I just flipped through your posts, and your "guide" reads more like a rant for an inexperienced user of each of the distributions you mention, and only from one lens of trying to convince someone of something. Not very impartial or informed writing.

For example: I don't think you understand the purpose of Debian and it's slower release schedule with it's mission statement. You also don't seem to understand your writing, because you say this is a guide for beginners, then devolve into a bunch of arguments which beginners wouldn't understand or care about. This is written more like a guide to convince other potential users that you are correct in your personal thinking maybe? I don't get it.

You also don't seem to grasp the concepts of each of these distributions in general and why they are the way they are. The entire point of maintaining a distinct distro (forked or not) is to include something the parent does not. That's the differentiating factor.

• Too lean:

That doesn't make sense. The whole point of having a funcional "app store" is so you pick and choose what you want. Pre-installed apps are only good for the supplier, not the customer. Debian is user centric.

• Missing first steps:

You hit the nail on the head here. I don't think it'll ever be on Debian. They're happy to let forked distros adapt to a desktop centric model and this doesn't make sense for their stated goals. So beginners will have to find guides online to orient themselves, which isn't bad but it's a friction point.

• Flatpaks not being the default app installation method

Holy cow did you miss the mark here. Having the option of flatpacks is good, but replacing your package manager for it is bananas at this point. Still a lot to be developed before it's a smooth experience. Password managers not taking to browsers, etc.

The biggest issue is that Debian would cease to be Debian, though. You can't have a stable, unchanging distro if you don't use it. I don't even know how to begin, this is a face to face conversation that needs to be had.

• Too old OS in general: By using 3 year old DE variants,

3 years are impossible but all the Ubuntu LTS based distros on a 2 year cycle is fine? Again, that's a feature. For the apps you need a newer version, go for a flatpack. If you you need to have everything shiny and new, then stable / LTS distros are not for you. Go to a rolling release. Can't have both.

• Does everything too well:

Odd take. That's probably the reason people suggest it in the first place. Put an asterisk on it and add a note that informs the newbies that it's not a desktop-first distro, even though it works great as one.

• Stability is NOT reliability!: If you mess up your system, there are no recommended-by-default safety measures, like there are on Mint (Timeshift backup) or Suse (Snapper rollback).

Very valid. Snapshots are a game changer and just because it's harder to break your system doesn't mean you wouldn't benefit from it. I don't think it'll ever be a default in Debian for the same reason as the lack of a welcome tutorial. It's not the focus.

All in all, I think your latest post and flowchart is really good. Lots of weird takes here though.

debian to me is one of the endgame linuxes, as in its what more experienced users will end up with mrow. imo it really isnt a good intro to linux aand tbh i would almost put it next to arch in terms of beginners probably shouldnt start with it mrrp

ubuntu just kinda sucks as a linux now imo, esp for new users

Too lean: For more experienced users, who already know what they want, the relatively minimalist base without any "bloat" (office software, etc.) is great, but I think including said stuff in beginner distros (e.g. by a checklist post-install, or just straight ootb) is a good thing.

That's like, your opinion man. This is why I can't take your writing seriously. "Too lean" is for the user to decide, not you. One man's "too lean" is another man's "not bloated". I'm going to guess you weren't using computers in the mid 00's when vendors where including all manner of garbage on default Windows installs. " Lean install" was a huge benefit of Linux to people migrating.

You're injecting your personal opinions as fact.

You also seem to be assuming "new to Linux" == "new to computers"? Experienced Windows users would be fine with "having to install things".

Am noob on debian, it's great. Watched some videos to help introduce me, and it seems like the onboarding experience since 12 is way better than previously.

It's the website that's shitty, not the installer. And you're not stupid OP, the bootable live image installer should be the default download. Make sure you link directly to it in your post, if you do. I should be able to go to the Debian website, hit download and get the best option like I can on the Ubuntu site. I got the normal installer instead, but that was fine for me.

I wouldn't necessarily say I'm representative of the average newbie, as I had brief forays with using Linux many years ago. But it's been painless. It took like an hour to setup, try a couple of DE's, add Flatpack sources and then I was away, back to being immersed in my apps.

Wayland by default, inclusion of nonfree firmware sources, GNOME 43 are highlights for me and reasons why it deserves some focus. New users are coming from Windows, not Fedora. I've tried GNOME 2, that was a problem for me as a windows user. GNOME 43 is not a problem for Windows users, it is literally much more performant and stable. To the point I just realised now that it's an older version when you pointed that out. Could've fooled me.

The reason I tried Debian first is because I wanted a blank slate, especially coming from Win11. That's what I got after minimal and easy configuration. I'm satisfied with it and don't feel curious about trying other distros, at least not right now.

Debian: Good for people who don't care about all these arguments and just want something that works. I've been using linux for 30 years and prefer xfce for a desktop.

I think guides like these should primarily focus on where the (potential) new user is coming from and should primarily base their recommendations on that.

They are very likely coming from Windows. So, why do they want to switch? I personally finally made the switch because Windows got in my way more and more with a lot of nagging and changing back things to (bad) defaults even on smaller updates. Other users might just want to try Linux out of curiosity.

Then, it depends on what you primarily want to do. I personally use my machine for media, gaming and development. Others might just want to browse the web.

And based on this information, you'd then choose the distro with the least compromises for what the user is trying to achieve.

I agree that your tl;dr recommending Linux Mint will be good for a large chunk of users: Cinnamon is somewhat similar to the Windows UI, community support is great and hardware support is decent thanks to options regarding newer kernels and a workable UI to install proprietary drivers. It has some confusing bits, for example the installer defaults to ext4 and then the introduction guide (post install) let's you set up Timeshift, but obviously the btrfs option is grayed out, leaving you with rsync. If you want to use Mint with btrfs, you have to choose manual partitioning, which no beginner should have to do. I just think btrfs should be the default FS in most cases now.

For Ubuntu, I think the LTS version has valid use cases. Yes, Snaps suck, I know. But thanks to hardware enablement updates it has very solid hardware compatibility, it can install proprietary drivers (including Nvidia) and codecs during the initial install process and if you sign up for Ubuntu Pro - which is free for personal use - you get 10 years of maintenance updates. This is great for someone with simple workflows who just wants to get their stuff done. Someone who's annoyed by Windows constantly bothering them about Edge or OneDrive or advertisement or whatever who just needs to browse the web, edit a document and send a few emails. This person couldn't care less if their desktop environment is 10 years old, they rather hate it when UI/UX changes. Of course, Ubuntu nags you about Ubuntu Pro here and there, but once set up, you can have peace for 10 years (I think they're even extending it for 24.04). And if you want to stay somewhat up-to-date, you always have the option to upgrade to the next LTS release. This is a distro I'd probably install for relatives who come to me annoyed by their current OS and I'd likely have a lot less maintenance and reexplaining to do than for most other distros.

You could make a similar point for Debian, but it's a bit harder to install, proprietary drivers have to be manually installed, hardware support is worse and long-term support is shorter. It is rock stable, and while stability is not the same as reliability, stability often increases reliability significantly.

If you are like me and want a fairly up-to-date system with support for the latest hardware and (gaming-related) features, but still don't want to be bothered a lot by your OS, Fedora is a great choice.

If curiosity is the main reason you want to give Linux a go, honestly, try whatever. Try multiple distros. Break things.

In the end, it's obviously very subjective. But depending on the PoV, Snaps for example might not bother the user at all, ever. Why would the user care if Ubuntu showed Amazon advertisements in the past? Just because I personally don't like it doesn't mean it can't be a good choice.

Ah, I responded to one of your comments in your other thread, but it's more relevant here.

Debian has several live ISOs with the Calamares installer that most other distros use, so it's as easy to install as any of those.

No need to use the more complicated setup. Boot up the live CD/USB and install like anything else.

If anything, the default install is filled with too many applications (at least the KDE one). Got all the office software, media players, a browser, and anything else that might be relevant. Even comes with a bunch of accessibility stuff like a screen reader preinstalled (but not configured).

Also, you can install Timeshift immediately and use it. Don't know why that's an issue. Yeah, it's not preinstalled, but it's super simple to install and run the first snapshot and have it do its thing in the background. (Actually, this goes for Fedora as well as several other distros which you've put in your recommendations, so it's not unique to Debian or Ubuntu.)

Honestly, even as someone who uses Timeshift and Debian, I've needed to use it waaaaaaay less than I ever did on Kubuntu. I don't know how someone who isn't tinkering is going to break the system enough to need Timeshift, really.

I'm not even sure if someone unfamiliar with Linux and not interested in the inner workings will even really understand the purpose or how to use Timeshift either. There are Windows users who have no idea about System Restore or how to use it, which is the closest equivalent.

Also, it's around two years between releases. Same as Ubuntu LTS, which Mint is based on (and Mint also has a Debian edition based on Debian Stable which they may move to at some point, if the burden of "fixing" Ubuntu becomes too much).

Its biggest problem for beginners is the upgrade process. Instead of just notifying you about a new release and offering to upgrade your whole system, it's usually on you to follow the release cycle and change the relevant lines in your sources.list, which isn't particularly user friendly.

Fedora is often considered “the new Ubuntu” […]

no. it's not. and i've never, ever heard anyone say it is--until now.

"I've been using Linux for a month now and have run each distro for at least 2 days (a couple for just a few hours), so I have enough experience to share my wisdom.

Rule #1: If someone uses their computer for something else and differently than I do, they are stupid. A month of Linux experience cannot be denied. Trust me!"