I see often people say that the distro you are using doesn’t matter. One can turn any distro into another. And I do not agree with that. If that was true, why do we even have so many distributions? I always said, if distros don’t matter…
- … why distro hop?
- … why don’t you use Ubuntu then?
- … why don’t you recommend Archlinux to a newcomer?
- … why don’t you use Kali Linux as a server?
- … why don’t you use Batocera or SteamOS as your daily driver?
- … why do you trust a community distro more than a corporate distro? (or vice versa)
I don’t think that distros only matter to newcomers. Maybe it matters for experienced users even more.
If that was true, why do we even have so many distributions?
Don’t ignore the fact that part of the reason there are so many distributions, desktops, window managers, etc etc is because a large number of skilled coders have outsized egos
I see often people say that the distro you are using doesn’t matter.
For certain things it doesn’t. Usually this is brought up in the context of someone wanting to choose between 5 possible valid alternatives to start using Linux, and the advice is “it doesn’t matter, just pick whichever and when something annoys you you might understand the difference”
One can turn any distro into another. And I do not agree with that.
You can disagree all you want, it’s 100% possible, stupid, but possible.
If that was true, why do we even have so many distributions?
Because philosophy matters. You don’t pick a distro because it’s technically superior or because it has features others don’t have (with some exceptions like NixOS). You pick a distro because it’s philosophy speaks to you, be it “I aim to be user friendly” or “I aim to follow KISS”. This is why for the most part distro doesn’t matter for newcomers, because they’re looking at 5 examples of “I aim to be user friendly and…” distros.
- … why distro hop?
Because I want to try something different and see how I feel about it.
- … why don’t you use Ubuntu then?
I did, for a long time, then I decided that building my system up was easier than tearing it down. If I was using Plasma or Gnome I wouldn’t have switched probably.
- … why don’t you recommend Archlinux to a newcomer?
Because Arch philosophy is KISS, meaning you have to build everything from the ground up and you’re expected to understand the steps and read the manual. This is why I believe distros like Manjaro or CachyOS cause issues, they remove the initial hurdle of Arch but don’t change the core philosophy, making them ticking time bombs for people who don’t know their way around Linux.
- … why don’t you use Kali Linux as a server?
You do you, my servers don’t usually need all of the extra tools a distro with the philosophy of “I’m a pen tester tool” has.
- … why don’t you use Batocera or SteamOS as your daily driver?
Because usually I want my daily driver to do computer stuff, and those distros philosophy is “I’m a gaming console”
- … why do you trust a community distro more than a corporate distro? (or vice versa)
I don’t trust either more inherently than the other, I trust distros that have a track history of good behavior.
I don’t think that distros only matter to newcomers. Maybe it matters for experienced users even more.
Distros matter, they tell a lot about what you’re trying to accomplish. But most newcomers are debating for days whether they should use Ubuntu, Pop, Mint, Fedora or CachyOS, and realistically they’re unlikely to even understand the difference between those. Think on distros like clothes, if you’re just going to the market it doesn’t matter what clothes you wear, if you’re going to a job interview it matters, and if you’re going to do something very specific like swimming some clothes are simply better than others. But if someone asks you “do clothes matter?” You will probably reply no, because for most stuff you do as long as you’re not wearing clothes with holes in them you’re fine, but you can tell a lot about people by the clothes they decide to wear. It’s a similar thing for distros, for most stuff it doesn’t matter, for certain things it’s important for others it gives some information and for some specific cases it makes a huge difference, but for the most part it’s a personal choice.
As you said here a lot of people here either like to downplay the differences between the distros or use them in a way that makes them not notice those differences. I’m with them in saying that if you plan to distro-hop just to change the DE you should probably learn how linux works, but there are definitely differences. Some examples:
- If you want to run ROS2 then ONLY supported distro is Ubuntu
- Before choosing a distro which has systemd removed (like Artix) you should definitely make sure what you are doing, there are definitely differences here
- The frequency of updates of packages is an important thing. Last year it was almost impossible to install Hyprland because it used packages that were too new
While it is theoretically true that you can turn one distro into another, in practice it’s not worth it. It’s the same thing as trying to sell someone on “you never need to reboot to apply updates or fix things.” Ye, technically true, but unless you’re maintaining huge corporate servers where downtime is measured in dollars, 9 times out of 10, it’s just easier to reboot and see if it fixes the issue. And yes, it will often still fix the issue.
The reason for distro hopping etc is because picking a distro is essentially choosing your defaults/ideology/character alignment. There are no wrong answers. Just go with what feels right. Newbies should distro hop to see how they align, experienced users should do it for fun and to see if a different way suits them better.
We should be herding beginners towards beginner friendly distros so they don’t run into a cliff of a learning curve, but which specific one is basically arbitrary.
As for your other examples: Don’t let your dreams be dreams. You can 100% use batocera as server if you like, it’s entirely possible. You’re just going to have to dedicate a shitload of time coercing into a server shape… but nothing’s stopping you
There are two reasons why distro choice doesn’t matter.
- The majors are mostly fine. Ubuntu (not this one), Mint, Fedora, Arch, and Debian.
- They’re going to need to distrohop in the end anyway, and it’s naive to think they’re going to get it right on the first try.
Just like your “opponents” are over-generalising, you’re deliberately picking the most extreme examples to make your argument. (Batocera as a daily driver - you know that’s what Hanna Montana Linux is for!)
My Linux axioms are: for most new users…
- choice of DE is most noticeable and decides whether they like their initial experience.
- choice of base distro family does matter a lot in the long run (Debian-based vs. Arch-based vs. Redhat-based); if you stay inside the same family (e.g. Pop!OS vs. Ubuntu vs. Zorin vs. Mint), choice matters a lot less (and DE is most impactful, c.f. point one).
- choosing a distro with specialised security hardening (immutable systems, Nix, Qubes, Bazzite) does matter; most of these will make new users unhappy or even question their sanity.
Where you are right: yes, the choices embedded within these three axioms do matter a lot and are noticeable, so it is helpful to have an experienced user recommend a distro to you when starting out.
Where the “distro don’t matter” people are right: there are a lot less choices to be made than meets the eye. Effectively, it can be boiled down to three.
choosing a distro with specialised security hardening (immutable systems, Nix, Qubes, Bazzite) does matter; most of these will make new users unhappy or even question their sanity.
Out of curiosity, as someone who’s never used Bazzite/other uBlue/SilverBlue/etc, what makes it difficult for new users? I definitely agree with Nix and Qubes though (and SecureBlue to some extent).
Basically, anything that isn’t packaged as a flatpak needs to be installed from the CLI using distrobox containers, which will go over the heads of the majority of new users.
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had to bonk the immutable Stans over the head with this logic, but it never works. They install bazzite, play their game of choice on steam and occasionally use their web browser and “ALL NEW USERS MUST USE BAZZITE ITS SO EASY”
Any distro is easy when you use it like a fucking Sony PlayStation.
Lol, but so true.
Not Arch or NixOS lol
Can’t you use homebrew?
I have zero experience with that. 😄
FWIW, uBlue has been brewing for almost three years now for their CLI stuff: see this issue tracker and this blogpost from Bluefin’s creator.
The distrobox workflow overall has mostly been superseded by better alternatives[1]. Though, for completeness’ sake, openSUSE’s atomic offering continues to heavily rely on Distrobox. But, in their defense, I think their atomic offerings are simply better[2] suited for it.
There’s sysext with its (WIP) manager, Brew Tap to tap into homebrew casks and some peeps even use coldbrew. And last, but definitely not least,
nixsupport has improved over the years. And if you just want to usednf, RakuOS’ innovative hybrid design allows just that; an image-based core you can’t touch (like the other ‘immutables’), butdnfworks and is applied through a persistent overlay. ↩︎Fedora’s container images are tied to its major release versions. Hence, every 7-13 months you’re required to set them up from scratch if you’d like to continue using them 😅. Even if this process can be streamlined, it’s IMO very cumbersome regardless. In openSUSE’s case, the containers are based on Tumbleweed. Which, has a rolling release cadence. Hence, it was meant to be used indefinitely. ↩︎
Thank you very much for the detailed and well-sourced write-up! I’ve saved it for later when I get to drill down on this.
It kind of proves OP’s point though: distros do come with a lot of idiosyncrasies of “how things are done around these parts”.
Not the one you asked, but I think the answer lies in the bold part:
most of these will make new users unhappy or even question their sanity.
For example, I can’t imagine any of the uBlue projects causing major difficulties. Though, edge cases do exist; adding kernel mods can still be a bitch, even if there are efforts to improve this.
There is another point, which makes this discussion very variable. Also the choice matters or does not matter a lot, depending on the person, expectations and what is being done. This is probably the biggest reason why we don’t agree on simplifications like these. And BTW, just because the examples I gave are extreme does not make them wrong in any way. They are just easy for illustrating my points I’m making.
If someone is coming from Windows, does not care much about trust and just want something that runs a browser, doesn’t care about community or technicalities, then yes it does not matter if the person chooses Ubuntu or Mint. On the other hand, if someone doesn’t like corporations, has strong opinions about standards and is a developer, then the choice suddenly matters a lot more.
I just thought that the phrase “the distro you are using doesn’t matter” is used to combat the analysis paralysis that many new users experience.
And -to be frank- while Ubuntu and NixOS don’t even remotely resemble each other, I can’t be the only one that feels that most traditional distros do feel kinda same~y.
There are lot of people who really believe that, not just an answer help with choice paralysis.
I also agree that lot of distributions feel similar. And that is not a coincidence. First most distros follow same rules, often have the same underlying technology or act the same, even if its different. And then desktop environments makes up a lot of how an operating system feels to use, and most distributions default to the same one or two. So no wonder many feel the same, even if their underlying technology would be different. It just depends on what you do. Take X11 and Wayland in example. For most people who just use KDE and Firefox on one distribution with Wayland, will feel the same when using this combo on another distribution with X11.
No, I think you’re missing the point. Distro really and truly doesn’t matter at all. They all can do the same stuff as each other. It’s entirely all about taste and personal preference, and nothing else. Each flavour has a different starting point, and those staying points make it quicker and easier to achieve different end goals, but they can all achieve the same end goals but with varying amounts of effort. But to stay with, just pick one and give it a try, learn how it works and what it does, then either stick or twist, but have fun learning and exploring.
Distro really and truly doesn’t matter at all. They all can do the same stuff as each other. It’s entirely all about taste and personal preference
So you say my personal preference and taste does not matter? A starting point does not matter and I should randomly pick something from Distrowatch, maybe the newest updated entry in their database? Just because it CAN be turned into a different distro, does not invalidate the value of having a good starting point that fits my needs perfectly. Also you are wrong that these are the only factors. There is also the factor if I trust the maintainers of the repository, and probably other factors important for choosing a distribution.
No, the opposite. The only thing that matters is your personal taste and preferences. It’s purely and entirely about your perception. They include if you trust the maintainers, the logo, the package manager, the website, the distro name and everything else. You just choose what is important to you based on your taste and preference and choose the distro that aligns with that taste. Which distro you choose doesn’t matter at all, just pick the one you want to. If the most important thing to you is the colour pink, pick one that uses pink.
No, choosing a distribution is not like choosing a color. First there is compatibility. Some hardware work better than others or are better supported. Then you also put “trust” into personal taste, which is not just a taste, but a fundamental design decision that has nothing to do with taste. I wouldn’t recommend a newcomer who does not know how Linux works and does not have time to workout how to install and maintain Archlinux. In example my grandma. Or someone who just want to game on it like a console.
I don’t care how you name these points, the fact is, that choice of distribution is very important and matters a lot.
If you say so. But I disagree.
So you say my personal preference and taste does not matter?
The point is, the amount of time and effort it takes to tune any distro to your personal preference.
There are distros that fit your needs out of the box and there are distros that need hours of setting up and tuning to fit them.
There are distros that fit your needs out of the box and there are distros that need hours of setting up and tuning to fit them.
And that exactly is the reason why the distribution matters.
You can’t turn any distro into another, and nobody is saying that. For example, you can’t take NixOS and turn it into Arch. You can use Nix on Arch, though.
I think a lot of this is misunderstanding what distros are. Think of it in terms of cars. A Ford Focus and Ford Fiesta are different cars. But how different? They use the same engine, but they have different radios. You can swap parts, but at no point does that make either of them a truck.
For a lot of distros its much simpler though:
What is the different between Kali Linux distro and Debian Linux distro? Is the engine under the hood the same? Yes. Is the package management the same? Yes. Can you add the Kali repos to the package management of Debian? Yes (it’s called a “Frankendebian”). Can you swap kernels between them? Yes
So, whereas NixOS and Arch can’t be turned into each other, if you have two distros who are just using different “car radios”, is there really a difference?
But you can. It’s not my argumentation, but the argumentation is, that you have access to any part of the system and can change everything. What is the reason that you cannot turn NixOS into Arch? Note, I am not the one claiming this and I don’t even know if this is true. I just don’t have the answer to it why this isn’t possible.
the argumentation is, that you have access to any part of the system and can change everything. What is the reason that you cannot turn NixOS into Arch?
Because you don’t have access to any part of the system. Again, nobody is saying you can change everything. NixOS is immutable meaning that is locked down read-only and only the Nix daemon has access to write. It’s a matter of declarative vs imperative configuration schema. It’s how vs what. In NixOS, you tell the system what you want done. In Arch, you tell the system how to do it.
So, you can’t change any distro into any other distro, but the likelihood of two distros having any meaningful difference is low to the point of being pointless to ask.
As another user already stated, the main reason distros don’t matter is analysis paralysis. Most of the users asking for thoughts between distros are effectively asking which of two duplicates is better. Say you’ve narrowed the distros you want to use to Debian and Kali, what is the difference between them if you just want to play games? There isn’t one. You can run proton on Kali just as easy as Debian (you’d even be hitting the same repo likely).
Because you don’t have access to any part of the system. Again, nobody is saying you can change everything.
But you have! And as said, there are people saying exactly that. BTW I actually understand the difference between NixOS and Arch. I mean you can actually change anything on NixOS and slowly transform it into a regular distribution without what it makes to be a Nix system. I mean if you have root rights on the system, then you could remove what it makes a NixOS and install a different package manager, set it sources up from Arch repositories in example and so fort.
I don’t know if everything can be done like that, but theoretically there is no limit in access to any file and data on a Linux distribution. If you have root access. In example, what in particular cannot be changed in NixOS?
Ok, this is getting into macro scale now. They use entirely different filesystems, boot sequences, package databases, and low-level C libraries. So, in that car analogy what you are describing would effectively be changing out 1 or a few parts at a time and iterating over that until no original part exists and then saying you turned a car into a truck because you kept the car radio the same.
Maybe this is a matter of perspective, but at that point I would say you didn’t turn a car into a truck, you just built a truck.
EDIT: I would say most people’s constraint on being able / not able to convert distros is “within reason”. Without that, we might as well just talk about kernel versions because that’s ultimately what Linux is not the DEs and package managers and etc,etc.
To your original point that you can’t turn one distro into another (which you seem to now disagree with), you can but not always “within reason”.
Yes, that’s the argument its being made.
I’m NOT (edit: forgot the NOT, lol) the one claiming that, just reiterating whats being said. Because I don’t know and want to find it out with discussions. I think it is ridiculous, and don’t think anyone should do that. But technically it can be done, seemingly.
I’ve been thinking more and more about this (the NixOS to Arch) and comments saying “that should be easy”.
Dynamic linking creates a catch 22 to all of this.
You have to do the majority of steps live and can’t reboot. NixOS doesn’t follow FHS, but Arch bootstrapping requires that. If you force-create those directories and try to bootstrap Arch over a live NixOS instance, the binaries you compile will instantly break because they won’t be able to find the dynamic linker (ld-linux) or standard C libraries (glibc) in the locations they expect.
At some point you are going to be using Nix’s development tools to build out pacman. To get around the previous issues you would drop to a nix-shell to build the environment (which is one really good use of NixOS in general), but then you’d segfault as soon as you tried to use it outside the environment.
Even with the pacman binary present as soon as you rug pull glibc from memory, since pacman is needing the host’s instance of that, you’d have a kernel panic.
I was never this specific, but this kind of thought process is what I always had and countered with. I don’t think there is evidence this can be done to a degree, to be able to say that the distribution doesn’t matter. I don’t buy that, just to be clear. Maybe people claiming this are thinking of similar distributions, like Ubuntu to Debian and never had atomic distributions in mind or something wacky as NixOS.
Out of all the distros, NixOS would actually be the easiest to convert to Arch or some other distro. Other than /etc, it doesn’t use the standard FHS paths so you’re free to use some other package manager to install whatever you want under /bin, /lib, /usr, et cetera.
Yes, I would also like to know, if anyone’s feeling like answering
So which one can I use for gaming? Which one can I use for development?
There are differences but they’re generally in user-space and not what most newbies think. Things like installers, package management, etc. But “generally speaking” all distros are capable of doing what the others can do. They just do it in different ways.
You’ve basically got categories.
- The mainstreams: Debian-like, RedHat-like, SuSe, Gentoo, etc.
- The Immutables
- “Specialty”: Kali, Raspbian, etc.
There are different philosophies on stability vs. being up-to-date, security, etc. But the same software and drivers are available for all of them “generally speaking”.
Edit: I’ll add that the biggest mistake most people make is distro-hoping. People will have trouble with something like “getting a printer to work” and just start installing new distros until one works. To learn something you need to spend time with it and fix things
Edit 2: I’ll also add that choice of distro matters less for experienced users since you realize that it’s mostly just about preference.
To your first edit, having been a user since 2010, I’ve tried it both ways and sometimes just giving in to a new distribution is easier than spending a week or more combing forums and getting ghosted while your display resolution is broken.
When it comes down to it, unless you’re using Linux as a hobby, I say distro hop away until something clicks in your first few months. When you finally get your hooks into one you feel you understand, that’s when you start putting the effort into perfecting it.
I mostly agree with this. The reason I stick with arch has nothing to do with finding it technically superior or more convenient to use than other distros. There is almost no way I would be using arch if their wiki wasn’t leaps and bounds more helpful than other distros’ documentation. Some other distros can meet my needs just as well or better, but arch’s documentation allows for a more straightforward learning process through tinkering.
I do think repository differences can potentially matter a lot. I have a lot of respect for hyperbola being ultra-hardline in removing proprietary packages and any hint of uncertainty in licensing, but the fact that that kills off texlive makes it untenable for me to use. Keeping manual installs up-to-date is a hassle, so I can definitely understand someone limiting themselves to distros supporting a certain set of packages.
The difference of distro is like the differences in a model of any item of the same make. This shovel might have that serated edge you like, but I like mine to have the kickstand for, camping.
Why have you not done a basic search to understand the objectives of the various distros and posiilities, before posing these questions?
OP does understand that. They’re rhetorical questions.
