Linux

If it aint broke, don't fix it.

I have used arch on this same install since 2019, before that, 2016. (Just because I wanted to get my old system back ASAP and was comfortable with the process)

If I had to do it over, I would test out openSUSE tumbleweeb or endeavor, but if you have your system that works and you like it, there is absolutely nothing to gain by switching.

If you just want to explore or do it as a hobby, use an old SSD and test out different configs on a seperate drive (you can pick up a 128 or 240GB SSD for like $25) but the only differences are package managers and DE.

I used to think that I wanted to distro hop. Turns out that what I wanted was a bare bones OS that gave me the freedom to rice in strange and unnatural ways.

After 25(!) years of battling X11, dependency hells, and the early days of desktop compositing, I finally realized that what I wanted was Arch, and a few window managers to play with. SwayWM, and now Hyprland.

Unless you have some niche needs (real-time audio encoding) or want to play with more esoteric experiments (Nix, OSTree, etc), distro hopping is overkill.

But most distros have homogenized to the point to where all you need is knowledge about systemd to go from one to the other.

Just pick your favorite, non-snap distro and hack on it.

I try different distros just out of curiosity. I've used several that look promising, but there always seems to be some little thing I end up not liking. I usually end up going back to Zorin, which to me feels a lot like Mint. If Mint works well for you, use it. While many Linux users tend to distro-hop quite a bit, if you just want a computer that works for what you need it to do, stick with what does that for you.

Distro hoppers - most likely - try different desktops (wm, compositor, tools). You may already know that you can easily switch you desktop within a few seconds. One tipp though: Don't use your main user logging in on a new desktop (to keep your /home clean)!

Own story (skip to the "---" if not interested):

Don't worry yourself. If Mint works for you and you don't have a good reason to switch. Just stay.

I started out with Mint as well. Switched from Cinnamon to Mate early on because I wanted to run a fancy compositor called Compiznand stay on that for like 2 years.

I still had a lot of free time, so I got "bored" by everything being so low maintenance compared to Windows 8. I checked out Arch and ran it for a bit with KDE 4 I think.

At some point I got a proper PC (was a crappy Laptop before) and wanted to Continue running KDE, so I chose KUbuntu because of that. I ran into some issues and a brick when upgrading that I couldn't solve, so I went back to a rolling release distro to not need to worry about major updates again. I went with Manjaro as I thought it would be more stable than Arch (I didn't have a problem with Arch, just craved max stability in general then).

In the meantime I since learned that Manjaro and Arch are about equally as stable from problems I needed solve and me sometimes running Arch on my old laptop when out.

I have been on Manjaro for about 7 years now (never re-installed), love it, KDE and don't care about all the political stuff. I don't care that people hate on Manjaro, never encountered a problem I couldn't solve and will happily continue to use the distro until it breaks on me.

You can use whatever you like. Distro hopping can be fun, but is also a burdon and might prevent you from making your PC your home.

I wouldn't switch especially for political stuff. Just use what you like. If you don't wanna miss out, just watch some YT Videos of people testing out Distros/DEs or run some in virtual machienes. If you have a secondary device, you can also do hopping on that.

I hope this can help somewhat. Use whatever you like, don't fret about political stuff. I used to kinda distro hop (not really) and now couldn't care less about it.

You can easily check out other Distros using VMs, Docker Containers or even rented Servers for the most part.

If you have the time and are truely interested in Distro hopping (or just testing out a new DE) just go for it though. Just don't let others dictate what you run.

Let's start simple: You should consider hoping from Linux Mint to LMDE if you haven't already.

As a user, you have no obligation to participate in the politics between the Ubuntu and the Mint Development team, but if you've followed the controversy and agree that Ubuntu is being a bully, this would be a small yet material way to show support.

what am I missing?

Every Linux distribution has a purpose - a reason its author thought it was worth the effort of creating it. Some are grand, others are silly, etc. When you explore distros, you're telling the community which ideas resonate with you. Popular ideas will replicate, unpopular ideas will be abandoned.

Also, switching distributions makes it harder for business to 'capture' the Linux demographic. The mere act of switching occasionally means that tools to import/export/manage your data stay relevant. This literally fights enshitification.

Finally, and this is a matter of personal taste, but I like trying different versions of Linux for the same reason I try different flavors of ice cream: It's fun; and even if now and then I get a bad flavor, I feel enriched by the experience.

(Edit: it's to its)

Hopping isn't a had thing. Find what fits ur needs. Dual boot other distros. Each offer something. Hopping only leads to having to learn other systems. If it fits, u have what u need. Everything else is noise.

Nothing, unless you're not using nixos, then everything 😹

I was surviving with Ubuntu, I had my complaints but I figured 'that's just how it is' on Linux, that it was the same everywhere. I didn't even realise what I was missing until I switched.

I got a hardware upgrade at one point, so in order to get those new drivers ASAP I tried an Arch-based distro, with plans to switch back once drivers became available. I never moved back.

The two big reasons I stayed was ironically enough the lack of good Ubuntu documentation, and the PPA system. Ubuntu is used a lot, but there's not really formal documentation anywhere, only random tutorials online (most likely out of date and never updated) and people on forums talking about their problems. By contrast the Arch wiki is the gold standard of Linux documentation, there's just no comparison. Even on Ubuntu I found myself using it as a reference from time to time.

Regarding PPAs, the official Ubuntu package list is strangely small so if you're like me and find yourself needing other software, even mainstream software like Docker, you'll be faffing about with PPAs. So if you want to install Docker, instead of typing sudo apt install docker You instead have to type:

# Add Docker's official GPG key: 
sudo apt-get update 
sudo apt-get install ca-certificates curl gnupg 
sudo install -m 0755 -d /etc/apt/keyrings 
curl -fsSL https://download.docker.com/linux/ubuntu/gpg | sudo gpg --dearmor -o /etc/apt/keyrings/docker.gpg 
sudo chmod a+r /etc/apt/keyrings/docker.gpg 
# Add the repository to Apt sources: 
echo \ "deb [arch=$(dpkg --print-architecture) signed-by=/etc/apt/keyrings/docker.gpg] https://download.docker.com/linux/ubuntu \ $(. /etc/os-release && echo "$VERSION_CODENAME") stable" | \ sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/docker.list > /dev/null sudo apt-get update

These are the official install instructions, by the way. This is intended behaviour. The end user shouldn't have to deal with all this. This feels right out of the 90's to me.

Instead of PPAs, Arch has the Arch User Repository (AUR). Holy moly is the AUR way nicer to work with. Granted, we're not quite comparing apples to apples here since the AUR (typically) builds packages from source, but bear with me. You install an AUR package manager like yay (which comes preinstalled on my flavour of Arch, EndeavourOS). yay can manage both your system and AUR packages. Installing a package (either official or AUR) looks like yay packageNameHere. That's it. A full system upgrade like sudo apt update; sudo apt upgrade is a single command: yay -Syu, a bit cryptic but much shorter. The AUR is fantastic not just for the ease of use, but for sheer breadth of packages. If you find some random project on github there's probably an AUR package for it too. Because it builds from source an AUR package is essentially just a fancy build script based on the project's own build instructions, so they're super easy to make, which means there's a lot of them.

You might argue 'but building from source might fail! Packages are more reliable!', which is somewhat true. Sometimes AUR builds can fail (very rarely in my experience), but so can PPAs. Because PPAs are often made to share one random package they can become out of date easily if their maintainer forgets or simply stops updating it. By contrast AUR packages can be marked out of date by users to notify the maintainer, and/or the maintainer role can be moved to someone else if they go silent. If a PPA goes silent there's nothing you can do. Also, since an AUR package is just a fancy build script you can edit the build script yourself and get it working until the package gets an update, too. PPAs by comparison are just a black box - it's broken until it gets updated.

Moral of the story? Don't be afraid to just give something a go. Mint will always be waiting for you if you don't like it.

Don't switch distros when you face a problem; if you're rocking Mint for some time, awesome! You are missing nothing, if you don't jump from one distro to another. I'm rocking Debian since 2003! 🫶😀🍺

I used to "virtual distro hop" because I tried a lot of distros in VMs before dualbooting. I installed Tumbleweed and haven't changed ever since.

I don't regret keeping my distro, I've been curious, of course, but I think i already have it all:

• Stability
• The newest updates
• I know my system very well
• By knowing my system, I can fix most problems and I know where to go if I can't.

I sometimes try distros in VMs, but with that and Distrobox I think I already have everything I could need to learn and try them in case I need to work with them in the future :)

Arch Linux, rolling Linux distribution, would give you the newest stable software, with probably new application features, but you can use distrobox, podman-toolbox, VirtualBox, KVM (QEMU) or a live Linux cd image to play with Arch Linux every now and then, without having to install it :)

If your use cases (a.k.a. requirements) are met by your current distro, never switch.

If you are satisfied with stability, availability of support, quick availability of security patches, never switch.

This is particularly important when you are using your Linux desktop as your daily driver.

Most you can do is to check what additional features other distros are offering (rolling release, hardened/zen kernel, x86-64-v2/3 support, file system type, user base, availability of packages, package formats, overall documentation etc.), validate if you really need those features.

If you are interested or just curious to test those features, install that distro on a VM (QEMU/KVM) to try it out first safely. Use it on VM for a while, make yourself comfortable with it. Once you are satisfied with it, only then switch.

The goal is for it to work. If it works, you're doing it right. For some people, Mint isn't enough. For many, it absolutely is.

You are. Reformat and install the first hardware compatible distro you find on https://distro.moe/ right now. Don't think too much about it, just do it! /s, probably?

If checking out a different distro sounds interesting and/or fun then you should. If not, then don't. Whatever way you Linux is the correct way for you.

It sounds like you need distrobox and KVM.

Distro-hopping might be a sign of perfectionism tbh. I think I'm a perfectionist, and I find that Arch doesn't feel right. But when I try other distros, they have weird and odd issues that Arch just doesn't have.

If you do have that itch, give whatever distro you're looking at a try in a virtual machine. Linux has virt-manager which generally works well with Linux guests, but if you use VMware for a Windows VM, that's also a good option too.

You can always distro hop inside a virtual machine if you have the time and nothing to do.

You should only hop if you know what you're missing out on, if you don't and don't have any distro-specific problems, it's just unnecessary. But if you really feel like it and have enough disk space, you can try dual-booting another distro and see which you like better.

I hopped because I wanted immediate updates and easy compiling (AUR) so I picked an Arch-based OS.

Distro hopping is pretty similar to changing instances on Lemmy. If you don't have a reason, just keep using your current account.

Don't. Arch, Ubuntu, Debian, OpenSUSE, and Fedora are used in the exact same way. Pick one of them and then trf different desktop environments, if you want you can download the configurations for distro from their source code

If it works for you, stick with it.

Works is a feature, not a bug.

_ /\ _

I guess this is to figure out what is also possible on Linux, and getting to know that not all problems or missing features apply to other distros.

Sometimes you can lwarn amazing stuff, like a KDE distro can be customized to your liking while a Gnome desktop is a nearly forced workflow and design but can be slightly changed with buggy extensions.

Distro Hopping seems to be such a big part of the “Linux experience.”

It's not, it's just a way to find the distro that suits you best.

If you're already satisfied with what you have, there's no reason to change and you're not missing out on anything. If you're ever curious about other distros, install Virtualbox and try them in a VM.

I stopped distro hopping years ago when I started using Linux MX (Debian based), I'm so happy with it that I have no intention to change ever again.

The only other distro I really like is LMDE (Mint based on Debian instead of Ubuntu), so I put that one on my laptop (MX on my gaming desktop).

There's Debian and Red Hat Enterprise, everything else is pointless. Enjoy.

The time I spent "distro hopping" back in high school was because I didn't have the balls to commit to a single distro. Even then the only time I actually switched was when I made a config change that blew up in my face so badly I needed to reinstall anyway.

If you've found a setup you're happy with, by all means, stick with it. You're not missing out on much by not voluntarily erasing your boot drive and installing an entirely new OS every week or so for no reason other than it looked cool.

(If you're about to suggest dual booting multiple Linux distros, no. Just stop. I tried that once. You would not believe how many issues are caused by sharing a ~/.config between two systems with slightly different versions of the same software.)

What am I missing?

Nothing. If you are content with your current setup, you are missing absolutely nothing.

What would the benefits be of jumping to something else?

None if you want to do it just because

What am I missing?

Again, nothing if you are not needing some very specific feature that only other distro offer or something that is easier on another distro.

If you are happy with the way things are no need to change, want to try something out ? Live CD or VM. Dual boot if you want to keep 2 systems. Mint is pretty good. I like peppermint myself. A halfway stop between mint and arch. Shit works out of the box but runs on 1 GB ram. Worth checking out if you want to get some extra out of you computer

Mint is basically Debian on easy mode so figure out if you're ready to change the difficulty

Distro hopping is what you do when you don't mind spending a week trying to get things "back the way they were".

You're not missing out.

Distro hoping is done yo find a ditro that you are comfortsble with if mint already works well for you, you should probably just stay on mint

Fire up a VM to scratch that itch or change up your desktop environment if you feel like it.

Unless you have a specific need that can't be met on your distro you're probably not missing much other than "ooh shiny" and some fun tinkering with something new.