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.

  • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    7 hours ago

    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.

    • otacon239@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.

    • Christian@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.