Configuration:

OS: Android (GrapheneOS);
Launcher: Kvaesitso (Available on F-Droid Izzy-repo);
Theme: Light theme prefered;
Wallpaper: Shot by myself, but I can share it if anyone wants it;
Icons: Arcticons Material You

---

Images:

Landing page:

Widget bar (when scrolled down):

App menu:

Dark mode:

I made this post mainly as discussion and suggestion for mods and posting people.

---

Browsing through this community (and before that, r/unixporn or r/usabilityporn on Reddit) feels a bit like wandering through a shopping catalogue. Sadly, a bad organised one.

Sometimes, I just enjoy looking at the awesome configs of other users and see what some WMs or DEs (or, to be more precise, their users!) are capable of, without any intentions to replicate it.
It's more of a "Oh, that looks neat, take my upvote!", but not much more. Similar to an art gallery.

---

And sometimes, I use it to find some inspiration and to recreate/ apply it on my setup.
In that regard, I always have a hard time sorting out or finding the right stuff.

Say, for example, if I want a good looking KDE setup, and I search for "Light mode", "Minimalist", "Elegant", or some other term, individually, I get random stuff like an anime hyprland configuration or someone posting their Cinnamon setup, because it had above keyword in the title. Meanwhile, the exact thing I searched for is named "Here's my comfy KDE style" and isn't listed in my results.
On Reddit, it was just as bad. And it's not because of the search capability, it's because of missing information.

If I search for all keywords together, I of course don't find anything because it's too restricted.

A question mainly for the mods: For future search accessibility, what do you think about making a rule (or, at least suggestion) to include category key words (for example "Hyprland, neon, anime, modern, dark mode, minimalist") aswell as the exact things used (icon theme, dotfiles, etc.) in the description?

In that way, we maybe could make an automated website/ category catalogue where we can filter and search better, where we can search hierarchically, e.g. "Desktop Environments > Plasma > Light mode > Modern" and see all posts linked there.

Another idea would be to link them in the sidebar, e.g. "List of Light KDE themes" or "Captppucin window managers".

---

What do you think of that?

I've always been a Gnome fanboy and couldn't imagine using something else.

I've dabbled into KDE every few months (by rebasing from Silverblue to Kinoite for example) and I've always switched back after a few weeks.

I always wished I liked KDE, because it's more powerful, but there always were show stoppers. Inconsistencies, bugs and crashes, too many options, cluttered UI, and more. My main argument to dislike it was that KDE tried to do everything all at once, but fails everywhere because nothing is polished and only 90% there.

Gnome on the other hand was simple and just worked, because every feature has been worked on thoroughly and integrated perfectly.
Still, there are just a few things I dislike on Gnome, especially the core problem of "sleeping" devs who decide against implementing stuff like fractional scaling or a good app tray.
The lack of modularity in Nautilus is also hugely annoying, especially when working with RAW pictures, where you don't see a picture. I had to install a photo viewer that is basically a second file manager just because of that. Dolphin does that out of the box.

Still, Gnome felt like the lesser evil for me.

---

This has changed now!

I rebased to the newest F40 beta (including KDE 6) and WOW!

Everything feels so polished and reworked. I have the feeling, on Plasma 5 were a lot of innovations and new features, but they were just thrown into the room incoherently.
Now, those have been reorganized and finished.

• The design language is almost the same, but cleaned up and less cluttered,
• I don't feel the need to change my themes, only the accent colour and the GTK theme. Breeze looks very mature and good now.
• The gestures are pretty much on par with Gnome, which means A LOT.
• It works pretty reliable, even though it's a beta and I will report bugs if I can.
• Future stability should also be better now, due to the bundles release schedule like on Gnome. Devs had a hard time with that in the past, and I think many bugs were caused by that. Now, Plasma might ship as the default DE for some distros.
• The settings are way more legible now and everything is easier to find.
• I also liked KRunner more than Gnome's search and Dolphin is way better/ capable anyway.
• And much more!

---

To the developers, you did a fucking great job! Keep going!
KDE feels SO professional now and finally reached its potential in my eyes. The last days have been very pleasant and I can't wait to rebase my devices to the stable release in 1-2 months!

That's a question I always asked myself.
Currently, I'm running Debian on both my servers, but I consider switching to Fedora Atomic Core (CoreOS), since I already use Fedora Atomic on my desktop and feel very comfortable with it.

There's always the mentality of using a "stable" host OS bein better due to following reasons:

• Things not changing means less maintenance, and nothing will break compatibility all of the sudden.
• Less chance to break.
• Services are up to date anyway, since they are usually containerized (e.g. Docker).
• And, for Debian especially, there's one of the biggest availability of services and documentation, since it's THE server OS.

My question is, how much of these pro-arguments will I loose when I switch to something less stable (more regular updates), in my case, Fedora Atomic?

---

My pro-arguments in general for it would be:

• The host OS image is very minimal, and I think most core packages should be running very reliably. And, in the worst case, if something breaks, I can always roll back. Even the, in comparison to the server image, "bloated" desktop OS (Silverblue) had been running extremely reliably and pretty much bug free in the past.
• I can always use Podman/ Toolbx for example for running services that were made for Debian, and for everything else there's Docker and more. So, the software availability shouldn't be an issue.
• I feel relatively comfortable using containers, and think especially the security benefits sound promising.

Cons:

• I don't have much experience. Everything I do related to my servers, e.g. getting a new service running, troubleshooting, etc., is hard for me.
• Because of that, I often don't have "workarounds" (e.g. using Toolbx instead of installing something on the host directly) in my mind, due to the lack of experience.
• Distros other than Debian and some others aren't the standard, and therefore, documentation and availability isn't as good.
• Containerization adds another layer of abstraction. For example, if my webcam doesn't work, is it because of a missing driver, Docker, the service, the cable not being plugged in, or something entirely different? Troubleshooting would get harder that way.

---

On my "proper" server I mainly use Nextcloud, installed as Docker image.
My Raspberry Pi on the other hand is only used as print server, running Octoprint for my 3D-printer. I have installed Octoprint there in the form of Octopi, which is a Raspian fork distro where Octoprint is pre-installed, which is the recommended way.

With my "proper" server, I'm not really unhappy with Debian. It works and the server is running 24/7. I don't plan to change it for the time being.

Regarding the Raspi especially, it looks quite a bit different. I think I will just try it and see if I like it.

Why?

• It is running only rarely. Most of the time, the device is powered off. I only power it on a few times per month when I want to print something. This is actually pretty good, since the OS needs to reboot to apply updates, and it updates itself automatically, so I don't have to SSH into it from time to time, reducing maintenence.
• And, last but not least, I've lost my password. I can't log in anymore and am not able to update anymore, so I have to reinstall anyway.

---

What is your opinion about that?

Probably a dumb question, but I have to report pretty much the same post (some website-link + some mentioned usernames, but always sent from different instances) multiple times a day.

The weird thing is, that this happens only here in this community, and not in any else I have subscribed to.

Is this some targeted attack, because due to the self hosting, we're a more valuable victims, or is it just due to time shift because the mods are in a different time zone and asleep when we report the posts?

I think the latter one isn't the case, since there are many active moderators here :)

Is there something we can do about it?

Hey all! Yesterday, I've made following post: How to choose your first distro - A guide for beginners (flowchart + text post) and need some input and critique from you.

One thing I got asked a hell lot is why I didn't recommend Debian (and by some extend, Ubuntu) all that much.
While I included Debian in the list too, I had my reasons to recommend Mint, Zorin, and some other Debian-/ Ubuntu based distros above the OG Debian.

Ubuntu

My decision to exclude Ubuntu didn't meet that much of a big resistance, probably because said decision wasn't as controverse.

Reasons, copied from the post:

It used to be good and paved the way of today’s Linux desktop world, but nowadays, the Corporation behind it, Canonical, decided to shit on its user base.

• Once, they decided to make advertisements for Amazon a few years ago, which they’ve reverted
• They now make ads in the terminal for “Ubuntu Pro”
• And, mostly, they force their own and highly controversial package format (Snaps) onto users. You almost can’t get around them, even if you actively decide for it. While Snaps became better in the last years, they still bring a lot of trouble. Just, for example, think of Valve when they officially recommended everyone to not use the fricking Snap package because it’s broken all the time? Good luck doing that with Ubuntu, when they shove Snaps down everyones’ throat, without even notifying the user. While we more experienced users just change the package format, newcomers aren’t aware of that and blame a malfunctioning app to Linux, not the Snap.

I just don’t see any reasons to recommend Ubuntu over something like Mint or even Debian. Both are pretty much the same (same command compatibility with apt, documentation also applies to them, etc.), but just better in any aspect.

Also,

Fedora is often considered “the new Ubuntu” [...]

if you want something similar in terms of release schedule and more, but more sane.

Debian

For Debian, I think I might edit the post and include it more prominent too.

With the newest release, it got some very well thought out defaults, like Flatpak support, a more polished DE (Gnome, KDE, etc.) experience and more. It used to be a "server only"-distro in my eyes, but now, it is actually viable for desktop use, if you like stability (in terms of staleness/ changes).

My reasons to not include it originally were following:

• ~~The installer sucks:~~ It looks outdated/ ugly, and has bad/ unintuitive defaults, making the installation process way more complicated than it needs to be -> I gladly got corrected, and I think I'm just too dumb for that one. It seems to be more straight forward than I had it in my mind.
• Too lean: For more experienced users, who already know what they want, the relatively minimalist base without any "bloat" (office software, etc.) is great, but I think including said stuff in beginner distros (e.g. by a checklist post-install, or just straight ootb) is a good thing.
• Missing first steps: Zorin or Mint have a welcome wizard that guides new users through the OS, showing them how to install new apps, change settings, and more. TuxedoOS for example was specifically designed by a hardware company that wants every user, who never installed Linux themself, get a good first impression and being capable to use the laptop out-of-the-box. Debian misses that imo.
• Flatpaks not being the default app installation method, resulting in very old software.
• Too old OS in general: I think most DEs in particular have already found their direction, and won't change radically in the future (e.g. Gnome 2 to Gnome 3), they only get polished and improved. By using 3 year old DE variants, you'll miss a hell lot of performance and usability improvements in my opinion, and something like Fedora is better suited for desktop use, as it's still reliable, but more modern.
• Does everything too well: Debian has every DE and a hell lot of good arguments to use. When I put "use Debian" on every arrow, it gets recommended proportionally too often, and overshadows something like Mint.
• Stability is NOT reliability!: While Debian is one of the most stable distros out there, in terms of release cycle, it isn't more reliable because of that. If you mess up your system, there are no recommended-by-default safety measures, like there are on Mint (Timeshift backup) or Suse (Snapper rollback). For me, it is in some regards very comparable to Arch, just that's frozen in time for 3 years.

Now, I would like to hear your opinion and reasons why I might be wrong.
Do you think Debian should be put more into focus, and if yes, why?
How has your experience been, especially if you started using Linux just recently?

geteilt von: https://feddit.de/post/9087676

So, you're new to Linux? Welcome to our community!

You probably ask yourself

"Where should I start?"

and feel a bit overwhelmed right now.

In this guide, I will show you how to choose your first Linux distro.

This is part of my "New to Linux?"-series, where I will guide you through your first weeks.

---

TL;DR: If you don't care about this at all, just go for Linux Mint.

---

As you've probably already heard, "Linux" isn't just an operating system by itself, it's just the engine of it.
You need stuff built around that to get a working desktop. That "stuff" is packaged and distributed, hence the name "distro" (distribution).
Everyone can package this stuff themselfes and make their own operating system.
There are literally hundreds or thousands of different Linux-based OSs out there, and as a newcomer, this choice can be very overwhelming.

This is why you've already came here and asked for advice.
Don't worry, we've all been there!

You can find the "right" one for you if you follow the flow chart.
The flow chart is complementary to the text here. The diagram is for the choice, while the text is more for general information about each distro.

Every distro of the following recommended ones meets all of these criteria:

• Easy to understand and intuitive to use
• You don't have to use the command line
• Works reliable
• Supports Nvidia-GPUs

---

Choosing the DE

Before you choose your distro, you should choose your prefered desktop environment (DE).
The DE is what defines the user interface and some core apps, so, basically, what you interact with.
Don't mainly choose the distro because of its' DE, you can change that later too if you really want.

The two main DEs (Gnome and KDE) are listed in the flow chart.

KDE

• is very modular and configurable, you can turn it into whatever you want.
• has pretty much everything you can imagine already built in

Gnome

• Is more opinionated, but if you don't like its' unique workflow, you can turn it into a "classic" desktop with minimize/ maximize buttons, task bar, and more, too.
• You can use the Extension manager/ Gnome Tweaks for doing that or getting other functionalities like smartphone integration for example.

If you like certain aspects of one, but others from the "competitor", you can more or less turn one into the other. You have maximum freedom!

#Differences between distros

**Choose your distro based on the following key points: **

• Release schedule: Some get new features very often, some only once a few years. We refer this as stagnation as "stability" (not to conflict with reliability!)
• Philosophy: What are key values of the distro? (e.g. just providing a well functioning set of software, no matter if it's proprietary; conservative vs. innovative; etc.)
• Base: Many distros are based on other ones. A very common base is Debian or Ubuntu, where many newcomer-guides are based on. It mainly determines what package manager you use in the command line. I personally think that's not as important, since you will use the Software Center anyway most of the time to download apps and updates.
• All other things, like big community, good track record, hardware support, etc., were already taken care of by me.

---

---

So, here's the list of every distro shown in the flow chart, with a short description on why it is included.

Linux Mint

It's THE recommendation for every newcomer, no matter where you look. Not without reason:

• Very sane defaults
• Works, just out-of-the-box
• Not too many, but just the right amount of pre-installed apps to get in touch with the Linux app ecosystem
• Simple, yet highly functional
• Hides all "advanced" features in a reasonable way
• Huge userbase, especially for beginners. More experienced users still use Mint, and are always there to help newcomers.
• Doesn't change much, only gets more polished. New features arrive occasionally, but they usually don't change your workflow radically.
• Feels very familiar when you came from Windows, which most people do.

Website: https://www.linuxmint.com/

ZorinOS

It is the main "competitor" of Mint right now.
The big difference between Mint and it is how the desktop looks. While Mint is more old-fashioned in how it looks, Zorin wants to be an eye pleaser by looking more modern. With it, you can choose between different "styles", that mimic the looks of Windows 7, Windows 11, MacOS, and more, depending on what you feel the most comfortable with.
It has a slow release schedule of ~3 years, with some minor polishes in between, which is great if you don't like change.

Don't worry about the "Pro" and "Light" versions. This is not like a freeware app with ads and stuff.

• "Pro" refers to the paid version, that only differs in some extra styles you can choose from. With the payment you get some extra tech assistance and support the developers.
• "Light" is a lightweight version, that is made for old devices to give them a second life and make them perform better than before, while still looking good.

Website: https://zorin.com/os/

VanillaOS

This one is also very promising. It has the same philosophy as Mint, but implements it differently.
It works a bit different under the hood and ensures an always working system you can't brick. If you still fucked up something, or got a bad update somehow, you can just roll back in seconds.
It also updates itself in the background and applies the updates without the user noticing on the next reboot, without any waiting time (unlike the forced Windows updates).

If you become more advanced and experienced over time, you can turn to the terminal and have access to literally any app that was ever made for Linux. Especially if you start using Linux as developer, this is very handy.
Even if you aren't a developer, no, even if you aren't techy at all, VanillaOS is a very good choice if you prefer the simplicity and ease of use of Mint, but want something more modern!

Website: https://vanillaos.org/

[Disclaimer: The new release, VanillaOS 2 Orchid, is currently under very high developement and still in beta. Consider waiting until the new version is officially released for a garanteed smooth experience.]

Fedora

This one is not exactly (but comparably) as beginner oriented as the above are, but still, a very good choice for new users. Fedora is often considered "the new Ubuntu", and is one of the most used distros out there with a gigantic community.
It is community-owned, but supported by the money and development power of the biggest player in the commercial Linux world.

Features:

• Comes with any major DE you want + huge software availability
• Balanced desktop release schedule of 6 months. This ensures both a modern and reliable desktop system
• Everything is pretty vanilla (no theming, etc.) and has very sane defaults
• No big collection of pre-installed software (e.g. Office), bit it is installable with one click in the software center.
• Future-oriented: as soon as a new promising technology is reliable enough, it will adopt it.

Website:
https://fedoraproject.org/
https://fedoraproject.org/workstation/
https://fedoraproject.org/spins/kde/

Fedora Atomic

Fedora Atomic is a variant of Fedora that works different under the hood, while behaving the same on the surface as the regular Fedora does. I don't want to get too technical here, but the pros are the same as the ones from VanillaOS (unbrickable, better security, no half applied updates, etc.).

I'm not sure if I would recommend it over the normal Fedora right now, as due to the other inner workings, you might have the chance to encounter issues when trying to get things working, e.g. an install script you found online.
If you are leaning bit more towards a tech-savy-person and have no problem searching a small thing here and there (only when you need non-ordinary stuff), then definitely check it out. Especially if you already came from another distro and feel dissatisfied.

BUT, keep following in mind:

• If you are just a casual user, you don't need the terminal for this distro. If you want to really make full use of it tho, you might have to use it from time to time.
• On the surface, it looks and behaves exactly like the normal Fedora.
• Compatibility is not fully given, due to the double edged nature of the said new technology.
• Those potential issues or cons sound more dramatic than they are. If you are a normal user, you won't encounter these. Even I never had any compatibility-issues and always got everything working.

One of the coolest things about it, apart from the pros mentioned above, are:

• Most "hidden" parts of the OS are irrelevant now to you if you want to change something -> simpler structure
• You can "swap out" the OS with something different any time you want, while also keeping your data (pictures, games, etc.). If you want to switch your DE for example later on, you can do that very easily by just changing the selected spin. This even works in the extend of rebasing to almost another distro!

uBlue

If you are interested now, then check out UniversalBlue instead of the "official" Silverblue or Kinoite. uBlue offers:

• Many different variants of this distro, but with some quality-of-life changes included.
• Custom builds for special hardware, e.g. Microsoft Surface devices, ASUS ROG, etc., which come working OOTB, are very reliable and don't require tinkering.
• And also special variants for different tastes and use cases, e.g. a security-enhanced variant, as well as

Bazzite

which is one of the biggest and "best" example in how awesome uBlue can be. It's derived from it and is a gaming-focused distro. With it, you get many optimization tweaks and tools for gaming included out of the box, like some performance enhancements for example.

You don't need a gaming distro to play games at all, but if that's what you mostly do with your PC, then maybe consider that.

Links:
https://fedoraproject.org/atomic-desktops/silverblue/
https://universal-blue.org/installation/
https://bazzite.gg

Arch and NixOS

Those two are in the "pain" category. I would never recommend them to anyone starting with Linux, for example because they're fed up with Windows.
Both Arch and NixOS are known to be "for experts only", meaning, they're

• high demanding
• hard to set up and use
• requiring the user to be skilled and to know what he's doing
• don't hold the users' hand
• and don't tolerate user error well.

Why did I still decide to include them in my noob-recommended list anyway? Well, because not everyone wants to start Linux expecting an easy road. There are some people who want to tinker and challenge themselfes, and some birds learn flying the best when kicked out of the nest.

Don't get me wrong! Both Arch and NixOS are fantastic choices and very powerful. They can be fun to use and very rewarding.

What makes them great?

• Minimalism: they come with basically nothing out of the box and require the user to set up everything themselfes. If you've done that, you have an OS that's truly yours!
• Skilled community and great wiki. Especially the Arch-wiki is the number-one-ressource for any Linux thing, and by the point you installed Arch or NixOS the hard way, you got a good understanding in the inner workings of Linux.
• Rolling release: as soon as packages are released, you get them, no big release versions
• Biggest package repositories ever, with many inofficial ones too, created by the user base
• Great package manager

Alternatives

If those pro-points of Arch and NixOS are appealing to you, but sound too hard to get for your taste, here are some alternatives you may consider instead. They aren't my top pick, but still very popular in the community.

• Debian: One of the oldest distros ever out there. It's what a lot of other distros, including Mint, Ubuntu, Zorin, and more, are based on. It's stable (the normal version at least), very flexible (supports many CPU architectures) and minimalist (if you want).
• OpenSuse Tumbleweed/ Slowroll: Rolling release like Arch, but with a bigger safety net behind
• EndeavourOS: Very sane Arch-distro that's already set up for you

Other honorable mentions

Pop!_OS

Also gets recommended often. A popular distro for everyone who likes the coherence of Gnome, but doesn't like the opinionated workflow and more features like tiling. Good Ubuntu alternative, especially for gaming.

• Made by a hardware manufacturer.
• Based on Ubuntu/ Debian.
• Currently a bit outdated. The devs are focusing on their self-developed new DE that's coming soon. I would go for Fedora (general use) or Bazzite (gaming) and add the tweaks myself via extensions when needed.
  Still a viable option.

MX Linux

• Great for older devices with non-optimal performance.

TuxedoOS

• Best Debian/ Ubuntu-based distro with KDE.
• Also made by a hardware manufacturer.

So, you're new to Linux? Welcome to our community!

You probably ask yourself

"Where should I start?"

and feel a bit overwhelmed right now.

In this guide, I will show you how to choose your first Linux distro.

This is part of my "New to Linux?"-series, where I will guide you through your first weeks.

---

TL;DR: If you don't care about this at all, just go for Linux Mint.

---

As you've probably already heard, "Linux" isn't just an operating system by itself, it's just the engine of it.
You need stuff built around that to get a working desktop. That "stuff" is packaged and distributed, hence the name "distro" (distribution).
Everyone can package this stuff themselfes and make their own operating system.
There are literally hundreds or thousands of different Linux-based OSs out there, and as a newcomer, this choice can be very overwhelming.

This is why you've already came here and asked for advice.
Don't worry, we've all been there!

You can find the "right" one for you if you follow the flow chart.
The flow chart is complementary to the text here. The diagram is for the choice, while the text is more for general information about each distro.

Every distro of the following recommended ones meets all of these criteria:

• Easy to understand and intuitive to use
• You don't have to use the command line
• Works reliable
• Supports Nvidia-GPUs

---

Choosing the DE

Before you choose your distro, you should choose your prefered desktop environment (DE).
The DE is what defines the user interface and some core apps, so, basically, what you interact with.
Don't mainly choose the distro because of its' DE, you can change that later too if you really want.

The two main DEs (Gnome and KDE) are listed in the flow chart.

KDE

• is very modular and configurable, you can turn it into whatever you want.
• has pretty much everything you can imagine already built in

Gnome

• Is more opinionated, but if you don't like its' unique workflow, you can turn it into a "classic" desktop with minimize/ maximize buttons, task bar, and more, too.
• You can use the Extension manager/ Gnome Tweaks for doing that or getting other functionalities like smartphone integration for example.

If you like certain aspects of one, but others from the "competitor", you can more or less turn one into the other. You have maximum freedom!

#Differences between distros

**Choose your distro based on the following key points: **

• Release schedule: Some get new features very often, some only once a few years. We refer this as stagnation as "stability" (not to conflict with reliability!)
• Philosophy: What are key values of the distro? (e.g. just providing a well functioning set of software, no matter if it's proprietary; conservative vs. innovative; etc.)
• Base: Many distros are based on other ones. A very common base is Debian or Ubuntu, where many newcomer-guides are based on. It mainly determines what package manager you use in the command line. I personally think that's not as important, since you will use the Software Center anyway most of the time to download apps and updates.
• All other things, like big community, good track record, hardware support, etc., were already taken care of by me.

---

---

So, here's the list of every distro shown in the flow chart, with a short description on why it is included.

Linux Mint

It's THE recommendation for every newcomer, no matter where you look. Not without reason:

• Very sane defaults
• Works, just out-of-the-box
• Not too many, but just the right amount of pre-installed apps to get in touch with the Linux app ecosystem
• Simple, yet highly functional
• Hides all "advanced" features in a reasonable way
• Huge userbase, especially for beginners. More experienced users still use Mint, and are always there to help newcomers.
• Doesn't change much, only gets more polished. New features arrive occasionally, but they usually don't change your workflow radically.
• Feels very familiar when you came from Windows, which most people do.

Website: https://www.linuxmint.com/

ZorinOS

It is the main "competitor" of Mint right now.
The big difference between Mint and it is how the desktop looks. While Mint is more old-fashioned in how it looks, Zorin wants to be an eye pleaser by looking more modern. With it, you can choose between different "styles", that mimic the looks of Windows 7, Windows 11, MacOS, and more, depending on what you feel the most comfortable with.
It has a slow release schedule of ~3 years, with some minor polishes in between, which is great if you don't like change.

Don't worry about the "Pro" and "Light" versions. This is not like a freeware app with ads and stuff.

• "Pro" refers to the paid version, that only differs in some extra styles you can choose from. With the payment you get some extra tech assistance and support the developers.
• "Light" is a lightweight version, that is made for old devices to give them a second life and make them perform better than before, while still looking good.

Website: https://zorin.com/os/

VanillaOS

This one is also very promising. It has the same philosophy as Mint, but implements it differently.
It works a bit different under the hood and ensures an always working system you can't brick. If you still fucked up something, or got a bad update somehow, you can just roll back in seconds.
It also updates itself in the background and applies the updates without the user noticing on the next reboot, without any waiting time (unlike the forced Windows updates).

If you become more advanced and experienced over time, you can turn to the terminal and have access to literally any app that was ever made for Linux. Especially if you start using Linux as developer, this is very handy.
Even if you aren't a developer, no, even if you aren't techy at all, VanillaOS is a very good choice if you prefer the simplicity and ease of use of Mint, but want something more modern!

Website: https://vanillaos.org/

[Disclaimer: The new release, VanillaOS 2 Orchid, is currently under very high developement and still in beta. Consider waiting until the new version is officially released for a garanteed smooth experience.]

Fedora

This one is not exactly (but comparably) as beginner oriented as the above are, but still, a very good choice for new users. Fedora is often considered "the new Ubuntu", and is one of the most used distros out there with a gigantic community.
It is community-owned, but supported by the money and development power of the biggest player in the commercial Linux world.

Features:

• Comes with any major DE you want + huge software availability
• Balanced desktop release schedule of 6 months. This ensures both a modern and reliable desktop system
• Everything is pretty vanilla (no theming, etc.) and has very sane defaults
• No big collection of pre-installed software (e.g. Office), bit it is installable with one click in the software center.
• Future-oriented: as soon as a new promising technology is reliable enough, it will adopt it.

Website:
https://fedoraproject.org/
https://fedoraproject.org/workstation/
https://fedoraproject.org/spins/kde/

Fedora Atomic

Fedora Atomic is a variant of Fedora that works different under the hood, while behaving the same on the surface as the regular Fedora does. I don't want to get too technical here, but the pros are the same as the ones from VanillaOS (unbrickable, better security, no half applied updates, etc.).

I'm not sure if I would recommend it over the normal Fedora right now, as due to the other inner workings, you might have the chance to encounter issues when trying to get things working, e.g. an install script you found online.
If you are leaning bit more towards a tech-savy-person and have no problem searching a small thing here and there (only when you need non-ordinary stuff), then definitely check it out. Especially if you already came from another distro and feel dissatisfied.

BUT, keep following in mind:

• If you are just a casual user, you don't need the terminal for this distro. If you want to really make full use of it tho, you might have to use it from time to time.
• On the surface, it looks and behaves exactly like the normal Fedora.
• Compatibility is not fully given, due to the double edged nature of the said new technology.
• Those potential issues or cons sound more dramatic than they are. If you are a normal user, you won't encounter these. Even I never had any compatibility-issues and always got everything working.

One of the coolest things about it, apart from the pros mentioned above, are:

• Most "hidden" parts of the OS are irrelevant now to you if you want to change something -> simpler structure
• You can "swap out" the OS with something different any time you want, while also keeping your data (pictures, games, etc.). If you want to switch your DE for example later on, you can do that very easily by just changing the selected spin. This even works in the extend of rebasing to almost another distro!

uBlue

If you are interested now, then check out UniversalBlue instead of the "official" Silverblue or Kinoite. uBlue offers:

• Many different variants of this distro, but with some quality-of-life changes included.
• Custom builds for special hardware, e.g. Microsoft Surface devices, ASUS ROG, etc., which come working OOTB, are very reliable and don't require tinkering.
• And also special variants for different tastes and use cases, e.g. a security-enhanced variant, as well as

Bazzite

which is one of the biggest and "best" example in how awesome uBlue can be. It's derived from it and is a gaming-focused distro. With it, you get many optimization tweaks and tools for gaming included out of the box, like some performance enhancements for example.

You don't need a gaming distro to play games at all, but if that's what you mostly do with your PC, then maybe consider that.

Links:
https://fedoraproject.org/atomic-desktops/silverblue/
https://universal-blue.org/installation/
https://bazzite.gg

Arch and NixOS

Those two are in the "pain" category. I would never recommend them to anyone starting with Linux, for example because they're fed up with Windows.
Both Arch and NixOS are known to be "for experts only", meaning, they're

• high demanding
• hard to set up and use
• requiring the user to be skilled and to know what he's doing
• don't hold the users' hand
• and don't tolerate user error well.

Why did I still decide to include them in my noob-recommended list anyway? Well, because not everyone wants to start Linux expecting an easy road. There are some people who want to tinker and challenge themselfes, and some birds learn flying the best when kicked out of the nest.

Don't get me wrong! Both Arch and NixOS are fantastic choices and very powerful. They can be fun to use and very rewarding.

What makes them great?

• Minimalism: they come with basically nothing out of the box and require the user to set up everything themselfes. If you've done that, you have an OS that's truly yours!
• Skilled community and great wiki. Especially the Arch-wiki is the number-one-ressource for any Linux thing, and by the point you installed Arch or NixOS the hard way, you got a good understanding in the inner workings of Linux.
• Rolling release: as soon as packages are released, you get them, no big release versions
• Biggest package repositories ever, with many inofficial ones too, created by the user base
• Great package manager

Alternatives

If those pro-points of Arch and NixOS are appealing to you, but sound too hard to get for your taste, here are some alternatives you may consider instead. They aren't my top pick, but still very popular in the community.

• Debian: One of the oldest distros ever out there. It's what a lot of other distros, including Mint, Ubuntu, Zorin, and more, are based on. It's stable (the normal version at least), very flexible (supports many CPU architectures) and minimalist (if you want).
• OpenSuse Tumbleweed/ Slowroll: Rolling release like Arch, but with a bigger safety net behind
• EndeavourOS: Very sane Arch-distro that's already set up for you

Other honorable mentions

Pop!_OS

Also gets recommended often. A popular distro for everyone who likes the coherence of Gnome, but doesn't like the opinionated workflow and more features like tiling. Good Ubuntu alternative, especially for gaming.

• Made by a hardware manufacturer.
• Based on Ubuntu/ Debian.
• Currently a bit outdated. The devs are focusing on their self-developed new DE that's coming soon. I would go for Fedora (general use) or Bazzite (gaming) and add the tweaks myself via extensions when needed.
  Still a viable option.

MX Linux

• Great for older devices with non-optimal performance.

TuxedoOS

• Best Debian/ Ubuntu-based distro with KDE.
• Also made by a hardware manufacturer.

We often get the same question with

"I'm new, what distro do you recommend?"

and I think we should make a list/ discussion on what is our pick for each person, and just link that post for them to give them an easy recommendation.

So I made a quick flow chart (will get polished as soon as I get your input) with my personal recommendations. It is on the bottom of the text, so you see the rest of the text here too.

I will also explain each distro in a few, short sentences and in what aspects they do differ and what makes them great.

---

Here are my "controversial" things I want to discuss with you first, as I don't want to spread nonsense:

Nobara

I don't know if we should recommend it as a good gaming distro. In my opinion, it's a highly insecure and experimental distro, made by one individual. I mean, sure, it gives you a slightly better experience ootb compared to vanilla Fedora, but:

• As said, it's made by one single guy. If he decides to quit this project, many many people will just stop getting updates.
• There are many security-things, especially SELinux, disabled.
• It's severely outdated. Some security fixes take months until they arrive on Nobara.
• It contains too many tweaks, especially kernel modifications and performance enhancers. Therefore, it might be less reliable.

I think, Bazzite is the way superior choice. It follows the same concept, but implements it in way better fashion:

• Just as up-to-date as the normal Fedora, due to automatic GitHub build actions.
• No burden of maintenence, either on the user or the dev side.
• Fully intact security measures.
• And much more.

Immutable distros

I'm a huge fan of them and think, that they are a perfect option for newcomers. They can't brick them, they update themselfes in the background, they take a lot of complexity compared to a traditional system, and much more. Especially uBlue and VanillaOS are already set up for you and "just work".
If you want to know more about image-based distros, I made a post about them btw :)

VanillaOS

It's the perfect counterpart for Mint imo. It follows the same principle (reliable, sane, easy to use, very noob friendly, etc.), but in a different way of achiving that.

The main problems are:

• The team behind it isn't huge or well established yet, except for the development of Bottles.
• They want to do many things their own way (own package manager, etc.) instead of just using established stuff.
• The current release (V2, Orchid) is still in beta atm.

I see a huge potential in that particular distro, but don't know if I should recommend it at this point right now.

ZorinOS

I think, for people who don't like change, it's great, but it can be very outdated. What's your opinion on that distro? It looks very modern on the surface and is very noob friendly, but under the hood, very very old.

Pop!_OS

Same with that. Currently, there's only the LTS available, since System76 is currently very busy with their new DE. I don't know if we should recommend it anymore.

---

I made the list of recommendations relatively small on purpose, as it can be a bit overwhelming for noobs when they get a million recommendations with obscure distros.
Do you think that there are any distros missing or a bad recommendation?

---

I decided to dive heads first into window managers and need your input for your guidance. I'm absolutely not a Linux-pro. I basically never use the terminal, just started using Github, and only used Gnome (+ KDE for 1/8th the time) for now.

I already informed myself in the last months a bit in what mess I will jump into, but that didn't prepare me at all... Or at least not as much as I would have liked.
I find it a bit hard to get content for this topic. For Gnome or KDE for example exist trillions of videos and guides, and all TWM-content is only from and for hardcore enthusiasts who are already neck deep into that topic for decades.

One thing I already noticed is that everything is very technical. Everything is in a text file and accessed via terminal. I like that, but it's just different.
Also, there's no way to just learn one thing, no. You have to work yourself into many tools all at once, which is super frightening, but interesting.

---

First off all, I need your choice of packages to make it a fully functional desktop.

Right now, I use Niri, for now in a VM, which comes with a few basic things out of the box, like portals, and additional stuff, like some packages from Sway.
But basically everything else, like bars, decoration, and more, is not preinstalled.
When you use it the first time, it's very barebones and no eye candy by default.

I would like to hear what "essential" stuff, and what "Because I like it"-stuff you suggest.
Maybe differentiate it with "I personally use it" and "You and everyone else should use that, it should be a default."

Personally, I would like to have:

^(£ = nice to have; ¥ = basic functionality)

• ¥ A bar, like waybar
• £ KDE-Connect: does that work on TWMs? Is there a good implementation? Can I use GSConnect elsewhere too?
• ¥ A good global search tool like KRunner or the one from Gnome
• ¥ Clipboard manager
• £ Wallpaper switcher
• £ Eye candy in general, e.g. dotfiles (those are the settings for each element, like the bar, right?)
• More things will be added later :)

---

Also, do you have any tips for a total noob in that topic? Any things you regretted when you started and now wish others to avoid?
General usage tips for someone who only used full fletched DEs until now?

And, most importantly, do you have any resources where I can read/ watch more into for the future?
Sure, the readme.md on the projects' page is the best information for that specifically, especially technical stuff, but I don't know where to get more general information, like discussions, comparisons, and more. The only example I can think of is !unixporn@lemmy.ml for inspiration, but not much more. Do you have any blogs or threads you can recommend?

---

Thanks in advance for your help!

I plan to post a "My Linux week"-report very soon, since there has been a lot happening in the last days. I literally just "discovered" Github for example 🫠

This post is part of my "Immutable Linux" post series I have planned.

This one here is the first of (probably) three posts in total. It should provide you an introduction into this topic, debunk some myths, give you an overview into different concepts, and maybe a slight hint into Linux' future.

If you're after a super complicated expert-level post, you're wrong here, sorry. I want to keep it simple and, because of that, I'm gonna "lie" a few times in this writeup to keep everything understandable for everyone, including Linux newcomers. The post will be a bit longer to read.
I know, that not everyone has the time for that, so here's a

TL;DR:

• Immutable distros are the future and totally underrated!
• Don't call them immutable - you can still change and customize them to your liking.
• They have A LOT of pros compared to traditional systems - less bugs, better security, they're almost indestructible, and more!
• Maybe check out Fedora uBlue. It's the most sophisticated image distro out there right now. But its' contenders aren't sleeping too and will be interesting too in the future.
• They are still pretty new, which might be a problem right now regarding compatibility and spread of use.

---

1. Introduction

I. What is an immutable distro?

The term "immutable" is very unfitting in my opinion. Why? Because those kind of distros are, in fact, changeable. They just require a different approach than traditional ones (e.g. Arch, Linux Mint, etc.). But more onto that later. I prefer the term "image based" or "atomic", not only because that's more fitting, but also because it doesn't imply inherent restrictions.

II. How do they differ from traditional distros?

Image-based distros (IBD from now on) are a pretty new concept, that heavily relies on many new technologies from the recent past, especially containerization and new partition systems.

Their main differences, compared to traditional mutable distros (TMD from now on), are:

• Restricted file system: most parts of the OS are locked down and not changeable as easily, at least from a side level. Of course, you still have sudo rights and "own" your device.
• For the end user, there's now an easy distinction between "your" stuff (photos, configs, some applications, etc.) and "the rest of the system", which, in short, only exists to make your computer running. Use your Android phone as example. You don't notice many restrictions there too and it hides the complex stuff successfully for normal users. Rooting has become a thing of the past for most users and everything works as it should.
• Atomic changes: your system gets either changed completely, or not at all when upgrading. If the power gets lost while updating, you won't end up with a half-upgraded OS in the end. It will just boot into the same state as before. With every transaction, it basically "copies" the source image and applies it to yours, so it will be the same.
• They are based on a clearly defined, centralized setup.
  Imagine it like how McDonald's works. There are thousands of restaurants in one country, but they all have the same recipes in common. This results in every burger tasting the same around the country, no matter where you are. Every process is heavily regulated, documented and supervised. It's a very rigid system. In contrast, TMDs are very wobbly. They change all the time. Many programs write somewhere, whereever they want, into the root file system, updates add and remove stuff, and so on, and so on. Imagine every cook at McDonalds now decides to freestyle his burgers. In the beginning, they may taste the same as before. But then, he adds more and more mustard, forgets the salad, and after some time, the burger isn't recognisable anymore, and no one knows why. This is called package drift, and I'll tell you why that's bad in the next paragraph.

III. Advantages

Package drift

Package drift is a developers' nightmare.

Did you ever notice, how, after some time, may it be weeks, months, or years, your Linux install or programs become ever so slightly less reliable? Freezes here, memory leaks there, crashed programs, and so on. It's because of the point explained above.

Even, if you use a TMD just like you would an IBD (everything via Flatpak, no root usage, etc.), you still change the underlying system all the time due to updates and executed apps. You have one starting point, and after some time, it won't be the identical to the install from someone else, even if you used the PC exactly the same.

Realistically, this usually isn't a huge problem to be fair. Package managers are great and you will barely notice it, at least in the beginning. But after some time, the state diverges too much and you'll run into problems. The most notable one:

"It works on my PC. Issue closed.".

I've used KDE again and again from time to time for example. Usually, on the normal Fedora KDE variant, installed via a clean reinstall. The first weeks were fine - and then came the Krashes. Every time. I used it now for quite some time on Fedora Atomic, and I encounter almost no bugs at all! Same with other software. Barely any bugs or crashes.

Security

The first reason why IBDs are more secure is the point from above. If there are the same loop holes on every install, the devs can reproduce it and fix it immediatelly.

Software not being able to modify the whole file system is also a huge plus.

Because you usually work with restricted containers, you can define permissions for each program, at least with Flatpaks.

Ease of use

They often feel like a great hotel room. You know, it is being cleaned by the staff and you don't have to make the beds or care for other stuff. Updates are usually (if you want) being taken care of automatically without the user having to press a button or restart. If you shut down your PC anyway, like you always should after a few days at least, you boot into the updated image.

The "your stuff" and "the rest" explaination from above also applies here. Especially newcomers don't need to learn what every part of the Linux OS does, because they won't even touch it anyway.

Many images also come pre-made with baked in drivers, e.g. for Nvidia GPUs, Asus hardware or Microsoft Surface devices. No fiddling required! Because the drivers are already part of the image, they are usually more reliable than if you would install them on another distro. If there's something broken, it will be broken for everyone, and the devs can fix it instantly. In the meantime, you can just roll back and have an always working system.

Reliability

You'll always have a working OS. They are known to be almost indestructible, both from user errors, and bad updates.

If you still manage to fuck it up, you can just boot into the image from yesterday, and it will be exactly in the same state as back then.

This doesn't work like Snapper (from OpenSuse Tumbleweed) for example, where you have to restore a certain config, and even then, it might still not work. It's more like a second/ third parallel installed OS next to your current one, which only share the user data between them, and in which you can just boot into in seconds, just like when dual booting. I had to make use of that a few times, and it always worked reliably. Restoring backups, e.g. on Tumbleweed, on the other hand, often didn't work for me and I had to reinstall my system.

The Atomic-Update point from above also applies here, if you have an unsteady power supply, pets, or whatever.

They feel cleaner

All your data are in one place, and not scattered around the system.

You will work in containers a lot, which will also make organisation easier. Look at my Distrobox-post for more information.
It's basically like using drawers instead of cluttering your whole apartment with stuff.

Distrohopping made easy

Due to how the file system is build, you can easily swap out "the OS"-part with something else, while keeping your user data.

If I'm on Fedora Silverblue (Gnome) for example, I can just rebase to Kinoite (KDE) in less than 10 minutes. It is like a clean reinstall without any weird dependencies or leftovers. I just did that today again because I just can't decide...

You can also choose between many other DEs and TWMs too if you want.

IV. Limitations and cons

Container workflow

While you usually can install packages the traditional way (e.g. via rpm-ostree layering on Fedora Atomic) on most distros, it is usually not recommended and should only be reserved for TLP or your printer driver for example. If you decided to do that, you have to reboot each time you install something, which obviously sucks!

Because of that, you work with containers. The most common one is Flatpak. They cover 99,9% of your needs for every graphical app and are easily installable via software center.

Other common ones are Distrobox/ Toolbx and Nix, especially for CLI tools.

They all sometimes don't work everytime as intended. For example, I still have to fix a Flatpak permission from time to time, and other commenters said they still have some problems getting specific programs working in Distrobox. But, to be honest, I never encountered software that didn't work on my OS yet, with the exception of a VPN client, which should be fixed by now.

Too new

The concept and spread of IBDs is not yet fully matured. They work wonderfully, don't get me wrong. But, there are still some minor rough edges and potential to uncover. That's not being me just a fanboy and saying it's "just some minor problem here and there", while it is infuriating in reality, no. It's literally only super minor stuff that is fixed easily. For example, I encounter some programs that could work absolutely fine, but just spit out errors because of a missing link, e.g. it wants to access /bin/, but the OS only has /var/bin as example.
It's great to see devs now knowing about this issue and trying to fix them. The biggest problem is the lack of documentation and spread. There are just sometimes minor issues you have to fix yourself, because it doesn't apply to other distros and you can't find a solution online.

And this is the main reason I don't recommend every super new user to check out IBDs yet, because of the lack of support. Not, because they don't work fine. They do. Better than normal ones imo. It's just because if they google something, they want to apply the guide for Ubuntu to their own system, and that won't work. They can't think of a workaround due to the lack of experience. This is why. Wait 1-2 years, and it should work completely fine.

For people I can help physically, I would do it without any doubt.

---

2. Misconceptions debunked

You can't change anything and they aren't customizable

They are just as customizable as traditional distros. You just have to do that differently. Instead of trying to change them from a bottom-up-approach, you have to change the image itself and then apply the changes. This sounds more complicated than it is. On Nix, you just change a few lines in your config and then reload, and on uBlue it's even easier!

They aren't user friendly

In my opinion, they are even more user friendly than classic ones. They only appear so, because they are different from what we learned over the last years.

I would even go as far as saying that VanillaOS or Silverblue have the potential to "replace" Mint, especially if all they wanna do is consume media and play some games. See a few lines above why I think it isn't the time for that yet.

They're a dumbed-down OS

They're as complicated and capable as you wish. It's still Linux, don't forget that.

ChromeOS or Android can be considered dumbed down, yes. Fedora Silverblue is the same OS as Workstation on the surface, you wouldn't notice a difference first at all. And NixOS is one of the most capable and complicated distros out there. They're very diverse and have different philosophies and tech under the hood!

They will take away my distro of choice!

No one will. There will always be at least one other person who likes Arch just as much as you do. It's still Linux and FOSS. It will replace some use cases where it makes sense, and it will go under in others where it doesn't. Only time will tell.

And even if they replace your distro of choice, it would be a slow and welcome transition, similar to Wayland over the last years.

---

3. Small overview over different distros and concepts

Fedora Atomic

With that I mean the "immutable" Fedora variants, like Silverblue, Kinoite, and so on. They only differ by their DE.

In my opinion, Fedora Atomic is the most refined one currently. It uses a version-archiving package manager (often gets called "git-like"), that documents and stores changes like the branches of a tree. Hence its' name OSTree.

You can "layer" packages with rpm-ostree, which allows you to use software from the normal Fedora repository, while keeping the base system unchanged.

The coolest thing about it is a project called universal-blue.org. With uBlue, you can create images yourself and basically create your own distro, with the main plus that you don't have to maintain it for security or other updates, because it does that itself.
If you're missing Hyprland for example in the list of available images, you can just create your own setup with it and publish it there for others to use. uBlue provides OOTB-usable vanilla images with drivers, codecs and some QOL-changes baked in, because the official Fedora image isn't allowed to ship them by default.
The main pro-point is that, as example, the Nvidia-driver is already baked in and won't break. And if it does, it will on thousands of other installs, and the devs can fix it extremely quickly. There are many community spins and variants, for example one with the Deepin DE, a hardened variant for better security, and much more!

Bazzite, also a community image, is the best alternative to SteamOS and Nobara. It has the same pros as Nobara, without the problems of security or instability due to only one developer. Best gaming distro out there!

NixOS

"The new Arch". It's considered to be one of the most complicated, but also extremely powerful distro and should only be used by experts according to some, or it will lead to frustration.

It also has a great packaging system called "Nix", which can be used on any other distro, and even MacOS!

It's known to be the king of reproducability, since the whole config is written in just one single text file.

OpenSuse Atomic

Once called MicroOS Desktop in general, it's now split between Aeon (Gnome), MicroOS (headless base) and Kalpa (KDE). It works a bit differently than Fedora Atomic, but currently, it's in its' infant shoes and isn't as commonly used yet.

VanillaOS

It's supposed to be a next-gen Linux Mint. Same principle of stability, reliability, user friendliness and simplicity, but with a different way of achieving that.

It's made by the same team that also develops Bottles (for WINE) and currently undergoes heavy development. It will be based on Debian instead of Ubuntu soon and only offers the Gnome desktop right now. It, and OpenSuse Atomic, use the concept of A/B-Root, which is also used by Android.

I will keep an eye on it and maybe, in some time, recommend it to noobs instead of Mint. We'll see!

Others

There are a lot of other ones out there too, like EndlessOS, BlendOS, SteamOS, and more. If you missed them, tell me in the comments!

I just wanted to name the most popular or promising ones.

Future

There's the saying of "The future of Linux is immutable". I think that's right.

There are so many great things image based systems do better than our current traditional ones. It's fascinating what new possibilities will arise soon. The clean rebasing to custom images for example is only the start!

I think they are great for both newcomers, due to simplicity and reliabiltiy, aswell as experts.

I can only see those minor rough edges being polished in the next 1-2 years. Flatpak and Wayland for example used to be in the same spot just 2 years ago, and now, they're a staple of the Linux desktop.

Everyone should at least take a look into them in my opinion!

I'm interested in TWMs for some while now.
Currently, I'm running Gnome with the Forge extension, which gives me a quite nice tiling with the full fledged DE experience I need.

Especially Hyprland is the project I have an eye on the most. The ultra-smooth animations are just out of this world! (I'm not only locked on Hyprland tho.)

My current setup feels a bit clunky, and I want something proper, without losing the comfort of a fully functioning DE.
My end goal maybe would be making my own uBlue-image with a setup that works sane out of the box.

Are there any setups and recommendations of needed packages?

How do Sway, Hyprland and other TWMs differ from each other?
Which one would you recommend for starters, and which one is "the best"?

What do I need to know before getting started? Should I just dive into it head first?

If I have to ask all these questions, would you just say I should ditch the idea for now, with my current level of knowledge and time?

What has your experience been? Any problems I may encounter?

Thank you for your answers?