throwawayish

There was another post yesterday about this and the community recommended Mint & Pop OS the most. However, I am not looking for windows-like. I want a new & fresh experience like using a smartphone for the first time or switching from ios to android.

While I get why Linux Mint (with the Cinnamon DE) is regarded as a Windows-like, Pop!_OS is far from that. Furthermore, going from iOS to Android is arguably a smaller change than going from Windows to any Linux DE (so even the Cinnamon DE (on any distro)). Regardless, the Desktop Environment is the single most influential part of a distro to how you experience any distro. Therefore, if you actually want a new & fresh experience, then you should definitely check out DEs like Cinnamon, GNOME, KDE Plasma and Xfce^[1]^ on something like a Live USB (perhaps through the use of Ventoy). After you've experienced a bunch of DEs, you should have attained a better grasp of what you like and don't like.

Distrochooser.de recommended kubuntu to me.

While Distrochooser is cool and all, you shouldn't take it too seriously 😅. If possible, consider sharing your results on Distrochooser, that might at least provide us some pointers.

1. Too many to list actually 😅, and most of them shouldn't be of a concern to a new user (or have simply become mainstays on most distros). The most important 'block' would be the Desktop Environment, though. Furthermore, design choices like release model, independent/derivative, opinionated/blank slate, traditional/atomic etc and a distro's popularity are other important factors in making a decision; while we'd refer to none of them as "building blocks of a distro". However, if there are any "blocks" that you would describe as a hard-requirement for you, then it does make sense to look for a distro that meets those. For example, in my case; a configured SELinux and atomic upgrades^[2]^ are required. As such, the decision already boils down to like two distros 😅. The shopping experience approach would perhaps make more sense if you chose a distro with little to no defaults (à la Arch (or Gentoo^[3]^)). Finally, perhaps it's worth noting that ((Dynamic) Tiling) Window Managers' capability of leaving you in awe for the opportunities and possibilities they provide are more substantial. Thankfully, while not as feature-rich, the more established DEs do offer means to engage with (dynamic) tiling (through extensions/add-ons).
2. That's hard to find; obviously distros won't advertise what they're missing. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they have good reasons for their respective design choices. Still, FWIW, resources like these might be helpful to some. However, you should only look at the tables, the texts found above the tables are at best outdated and perhaps even misleading otherwise. Beyond that, if you narrow the choice between just a couple of distros, then I'm sure the community would be more than willing to point you toward their differences.
3. Software I would recommend to anyone would be:
   • Distrobox; this excellent piece of software has single-handedly solved package availability across the Linux landscape. Other excellent endeavors like AppImage, Flatpak, Nix and Snap definitely have their uses and are in some aspects superior; but Distrobox' ease of use (contrary to Nix) and (almost) boundless access to packages (contrary to AppImage, Flatpak and Snap) on top of how well it integrates with the rest of your system makes it my personal MVP.
   • Flatseal; must-have if you ever plan on using flatpaks (which you definitely should consider).
4. It depends entirely on the distro you install. Assuming that you start using a distro with sane defaults (like most new users do), then unless you're using an Nvidia GPU^[4]^ (or other hardware known for causing troubles), you can start using your system however you'd like it; which for most would consist of installing the software they need. Furthermore, concerns related to bloat are a lot less significant/severe on Linux, so you should be fine unless you think the default installed file manager is bloat...
5. I actually don't know. Perhaps it might be related to creating an as homogeneous experience as possible; apps on Linux either rely on GTK or QT for their appearance/looks etc. Therefore, by foregoing one, the 'awkward' 'out-of-place'-experience that some might experience every so often would have been overcome. But this is a rare concern (I'd say). So unless you're very into how your system looks and feels, it shouldn't be a concern to you.
6. I think these questions show that you've put some thought into this and that by itself is already very commendable. And I'm actually of the opinion that asking these questions, especially for someone like you, is important. So I would definitely encourage you to continue with asking relevant questions in hopes of making the transition to Linux as pleasant as possible. As for the distros you've mentioned, chances are high that you'd be content with either one of them. However, I wonder if you're making a conscious choice; like would you be able to state why any of these should be preferred on the basis of merit rather than popular vote^[5]^ or what happened to come out of Distrochooser.

1. Important distinction: these aren't selected for how different they operate/behave compared to Windows(/macOS) but for being some of the more polished DEs found on Linux. For a more exhaustive list, refer to the one found on the ArchWiki; which still happens to miss DEs like Kera 😅.
2. I wouldn't call atomic upgrades a building block as it's ultimately a design choice.
3. Gentoo is a great distro, but I would not recommend a new user to engage with it; unless you believe you belong to the sub 1% that can make it work as their first distro. Heck, even Arch is often discouraged to new users. Though I think that Arch might be just up your alley; at least if you enjoy reading the excellent ArchWiki.
4. In which case, either the installer provided by the distro got your back and the proprietary drivers are installed or you're required to install them yourself. Steps related to these are different per distro, but reading up on your chosen distro's documentation should be sufficient.
5. Don't get me wrong; I'm not dismissing the popular vote.

Thank you so much for your insights!

Alright, let's first deal with unfinished business.

DistroWatch as useful as statista.com for suggesting your next travel destination. If you had to travel somewhere and had a list of criteria, but didn’t want to spend all day researching, would you go to a travel agent or open an encyclopedia?

I agree that DistroWatch is very useful as a more general resource rather than whatever you think Distrochooser is capable of. However, similar to DistroSea, it provides excellent information for anyone that is more interested in a specific distribution. Especially the reviews (by both the site maintainer(s) and visitors) are especially very valuable and the closest thing we have to an aggregated user reviews for distros. For good measure, I'm talking about the content of the reviews not the numerical representation.

but I disagree with a lot of things you said.

I'm so stoked to read these. I genuinely mean this btw*; every time someone informs me on why they disagree with me is an opportunity for me to learn new stuff.

I could quote everything I disagree with and write a paragraph

Please do. I mean it.

however it would be a meaningless endeavor as a moderator looking at the post would probably decide against adding distrochooser to the sidebar - regardless of my opinions.

This is very defeatist of you, though. And FWIW something which I didn't expect from you. If you can even make (just) one person (in this case, perhaps me) learn something new, then that should be worth the effort. As you should be aware by now, I'm a lot more active on Lemmy than I should 😅, but this also means that having me (or anyone for that matter) be on your side might just be the thing you need to have this succeed eventually.

XY problem confirmed. Thank you OP!

There have been complaints in posts about people asking for advice on which disto to use, that there are too many such posts.

This is a legit concern.Thank you for trying to tackle this!

Provide users the tools to possibly answer the question themselves before creating a post.

Noble. And in its essence, it makes a lot of sense.

DistroChooser is a self-help tool for that purpose.

As a self-help tool it's very bad. Sorry*. I actually hoped that you would mention how it might be used as a basic requirement for anyone that asks which distro to use. The enforcement could be done with a bot which simply scans if any link to distrochooser is present in a post that remotely resembles one that asks for advice on which distro to use. I would actually even argue against this, but I think we might be able to reach an agreement on which questions are actually worth keeping around for further use...

• keep answering posts --> more complaints, possibly silent quitting of community

Honestly, this is better than to limit newbies to strictly stick to Distrochooser for asking which distro they should use 🤣.

• write bot --> I ain’t got the time, maybe somebody has, dunno what the bot would do

I haven't got any experience with building a bot, but I suppose it works by scanning for words in posts. In that case, simply 'flagging' everything that contains the words "which" or "what" in combination with "distro(s)" or "distribution(s)" and ask them to refer their questions to a dedicated Lemmy community in which they can ask would already solve a lot.

• find alternative website --> I ain’t got the time

You don't have to find an alternative website. Nor write one yourself. As it stands, as far as I'm aware, there's simply nothing that satisfies the basic needs for this.

So what do I propose? Relegating these questions to their own dedicated Lemmy community is probably a great and easy solution. If something like a test/algorithm/flowchart/quiz/whatever has to be created, then that one might need substantial effort to get off the ground. However, perhaps comments like these might be helpful as a blueprint.

Sorry, I think I might have confused OmniOS with QubesOS.

😅, but QubesOS isn't a derivative of OpenBSD either. It might have inspired some of its parts, but fundamentally it's a completely different beast.

ZFS is itself a security feature because of how well it guarantees the fidelity of your data.

Do you happen to know if this goes beyond what Btrfs(/Bcachefs) provides on the Linux side of things?

Honestly, I don't know if that's the case; I always got scared whenever I saw the prerequisites for Heads in combination with the strict list of supported hardware. FWIW, the NV41 that's used for enabling Heads on NovaCustom's device is included in the short list of supported hardware for Heads, while -unfortunately- the same doesn't apply to the StarBook. I would love to be proven wrong though!

ADDENDUM:

3. Of course if the user even intends to use a distro that's not 'stable' like how Debian Stable is 'stable'.

I got bored 😅. So here is my second response. But please, before reading this one, consider reading my other reply first. It's a lot shorter anyways 😅.

So fundamentally, I think we're misunderstanding one another. In your defense, I can understand it; as I'm just one of the many responders and you might simply not have been able to take the time to understand what it is that I'm trying to convey and why. In my case, I think it might be related to the XY problem; i.e. you're proposing a solution (adding Distrochooser to the sidebar) for which hope will resolve an issue that remains to be stated. For all we know, you actually try to solve something else and you perceive Distrochooser in being capable of playing a vital role in that without being aware of how else the actual problem should be tackled instead.

In this reply I will try to bridge the gap that might have made you misunderstand what I tried to say in my first comment under your original post.

IMO you’re thinking too much as an advanced user for a simple user.

I think you might be absolutely right. The thing is, though, that I have never been one of those users that post a question like "Which distro?" without providing anything beyond the most basic specifics.

The only point I agree on is the NVIDIA GPU.

I therefore assume you disagree not with the entire post (as you seem to be taking a liking to DistroSea), but instead refer to the parts in which I go over some more fundamental questions. I think you've missed what I tried to say with that and have also missed the hint^[1]^ to make more clear why I even said those things.

Alright, let's dismiss for a moment that the Distrochooser's questions themselves need a lot of work done and proceed right to a 'results-screen'. This is probably how I would fill it in on an average day*. In the very first sentence, we're confronted with the word stable without giving any useful information on what this means and why this is even mentioned here. Similarly, the word unstable is used without ensuring that the (potential) newbie actually has a proper understanding of what it stands for. According to your logic^[2]^ these things shouldn't even matter! So why does Distrochooser even bother to spend a sentence on this for every one of their entries? And that's why I actually agree with you! But if Distrochooser chooses to include it, then they at least have to be precise and elaborate on what they mean with this and why the new user should care. So, to be clear, my two bullet points weren't meant as "Distrochooser should definitely somehow include these as they're vital to their choice.", but instead it was meant as "Alright, if this format for Distrochooser is chosen (with all of its faults), then the least Distrochooser should do is provide information on what the points (and used terms/words/phrases) in the 'results-screen' actually mean for the newbie user. And if it's not addressed, then this automatically discredits Distrochooser as a reliable introduction/orientation to distros for new users.". Because as it stands, a lot of the small niche distros that happen to be derivatives of Debian/Ubuntu are regarded as somehow "stable" while something like Fedora isn't. And thus the newbie that just wants a stable system will be fooled/misled into using any of those fringe distros over Fedora. Which is just straight up BS.

I’ve never heard of nor used Garuda. As I said, feel free to contribute.

Don't worry, others already took care of that. The fact that it hasn't been implemented yet just shows that this is not a productive endeavor. On that note, I didn't even notice how Garuda's more popular sibling EndeavourOS is also absent in Distrochooser's results...

Never heard of DistroSea. It seem like a good complement to ~~DistroChooser~~ anything that narrows down choice

Fixed that for you. Especially considering the fact that Distrochooser is (perhaps) more misleading than anything else. This point is a dead horse by now (at least under this post of yours), but I will be more elaborate at a later point.

DistroWatch as useful as statista.com for suggesting your next travel destination. If you had to travel somewhere and had a list of criteria, but didn’t want to spend all day researching, would you go to a travel agent or open an encyclopedia?

The response on this depends on the XY problem, therefore I will refrain from commenting on this for now.

I think many in the community, like yourself, have forgotten what it’s like to give just enough of a fuck to change something but not to want to be too invested. A beginner isn’t going to want to understand why a system is stable or not: they just want a stable system. You don’t have to explain to them “Yeah, so the configuration is a file, you see? Only you edit that file. Then you run this command that interprets the file and build a dependency tree, downloads everything necessary, to a partition that’s temporarily mounted as read-write, symlinks to…”. Nobody cares. The average user DGAF.

Imagine if you just wanted to get a vacuum cleaner at the store with 3 criteria. Imagine you don’t give a rat’s ass about vacuum cleaner. You just want to point the thing at the ground, let it succ all the bits, but as quietly as possible, and not break down in 2 years to force you back out here. But the sales person you get harps on about the genius of the person who invented some internal component you’ve never heard of, goes on to explain why, ideologically, getting a certain brand is the only way because blablablabla. Maybe you’d buy a vacuum cleaner just to shut them up or walk out of the store.

These two paragraphs are at best you misunderstanding/misinterpreting what I said and why I said those things and that's where I'll leave it (for now).

My optimal experience would be the sales person listening to me, lining up the best candidates, and explaining, in bullet points, why they are there. Then finally, ask me if I have a favorite and to give me a test environment. If I don’t understand something, I can ask more questions.

Generally-speaking, I agree with this. But I hope you're not (even remotely) insinuating that this is even remotely close to the Distrochooser experience.

1. Hint: "I’m honestly not even sure if the one(s) responsible for writing the parts of Distrochooser even know(s) themselves" from my first reply.
2. "A beginner isn’t going to want to understand why a system is stable or not: they just want a stable system." and "Nobody cares. The average user DGAF."

Good question! However I think it's wise to concentrate on a particular word/phrase before actually answering your query.

In an immutable setup on Fedora (trying to main Bazzite) is the correct way to use zsh and oh my zsh as my main shell

Currently, it's not always clear if there even is a correct way of installing some of these (more) edge cases. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd see 'seasoned' Fedora Atomic users that have all tackled these in very different ways while being satisfied with (not only) their own solutions (but also approve the respective solutions of their peers).

As for your query, I would say that starting to use Fedora Atomic and pointing out correctly some of the more common ways to install software while being aware of the ambiguity that exists with the chosen installation method for this specific piece of software is already very commendable. So I would like to congratulate you on that!

But, you shouldn't be afraid to stick to what's easy (aka don't allow good to be the enemy of perfect). If the extra time required for changing your base system doesn't bother you at all (which happens automatically in the background anyway), then layering it (thus installing with rpm-ostree) is probably the easiest method while protecting you from a lot of possible edge cases you might have to deal with otherwise. Traditionally, zsh (and other shells) were layered (thus installed with rpm-ostree) and uBlue itself included (perhaps still does) just commands to change root shell to zsh, fish etc. This might have changed in the last few weeks, but I think it should still be a safe bet. FWIW, I have never had any troubles pertaining to my zsh installation and any of its plugins (might as well link the managed zsh-config I rely on).

OpenBSD and its derivatives (like OmniOS)

First time hearing of OmniOS, thank you for mentioning it! EDIT: I just took a look at it and it doesn't seem to be based on OpenBSD, at least the one I could find seems to be a derivative of Solaris instead. Though, I might simply not have found what you referred to*.

because it of its security-oriented features, especially things like ZFS

Does OpenBSD's implementation of ZFS offer security features as well?

I would like to switch my daily driver, a Linux laptop, to OpenBSD so I can get used to using it as an administrator, but I worry about OpenBSD being able to support the laptop hardware, especially things like WiFi, BlueTooth, and managing the battery, screen dimming, laptop lid, and so on.

Do you think that using OpenBSD inside of a qube (from QubesOS) is perhaps something worth considering? Or don't you think there's any merit of doing this over the use of any virtualization software found on any other system?

I have another Linux computer with a Radeon graphics card which connects to my TV that my children use for video games, and watching streaming video, and I would like to switch this to OpenBSD as well but I worry that it will not be able to run Steam games very well.

From what I've read, running games on OpenBSD is a lot less mature compared to running games on Linux. Though, perhaps it's worth noting that cloud gaming solutions (like Google Stadia in the past) are known to work great on OpenBSD. Not sure if you would want that, though.

(On a more general note) I definitely agree that OpenBSD works wonderfully on the server side of things. But I've gotten skeptical over time to its feasibility as a desktop OS. Note that I'm well aware that OpenBSD's developers use it as their daily drivers, so I definitely recognize the possibility. However, when it's lacking features like Secure Boot (or any form of Trusted and/or Measured Boot for that matter), I just find it hard to justify putting it on something like a laptop that I carry around all the time. I hope that you can prove to me that my logic/understanding is flawed and that I should reconsider the use of OpenBSD as a desktop OS.

It has been my pleasure 😊!

Aight. I've changed the comment a bit 😅 since. Perhaps it's more useful for you now 😉.