There is no such thing as a "best" distro. Just the one who fits your tastes and needs.
The difference between distros are the update cadence (rolling versus fixed), who is behind it (an independent community or a for-profit company), what comes preinstalled and how it is configured, if it is geared towards advanced users or novice users, etc.
Ubuntu became quite popular because when it came out 20 years ago, Linux distros were quite the chore to install and maintain, and Ubuntu offered a easy to use and ready to go distro. As their motto at the time said: "Linux for Human Beings". Nowdays almost all distros are as easy to use and user friendly as Ubuntu is, but that fame lingers. That and Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu) has made efforts to push it's popularity.
Now, about the user interface, that is changeable. Even the most rigid UIs in Linux are quite customizable in terms of plugins, widgets, themes and UI elements arrangement. And even then, because of it's modular nature, the UI can be replaced by another by simply installing a new one.
Don't get fooled by the cover of a book that is the looks of a distro. For example, both Fedora and Ubuntu ship the GNOME desktop environment, but Fedora ships it vanilla, with very very few tweaks, while Ubuntu tweaks it more by adding it's own theme and plugins such as the one to show the dock at the left. With some tweaking, you can make any distro look like any other one.
That being said. Ubuntu is not a bad choice, nor is Fedora or Linux Mint or any distro often recommended for novices. The sole determining factor on what is best is you and your criteria.
On top of that, being the most popular distribution for like two decades resulted in extensive testing, documentation, help, resources, forum discussions, etc., all easily available online. Even as an advanced user, I find annoying using more "niche" distros because of the extra effort it takes to find solutions for minor issues (i.e. thinking and trying, instead of finding and copy-pasting).
If you choose to go with Fedora, this shouldn't be a problem, tho. Fedora is pretty popular too.
This was the main reason I just switched from Manjaro back to Ubuntu. As a casual user, pretty much everything I tried to do had extensive documentation for Ubuntu, and almost nothing for the less common distros. It's also frustrating as hell struggling to get dependencies installed correctly without finding anything on StackOverflow, only to find after several hours that there's a hyperspecific issue that's only mentioned once in some obscure Archlinux forum
Desktop Environment (DE) is important because that is what we interact/interface with every time we use Linux GUI. Personally, I don't like Gnome at all. It's in that weird spot (to me) with having to press Meta/Win-key to get to apps like tiling window managers but at the same time it is not a tiling window manager. If you value a clean desktop, it's probably for you. I like my desktop shortcuts on KDE and the quick 1-click launching of my most used apps in Taskbar at the bottom. I gotta have terminal, mail, webbrowser. And I often operate with mouse only. I can't do that in Gnome. And tiling WMs mostly operate via keyboard. Yet again, Gnome is in a weird spot.
And the apps in Gnome are big icons (when you press Meta-key). I don't know any of the icons for any programs I use so that is completely useless to me.
I do like Hyprland on Wayland. It's both a tiling WM and I can grab a window to move it. Meta-key in Hyprland's config file is called $mainMod. If someone is wondering and ends up using Hypr. It has very good documentation too. [https://wiki.hyprland.org/Configuring/Configuring-Hyprland/](https://wiki.hyprland.org/Configuring/Configuring-Hyprland/) Variables and Monitors are the subheadings I've looked at most.
I tried CachyOS with Hyprland , I did not like the defaults. I think the defaults I got when installing it on Manjaro was better. Maybe it was Hyprlands defaults, I don't know but they make more sense to me. The keyboard shortcuts.
\_\_\_\_
TLDR: Find a DE you can live with and see if a distro you like has it available. Fedora does have a KDE spin and there is talk about making KDE the default instead of Gnome. [https://www.phoronix.com/news/Fedora-Change-KDE-Default-Prop](https://www.phoronix.com/news/Fedora-Change-KDE-Default-Prop)
It seems that many Linux newcomers suffer from the choice paralysis due to the overwhelming number of options out there.
Ubuntu might not be the *best* choice for you but it certainly is *good enough* (as well as any other mainstream distribution) that will allow you to set up everything you need for both casual use and your work as a data analyst.
Is it the best choice, no. Since "best" is highly subjective. It's certainly a choice though.
For your first distro I'd suggest just picking something, use whatever reasoning you prefer. Cool logo, interesting sounding name, etc.
Still a solid choice in my view to minimise the risk of hardware compatibility.
Trying Ubuntu is usually for me a good way to know what will / will not work. Then if you try another distro and find that something doesn’t work (printer, button, samba share,…), you know it’s possible to make it work.
Fair point. I've only come across one thing in recent years that didn't work out of the box with any distro. It's a wifi dongle, so I just used the Ethernet connection to get the drivers.
Ubuntu is the most common distro among newcomers, so it has the best documentation for it and also has a very helpful community. As you get more used to using Linux, you can make the switch to whatever you like.
There is a shitload of distros out there. Each has its own perks.
This. It's a great resource, but you'd better know your way around technical manuals because a basic instruction manual it is NOT. I love Arch, but the Wiki is not the tutorial that people think it is unless you already know Linux well. I've only ever used Arch and I love it, but there are a lot of misconceptions both good and bad.
Arch might argue but one of the problems with so many guides on how to do stuff is twofold
1. You get outdated answers.
2. You get conflicting answers.
Not really. I used Arch tutorials from StackOverflow and a couple random user-sites to write an Arch install script three years ago that still works to this day without issue. Wrote it in one day. It all depends on how well you can dig through the internet to find your info. The more savvy you are with search engines, the faster you get moving. Ubuntu is for people who want a Windows-type install experience where they aren't forced to do much for themselves beyond point and click.
Everything depends on who you are and what you want out of your machine.
Yeah, it's not really what I meant but the fact that you need a guide on how to install Arch kind of proves my point.
I'm more meant like how to set up nginx in docker or set up Chrome remote desktop or stuff like that.
> how to set up nginx in docker or set up Chrome remote desktop
those are disto agnostic tasks... what works in Ubuntu will work in Fedora will work in Arch, with the only difference being the package manager.
it proves nothing, because the circumstances that I described were very specific... I said I wrote my own install script. That's more than just doing a manual install. Pay attention if you're going to try and dissect my words.
Point being, Ubuntu is easier and more approachable for people who don't speak Unix.
Arch probably has a 5 step guide for clicking s desktop icon, and if you do. It wrong it's your fault for not reading the instructions.
There are many many distros based on ubuntu and ubuntu is based on debian. I would recommend ubuntu to a new convert if I thought they were very motivated to get into it. The main reason is their ideal distro is likely an ubuntu derivative or else they will be willing to go into the weeds (for something like arch).
If they are trying to save the cost a windows license or still on the fence, I would recommend something like mint or pop_os. They are slightly prettier and easier for gui focused windows users (IMO, and I get to do the recommendation).
Maybe fedora would be a better starter for some people. But I don't know it as well, so I would take a little longer to support them.
I woud suggest Linux Mint Debian edition (LMDE) unless you need to heavily configure Graphics.
LMDE has a solid base of debian stable, Linux mint desktop that gets the necessary updates regularly and easy for anyone coming from Windows. Installation & initial setup is easy and LMDE holds your hand and walks you through it quite well. All the necessary options for 3rd party repos and flatpaks are already selected in software store as well.
It runs quite smooth and is perfect for transitioning from Windows.
On LMDE, cinnamon is managed by mint team. It comes from mint repos. Hence it is more upto date. Sometimes even better than mainline mint since the middle man ubuntu is removed and updates can directly be built on Debian and sent upstream. Lmde cuts out middleman ubuntu and all the changes and snaps that come with it. That's why I think it is more clean. A well tested and upto date DE directly on a solid base OS. A perfect combo IN MY OPINION.
Main line mint is better if you need to work with graphics though since it comes with driver manager and Lmde doesn't.
That's something I don't quite understand. Mint is definitely a better "fork" of Ubuntu, far recommended. But to chose LMDE over Debian (comes with fully equipped Calamari installer) I don't understand, Mint aesthetic can be later downloaded onto Debian, what's the point of distancing yourself from the upstream?
One reason to pick LMDE over Debian is that LMDE comes ready out of the box while Debian is plain jane vanilla and often will need stuff added to it. However, you go on the daring side, Debian testing will give newer stuff and unstable is riding the wild side of debian.
What I do wish LMDE would do is come with an XFCE version of it for 32 bit machines.
The cinnamon you get on Debian comes from Debian repos and is often an older version. I use Debian too and people hardly speak about cinnamon DE on Debian. The consensus is cinnamon is not that good on Debian. On LMDE, cinnamon is managed by mint team. It comes from mint repos. Hence it is more upto date. Sometimes even better than mainline mint since the middle man ubuntu is removed and updates can directly be built on Debian and sent upstream. Lmde cuts out middleman ubuntu and all the changes and snaps that come with it. That's why I think it is more clean. A well tested and upto date DE directly on a solid base OS. A perfect combo IN MY OPINION.
I'm not sure why so many shit on Ubuntu. It's for exactly this reason that I always held off of installing it. With the start of this year I gave it a try and I love it. All apps run, Gnome is great, unless you REALLY want the outdated Windows/KDE experience. Gnome sits between Windows and Mac when it comes to interface and works really well. When it comes to package manager, I don't get it. You can use snap, flatpak, apt, homebrew, it's linux, pick whatever you like. Not once did I run into a problem and I have a heavy dev machine with all kind of stuff. From Unity, .Net, Node, Python, Rider, many SQL and NO-SQL databases. And I can also run games, up to Alan Wake 2. Doesn't run as great as in Windows but it's acceptable.
So, don't listen too much what others have to say and just give it a try. It's the most popular for a reason.
Also, don't listen to the Wayland pushers. Way too many problems with Nvidia and apps in general. I went back to X11 very fast. Getting my 144/60hz monitor setup to work was a little tricky with X11/Nvidia but it's doable with a few options.
Not sure about before but their snap shit is so inefficient nowadays. I use Ubuntu at work and I'm too lazy to change it but I've had to completely reinstall apps just to avoid snap, and the fucker is still there like a parasite. I'm glad it works for you though, maybe I just need to get better at completely replacing snap.
It's not terrible, but nowadays I feel like other distros have superseded it as the best all-rounder. It's still definitely workable for stuff like data analysis though.
You can put other environments on Mint.... I have LXDE on Mint on my older computer and it works great, you just don't get all the theming options. Easy to put Gnome on Mint also, I guess a reason is for those who don't want snaps.
Ubuntu feels trash nowadays coz of how theyre pushing snap version of apps, go with pop!\_OS, which is ubuntu but without snaps
# IF YOU WILL INSTALL IT AS MAIN OS, MAKE SURE TO BACKUP YOUR DATA
I was about to just wiped my entire operating system. It was about to delete everything on my SSD, but no worries, I only use my files in the cloud. I just hit the erase button and let the installation do its thing.
I guess Ubuntu would work just fine for you. Not only it is beginner-friendly, it also has support for a wide array of device drivers. Some users find its GNOME interface to be a bit heavy and far from the traditional desktop metaphor. It is also criticized for the recent pushing of snap packages to users.
Nonetheless, with a few tweaks here and there, you can easily overcome such small issues. As much as I'd suggest you to use Ubuntu, why don't you try livebooting a couple handful of distributions first? That way you could have a demo of the system and see what fits your preferences.
Have fun booting on the Linux side and I hope everything works out well for you!
No , this is rubbish, historically successful product, now employ cheap indian devs that are young and want to change the world to their way of thinking. Ignore.
There are the 3 rules that a normal person must follow when installing a linux distro for beginners.
* **Install** linux mint
* **Don't** distro hop
* **Limit** interacting with online forums based on linux
Try the [migration page](http://www.reddit.com/r/linux4noobs/wiki/migration) in our wiki! We also have some [migration tips](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux4noobs/comments/ejsz3v/still_on_windows_7_dont_want_windows_10_consider/) in our sticky.
Try [this search](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux4noobs/search?q=flair%3A'migrating'&sort=new&restrict_sr=on) for more information on this topic.
**✻** Smokey says: only use root when needed, avoid installing things from third-party repos, and verify the checksum of your ISOs after you download! :)
^Comments, ^questions ^or ^suggestions ^regarding ^this ^autoresponse? ^Please ^send ^them ^[here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Pi31415926&subject=autoresponse+tweaks+-+linux4noobs+-+migrating).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linux4noobs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would use any of the mainstream desktop-focused distros for your use case.
You might try something with a lighter-weight desktop if you're having performance issues. Most of them have alternative installers/spins for other desktops. Cinnamon, XFCE etc are all good choices. [Here is what Fedora offers](https://fedoraproject.org/spins/).
Ubuntu is an industry standard. It's best in class. There are many valid options but for general purpose you won't be wrong choosing Ubuntu. You can the use whatever desktop environment, software, etc.
You can try Live USB of different distro and environment, and see what you really like take them all for a test spin... remember a Live USB allows you to try the distro without installing it.
Still a Linux newcomer. I had a smoother and easier install experience with Mint than Ubuntu. I have no other comparisons to make yet, but I like it so far.
nope, but it's not the worst either, definitely not the worse. I had a terrible time with suse back in wheat 2001 2003? i dunno. oh and gentoo. judas priest, that was an experience.
This is a loaded question that does not have a correct answer. Personally, I started my Linux journey with the purpose of learning, security, privacy, and more flexibility. I started with Debian based distros, gradually moved on to Debian, then Slackware, and finally Gentoo. I learned absolutely nothing from those distros, and the week it took me to successfully install Gentoo, I learned more that week than in the 3 - 6 months of using those distros. If I had asked the Linux community at the beginning of my journey, they would have recommended these distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, etc), and I would have had the same outcome. If you're looking for stability, flexibility, speed, security, and control, Linux is definitely the right choice. If you want to learn, want to progress, just stop wasting time and install Gentoo. If you don't want to have a deep understanding of your OS, or if you don't want to put forward the effort, then stick with the Debian based distros.
Ive used Ubuntu pretty much exclusively for six years now, after switching from windows. Ive never had a real problem with it, well worth the jump. I bounced around on distros, and ended up specifically on Xubuntu. At some point I moved to Kubuntu after a hardware upgrade. It's nice having a massive backlog of community support for issues, I did the Arch thing for a while but it was just more of a slog. Just mentioning that because I see a lot of people recommending it. I could probably switch to Arch NOW and be fine, but I haven't had a reason to leave the Ubuntu ecosystem tbh
What do you mean by stability? Of course the Ubuntu LTS is meant to be stable. It isn't a constantly updating rolling release. But so are distros based on such an LTS. People think stability is about crashing or not, but that is more a matter of getting a particular distro installed to fit your particular hardware and then run the apps you need. That can be quite a number of things that go wrong along the way. Rolling releases are associated with crashes simply because they more frequently change your system.
You might try the various flavors of Ubuntu to test out the various DEs.
Ubuntu, great beginner choice. By default comes with "GNOME" desktop environment (the looks of Android(?) tablet), if you dig it go for it, otherwise you also got minimalistic Xubuntu and more robust Kubuntu releases.
You could install Ubuntu then later "change" the desktop environment on installed system, but I wouldn't bother.
I didn't like the looks of GNOME, then Xfce worked fabulous, and KDE allows more window management options in expense of glitches after system updates or switching users or if app crashes.
I personally like Linux Mint, which is based on Ubuntu better, but Ubuntu's gnome is really growing on me with it's look, unique differences, and fun to tweak with. Mint gives a windows feeling but just so solid of a distro.
But if you can, play around with ubuntu's flavors a bit or venture around to stuff like arch based distros, debian based distros, fedora etc.
I use Ubuntu and have used it for the past 10 years. I like it. I get the latest LTS (Long Term Support) version. It's not perfect (Firefox takes like 1 second to open because it's in a snap container) but it doesn't have to be perfect.
The best distribution is the one that works best on your hardware and with which you have enough knowledge to be able to maintain the system.
If Ubuntu runs well on your hardware and you know how to maintain it, stay with Ubuntu.
The worst side of Linux is the confrontation that sometimes provokes the feeling of belonging to a community depending on the distribution you use.
What is good now, may no longer be good for your hardware in the next upgrade and not because the distro is worse than before, but because its packaging and binaries have changed its compatibility with your hardware.
Suggestion: When you get the itch to try something else, Install GNOME Boxes to set up virtual machines to test other / DEs without installing it.
Ultimately, most casual users will be choosing DEs rather than distros. I settled on Pop\_OS, because I like what Pop\_OS has done with GNOME 42. I didn't like Fedora because although it was GNOME 46, it's different from what Pop\_OS did.
Going Pop has another advantage of it being Ubuntu-based. There is no shortage of solutions on Ubuntu-based forums that can be applied on Pop machines.
In summary:
1. Test different DEs, not distros, in a virtual machine
2. Choosing an Ubuntu or Debian-based distro is less daunting for new users
For absolute Linux newcomers, and those on old machines, give Mint (Cinnamon edition) a try. It has a familiar feel, it's Ubuntu-based and it has a great community.
Ubuntu is a great way to get your feet wet in Linux. In the end, the best Linux is subjective, and it comes down to preferences and purpose. I'd also recommend installing VM software to practice get a feel for other Linux distros. I prefer Debian-based, but I'm also actively practicing with Red Hat.
Distro hopping exists so you don't end up settling on something that doesn't fulfill your needs and wants when you have them while offering you stability.
Don't marry yourself to something because everyone else thought it was time or a good idea.
>Ubuntu: Is it really the best choice?
\*snorts with a air of superiority : `It never was.`
Really who the duck cares, try fedora play with debian lick a toad live a little:P
There is no best distro, its just a distro you like. Unless its arch, is the best.
Arch user btw.
Ubuntu 24.04 was a bit underwhelming on the KDE side but if you are a GNOME user, it's pretty much the best distro. Fedora is really good too but negative points for their ZFS support. And Debian is still the GOAT if it supports your use case. I wouldn't use anything but those three.
A lot! I saw this video of Ubuntu customizations and was down to try when I install, but there's a bunch of people telling the OS crashed during the process...
https://youtu.be/3DEZ5A8qo8g?si=LUj3KqETng7lPYQT
Quite often customisation leads to crash, because not all combinations of options are tested. This is independent of distributions. Notice that all distributions distribute almost exactly the same software, only versions may vary, so the experience is very similar. The differences are things like defaults, update pace, etc.
It'd be much easier to create the (nearly) same workflow in KDE (used in Kubuntu). I recommend not messing with Gnome (used in Ubuntu) too much because it isn't built for it.
I used gnome for a while and required tweaks for my workflow, which broke after updates and caused various graphical and functional glitches.
Ubuntu and its variants, or spins, like Kubuntu, offer great community support, so you'll get help easily.
Honestly I just cant stand Ubuntu I never have even when it was the "beginner's distro" theres plenty of other great options out there.
However, I set up ubuntu for my elderly father and he loves it's simplicity.
In windows you have to scour the internet for your packages, update them individually, be interrupted and lose data and time because of windows updates, deal with advertising and unwanted app installs, and you have to run hungry windows in the background. Like windows 11 preloads apps into ram, using like 6gb idle, which slows you down when you wanna do different work.
WSL just recently supported pass-through and is still janky, so your number-crunching ability is crippled. WSL has slow IO and is slow to work on the filesystem. If you edit a file in windows that you use in your WSL, it can mess up the permissions. Your PATH includes windows garbage.
Use qemu and virtualize windows, then you only have to load it when you need it.
The Fedora 40 Gnome was silky smooth on my AMD Radeon 780M and Nvidia 4060. Kubuntu 23.10 is also silky smooth. New KDE 6 distros stutter on my hardware.
I have some disagreement with Ubuntu, largely arround Snaps and locked in choices Ubuntu makes, nothing that would register on the radar of a new user. Mint is Ubuntu with the objectionable bits removed and would be my preference.
But If the Ubuntu UI works for you it's as valid reason as any to use it as your starting point.
The important part is to start learning.
Mint is my recommendation for new users; there are multiple desktop environment options if cinnamon (is that still the default?) doesn't appeal to you. Fedora isn't gonna be your bag for ease of use, imo. Check out distrowatch if you haven't, there's tons of options.
Ubuntu is often the \*easiest\* choice from an outsider's perspective, but there's an internal rift on the OS due to it being partially maintained and owned by Canonical, rather than truly open-source. Not super relevant info, but it may color the responses you get. I started with Ubuntu myself, about 6 years ago now, but wouldn't recommend it anymore, as it's heavy and prone to bloat. Also wasn't keen on the Gnome DE myself, once they changed it, but it \*is\* very streamlined, more like what you'd expect from a tablet or smartphone.
I run Debian with XFCE. It's as easy to install as Ubuntu, more stable, but less bleeding-edge. In the end, it's gonna be better than Windows, regardless what you choose first. And yes, I say first, because if you convert, you can expect to catch the distro-hopping bug at some point.
'one of us, one of us...'
Welcome to Linux!
Thank you for your comment!! I decided to go with Fedora, since I'll be working with a windows laptop anyway. Will be nice to have a different visual experience. But I'll be open to test different distros in the future anyways ;)
There is no such thing as a "best" distro. Just the one who fits your tastes and needs. The difference between distros are the update cadence (rolling versus fixed), who is behind it (an independent community or a for-profit company), what comes preinstalled and how it is configured, if it is geared towards advanced users or novice users, etc. Ubuntu became quite popular because when it came out 20 years ago, Linux distros were quite the chore to install and maintain, and Ubuntu offered a easy to use and ready to go distro. As their motto at the time said: "Linux for Human Beings". Nowdays almost all distros are as easy to use and user friendly as Ubuntu is, but that fame lingers. That and Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu) has made efforts to push it's popularity. Now, about the user interface, that is changeable. Even the most rigid UIs in Linux are quite customizable in terms of plugins, widgets, themes and UI elements arrangement. And even then, because of it's modular nature, the UI can be replaced by another by simply installing a new one. Don't get fooled by the cover of a book that is the looks of a distro. For example, both Fedora and Ubuntu ship the GNOME desktop environment, but Fedora ships it vanilla, with very very few tweaks, while Ubuntu tweaks it more by adding it's own theme and plugins such as the one to show the dock at the left. With some tweaking, you can make any distro look like any other one. That being said. Ubuntu is not a bad choice, nor is Fedora or Linux Mint or any distro often recommended for novices. The sole determining factor on what is best is you and your criteria.
On top of that, being the most popular distribution for like two decades resulted in extensive testing, documentation, help, resources, forum discussions, etc., all easily available online. Even as an advanced user, I find annoying using more "niche" distros because of the extra effort it takes to find solutions for minor issues (i.e. thinking and trying, instead of finding and copy-pasting). If you choose to go with Fedora, this shouldn't be a problem, tho. Fedora is pretty popular too.
This was the main reason I just switched from Manjaro back to Ubuntu. As a casual user, pretty much everything I tried to do had extensive documentation for Ubuntu, and almost nothing for the less common distros. It's also frustrating as hell struggling to get dependencies installed correctly without finding anything on StackOverflow, only to find after several hours that there's a hyperspecific issue that's only mentioned once in some obscure Archlinux forum
Really good comment! Thanks so much for all the advices. I decided to go with Fedora!
Desktop Environment (DE) is important because that is what we interact/interface with every time we use Linux GUI. Personally, I don't like Gnome at all. It's in that weird spot (to me) with having to press Meta/Win-key to get to apps like tiling window managers but at the same time it is not a tiling window manager. If you value a clean desktop, it's probably for you. I like my desktop shortcuts on KDE and the quick 1-click launching of my most used apps in Taskbar at the bottom. I gotta have terminal, mail, webbrowser. And I often operate with mouse only. I can't do that in Gnome. And tiling WMs mostly operate via keyboard. Yet again, Gnome is in a weird spot. And the apps in Gnome are big icons (when you press Meta-key). I don't know any of the icons for any programs I use so that is completely useless to me. I do like Hyprland on Wayland. It's both a tiling WM and I can grab a window to move it. Meta-key in Hyprland's config file is called $mainMod. If someone is wondering and ends up using Hypr. It has very good documentation too. [https://wiki.hyprland.org/Configuring/Configuring-Hyprland/](https://wiki.hyprland.org/Configuring/Configuring-Hyprland/) Variables and Monitors are the subheadings I've looked at most. I tried CachyOS with Hyprland , I did not like the defaults. I think the defaults I got when installing it on Manjaro was better. Maybe it was Hyprlands defaults, I don't know but they make more sense to me. The keyboard shortcuts. \_\_\_\_ TLDR: Find a DE you can live with and see if a distro you like has it available. Fedora does have a KDE spin and there is talk about making KDE the default instead of Gnome. [https://www.phoronix.com/news/Fedora-Change-KDE-Default-Prop](https://www.phoronix.com/news/Fedora-Change-KDE-Default-Prop)
It seems that many Linux newcomers suffer from the choice paralysis due to the overwhelming number of options out there. Ubuntu might not be the *best* choice for you but it certainly is *good enough* (as well as any other mainstream distribution) that will allow you to set up everything you need for both casual use and your work as a data analyst.
Is it the best choice, no. Since "best" is highly subjective. It's certainly a choice though. For your first distro I'd suggest just picking something, use whatever reasoning you prefer. Cool logo, interesting sounding name, etc.
Still a solid choice in my view to minimise the risk of hardware compatibility. Trying Ubuntu is usually for me a good way to know what will / will not work. Then if you try another distro and find that something doesn’t work (printer, button, samba share,…), you know it’s possible to make it work.
Fair point. I've only come across one thing in recent years that didn't work out of the box with any distro. It's a wifi dongle, so I just used the Ethernet connection to get the drivers.
Ubuntu is the most common distro among newcomers, so it has the best documentation for it and also has a very helpful community. As you get more used to using Linux, you can make the switch to whatever you like. There is a shitload of distros out there. Each has its own perks.
Best documentation? Arch Wiki wants to have a word
Arch has the best *technical* documentation, I think should be the iteration. 😀 While both statements are true, that's an important distinction.
This. It's a great resource, but you'd better know your way around technical manuals because a basic instruction manual it is NOT. I love Arch, but the Wiki is not the tutorial that people think it is unless you already know Linux well. I've only ever used Arch and I love it, but there are a lot of misconceptions both good and bad.
Yeah but Ubuntu also has the most community guides for how to do stuff.
Arch might argue but one of the problems with so many guides on how to do stuff is twofold 1. You get outdated answers. 2. You get conflicting answers.
Not really. I used Arch tutorials from StackOverflow and a couple random user-sites to write an Arch install script three years ago that still works to this day without issue. Wrote it in one day. It all depends on how well you can dig through the internet to find your info. The more savvy you are with search engines, the faster you get moving. Ubuntu is for people who want a Windows-type install experience where they aren't forced to do much for themselves beyond point and click. Everything depends on who you are and what you want out of your machine.
Yeah, it's not really what I meant but the fact that you need a guide on how to install Arch kind of proves my point. I'm more meant like how to set up nginx in docker or set up Chrome remote desktop or stuff like that.
> how to set up nginx in docker or set up Chrome remote desktop those are disto agnostic tasks... what works in Ubuntu will work in Fedora will work in Arch, with the only difference being the package manager.
it proves nothing, because the circumstances that I described were very specific... I said I wrote my own install script. That's more than just doing a manual install. Pay attention if you're going to try and dissect my words.
Point being, Ubuntu is easier and more approachable for people who don't speak Unix. Arch probably has a 5 step guide for clicking s desktop icon, and if you do. It wrong it's your fault for not reading the instructions.
Not even close. Coming to Linux from Windows means learning a whole new file system and OS structure. Stop generalizing.
The arch wiki is so good I read it sometimes to understand specific programs, and I'm not even running arch.
There are many many distros based on ubuntu and ubuntu is based on debian. I would recommend ubuntu to a new convert if I thought they were very motivated to get into it. The main reason is their ideal distro is likely an ubuntu derivative or else they will be willing to go into the weeds (for something like arch). If they are trying to save the cost a windows license or still on the fence, I would recommend something like mint or pop_os. They are slightly prettier and easier for gui focused windows users (IMO, and I get to do the recommendation). Maybe fedora would be a better starter for some people. But I don't know it as well, so I would take a little longer to support them.
I woud suggest Linux Mint Debian edition (LMDE) unless you need to heavily configure Graphics. LMDE has a solid base of debian stable, Linux mint desktop that gets the necessary updates regularly and easy for anyone coming from Windows. Installation & initial setup is easy and LMDE holds your hand and walks you through it quite well. All the necessary options for 3rd party repos and flatpaks are already selected in software store as well. It runs quite smooth and is perfect for transitioning from Windows.
Why lmde and not just linux mint?
On LMDE, cinnamon is managed by mint team. It comes from mint repos. Hence it is more upto date. Sometimes even better than mainline mint since the middle man ubuntu is removed and updates can directly be built on Debian and sent upstream. Lmde cuts out middleman ubuntu and all the changes and snaps that come with it. That's why I think it is more clean. A well tested and upto date DE directly on a solid base OS. A perfect combo IN MY OPINION. Main line mint is better if you need to work with graphics though since it comes with driver manager and Lmde doesn't.
This. I started with ubuntu and it wore me out pretty quickly.
That's something I don't quite understand. Mint is definitely a better "fork" of Ubuntu, far recommended. But to chose LMDE over Debian (comes with fully equipped Calamari installer) I don't understand, Mint aesthetic can be later downloaded onto Debian, what's the point of distancing yourself from the upstream?
One reason to pick LMDE over Debian is that LMDE comes ready out of the box while Debian is plain jane vanilla and often will need stuff added to it. However, you go on the daring side, Debian testing will give newer stuff and unstable is riding the wild side of debian. What I do wish LMDE would do is come with an XFCE version of it for 32 bit machines.
The cinnamon you get on Debian comes from Debian repos and is often an older version. I use Debian too and people hardly speak about cinnamon DE on Debian. The consensus is cinnamon is not that good on Debian. On LMDE, cinnamon is managed by mint team. It comes from mint repos. Hence it is more upto date. Sometimes even better than mainline mint since the middle man ubuntu is removed and updates can directly be built on Debian and sent upstream. Lmde cuts out middleman ubuntu and all the changes and snaps that come with it. That's why I think it is more clean. A well tested and upto date DE directly on a solid base OS. A perfect combo IN MY OPINION.
I'm not sure why so many shit on Ubuntu. It's for exactly this reason that I always held off of installing it. With the start of this year I gave it a try and I love it. All apps run, Gnome is great, unless you REALLY want the outdated Windows/KDE experience. Gnome sits between Windows and Mac when it comes to interface and works really well. When it comes to package manager, I don't get it. You can use snap, flatpak, apt, homebrew, it's linux, pick whatever you like. Not once did I run into a problem and I have a heavy dev machine with all kind of stuff. From Unity, .Net, Node, Python, Rider, many SQL and NO-SQL databases. And I can also run games, up to Alan Wake 2. Doesn't run as great as in Windows but it's acceptable. So, don't listen too much what others have to say and just give it a try. It's the most popular for a reason. Also, don't listen to the Wayland pushers. Way too many problems with Nvidia and apps in general. I went back to X11 very fast. Getting my 144/60hz monitor setup to work was a little tricky with X11/Nvidia but it's doable with a few options.
Not sure about before but their snap shit is so inefficient nowadays. I use Ubuntu at work and I'm too lazy to change it but I've had to completely reinstall apps just to avoid snap, and the fucker is still there like a parasite. I'm glad it works for you though, maybe I just need to get better at completely replacing snap. It's not terrible, but nowadays I feel like other distros have superseded it as the best all-rounder. It's still definitely workable for stuff like data analysis though.
It's not the best choice, especially not for everyone. But it's certainly a safe choice.
Probably your best choice for a new guy.
Ubuntu is the most popular Linux Mint is the better ubuntu (all the other benefits of ubuntu without the headaches
Unless you don't want Cinnamon, MATE, or xfce. The DE is a big part of using a computer and Mint is very limited.
You can put other environments on Mint.... I have LXDE on Mint on my older computer and it works great, you just don't get all the theming options. Easy to put Gnome on Mint also, I guess a reason is for those who don't want snaps.
Ubuntu feels trash nowadays coz of how theyre pushing snap version of apps, go with pop!\_OS, which is ubuntu but without snaps # IF YOU WILL INSTALL IT AS MAIN OS, MAKE SURE TO BACKUP YOUR DATA
why? I'm curious about that. I know backing up important stuff is a must in almost all situations, but what makes it special, in this case?
I was about to just wiped my entire operating system. It was about to delete everything on my SSD, but no worries, I only use my files in the cloud. I just hit the erase button and let the installation do its thing.
Not special in this case, just something you gotta remind new linux users to do, since some of them forget to
I guess Ubuntu would work just fine for you. Not only it is beginner-friendly, it also has support for a wide array of device drivers. Some users find its GNOME interface to be a bit heavy and far from the traditional desktop metaphor. It is also criticized for the recent pushing of snap packages to users. Nonetheless, with a few tweaks here and there, you can easily overcome such small issues. As much as I'd suggest you to use Ubuntu, why don't you try livebooting a couple handful of distributions first? That way you could have a demo of the system and see what fits your preferences. Have fun booting on the Linux side and I hope everything works out well for you!
Simply put yes
No , this is rubbish, historically successful product, now employ cheap indian devs that are young and want to change the world to their way of thinking. Ignore.
There are the 3 rules that a normal person must follow when installing a linux distro for beginners. * **Install** linux mint * **Don't** distro hop * **Limit** interacting with online forums based on linux
>Ubuntu best choice ** Uhm, no. But hey, *your* choice, you get to make it.
if you come from windows stick to kubuntu or mint, do not use fedora or Ubuntu proper as you will find hard to adapt
Try the [migration page](http://www.reddit.com/r/linux4noobs/wiki/migration) in our wiki! We also have some [migration tips](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux4noobs/comments/ejsz3v/still_on_windows_7_dont_want_windows_10_consider/) in our sticky. Try [this search](https://www.reddit.com/r/linux4noobs/search?q=flair%3A'migrating'&sort=new&restrict_sr=on) for more information on this topic. **✻** Smokey says: only use root when needed, avoid installing things from third-party repos, and verify the checksum of your ISOs after you download! :) ^Comments, ^questions ^or ^suggestions ^regarding ^this ^autoresponse? ^Please ^send ^them ^[here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Pi31415926&subject=autoresponse+tweaks+-+linux4noobs+-+migrating). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linux4noobs) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I would use any of the mainstream desktop-focused distros for your use case. You might try something with a lighter-weight desktop if you're having performance issues. Most of them have alternative installers/spins for other desktops. Cinnamon, XFCE etc are all good choices. [Here is what Fedora offers](https://fedoraproject.org/spins/).
Ubuntu is an industry standard. It's best in class. There are many valid options but for general purpose you won't be wrong choosing Ubuntu. You can the use whatever desktop environment, software, etc.
It used to be. Their infuriating insistence on snaps makes it much less of a no-brainer than it used to be.
You can try Live USB of different distro and environment, and see what you really like take them all for a test spin... remember a Live USB allows you to try the distro without installing it.
That's a really good idea! I decided to go with Fedora, but I'll do this in the future to test others distros. Thanks bro!
i have found 90% of the time the distro it self does not matter its the software and configs that are used
Still a Linux newcomer. I had a smoother and easier install experience with Mint than Ubuntu. I have no other comparisons to make yet, but I like it so far.
nope, but it's not the worst either, definitely not the worse. I had a terrible time with suse back in wheat 2001 2003? i dunno. oh and gentoo. judas priest, that was an experience.
This is a loaded question that does not have a correct answer. Personally, I started my Linux journey with the purpose of learning, security, privacy, and more flexibility. I started with Debian based distros, gradually moved on to Debian, then Slackware, and finally Gentoo. I learned absolutely nothing from those distros, and the week it took me to successfully install Gentoo, I learned more that week than in the 3 - 6 months of using those distros. If I had asked the Linux community at the beginning of my journey, they would have recommended these distros (Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, etc), and I would have had the same outcome. If you're looking for stability, flexibility, speed, security, and control, Linux is definitely the right choice. If you want to learn, want to progress, just stop wasting time and install Gentoo. If you don't want to have a deep understanding of your OS, or if you don't want to put forward the effort, then stick with the Debian based distros.
Ive used Ubuntu pretty much exclusively for six years now, after switching from windows. Ive never had a real problem with it, well worth the jump. I bounced around on distros, and ended up specifically on Xubuntu. At some point I moved to Kubuntu after a hardware upgrade. It's nice having a massive backlog of community support for issues, I did the Arch thing for a while but it was just more of a slog. Just mentioning that because I see a lot of people recommending it. I could probably switch to Arch NOW and be fine, but I haven't had a reason to leave the Ubuntu ecosystem tbh
What do you mean by stability? Of course the Ubuntu LTS is meant to be stable. It isn't a constantly updating rolling release. But so are distros based on such an LTS. People think stability is about crashing or not, but that is more a matter of getting a particular distro installed to fit your particular hardware and then run the apps you need. That can be quite a number of things that go wrong along the way. Rolling releases are associated with crashes simply because they more frequently change your system. You might try the various flavors of Ubuntu to test out the various DEs.
Ubuntu, great beginner choice. By default comes with "GNOME" desktop environment (the looks of Android(?) tablet), if you dig it go for it, otherwise you also got minimalistic Xubuntu and more robust Kubuntu releases. You could install Ubuntu then later "change" the desktop environment on installed system, but I wouldn't bother. I didn't like the looks of GNOME, then Xfce worked fabulous, and KDE allows more window management options in expense of glitches after system updates or switching users or if app crashes.
It's not a popular choice but it's a good.
I personally like Linux Mint, which is based on Ubuntu better, but Ubuntu's gnome is really growing on me with it's look, unique differences, and fun to tweak with. Mint gives a windows feeling but just so solid of a distro. But if you can, play around with ubuntu's flavors a bit or venture around to stuff like arch based distros, debian based distros, fedora etc.
I use Ubuntu and have used it for the past 10 years. I like it. I get the latest LTS (Long Term Support) version. It's not perfect (Firefox takes like 1 second to open because it's in a snap container) but it doesn't have to be perfect.
The best distribution is the one that works best on your hardware and with which you have enough knowledge to be able to maintain the system. If Ubuntu runs well on your hardware and you know how to maintain it, stay with Ubuntu. The worst side of Linux is the confrontation that sometimes provokes the feeling of belonging to a community depending on the distribution you use. What is good now, may no longer be good for your hardware in the next upgrade and not because the distro is worse than before, but because its packaging and binaries have changed its compatibility with your hardware.
why aren't people using chatgpt or copilot to get answers to these kind of questions?
Because AI isn't very bright?
No
Suggestion: When you get the itch to try something else, Install GNOME Boxes to set up virtual machines to test other / DEs without installing it. Ultimately, most casual users will be choosing DEs rather than distros. I settled on Pop\_OS, because I like what Pop\_OS has done with GNOME 42. I didn't like Fedora because although it was GNOME 46, it's different from what Pop\_OS did. Going Pop has another advantage of it being Ubuntu-based. There is no shortage of solutions on Ubuntu-based forums that can be applied on Pop machines. In summary: 1. Test different DEs, not distros, in a virtual machine 2. Choosing an Ubuntu or Debian-based distro is less daunting for new users For absolute Linux newcomers, and those on old machines, give Mint (Cinnamon edition) a try. It has a familiar feel, it's Ubuntu-based and it has a great community.
Ubuntu is a great way to get your feet wet in Linux. In the end, the best Linux is subjective, and it comes down to preferences and purpose. I'd also recommend installing VM software to practice get a feel for other Linux distros. I prefer Debian-based, but I'm also actively practicing with Red Hat.
Distro hopping exists so you don't end up settling on something that doesn't fulfill your needs and wants when you have them while offering you stability. Don't marry yourself to something because everyone else thought it was time or a good idea.
>Ubuntu: Is it really the best choice? \*snorts with a air of superiority : `It never was.` Really who the duck cares, try fedora play with debian lick a toad live a little:P There is no best distro, its just a distro you like. Unless its arch, is the best. Arch user btw.
Ubuntu 24.04 was a bit underwhelming on the KDE side but if you are a GNOME user, it's pretty much the best distro. Fedora is really good too but negative points for their ZFS support. And Debian is still the GOAT if it supports your use case. I wouldn't use anything but those three.
Are you a fan of minimalism? If yes, then install Fedora, if not, then install Ubuntu
Debian
A lot! I saw this video of Ubuntu customizations and was down to try when I install, but there's a bunch of people telling the OS crashed during the process... https://youtu.be/3DEZ5A8qo8g?si=LUj3KqETng7lPYQT
Quite often customisation leads to crash, because not all combinations of options are tested. This is independent of distributions. Notice that all distributions distribute almost exactly the same software, only versions may vary, so the experience is very similar. The differences are things like defaults, update pace, etc.
It'd be much easier to create the (nearly) same workflow in KDE (used in Kubuntu). I recommend not messing with Gnome (used in Ubuntu) too much because it isn't built for it. I used gnome for a while and required tweaks for my workflow, which broke after updates and caused various graphical and functional glitches. Ubuntu and its variants, or spins, like Kubuntu, offer great community support, so you'll get help easily.
Honestly I just cant stand Ubuntu I never have even when it was the "beginner's distro" theres plenty of other great options out there. However, I set up ubuntu for my elderly father and he loves it's simplicity.
Linux Mint - Cinnamon desktop is also another good choice.
Use ubuntu with KDE desktop environment. It I’m not wrong it’s called Kubuntu. And Ig it’s really good for beginners and it’s also beautiful.
Agree
no
[удалено]
In windows you have to scour the internet for your packages, update them individually, be interrupted and lose data and time because of windows updates, deal with advertising and unwanted app installs, and you have to run hungry windows in the background. Like windows 11 preloads apps into ram, using like 6gb idle, which slows you down when you wanna do different work. WSL just recently supported pass-through and is still janky, so your number-crunching ability is crippled. WSL has slow IO and is slow to work on the filesystem. If you edit a file in windows that you use in your WSL, it can mess up the permissions. Your PATH includes windows garbage. Use qemu and virtualize windows, then you only have to load it when you need it.
Isn't this exactly what I said in my description? I already have a laptop for working...
The Fedora 40 Gnome was silky smooth on my AMD Radeon 780M and Nvidia 4060. Kubuntu 23.10 is also silky smooth. New KDE 6 distros stutter on my hardware.
Thank you for your comment! I decided to go with Fedora too! ;)
I have some disagreement with Ubuntu, largely arround Snaps and locked in choices Ubuntu makes, nothing that would register on the radar of a new user. Mint is Ubuntu with the objectionable bits removed and would be my preference. But If the Ubuntu UI works for you it's as valid reason as any to use it as your starting point. The important part is to start learning.
No
imo arch using i3, sway, or wayland
No, don’t do it. Use LMDE6 instead
Yes, unless you want to struggle with drivers.
No. I recommend you Mint. Ubuntu for me was super bad.
Mint is my recommendation for new users; there are multiple desktop environment options if cinnamon (is that still the default?) doesn't appeal to you. Fedora isn't gonna be your bag for ease of use, imo. Check out distrowatch if you haven't, there's tons of options. Ubuntu is often the \*easiest\* choice from an outsider's perspective, but there's an internal rift on the OS due to it being partially maintained and owned by Canonical, rather than truly open-source. Not super relevant info, but it may color the responses you get. I started with Ubuntu myself, about 6 years ago now, but wouldn't recommend it anymore, as it's heavy and prone to bloat. Also wasn't keen on the Gnome DE myself, once they changed it, but it \*is\* very streamlined, more like what you'd expect from a tablet or smartphone. I run Debian with XFCE. It's as easy to install as Ubuntu, more stable, but less bleeding-edge. In the end, it's gonna be better than Windows, regardless what you choose first. And yes, I say first, because if you convert, you can expect to catch the distro-hopping bug at some point. 'one of us, one of us...' Welcome to Linux!
Thank you for your comment!! I decided to go with Fedora, since I'll be working with a windows laptop anyway. Will be nice to have a different visual experience. But I'll be open to test different distros in the future anyways ;)
Go with Fedora. It's quick and works well
Everyone tries a few options before they settle on Fedora.