5 Things I Wish I Had Known Before I Used Linux

[@TheLinuxCast]

This video was uploaded early for my Patrons and KZbin Members (Tier 2 and above). If you'd like to get early access to the occasional video and to a weekly exclusive podcast, see here: patreon.com/thelinuxcast

[@jesse7631]

To me, distro-hopping has not only enabled me to try out different Linux distributions, but has also taught me a lot about Linux in general and how to use it, the strengths and weaknesses of different platforms, etc. Great video as always Matt!

[@capitanodessa7472]

Recommendation for those who hop: Create separate partitions for / and /home, so you can overwrite / without affecting your home folders. Delete config folders in your user folder so you avoid problems.

[@dod_ytent9984]

A video idea - hidden gems in AUR, things that you have to either use AUR or build it. This can be also be a series, like your WTF series.

[@bitterseeds]

3rd group. Those of us who have the mantra ... " I understand. I just don't care." We just quietly use what we do without giving opinion. :D

[@patrickprucha5522]

point #4 is very very valid!!!! But i found in the end, that looking it up and working out my own problems, i had better results. Becuase your problem may be specific to you. Your comment on trouble shooting was very pertinent. Most times, i go to google but end up reading the man.

[@Smittron]

Good video, thanks. Finding a distro that installs on your hardware, that's stable and that you like can be a challenge. I know several users that switched from Windows to Mint and have used it for years without distro hopping. It seems to be a sweet spot for them.

[@DimitrisChr]

For me the AUR is the only reason why I put Arch above all other distros. Having almost every Linux package available to you is a bit plus. However with the rise of Flatpaks Arch doesn’t seem all that special to me now. I can just as easily get all the software I want in Fedora with Flatpaks.

[@stevet7522]

Thus is the path I took. Arch through a bunch of other stuff to land at Fedora. Flatpack and better stability (at least for me) is why I stay with Fedora.

[@sixdroid]

aur? you can compile most of the packages from git and most from aur doesn't even compile and with the flatpak thing you don't need aur right now. and most arch users don't like aur.ask you why.

[@sixdroid]

@@stevet7522 fedora has some thing thant you can't call stable. and has a throttling thing inside that limit your cpu and gpu usage. why? and selinux and repos you need to add to have a normal distro. you can't do a thing if you don't add rpm fusion and copr thing. you just have a few programs and flatpak. that's not a distro for consumers or normal users like mint or ubuntu users.

[@stevet7522]

@@sixdroid what?

[@sixdroid]

@@stevet7522 what what?

[@esra_erimez]

I love this channel. Always great content. I love your attitude, sense of humor and how unpretentious you are.

[@damolin77]

I did the hop and a Buddy of mine who has used Linux for about 30 years kept telling me Fedora. Before buddy used Fedora he used so many distros and was stuck on Suse for many years, but for the past 6 years been on Fedora and for the past few years I been using Fedora and have to say I enjoy Fedora and Linux Mint as well. My dad at 72 likes Zorin and he was a big Mac use.

[@TActually]

You are not a moron, but you are absolutely right about that sentiment. I always strive to read the answers I need from documentation, but a lot of the time I just don't understand it and I need someone to break it down to me in conversation.

[@vladimir_k_bestplayerna1217]

I've technically used Ubuntu for like 10 minutes when I ordered a laptop with it instead of Windows to save about 100USD. But when I first switched to Linux, I went for Arch; I never switched distributions, and don't think that I'll ever leave it for my personal computer. I think that it's understandable for those that do like trying other distros. But I personally like Pacman and AUR.

[@sixdroid]

most aur packages doesn't even compile and you can find them on git and with flatpak you don't even need that and you don't know who uploaded the package and if is safe. most arch users don't like aur. just the new users.

[@vladimir_k_bestplayerna1217]

@@sixdroid I've downloaded my fair share of AUR packages and literally not one of them failed to compile (obviously this is my experience) Of course you can get it on git, where do you think that many of these AUR pages source their packages from? You do know that the AUR doesn't actually host its own packages, right? And I don't know what you're talking about with "most users don't like aur", again in my experience, pretty much any Arch user that I've talked to likes it. Why use Flatpak as an Arch user if the same packages is available on the AUR, and I don't have to dedicate extra storage for redundant components?

[@biscotty6669]

It is some good advice for new users. Re: your comments about the Linux community having a reputation for being prickly. In 3 decades I only felt that when using Arch. On Arch forums "prickly" is a huge understatement (but there is a helpful Reddit group). It's like the home for the initiates of the cult of Arch. No matter how simple to answer your question may be, you will be greeted by a chorus of monks chanting "here's the link to the documentation...read and sin no more . Your system must break on upgrade at least five times before being admitted." I wonder if your intensity about Arch at the beginning of your Linux path could have created this conception because I can honestly say that 95% at least of the interactions I've ever had when I ask for help in the Linux world I've been greeted with respectful and helpful, often enthusiastic answers. Cheers

[@imzesok]

New users today, yes will more be more likely to get the reception you do. Back in the day though(2002-2004 was when I started)... every second or third responder were definitely the RTFM types. Usually they'd ease up once you've shown you've at least spent 4 minutes searching on both the forums to make sure someone else haven't already gotten the answer, and google first. Adversarial, they definitely were, and I don't miss it, 🤣

[@Ironpants57]

Arch, an easier gentoo. Definitely easier to maintain as well lol. Love the video!

[@tigerscott2966]

Ive been using Linux since 2007... Its been a wild and bumpy ride too...

[@michelwaquier301]

Yes I agree, and scripting is important, and in my long shell experience, please try awk is soon and as fully as you can. It was created long time ago, is use by every professional, and nothing is coming close or will disrupt it soon ! (maybe excell, if I tweak my mind !

[@michelwaquier301]

agree with myself

[@sylber33]

About distro hopping. It also depends on how many computers you have laying around. I have a the same dual boot Zorin +win10 for 2 years. But also I have a craptop that I don't care about and I just reset monthly to have fun and test new distro.

[@LOTR_BTTF]

Zorin. That's the one I always end up going back to. Technically Ubuntu is the first distro I ever tried, but Zorin is the first one I ever stuck with long term. I've tried several others on VM's or other pc's, but keep Zorin on my primary machine.

[@namelessuser666]

I've tried many, still have some of those on the VM, but I always go to the first love for the main OS. Linux Mint FTW

[@denizkendirci]

i'm using arch, void and gentoo on my three machines. but i can give up gentoo and void much easier than i can give up arch. because nothing properly replaces aur for me. not snaps, flatpak, appimage, not other distro repos, nothing... for example, i use river wm but i need the monocle layout, which isn't offered in river normally, so i need the seperate project rivercarro layout manager to replace river's built-in layout manager rivertile. only place you can find a package like rivercarro is aur. you can't find it in other distro repos, copr or universal package formats. aur saves me from building from source everytime for countless apps and tools. that's why i think arch is very special, at least for me. also pacman is the fastest package manager (amongst distros designed to give full desktop experience at least, so i'm not including package managers from distros like alpine) when i had to use apt and dnf, i wanted to slit my wrists. you might ask why i am using gentoo if i'm that impatient then. well, my gentoo machine is a special case, after the intallation and initial setup/configuration, i never updated or installed anything new. so it's working, frozen in time. that's why it doesn't bother me, it's slow or not. because it's one time only.

[@Tzalim]

I hopped a lot of times... I started of on Linux Mint Cinnamon and it seemed like every other time I went back to Linux Mint. But when a friend of mine tried Garuda Cinnamon in gnome boxes and said you should try Garuda. I always heard that pacman is different but I did in boxes, and I loved it. So, I installed it on hardware. I haven't looked back. I still try distros every now and then. But I don't think I'll ever leave Garuda. Because they have the best tools of any distro that I used. But you NEED to distro hop to find the best distro and/or flavor for you.

[@santonopoulou]

Debian >> fedora >> alpine >> centOS >> Gentoo >> arch >> Gentoo >> RHEL (work) >> Debian >> Slackware >> elementary >> Gentoo >> arch >> vanilla >> Gentoo >> *arch* (current BTW ;) ) >> (debating trying Debian with the new release) (working on LFS for fun/education along side KFS for my university as I’m finally getting a CS degree after 18 years as a developer (because that’s how Greece is hahaha) and…*shivers* Agile project manager (I’m so sorry fellow developers….my managers make me do it…)). Tldr. Keep learning. Switch when you want to learn something new imo. Also I agree 100% that learning scripting from the get go is insanely helpful! Learning that from the beginning I single handedly give credit for me sticking with Linux.

[@jamesb2877]

My journey to linux different than most as I came from Unix and BSD. The first move to linux us back when you had to compile everything yourself Arch was not a thing yet. I hopped just to see what everybody was doing. Move to Mint only due to after configuring everything I almost had mint anyhow. This was just to save time. No longer like where Ubuntu is going as a base so will be moving to Debian. Was on Ubuntu due to it was Debian base but modified to work better.

[@patrickprucha5522]

Im on your third lesson, but wanted to say Bravo. I agree with you 1000% so far. I did arch only to learn. But after that, its linux just like debian or gentoo!!! Right? back to you video. I do like your approach with arch guys.... Good for you!!!!

[@patricknaldeia]

I've been using Linux for many years and I couldn't agree with you more. Congratulations

[@robmack4010]

I've been running Linux in one form or another since it's first floppy release and one thing most YT people gloss over is the ease of install. For the most part I agree it's fairly easy. But.. some laptops can really be a huge pain. I have a Dell XPS 13 that most distros can't handle the wifi. Trying to get the wifi to work is a real pain. I always tell people who are installing Linux on a laptop that they should make sure they have some way to connect to the internet other than the built in Wifi. Now to be fair Windows won't install correctly on said XPS because you needed the drivers for the HD.

[@_marvix_1088]

Nice video as always, but I have to kinda disagree about the second point. I'm a long time linux user as you and other people here, and when talking about distros, especially to newcomers, we have to be fair about some little quirks that are on a specific distro, but not on another. It isn't enough to say that "I have this software with this version so I'm good", but we should also mention what makes one distro usable instead of another, what modifications are needed to make it work and if those modifications are going to break the stability of the distro at one point or another. To make an example, fedora is a really good and solid distro which I used for the last six or so months, after two years of arch, and all was good until the mesa 23 update came, because on fedora to have mesa with the codecs enabled you have to install the mesa-freeworld package from RPMFusion, a third party repository, and the last month was hell because the rpmfusion maintainers of mesa-freeworld updated to 23 before the official repo, leading in a system that couldn't be fully updated because of discrepancies between a package version and its dependencies. This may seem like is a minor problem that could be overcome by just waiting for the full release of mesa 23, but it didn't happen before fedora 38 came out, and in the meantime I couldn't even install other packages which depended on mesa (for example, wine failed to install) I can understand that this is caused by a third party repo and shouldn't be the way to judge a distro, but let's be honest, who uses a system without video acceleration? That's the reason why I'm back to arch now, because even if it has its problems, it never prevented me from installing software.

[@marnixds]

Distrohopping is nice, like surfin on the web. Just use what works for you are remain stuck in limbo if your current distro is the best for your. Oh yeah, used Arch and it is nice, minimalistic but you need time and patience to solve small issues. Like I had to to get reflector working (it didn't). Currently using endeavour which is great.

[@CarlosWever]

Love your nintendo paintings on your wall. Ps im a distrohopper.

[@skelebro9999]

I would like to add something to the Arch point you made. Everyone who's using Arch or any Arch-based distro are all the same. Some went through the easy route, some went through the hard route. At the end of the day they are all using the same gosh darn distro.

[@spicynoodle7419]

You don't need to distro hop 600 times. There are only 20ish unique distros that are actively maintained, worth using and not memes. So distro-hopping isn't that bad. Hopping just taught me a little bit about backing up and mounting patterns to let me reuse partitions when switching

[@AceOfBased]

Many live in the shadows of those "20ish unique distros", if I had not been a chronic distro-hopper I would not have discovered Crunchbangplusplus (my favorite and not even listed on DistroWatch), BunsenLabs and ArchLabs. Those three are my faves. Before I was basically stuck on EndeavourOS/Mint.

[@Pariah156]

I feel like I started using Arch before the whole "I use Arch BTW" thing really took off, so I never got into the Arch elitist circle. I can't really remember how I found Arch, but ever since the first install.. Okay third install cause systemd changed a bit, and I switched to Arch around the same time they changed, and confused me since I still didn't know it very well. I haven't been able to leave. It was the distro that I found sticking with. Still dual boot other systems to play around with, but Arch is just what I always come back to. I can't describe why, just feel at home there.

[@kronikpillow]

regarding Arch, I'v lately found out that a lot of Arch packages are actually out of date ... probably due to the fact that only a few people maintain their packages ... Like, the NPM package hasn't been updated for over a year ... when you ask them on the forum why? their response is ... "When it is ready." ... so for a 5 year Arch linux user, I am very disappointed to realize that Arch, isn't really bleeding edge and that they seem to have more problems then what is visible initially ... meanwhile, i switched to OpenSUSE, i dislike their dependency management (like, installing waybar pulls down sway? why? waybar is a independent bar, has nothing to do with just sway) ... switched to Fedora later, Fedora does some weird shit, like ZSH behaves very weirdly, and tries to install random packages when I use tab completion ... (sqlite3 being the first random package) ... and now im back to Arch, with a bug in my head about the fact, that Arch isn't what they represent it is (note, NPM isn't the only package i found completely outdated)

[@anon_y_mousse]

Maybe this will sound crazy, but I think everyone should start their Linux journey with LFS, but in a VM only to start with. There are still so many things that so many people don't understand and it leads to hacky solutions that end up breaking everything. If you understand the system on that level you'll be able to fix anything. And once you're at that level, you can distro hop all day long until you find the perfect distro for you, that matches with how you want to use the computer, and should anything ever break, you'd be capable of fixing it.

[@imzesok]

that's a lot of time, and hard disk space. that kind of time isn't something a whole lot of people have. I made the mistake of only giving myself 100 gigs of space on the VM, and very quickly running out of space despite having been cleaning up behind myself. I'd stick to "Consider reading the manual, and skipping the actual building.", because there is a decent amount of incite to be gained for sure. No need to go through the pain of building a system with a bunch of circular depends(for real though I hate the circular dependencies, they truly are cancer). Just read the material, and move on, IMO.

[@anon_y_mousse]

@@imzesok That's certainly one way to go about it, and would probably be enough for most people. Though I am wondering how you hit 100"G"B of space doing LFS. Were you building KDE and/or GNOME and all of the associated programs therein? Also, have you seen Rob Landley's talk on a minimal build of Linux?

[@imzesok]

@@anon_y_mousse Honestly, I have no idea how it used that much space. wasn't doing anything crazy.. i finished the base install and I was partially through X when i ran out of space. And no I've not seen that talk.

[@anon_y_mousse]

@@imzesok Were you installing Rust? Because it takes up a ton of space. Right now it's sitting at 17gb for me after compiling maybe 3 different projects from a clean install. Previously it was something like 24gb, but that was maybe a dozen project builds.

[@imzesok]

@@anon_y_mousse Nope, I was just following the LFS guide. like I said: I'm pretty sure I was just building x11

[@milohoffman274]

Arch is not hard. But its a well put together distro, has the AUR and a great package manager, along with great docs and community help, and if you want to run the absolute latest of EVERYTHING then it is unmatched.

[@sixdroid]

aur have to be fixed.most package doesnt compile

[@MarkusHobelsberger]

Debian Sid: hold my beer

[@VioletJewel1729]

I installed arch a long time ago as my first distro, and I tried so hard to try other distributions on two occasions, but objectively arch is the best ;) disclaimer: i'm not an arch fangirl. I just like arch and have compared and contrasted it with other distros

[@TheLinuxCast]

Nothing wrong with liking what you like.

[@mlambrechts1]

I started with windows 95, and after that Windows NT. Then came Red Hat but I'm not a computer nerd so it was not much use to me. Windows XP changed the world for me, bc I was into gaming at that time. Then came Suse and OpenSuse. But it was slow, especially Yast. Slackware and Gentoo was above my head. I then installed Ubuntu, but was not thrilled. The last +-10y it's been Mint, and I'm sticking to it bc it doesn't give me any hassle and I just can use my computer to do anything I want it to do.

[@LucasCh]

My first distributor was Slackware 3.0 1996 then gentoo follow Mandriva then for we while was play with Debian 2.0 first Ubuntu can’t remember name on it, then stuck for year on gentoo and run archlinux dwm tmux nvim couple more cli software but I have to agree with u have try to find out what is best suit for you

[@n0kodoko143]

Great list.

[@alistair1840]

I distro hop with separate hard drives, right now I have 3 distro's on my desktop....Mint ...Manjaro XFCE and KDE Neon ...Neon is my new daily.

[@TheTrashthrasher]

Dude, I distro hopped for what seems like ever & finally ended up on antiX after a rather elaborate Arch i3 setup.

[@lqlarry]

Sometimes asking a question in Linux is like asking a teacher how to spell something. The teacher would always say, "Look it up in your dictionary". Like fuchsia. Why isn't it like Asia? Fusia. How do you look it up?

[@waltercampelo]

After a lot, and I mean "a lot", of distro hoping, I finally settled down with openSUSE Tumbleweed. It's a rolling release that are solid enough, with good documentation, and a very friendly community. So, basically, I got all the benefits of Arch and AUR, with openSUSE TW and OBS, without the "hardness" of Arch. And pls, don't get me wrong, Arch is fantastic, but, openSUSE stole my heart....

[@OcteractSG]

Aside from niche system tools, distro might not actually matter in few months. When Debian releases Bookworm, it should finally have Distrobox, which you can use to run any app from any distro. Suddenly, old/new packages won’t be an issue (or already aren’t an issue if you use a distro that isn’t two years behind). Because the guest distro is in a container, the risk of breakage is nearly zero.

[@keylowmike85]

I wish I had known to set up a budget for flash drives before I started using Linux full time. I've distro hopped about six or seven times in the past year, mainly to familiarize myself with other distros, and I kind of wished I had set back a fund for flash drives so I can grab as many ISOs as I wanted.

[@TheLinuxCast]

Get one big one and use Ventoy. It's awesome.

[@ThePhatLe]

best was Matt stating "i have friends and i still have friends"

[@brendlowert5772]

One thing the Linux community has to learn is that every year there is a new first grade in school. Though that already got much better, in large parts thanks to Ubuntu.

[@quantumastrologer5599]

Fedora cured my distrohopping (important: Always one version behind!). But i did a bunch of distro hopping before so maybe i was just ripe.

[@MartinErman]

Great video! I started on ubuntu like many others like 5 years ago, then I found arch, and stuck with it until now. Not because of the elitism och to be able to brag about using arch, but because it works for me. Tried fedora a few times, but it just doesnt "do it" for me, weirdly I find fedora to much of a hassle when setting up windowmanagers such as dwm with dependencies and stuff. Tried NixOS a few times as well, but I just dont understand it with flakes and home manager and that stuff.. It's like Haskell to me, I just dont get it.

[@TheLinuxCast]

Yeah I don't get Nix either tbh.

[@v8metal]

arch user here, totally agree.

[@winlen4731]

One thing you didn't mention, if you have modern computer hardware best to pick a distro with more or less up to date kernel like an Arch based distro, openSuse Tumbleweed or Fedora.

[@ImZaDi-love]

Don't feel bad Matt, I'm not great with bash scripting either.

[@A_G420]

You're right about Arch not being that hard or more hard than others. I use Arch but it's mainly because the AUR & up to date packages. Nix package manager is tits on other distros

[@patrickprucha5522]

my next install will be debian testing or sid to see what happens.

[@lorduggae]

my hopping was Ubuntu ---> Pop! ----> Manjaro. Manjaro has the right amount hand holding the user thats comfortable to my skill level.

[@keltyll]

Having used Arch for 3 years, I made the switch to Fedora 38 yesterday. As for asking for help, there is also the option to use ChatGPT and so far, I can't complain about it. It is pretty useful, who would have thought? Matt, my question is, how do you learn Bash Script now?

[@werethless12]

ChatGPT is HUGE for help!! Really helps with thinking a outside the box to solve weird niche issues on Linux

[@pavelperina7629]

Bash scripts? I kindly ask chat gpt :) And then i ask if it's valid for POSIX shell if it starts with #!/bin/sh

[@mrcvry]

I have just used the man page.

[@ghost-user559]

Btw GPT knows LaTeX too

[@gimcrack555]

I got that badge as well. Did it in a VM, my third try using the Wiki and was successful. But that was as far I went. I stuck with Debian Stable base distro's since I started out using SimplyMepis. Actually 3 month's before Ubuntu first release. I'm now using MX as my distro. Arch is great, just not for me. I like AUR, but rolling releases wasn't important to me. That's why many use Arch. To be first in all. Debian Stable can be stagnated as being behind. But that never bother me one bit. I'm fast and stable. Two things that are important to me.

[@gimcrack555]

@@Burns656 20 years with Linux. Zero problems. Things get updated including security patches. I'm using MX and the MX team is great in this aspect. No worries where I'm at and standing.

[@donaldmickunas8552]

Matt, What you say is true. I attempted to install Arch in the early 2000s using Wi-Fi. In those days rtfm was far more common on the Arch forum. I ran into the elitist attitude of the Arch community. I was sorely tempted to take on that challenge and show them. Then, I asked myself, “Did I want to be associated with such a group?” My answer was, “”No”. Due, in part, to my background, I want to see people succeed and learn. I love helping someone understand and do what he/she thought was so difficult. The Arch community attitude at that time as contrary to what I hold dear. I did install an use Arch a few years ago.

[@xperience-evolution]

Reason 2 is one why I am on openSUSE Tumbleweed. New Gnome Versions land within Days. Faster and more stable than Arch. Same with KDE - within Days you get the newest things.

[@wyfyj]

I might be done with my Void adventure. I'm at the point where I don't need new software on it, it runs... But I'm not LOVING it.

[@rafaburdzy449]

A agree if I would be a Linux genus I would love to answer all question even the most obvious question.

[@aloneer0529]

I'm still stuck on the first step which is distrohopping 😅

[@amolbhoi386]

man i just like your talking.... "my brethren"

[@lisagibson2975]

For me distro hopping is good in case your main OS ( Linux, mac , Windows )is discontinued. One distro might be right for one person but not for another, so you got to "hop" around to find a back up. Some say Debian is good, some say Fedora is better, but it's difference of opinion. One thing I love about it, is you might end up finding a distro that's better than your main one. Maybe there is something you dont like about your main that this "newer" one has fixed. Even some default apts made for one Os is better for your os than it's main one. That's the beauty of linux, you can add apps and themes from other Os and make your linux match yourself.

[@pavelperina7629]

I guess it depends on usage. Debian might be good for servers, which basically just runs docker containers. Ubuntu LTS, OpenSuse Leap and maybe even OpenSuse MicroOS as well. But once you need somewhat modern kernel, support for patented codecs, libraries that are not 4 years old, situation might be completely different. Applications and themes are overrated, this is easiest to change (well, except if theming goes deeper under the skin and uses custom packages)

[@Deezter16]

If you say distro hopping is ok to get to know the differences, then what about when you did that. Once you know what you want, is it still logical to distro hop. I get it can be fun but it's a lot of work setting up you system every time and getting to really know the system when you constantly change it. Like most I started with Ubuntu --> Mint --> Manjaro and now I'm on Garuda, having Arch as a base is so much better, but for me it all needs to be simple. I'm a noob and I'm fine with that, that's how I use my system, as a base do do the things with I want to do.

[@TheLinuxCast]

It's okay to do what you want, I'm not going to judge people who like to just try things over and over again. I've kind of stabilized, but I still hop from time to time.

[@patrickprucha5522]

Debian 12 is perfect!!!! I love it

[@hansdampf2284]

Debian testing is alright, the problem is the release cycle. Every now and then they freeze testing before it becoming the new stable. That is perfectly alright for them, as that is testing a purpose, but for this reason testings usefulness as a desktop distro is a bit decreased

[@antoniosvlachodimos8450]

Wise words said on this video

[@oalfodr]

I hate people claiming that some distro is special so someone else needs to later claim that it is not. Most of the popular distros are great for their use case. Also, making any kind of shell scrips is as useful or more than doing bash specifically.

[@robotglock6909]

The main reason to try distros like debian, fedora, slack, gentoo etc is so you'll know how inferior they are to Arch. Distro hop until you get to Arch and then stop--you made it to the promised land, the top of the distro mountain, the final level: Arch linux. Relax, enjoy and say it loud and proud:

[@MrLeeFergusson]

People tend to think of Debian as "old" but I still use it, yes there is a package lag on stable, but I like that stability most of the time, and its a rock solid base to build on yourself. Also if your comfortable building from source its even less of an issue, granted its not for everyone though. I'm proud to cal it my home distro though.

[@toddpark2893]

Thank you. Do you know how to get compatible calibre fonts on Debian?

[@ransan]

Never used Arch. Spent 5 years on Mint and 1 year on Fedora.

[@alexandrosvangelatos9979]

How's it matt? 🍻

[@acollins319]

I installed ubuntu and it is my first love. Yes it has issues, but in proxmox it works amazing and I use it for all my basic installs! Otherwise I like pupos

[@AwakenedPhoenix309]

On distrohopping - it comes down entirely to why someone is using their computer. If someone just wants a functional system and the first one they try works and it has a large community with a lot of documentation? There's zero point to distrohopping - and they're either going to go with Ubuntu, an Ubuntu offshoot, or Fedora. Your average user doesn't give a shit about the differences between package managers and flatpak. I use 95% flatpaks so my experience across distros is virtually identical. Once I have a system set up I rarely do anything in the terminal. I started with Pop OS and if I had it to do over I never would have experimented on my main machine because it works the best out of anything I've tried. I wasted a LOT of time with distrohopping. With that said - I did learn about Linux doing that. I did install Arch the Arch way. That sort of thing. But I think I would have learned a lot more studying terminal commands than hopping distros. Most of the differences aren't even meaningful if you aren't getting into the guts of your system. It's on my docket - for now, I'm happy just having a system that works really well and does what I need it to do. There's a big difference between seeing an OS as a tool and seeing an OS as a hobby.

[@TheLinuxCast]

I see your point, but I disagree. Just because something works, doesn't mean it works the best for your. Think of it like picking out the best car for you. Every car can get you where you want to go, that doesn't mean you should buy the first one you test drive. Distros are the same way, I think. The first one might work great, but what's to say the next one isn't going to have something you like a little better. There's nothing wrong with sticking with that first one of course, but I think it limits your learning of Linux a bit.

[@AwakenedPhoenix309]

​@@TheLinuxCast I'm speaking from the average use perspective here - the average user who put up with Windows until it made one too many changes to be tolerable. If you're using mostly flatpaks and your hardware works? What in bloody hell is actually going to be different enough on another distro to warrant hopping? It's grass-is-greener syndrome. It only makes sense if you enjoy the process of tinkering and computing is also a hobby for you. If all you want is to get your work done and browse the web, the first one that works is good enough. That's not saying there's zero possibility something wouldn't work better. But I've seen this with a lot of people I've talked to about Linux - their eyes glaze over the second I delve into anything that goes beyond the bare basics. If their computer works and the software they are looking for can be found in a flatpak, they aren't gonna give a damn about package managers or Wayland v. Xorg. It does not matter to the overwhelming majority of people, and just hopping around isn't going to show someone why it should. I couldn't even tell you whether one distro truly worked better for me than another when I was starting out. More than a year into it, sure - I could list reasons why I'd use one distro over another on a given machine. Because I have context. Context that you get through experience, which can only be gotten over time as you problem solve issues that force you to delve into the guts of your system. Distrohopping never takes you past a skin deep understanding of the OS. Reality is - you look at the overwhelming majority of distro reviews out there, most people don't even talk about differences between distros but differences between desktop environments and GUIs - maybe some customizations a few distributions make to their interface, but RARELY do they get under the hood in any meaningful way. You can play Steam games on any distro. You can install many Windows games and applications on any distro. You can do photo and video editing on any distro. If your hardware doesn't work on one, sure - it's worth trying something else. Once your hardware works? There's so much crossover between different distros that having run through more than a dozen of them when I was getting my feet wet I honestly could not tell you what the major differences were. It was a waste of time. Once my hardware worked, the experience wasn't going to get better on one distro vs another. My experience might improve between one kernel or another, or it might be meaningfully different between EXT4 and BTRFS file systems - but the distro has nothing to do with that outside of the defaults, and reading up on what BTRFS is and learning how to format a system as BTRFS with a distro that doesn't offer it as a checkbox in their graphical installer is where you really learn the ins and outs of Linux vs. hopping around pointlessly without any real clue what meaningful differences there are between the different varieties. Every Linux distro I've used is more efficient than Windows. Less bloat than Windows. Respects my input and choices more than Windows. Outside of typing dnf vs. apt, there's very little practical difference for me between Fedora and Pop OS. Now - I know there are reasons I may want to use Fedora at some point in the future, but those will be actual reasons for switching or favoring it for certain use cases, not because it's the new and shiny thing that people online are going gaga over for poorly defined reasons. EVERY system has its flaws. EVERY system will have something that doesn't work exactly the way I want it to. EVERY system comes with tradeoffs, and if I had one piece of advice I'd offer to myself when I got started with Linux, it would be - don't distrohop. If you don't like something, learn how to customize it. A distro that looks like it solves all your problems will introduce other quirks that are likely to be just as annoying to deal with, and possibly far MORE infuriating to deal with, so you'll have to learn how to problem solve eventually. Blowing the system up and trying something else doesn't teach you anything; it doesn't solve the problems you're dealing with - it just wastes hours of your time you could have spent reading the documentation to solve the problem you had in the first place. Where the differences matter, they REALLY matter. The 5.15 and 6.2 kernels work very differently on my main laptop, which makes Linux Mint nigh unusable. I need something with a current kernel. But so many distro reviews, instead of delving into the guts of why you'd want one kernel over another, open the file system and talk about elements of the DE - not things that would be core considerations when picking one distro over another. I want a working machine - I only care about solving that problem. I don't care what the shiny new thing is. That's what a lot of Linux channels don't seem to get about most users. Not Linux users - general computer users. All these hundreds of distros - I don't give a shit. Show me what is most likely to work on my hardware. That's what most people are after. This is a very long-winded way of saying - I agree with your point that distrohopping is the quickest way to find out that distro doesn't matter. There is a type of computer user I would heartily recommend it to. That would be the tinkerer and hobbyist, or the one looking to eventually build a skillset and career in IT. For most people? Bloody pointless. Put Mint, Pop OS or Fedora on their systems and be done with it. Get comfortable problem-solving on distros with a lot of documentation - THEN if they feel like it they can branch out. For someone starting out - there will inevitably be headaches from learning something new, but the Linux community makes things WAY more complicated than they have to be because they don't grok that most people do not give two shits about the software powering their workflow and internet browsing - or even if it works as well as it possibly could - as long as it works.

[@see-sharp]

I can't understand why using Arch is some kind of "badge of honor", if you are using Linux for at least 3 months and know the basics of terminal commands you can install Arch. Not even for Gentoo or LFS, it's just more work to do.

[@TheLinuxCast]

I didn't make it a badge of honor. It's not as if I coined the term "I use Arch BTW". It was around long before I came onto the scene

[@tigerscott2966]

I have come to end of my distro hopping trail... Xero Linux is the ONE for me across the board. If you really value privacy and security, then Kodachi is a no brainer...

[@davidkisvari]

Distros matter a lot. If it would be just the package manager Debian and Ubuntu would be the same yet they are very far from each other from a user experience point of view. Same can be told about Arch/Manjaro. Flatpak makes native packages almost obsolete for the most part so packages don't matter that much any more. I agree that AUR is highly overrated especially on Manjaro. What matters is the user experience and there are huge differences there.

[@martinhertz4957]

Agreed, though your points about arch being about the "hard" install, well never was, except for the ignorant - it had a fine installer(AIF) when I started with it in 2010, but just lost manpower simply - never was a design decision lol. Arch is great because so many pluses I.e rolling, aur, makepkg/pkgbuilds, pacman, strict opt depends policy, not patched unless necessary/vanila, no services auto started, no GUI abstractions, apps not split uselessly, lightweight base, forefront on tech etc. About the community, if you do your due diligence, then you will not get ridiculed for being a moron, and if so anyway, complain to a mod rightfully. It's not about being proud, but arch isn't for noobs wanting handholding simply, and nothing toxic about that, just being honest - It's more toxic and annoying that people ignore this imho and then go bitch about it(not you, in general I mean).

[@zoltan1953]

Ironically, Arch is probably a pretty good distro for new users. It might be better to start with Manjaro, but I would still put a new user on vanilla Arch for one simple reason. The wiki. The wiki is why I stay with Arch. Nothing else is documented as well as Arch, and I'm too stupid to figure out problems on other distros without having my hand held. Lol. And even without archinstall, Arch is still easy to install. The hardest part is partitioning. If you can use cfdisk, you're home free. And cfdisk all but tells you how to use it.

[@TheLinuxCast]

I don't think it'd be that great. The wiki is great for you and me, but it is still pretty technical. Maybe a technical new user who knows what they're doing and won't get frustrated by nerd-speak, would do fine. But your mom or your sister? Probably not so much.

[@zoltan1953]

@@TheLinuxCast That's a fair point. I suppose I should've been more specific than "new" user. For a non-technical user, I'd put them on Ubuntu.

[@ringo8410]

I totally understand the philosophy of distrohopping but see it differently. To me, I just don't see the point of upending your entire system when you've got something that works for you. I just think it's unnecessary, and moreover, it can probably be burdensome to "normies" who want to make the switch to Linux. Not only do they hear conflicting advice about which distro to use, but people tell them that they "have" to distrohop and it's too much for them.

[@pw1187]

If there was a distro hopper anonymous.... I would have to join... I'd be sitting in the seat and saying Hi I'm PW And I'm a distro hopper...

[@zeocamo]

there is nothing special about Arch, just because you change a few config files, and install a few packages don't make you any better then anyone else, that said i use Arch btw.

[@JayJay-ku8gp]

I've tried many distros through vm's but for bare metal install... I've done Ubuntu -> Debian -> Fedora -> Slackware -> Debian -> Arch. I've found that I like stability, security, and at times tinkering. This is why Debian, Slackware, Fedora, and Arch fit me. My goal is to learn arch and Debian at a more in depth level and on another machine Slackware. I'm so glad I moved away from windows.

[@zeocamo]

yea, i hear you, i start back in 1996/1997 with Suse -> redhat -> Ubuntu -> Debian -> Arch -> fedora -> POP_OS! -> Arch. but i was on Ubuntu for 10 years, that is for hardware, on WM i try anyting out there, not because i need to hop, but because i want to see the 'feel' of them. when you learn how your system works, then Distros is just a starting point, and it always end up as the same system as that is what i like.

[@patrickprucha5522]

On point 5. Don't be hard on yourself. Linux offered more ability to script on the command line then windows or dos did. So linux just opened a door for you to discover something fantastic...scripting. I actually believe, like it or not, Linux is a great IDE for scripting, programming and building software!!!! Why shoulld i use an ide, when i can have a few terminals open, moving from one script to the next. I LOVE LINUX. LInux was made for me to enjoy computers.

[@snlonline]

Arch is not hard yes, but it is the best Distro handsdown.

[@potatofieldsforever4089]

I have used Linux for more than 10 years and I still feel like a noob, I use EndeavourOS with Sway btw.

[@TheLinuxCast]

I will always be a noob.

[@afroceltduck]

@@TheLinuxCast If people had the "I'm always a noob at something" mentality, the world just might be a slightly better place.

[@xzaratulx]

the AUR made Arch really great. Now with flatpaks and such .. who even cares anymore

[@somethingsinlife5600]

And last but not least...The 6th thing is that distros do matter...But it will take you even longer to figure that out. Ultimately, you might come across a decision to chose Debian over Arch, and for that you will need experience.

[@BernardoHenriquez]

I use Arch btw

[@viinisaari]

One thing above all: Install autocompletion/suggestions for your shell, or alternatively install a shell that has autocompletion. Either way is fine. This will make it 10x easier to learn the shell you're using. Humans learn by mimicking and trying things out. It's a lot easier to do that if you have some kind of a starting point to do that. Instead of googling "how to do X on linux" every time, you can try the things you've used before, see what they do, and slowly start to understand how they work.

[@capability-snob]

There's a shell that doesn't have autocompletion?

[@viinisaari]

@@capability-snob I don't know the correct nomenclature here, I mean fish-like suggestions.

[@thingsiplay]

Sorry to say that, but I think Distro hopping for new users to Linux is waste of time. How can a user decide how good it is by just trying it out? The differences go much deeper than a new user could possibly understand in the beginning. I think someone new to Linux should install a "common" distro and stick with it. You don't learn if you just keep switching after every problem. I truly believe you learn most if you stick to the distro. Okay maybe switch once again, if it does not work. But before switching, do your homework this time and try to understand what you are even switching to and why. Otherwise you will keep changing the distro and nothing is gained from it. Sorry Matt, but that's my opinion on that matter. It's not 2008 anymore. When I switched to Linux and nuked my Windows XP outright, it was 2008 to Ubuntu. I kept using Ubuntu until 2021 and switched to Manjaro the first time. Now a few months ago I switched to EndeavourOS and I use Arch, BTW.

[@TheLinuxCast]

On the other side, how can you know if something's good if you don't try it?

[@thingsiplay]

@@TheLinuxCast And how do you know if its good for you by just testing it shortly? Either you use it for a long time to really understand it or you inform yourself and save the time before trying it out. I argue that almost every (mainstreadm!) distro is good for you. It's not like deciding between a truck and bus, where it matters. Just do your homework before deciding on a few points. These questions don't need to be "tested out" by installing it, they can be answered before and save time. Edit: Also it can be discouraging for new users to start all over again every time. Sticking to the distro they chose once will force them to learn.

[@davidmartin8211]

Time to hop to FreeBSD!

[@jz2187]

1. It's not worth it - if you trying to switch and go trough all the hurdles, just stay with Windows.

[@Mage4636]

LFS is scary just saying lol.

[@glendubie]

In order to be a great scripter you must learn C programming.

[@miyamoto-win]

i use arch btw

[@chrisvo-p2e]

Arch is as much of a cult as it is a distro.

[@thomzwiefler6305]

Lol the scientology of the linux community

[@oscs4556]

I put my scripts in my git repos.

[@itsfish8672]

GVM.

[@jourkwilkerson8952]

opensuse tumbleweed btw ^_^