I have narrowed down my next desktop of choice to own of these distros of GNU+Linux.
inb4 arch
inb4 gentoo
so, which of these do you recommend the most, and why? if you had to delete arch or gentoo for some reason, which of these would you choose.
I just use Debian because I know how to keep it working. If I'm missing out on something, I'm certainly not aware of it.
Any of them will work fine. Although Manjaro is a joke and CentOS is not really a good choice for desktop
Fedora seems ideal for me, would anyone recommend it for someone relatively new to linux?
Debian.
Works out of the box, never had it crash, and I can run it on a dead badger if the badger was made after 1995.
>>55201874
that chart is bullshit
hardware support is the same for those
you can customize all the same way
debian experimental, or even unstable is more cutting edge than ubuntu, suse, mint(with is just a clone of debian or ubuntu)
that image is the most retarded thing ever
>>55201874
related pic isn't accurate. Installation point of debian should be higher. They provide graphical installation and neat package install manager as default.
Fedora isn't exactly cutting edge lmfao
>>55201874
Your flavor of Ubuntu, or Antergos if you want Cinnamon.
>>55201874
Arch installation should be lower
>>55202072
Only if you're a retard
>>55201874
OP Wellcome to the world of Linux. But the picture you posted is literally a meme.
Every distro can be tweaked for security, hardware support, desktop environments, customizability, latest packages and performance. Wiki could make a difference but you can always refer to Arch Wiki for referrence.
>>55201924
running it rn, i could easily recommend it to a new user such as yourself im assuming. easy to use gnome 3, not bloated and very stable experience even though its "unstable" redhat
>>55201986
yeah it is. its the testing of red hat
>>55201874
How does Ubuntu not have the easiest installation?
>>55201874
who made this nonsense chart, you just hit enter a bunch of times to install debian
>>55202303
More or less the same for OpenSUSE too...That chart is fucking terrible.
>>55201874
how can mint have more hardware support than debian and less than ubuntu ?
mint is literally either a debian or a ubuntu clone
and debian experimental should be about as cutting edge as arch
and what does desktop even mean ? desktop environment ? they all support the same DEs
>>55201874
>Low community/docs for Arch
I bet you use the Arch wiki all the time you ungrateful fuck.
I like ubuntu because it has so much software support. I can try out all the hip webdev tech I want without worrying about compatibility. Also just werks.
I run Lubuntu on my 5 year old netbook and am continually impressed by its viability.
>>55202262
Okay, thanks kind anon!
>>55202446
oh yes because some javafuck garbage with a sciencey sounding name will only work on ubuntu and fail with an "ENOSYSTEMNOTHIPENOUGH" if you try and compile it on anything else, unless it's a minimal arch install you set up from scratch, no wiki reading, and no floating WMs or GUI anything.
>>55201874
Manjaro is pretty comfy.
But you should just download an ISO of all of them and live boot them all to figure out which one you like the most.
>>55201954
>hardware support is the same for those
nope.
>>55201981
this, my nephew installed debian it fine, I think he's 14 or something
>>55201874
Ubuntu's security should be lower since they support a small selection of packages, contrarily to debian.
How do Fedora, Mint, and Ubuntu have different values for installation?
They're basically the same shit when it comes to installing them.
If you are an intermediate/advanced user, pick Debian.
If you are a hobbyist, pick Arch.
If you are a beginner or if you are an intermediate/advanced user who wants a good out-of-box experience, pick Fedora/Mint/OpenSUSE/Ubuntu. I'd recommend Ubuntu or Mint if you are a beginner, since you can easily search for solutions to problems for Ubuntu-based distros.
>>55201874
The guy who made that infographic has no idea what's going on.
Just as example:
>Mint: High security
How? They literally block the system from kernel updated so it doesn't break.
>Debian: Not cutting edge
Ever heard of Sid?
how the can't manjaro xfce into apt-get but xubuntu can use apt-get just fine?
>>55208520
Manjaro uses pacman, not apt-get.
>>55201874
Where did you get this OP?
All of these all wrong.
Ubuntu+linux mint ARE Debian.
And debian installation is one of the easiest things, it installs like all others weeb distro minus the complimentary applications and non-free drivers.
>>55209270
The installers are completely different. For example, the ubuntu installer's partman cannot undo lvm partition information and the install process will crash if you have a separate partition for /home. Meanwhile, the debian installer even has a preset for a separate /home, nevermind the fact it doesn't have the other bugs.
On the other hand, the ubuntu CD has non-free firmware and an option to install them, while you have to manually add the firmware on another usb stick and manually mount that stick during install for debian because there's a bug where the stick isn't being mounted for most people.
>>55209407
>the install process will crash if you have a separate partition for /home
I'm pretty sure I installed Ubuntu once with a separate home partition.
Fedora is pretty good for a simple linux. Featureset is nice, stability is nice, and they decently enough experiment with it without it being overtly unstable.
I use suse tumbleweed since I liked some of the suse default toolset more and am personally ambivalent on fedora for my computer. I have a gobo vm that might get imaged onto a laptop or something, but it is a bit of a pita distro so don't use it for general stuff.
>>55209897
Years ago, sure. Today, no way.
>>55209985
It wasn't that long ago, only like 6-8 months
>>55209974
>fedora
>stability
Tip one.
Fedora since it's red hat and most companies would want you to have red hat linux experience.
Currently running scientific linux which is a derivative of fedora.
