
Try Linux - freddyym
https://www.trylinux.today/
======
Ingon
I think too many distributions is part of the problem. Especially starting
out, you don’t really know/understand what the difference is between each
other. You just want something that works for your case and skill level.

I wouldn’t put all these options together, but rather focus on a few
distributions that are easy to setup and work well. If we want ppl to move to
linux, we should focus on them. Present them with a few options that work
really well, with guides on how to start up coming from windows/mac and
solving their problems. Just presenting a list of options doesn’t make the
decision easier.

Personally, I’m using Pop_OS! because its easy to setup, works well on
laptops, gets out of your way, and its more or less Ubuntu underneath, so its
much easier to find software and help for it. But the distribution that really
converted me over was Manjaro

~~~
Nextgrid
Too many distributions is also part of a bigger problem and why there will
never be a "year of the Linux desktop". We are looking at insane amounts of
developer & administrative resources being wasted by every doing mostly the
same thing in a slightly different way. Imagine the progress that could be
made if all of this workforce was actually united and was working on _one_ (or
a handful, think server/workstation/tablet editions) good distribution.

~~~
jaredklewis
This is one of the core points of the "Linux Sucks" series of presentations
[1]. If you haven't seen any of them, I think a TLDR might be "technology is
not holding the linux desktop back; lack of cooperation and other social
issues are". And though slightly different and about about a separate domain,
I think "The Lisp Curse" [2] has a similar thesis as to why lisp is not
mainstream.

The linux kernel is a huge success because there is exactly one kernel and its
monolithic architecture ensures that the only way to accomplish anything is to
cooperate with everyone else so you can get your thing added in. If you want
to do your own thing, that's fine, but it will never be a part of linux.

If the linux kernel had a micro kernel design, with different competing
projects for the different layers of the kernel, the linux kernel would not be
the success it is today. It would be a niche tool, like the linux desktop. In
linux userland, the plethora of distributions, GUI toolkits, desktop
environments, init systems, applications and so on ensures that none of the
projects can ever succeed.

1\.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKwWPQ1Orzs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKwWPQ1Orzs)

2\.
[http://winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Lisp_Curse.html](http://winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Lisp_Curse.html)

------
sfifs
After being Linux exclusive on my personal laptop(s) for over a decade, I just
went back to Windows + WSL 2.

With WSL 2, there's very little reason to use Linux desktop any more. The
windows cleartype, touchpad driver and sleep work a lot better while giving
you a regular Linux environment and you don't have to dual boot to get Office
and creative software

~~~
q3k
> With WSL 2, there's very little reason to use Linux desktop any more.

My personal reasons to stick to Linux:

\- my DE is fully keyboard-driven (Windows is mouse-centric to be point of
being unusable to me)

\- better support for complex networking (NAT, multiple route
tables/VRFs/netnses, etc - just last week I had to run my entire network
uplink through USB tethering, which was a breeze on Linux)

\- system update when I want it, zero system-mandated reboots

\- easy debuggability of software failures (Windows, when fails, is a black
box and your only option to fix things is to enter black magic commands from
random forum threads - without possibility of actually understanding what
failed, looking at source code, etc)

\- no feeling of always fighting against malicious, privacy-disrespecting
software (it's not that I can't disable ads and tracking, but I really don't
want to have to do that)

~~~
DarkWiiPlayer
> Windows is mouse-centric to be point of being unusable to me

I find that very relateable. I have gotten used to doing everything with my
keyboard and windows just doesn't allow that to the same extent.

~~~
bootlooped
Can you give some examples? I've found it to be pretty good with the basic
stuff like switching applications or workspaces, snapping windows to the left
or right half of the screen, opening and closing arbitrary things. I can think
of some ways I'd like it to be better though, like making the left/right
halves arbitrary sizes with the keyboard.

~~~
DarkWiiPlayer
I have yet to figure out how I can quickly move one window to another
workspace in windows. Under mint, I just do Ctrl+Alt+Sfit+H/L to move a window
to the previous or next workspace. I also have Windows+T mapped to open a
terminal, which I do everything in these days.

~~~
masonic
ALT-TAB doesn't do what you want?

------
jamescun
I've personally switched to using Ubuntu 20.04 on my desktop, and honestly the
switch has been uninteresting - which is a good thing. Works perfectly as a
software engineering environment.

I know it has been controversial in the Linux community and among long-term
Ubuntu users, but Snaps are what made my switch relatively painless.
Everything I need on my daily driver (Firefox, VSCode, Slack, Spotify...) is
just there waiting for me. Don't need to fuss around with a package manager,
third-party repositories etc.

I am not completely Linux however, I still maintain my MacBook Pro for on-the-
go work and an iPad down-time/multimedia purposes.

------
isoprophlex
Interesting page but maybe overwhelming to newbies. How is a beginner going to
select a distribution from that huge list? choosing 'beginner' distros still
leaves you with a long list of options, and no other easy means of comparing
between them.

Let alone how to figure out which desktop environment to choose from...

~~~
webreac
IMHO a beginner has very few choicie. He should choose ubuntu. Fedora is about
as good as ubuntu for beginners, but it is more difficult to find other users
to get help. A beginner may choose fedora if he is using redhat at work and
could get some directions from IT staff. The variants of ubuntu introduce some
confusion and do not give much benefit in return. The other distributions do
not fit beginners (either lack of polish or lack of users or both).

~~~
DarkWiiPlayer
I think Mint is a better choice than ubuntu; out of the box it resembles
windows, with a menu button in the lower left corner and a window list in the
bottom.

------
schmudde
Well - all the options are part of the problem. I use Pop!_OS because it was
the balance between getting things done and spending hours tinkering with my
machine.

It's not that I don't enjoy it. It's just a question of where I need to be
spending my time.

~~~
anaphor
I've tried many different distros (Ubuntu, Arch, Fedora, OpenSUSE, etc) and I
actually find it much harder to get things done with Ubuntu or Debian than I
do Arch or other lightweight distros like Alpine. The reason is that I often
have to (or want to) do things that aren't supported by Debian or Ubuntu
because it either requires using very new versions of software or it requires
modifying a bunch of system configuration files. When you try to do that on
Debian/Ubuntu you'll quickly run into problems because you're doing something
outside what they expect you to do. Everything is hidden behind a big layer of
abstraction (like a maze of symlinks and custom patches, etc).

So, you may find things like Pop! easier to get things done with because
you're ok staying within the realm of what they support, but once you try to
do something outside that, I guarantee you will quickly get very frustrated.

~~~
DarkWiiPlayer
That's usually a slow transition though. I started out using linux mint a few
years ago and since then I've gotten annoyed more than once at the way things
are structured. What I've ended up with a "One box, two systems" aproach,
where I do most stuff "the ubuntu way", but compile certain software from
source and install it however I want it. The separation of `/usr` and
`/usr/local` that's already common on Linux makes this work very well.

------
secondo
_Unlike Windows and MacOS Linux gives you options_

I’d rather say Linux gives you choices. Choices that you have to make, rather
than options with (sensible) defaults. This is a big reason for why I’ve been
unable to switch from macos to Linux as a daily driver every time I’ve tried
in the past ten years.

Ironically, it’s simply too costly. Macos has been degrading over the past 6-7
years, but it’s still pretty good at standing out the way.

I’m gladly proven wrong if you can point at a path I’ve missed.

~~~
Koshkin
One of the “options“ is Ubuntu. Looks like a sensible “default” to me. Just
works. Stays out of your way.

~~~
outime
Until you upgrade the kernel and your wifi stops working. Or the desktop stops
loading and you have to spend time going through logs and googling what's
broken this time. Or when you plug it to a secondary screen and it freezes.
This happened when I was a desktop Linux user and this still happens (less
frequently nowadays though). I'm mainly talking about Ubuntu which is supposed
to be beginner-friendly and not some obscure distro.

When I was younger I was very happy to deal with these issues because I
learned a lot and probably made me the professional I am nowadays. Over time
however I realized much of this knowledge doesn't contribute to my day-to-day
work anymore and it's just an annoyance - I now want to turn on my laptop and
work right away.

~~~
enitihas
If you want to run linux, buy from a manufacturer with decent linux support.
In my experience, all my dell laptops worked seamlessly with linux. No driver
hackery required. WiFi never stopped working. However, HP seemed to have very
poor support for linux, and you need to install drivers for WiFi manually,
which need to be recompiled on each kernel upgrade.

------
bauerd
Don't understand why Debian would be listed as "Intermediate", while Ubuntu is
listed as "Beginner". IMHO lots of problems just vanish once you switch from
Ubuntu to Debian …

~~~
barrkel
Except for the problem of out of date software... :)

~~~
kc0bfv
Maybe on Stable. Sometimes. Not so much on Testing.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
One is forced to wonder why they must choose between "stable" and "up to date"
at an OS level.

~~~
ohyeshedid
For the same reasons that production, staging, and dev environments are
standard.

~~~
AnIdiotOnTheNet
Outside of Linux Desktop, the operating system and applications are considered
separate beasts, so you're able to have a stable OS and a mix of stable/up-to-
date applications as you see fit.

The package manager/distro model that Linux employs only ever seems to give
you the choice of one or the other, because it doesn't have a clear
differentiation between "OS" and "application".

------
nogabebop23
>> While it may seem overwhelming to see all your OS options on Linux, you may
instead find it comforting

This is probably less common on HN, but I already have so many technology
decisions to make, I don't really want to continually experiment with my OS. I
just want it to disappear into the background, not be the star (or even really
a conscious thought)

EDIT: huh, I added this comment when I saw no others, but it turns out my
reaction isn't too uncommon, considering the audience here.

Too clarify, there are lots of situations where the OS should be a real first
class concern, I'm just not convinced we'll ever get much traction at the
general user PC level.

~~~
Krasnol
It's not only you.

I wonder what the target group for this page is. Obviously not the main mass
of people who use Windows today because if they'd be forced to chose, they'd
probably take the first on the top left. If they won't be forced, they'd leave
the page right away because it doesn't say why they SHOULD change.

The rest of people probably knows already about linux and don't get any
relevant information from this...

------
lmilcin
Once you get bored with a regular distribution you can go and try Linux from
Scratch.

Me, personally, this was the tool that really introduced me to Linux OS.
Understanding how everything is put together and how it bootstraps will make
you a better user of whatever distro you choose in the end. (No, don't use LFS
on your workstation.)

~~~
m463
I enjoy arch for the same reasons, but I am not familiar with Linux from
Scratch.

you say not to use it on your workstation -- is it more of an tutorial than a
distro?

~~~
Nextgrid
LFS wouldn't have a package manager (as far as I know) so it would be an
insane amount of effort to keep all the software up to date (by recompiling
everything manually).

Arch is actually a nice middle-ground. It's got a lot of learning potential
(you still build the system from scratch by installing everything manually and
creating the right files and mount points - there is no installer) but it's
not as tedious as LFS and can actually be usable day to day (spend years on
Arch before moving to proprietary OSes).

~~~
lmilcin
I would add that the last time I used LFS was almost 20 years ago. I don't
know if the procedure got more complex. From what I skimmed it looks
manageable (I guess that's the whole point).

The reason for not using LFS would actually be security. It is possible to
just install whatever you want and then use it for a long time (akin to LTS
Ubuntu distribution). But you still need to somehow notice there are critical
security updates and you definitely don't want to miss them.

Another reason is that distro developers create a huge amount of convenient
mechanisms and choices for the users.

As an example, getting software X to work might not be a problem, but getting
X to work along Y and Z when they might have conflicting dependencies might
already be a headache. Distro developers will ensure various dependencies are
tested and make sense together. If you install something on Gentoo (sorry, I
don't have experience with Arch) and it doesn't work, there is a good chance
it is possible to make it work and you can Google the solution. When you
install something on LFS and it doesn't work you are pretty much on your own.

------
DominikD
Kernel has been ready for prime time for ages now. It's the distros -
fragmentation and quality - that's still the problem.

------
guidovranken
What people don't seem to realize is that an increase of popularity of Linux
will lead to a tragedy of the commons situation. Desktop Linux currently is
mature enough to be usable for most everyday tasks, but has a small enough
market share to generally not fall prey to adware, spyware, malware,
telemetry, backdoors, EEE type strategies, closed source blobs creeping into
the ecosystem and so forth. As its market share increases, the more viable a
target it becomes for such things.

~~~
tmikaeld
Desktop Linux in general seem to have a very large amount of probable
vulnerabilities, but it also has a very large community of companies that
sponsor work and rely on it for servers.

Would be interesting to see how quickly an open back-door is fixed after it's
discovered. Is the maintainer available? If not, can the package be replaced?
Will it be vulnerable for months, years? So many uncertainties make me not
want to rely on Desktop Linux for sensitive work.

~~~
em-bee
from my past experience, faster than on windows or mac. the application
maintainers need not be available. the distribution maintainers can step in
and apply fixes to the versions they distribute.

if a 3rd party windows application has a security issue, good luck getting any
fixes.

------
apercu
So I tried the linux thing off and on for about 6 years. After sun os,
unixware, solaris, HP/UX, irix, bsd/freebsd, macOS, windows 3.1, 95, 98, NT
and so on.

The issue is every time I buy hardware (primarily laptops) there was a lot of
research in to the components and the quality.

I kept finding myself going back to OSX. It was just easier to in many many
ways.

But now OSX is bloated nagware.

------
haunter
I'd. Really. But every time there is a problem (and usually I have more
problems than under Windows or MacOS) I have to search forums and obscure
blogs for hours and tinkering in the terminal while praying to not break
something else too. Maybe I'm just too "casual" for the Linux experience.

~~~
ac29
It can be annoying to have to chase down help for Linux problems, but nothing
is worse than trying to Google issues with Windows. Recently I spent a couple
hours trying to figure out how to get Windows Firewall to log dropped packets,
and never did get it to work. On Linux, its a single command to the firewall
frontend I use, and documented clearly in the relatively concise
documentation.

------
new_realist
The problem is not enough people trying Linux. The problem is that it is not
compelling for non-geeks or non-free software activists. Mainstream users
don’t have problems that Linux solves. If anything, it adds problems.

------
otikik
Of all the Linux distros out there, the one that calls to me the most is
NixOS.

Do people use NixOS as their main OS? Does it have a "default desktop
flavour", like Ubuntu does? (the manual seems to suggest XFCE -
[https://nixos.org/nixos/manual/index.html#sec-
xfce](https://nixos.org/nixos/manual/index.html#sec-xfce))

~~~
ghancock
I do. When I installed it the default configuration had no desktop enabled but
had commented-out lines to enable KDE. I think it's best to think of it as not
having a default or preferred one, and you are instead required to pick one.

(I haven't tried everything, so I don't have firsthand knowledge that they all
work equally smoothly.)

~~~
otikik
That's good to know, thanks for answering.

> not having a default or preferred one, and you are instead required to pick
> one.

If you don't mind my asking: how well did NixOS work for you, as a desktop
environment, out of the box? Did you have to do annoying IT work when you
installed it (screen resolution, wifi, sound, maintenance mode...)? How often
do you need to fix issues like that?

~~~
ghancock
Nothing related to screen resolution. Wifi worked via the command-line tools
mentioned in the manual, or the KDE interface. Similar for other things. I
didn't stick with KDE--I switched to sway--so there were a number of things to
deal with because of that, but that won't matter if you do use one.

If you do encounter an issue it will be more work to deal with, because you
both have to figure out the underlying issue and then figure out how to fit
that into the Nix way of doing things.

The biggest factor is handling downloaded pre-built binaries that assume
various libraries will be in typical locations. Those generally require
patchelf and then they work fine. I would only recommend NixOS for now for
people who are willing to tinker a bit and learn how it works.

------
smitty1e
See your "advanced"; raise you
[http://linuxfromscratch.org/](http://linuxfromscratch.org/)

Which isn't a great idea for any business scenario, much less, personal
productivity context.

However, if you want to level up in your Linux-fu, it cannot be recommend
highly enough.

------
axegon_
openSUSE "intermediate"? Huh? I've been using openSUSE for the past ~5 years.
Sure enough, the repos are not as rich as the popular distros but everything
always works out of the box, including proprietary software(which can be a
nightmare even on mainstream distros).

~~~
cosarara
And YAST makes system administration easier than any other distro. I would
certainly set it as beginner.

------
livatlantis
Ah exactly what I was looking for — a quick summary of the specificities/main
features of each distribution. Thank you! I'm considering running one of these
in a VM to play with Linux again. The last time was elementary OS on a
Chromebook and I really enjoyed that.

------
TheGrassyKnoll
Don't be thinking there's only 30 of em:

    
    
      https://distrowatch.com/

------
maallooc
This website shows the exact reason I don't use Linux out of virtual machines.
In terms of desktop, there are so much whatever from whoever and they are all
broken horribly that it's not even a joke anymore.

Unlike Windows and MacOS Linux gives you options. That is the exact reason why
I don't use Linux in desktop.

------
simonblack
Cars and computers:

"You can have any color you like, so long as it's black." = "Too many
distributions"

But look outside. What do you see? One size and color of motor vehicle?
Definitely not. There are multiple brands of cars, there are multiple brands
of trucks. There are multiple body shapes, there are multiple different
seating capacities, there are multiple colors, there are multiple 'add-on'
options.

Somehow we never say "There are too many different cars available". Why not?

It's time we got over the denigration of Linux. It's time we got over putting
Linux on a pedestal.

Linux is Linux. Select what flavor you want.

Windows is Windows. Some people prefer it.

MacOS is MacOS. Some other people prefer that.

Who cares what other people want and use? As long as YOU are happy with what
_car_ you drive, or what _computer OS_ you drive, it's nobody's business but
yours. And it's no business of yours what the next guy chooses.

------
lazyjones
Desktop Linux will stay in the hobbyist domain forever if so much effort is
spent on polishing separate "options" i.e. Distributions, window managers etc.
when fixing the tools used by most users would be more important.

Are the differences between package managers and keeping them really so
important that it's not possible to do everyone a favour and agree on using
just the best one? Sure, it's nice to have "options" but as the decades fly
by, people seem to use that mostly as an excuse for still not having a user-
friendly desktop Linux.

~~~
ac29
> fixing the tools used by most users would be more important

This supposes that said tools are broken, which doesnt match my experience at
all. Sure, there are obscure bugs in all software, but major issues are rare.
If by fixing, you mean "I want tool A to be more like tool B", that's just a
matter of opinion, and I personally find the relative abundance of opinionated
software on Linux to be a benefit, not a hindrance.

> do everyone a favour and agree on using just the best one

Trying to decide on the "one best tool" and dumping the rest and is like
trying to pick the "one best programming language" and dumping the rest.

------
jamil7
Has anyone had success doing mobile development on linux? Thanks to XCode it
seems it's a no-go for a lot of mobile developers.

~~~
chopin
I do this for Android. Works like a charm.

------
bubblethink
linux evangalism is counter productive. In each of these threads, all the
mac/windows people will come out of the woodworks and talk about how if only
linux did xyz better, they would switch. Unfortunately, it doesn't, so they
can't. Nobody learns anything new. The cycle repeats even if xyz is solved
later with some new xyz. And in my experience, you cannot "convert" people to
linux except for people who really are a blank slate (young and old people fit
in this bucket, but average people do not). They have too much baggage, and
nobody wins. People need to discover their own things.

------
CtrlShiftI
Why is Debian intermediate and ubuntu beginner?

~~~
em-bee
because ubuntu provides a more polished desktop experience. as does fedora. at
least that was the case in the past. i using debian for decades on servers,
but haven't used it on desktops for a while now.

------
flyx86
This whole page is basically insulting the intelligence of users.

> It's about time you try Linux

implying that while you did have heard of Linux, you misjudged it.

> Unlike Windows and MacOS Linux gives you options

This is factually wrong, anyone knows that both Windows and macOS give you a
lot of options.

> The major operating systems put their users in a box, while Linux allows you
> to choose an OS that fits your needs and skill level.

implying that you can't run macOS or Windows by choice. No, obviously zombie
Steve Jobs forced you to buy a Mac for a lot of money.

> and "free" here refers not to the cost of the software but to its liberty—as
> no one entity owns the software it essentially belongs to everyone, without
> restriction

This is factually wrong but okay, copyright law is a complicated thing and it
wouldn't make much sense to discuss that here.

> So, in part, making the switch to Linux is an ethical decision about the
> software you use on a daily basis, and the rights you and others have to the
> information and things you use.

implying that if I choose to buy a software for money to support its
developers because I think they're doing a good job, this is somehow
unethical. Actually, there were no ethics discussed in the previous paragraph,
so this is a conclusion without foundation.

> Most open source operating systems are completely free both in price &
> licensing. There are typically no upfront fees, lengthy legal agreements, or
> restrictive copyright protections.

Um, did they ever see the GNU GPL?

> Free software is developed completely transparently which means the source
> code is out there in the open for anyone to look at. This means, if you
> wanted to, you can have a meaningful influence over the software development
> process.

That is not generally true. If you look for example at SQlite, you'll find
that while this is a piece of free software used by millions, they generally
don't accept patches or any other kind of influence.

> There are thousands of free software applications available to install
> without the need to browse the web. All this software undergoes scrutinous
> review before it reaches you, so you can find and use what you like with
> confidence.

implying that either non-free software isn't reviewed or that somehow I should
trust people I don't know that review free software, but not people I don't
know that review non-free software.

> With LibreOffice, you can also open and edit any Word, Powerpoint, or Excel
> files you may already have.

Anyone who ever tried opening a non-trivial Excel sheet with LibreOffice would
disagree on that.

> On other platforms, the creative field is dominated by proprietary
> applications, but there are several capable free and open source
> alternatives.

… which also run on Windows and macOS.

\---

There are a lot of good arguments you can make in favor for Linux. This page
totally botches it.

------
makach
_jokingly_

Oooh...! I _really_ want to... But Windows is getting so good! It is where I
have my fluff and stuff.

I use it serverside, is that ok? I also own a MacBook which I use frequently,
does that count a little?

~~~
nogabebop23
not sure if you're joking, but windows (IMO) did get better up until Win 7,
then took a couple of misteps and a big backwards step with win 10 trying to
tie all the loose concepts together into a single OS. It's really too bad we
couldn't have some of the under-the-hood improvements with a stripped back WIn
7 style UI and just leave it at that...

~~~
makach
I completely agree with you. There are issues with Windows. But it is not
terrible anymore.

I use windows as my desktop, it is convenient and pleasant. It works with my
games and plays well with my devices.

I have been borderline crossing over to Linux Desktop for many years, but the
user experience is not convincing me.

It is not that I haven't tried Linux on the Desktop, but only through
virtualization - there is always so much configuration I need to set up in
order to get up to a comfortable level, and then something changes or breaks.

I have a few headless Linux servers which is a joy to use and manage, but I do
that from my Windows or MacOS computer usually.

I love how Windows and MacOS is starting to become more and more similar,
makes synchronization of content and experiences much easier.

------
new_realist
I recommend trying OSes in this order:

\- iOS/iPadOS

\- Android

\- ChromeOS

\- MacOS

\- Windows

Only if none of these work would I recommend trying a Linux distribution. Even
then I’d try a more modern OS like Fuchsia or seL4 first, just for kicks.

