linuxmemes

I use i3wm btw

I feel like the window manager is important, but for newbies I also consider the package manager and overall installation process to be very important.

I've had pretty distros that are basically busted after a package fails to install or video drivers are mucked with. An advanced user could fix most of these issues, but this is usually where a new user may go running back to their previous OS.

A good computing experience for me is all my hardware working with minimal fuss and all the software I expect to be available being a few terminal commands away (e.g. steam, developer tools, etc.)

#You are perfectly right.

All major distributions offer all major Environments. I currently use either Debian or Ubuntu and usually install by booting the Netinstall.iso right from the official Servers which installs just the base system without any GUI at all. Then I use tasksel to select the environment. Ok, not every Environment is part of Tasksel but often it is just adding another Repository and running another apt install operation.

And yes, on my experimental computer I often install a dozen environments just because I can. Selectable at Login-Screen.

But now somethings VERY important from someone with 35 years of POSIX experience:

If you are a newby FOR GODS SAKE USE UBUNTU.

And if you are a pro... Ubuntu still is a very good option. Only if your have VERY GOOD REASONS which you COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, only then use something else. Which is Debian for me.

And for new users choosing a distro with big user base (thus having a better support system) should be a top priority. Instead newbies are often advised to use an obscure distro that in theory might be a good fit, but isn't. Probably those who do the recommendations are Linux testers (using VZ) rather than Linux users and mostly evaluate a distro based on install process and out of the box usage.

Configuring a big distro to your needs is much better than choosing a nishe distro.

I don't use a DE, BTW.

• guess right which distro I use and win a pet!

I do not fear OpenBSD, but FVWM... it scares me.

It's like learning how to interact with Lemmy, and then deciding which app you want to use to interact with it.

Great take. But you know the real sneaky one that trips you up? File system.

I wouldn't call myself a beginner, but every time I install a Linux system seriously I see those filesystem choices and have to dig through volumes of turbo-nerd debates on super fine intricacies between them, usually debating their merits in super high-risk critical contexts.

I still don't come away with knowing which one will be best for me long-term in a practical sense.

As well as tons of "It ruined my whole system" or "Wrote my SSD to death" FUD that is usually outdated but nevertheless persists.

Honestly nowadays I just happily throw BTRFS on there because it's included on the install and allows snapshots and rollbacks. EZPZ.

For everything else, EXT4, and for OS-shared storage, NTFS.

But it took AGES to arrive to this conclusion. Beginners will have their heads spun at this choice, guaranteed. It's frustrating.

There's Two Main Choices:

Packages....

1. Pacman-based - Arch, Arco, Endeavour
2. RPM-based - Fedora, SuSE
3. Aptitude-based - Ubuntu, Debian

Choose Pacman for rolling release, bleeding edge. Pick aptitude for servers and pick RPM if you want something that 'just works'.

Desktop....

1. Full DE - Gnome, KDE
2. Window Manager - Awesome, i3

High end machines with lots of fancy features and ease of use pick a full DE. WM is good for speed and low-end hardware but harder to use.

I started with Ubuntu and slowly tried getting used to Gnome over the course of a few months (mainly using windows, every now and then hopping into Ubuntu when not gaming). I learned of KDE, tried it in Kubuntu, and it all instantly clicked for me. I switched over in about a week and haven't had much reason to boot Windows since.

It turned out that front-facing experience was incredibly important to me.