some caveats, mainly with regards to the "very little effort to start using" requirement. If you know how to follow instructions, it should only be about 30-45 minutes to install it. It will on the other hand fit your other requirements of good defaults and not shipping with loads of applications. When you install an app you will get that app and nothing else, and the defaults will either be exactly what the upstream defaults would be if you built it yourself or something very close to that. You also have everything available through the AUR, and after using it for years I've yet to run into an update not going smoothly.