I'm bouncing over to Linux. I'm torn between these four distros
Here are my computer specs:
MSI Z-87 MPower MOBO
ASUS GTX 780
Samsung MSATA SSD
Which one of these distros will give me less driver bullshit and have a smoother install? Which one, if any, will work better with multiple monitors?
Which one do you prefer and why?
Arch is the way to go.
Never had experience with suse, but debian is just freetard shitware and mint is just freetard shitware with canonical shitware with EXTRA shitware on top, just for you.
Unless on a server, useless
Unless you're a grandpa, useless
Expect some ridiculous bugs, but otherwise ok
Good if you enjoy troubleshooting more than actually using your system
Default Arch install is easy. In fact every other installer I've used has crapped out on me instead in some way. What's hard is wifi drivers, Xorg, pacman fucking up, etc.
Trust me, you'll have more than enough work even with Suse
Driver situation based on provided specs?
>>Linux = Paralysis by Analysis
Can anybody elaborate on the state of OpenSUSE today? I'm a KDE Tumbleweed user and Plasma crashes at least twice on a good day, not to mention the weird widget glitches. Is Leap any better at KDE? I've heard it's broken but that seems to be just one spamming anon.
>le hat meme
It's the best compromise between ease of use and bleeding edge (when Arch is on 4.4, Fedora is on 4.2) made by the company that most contributes to Linux and that fixed Heartbleed and Shellshock.
And dnf is better than any package manager.
Use Ubuntu MATE. For me, everything worked out of the box, from multiple monitor support, to sound on my PCI sound card.
Also, Ubuntu is good for noobs as you find detailed how-tos on installing software, troubleshooting problems, etc. Also, most of the software you need comes pre-packaged in .debs or there are ppas that provide it.
Don't use Arch as your first distro, unless you really like tinkering with your PC and see as a hobby in itself.
Never used Mint but supposedly it's no-bullshit and just werks.
>less driver bullshit and have a smoother install?
Then just install a *buntu, unless you have a good reason not to do so.
>Which one, if any, will work better with multiple monitors?
It depends more on the DE rather than the distro
They are all ok. Suse is a good choice. Otherwise, if you are willing to invest the time and not brain dead, follow the arch wiki and install arch. If you are lazy, you can also install antergos or manjaro and rely on the arch wiki if you have problems. Probably better if you are completely new to Linux.
Choice of a desktop environment is often more important imho than distro. I started using Ubuntu (before it became a bloated monster), then switched to arch. Contrary to what people here tell you, I have had only a issues once or twice,and they were quickly fixed by the official announcements.
elementary os, ubuntu, mint.. or listen to the neets here and install arch.
I worked with an arch guy once... it formatted his pc after 10 days of work as he was losing way too much time to do anything.... avoid that shit like pestilence please (if you need to work with your pc, otherwise just do what u want)
Ok now you've lost me. I thought each distro came with its own DE? Are you telling me I can slap whatever DE on whatever distro? And if so, what DE is best used with what distro, or does that even matter?
Arch is a meme. It's unstable, overly complicated and not worth installing.
Just use something based on Ubuntu like Mint and you'll be fine, everything should work out of the box.
This is very interesting and cool news. Are you able to install whatever Window Manager and DE on whatever distro you want? Or can the three cause conflicts with one another, or are some designed to work better with others?
Yes. Now do you see why all the "which distro is better" is mostly a shit show of "which default settings and included wallpaper are better"? You can take any distro and turn it into any other distro. The only really hard things to replace are repository updateness, systemd, update scheme.
OK, in that case don't go for arch yet. Yes, you can put any DE on any distro. Most come prepackaged with a certain one however (arch doesn't). Go install mint cinnamon or xubuntu. Both are solid choices for a beginner,and there is plenty of support as they are quite popular.
Wel fuck-a-lucka-ding-dong /g/. Why do you Linux dudes never mention shit like this. I've been lurking /g/ for months slowly weaning towards getting up and running on Linux but have literally been stuck in a constant state of paralysis by analysis due to lack of said facts. I enjoy fucking around with this shit but I dreaded the idea of needing to install a brand new OS every several weeks or so. This is fucking dope. I know what I'm doing tomorrow.
If you have to ask then go for Mint. Everything you need is there right out of the box.
Debian is like Mint except that you likely need to fiddle and troubleshoot with drivers when you start. Nothing you really need is installed, but available. Open SUSE have the worst installer of the lot, at least when I installed it and the package manager is shit. I installed something else straight away and regretted it.
Arch is for people who love troubleshooting. Your sound works fine and then suddenly it turns off after 2 minutes until it reboots and you have another 2 minutes? (a error I had) and then spend hours reading docs, installing and removing software until you figure out that the error do not happen if you plug in one particular brand of headphone or speaker. So you end up choosing to buy and test the headphone or try to keep trying to get it working on your equipment. I was just happy to get the sound working on something, I have spent weeks, read hundred thousand words of documentation and tried tons of different things. Arch is great for weird and exotic errors like that, it's the most unstable distro you can find. It barely works and require a minimum of 10-20 hours a week to troubleshooting weird shit. I eventually grew tired of it and installed a functional distro (lubuntu) instead. I have a job, I don't have time for that shit.
How and why? Does this happen that frequently? I never get the complaining about arch breaking on here. I am running arch for 4+ years on two laptops, no real issues. Three times it took me about an hour to fix something. Issues were mainly due to a shitty shared wifi connection and infrequent updates at my old apartment.
> but have literally been stuck in a constant state of paralysis by analysis due to lack of said facts
This is all par for the course however. Hopefully you have an idea what you're getting into. The road will be quite rough.
The reddit in you is literally radiating from your posts. Now off you go, faggot.
Yes, you can. In the worst case you get lots of unneccessary programmes, though, that you have to uninstall manually when you uninstall the DE after getting tired of it, so you have to remove some additional 'bloat' by hand.
To make it easiest on yourself, just check out youtube videos of the different desktop environments, see which one you like best and just get a *buntu flavour that comes with the DE pre-installed.
Popular choices on /g/ are
Cinnamon (comes with Mint)
But there's also
eOS with Pantheon, and Deepin with it's own DE
For any of these you'll find an iso that let's you easily install everything within ~30 minutes max
>Unless on a server, useless
Using it right now for
>Web browsing shit
Useless, is this a retard thing?
I had a continuous kernel issue. It would suddenly display errors without a reason.
Other then my experience, fedora is alright. Though I would use debian for a less risky OS.
I am also a power user but have yet to examine any requirement of such knowledge. Debian is not a meme but a functional and working distro.
But, then you have ubunut. This company/distro had ruined that foundation to make a noob distro.
You cannot make a sentence with one word and not justification for doing so. That is incorrect English my friend.
The same concept is myself replying to you saying "lawnmower". Some retarded structure.
>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro>noob distro
Ubuntu minimal is great though. It has a debian like installer, you can choose what you want to install by default (DE, WM, Web/mail server etc.. manually select packages during install, and the iso is literally less than 40MB
I wanted to use something rolling release. I also wanted a functional desktop that was close to something an actual server would run.
I'm sort of unable to decide on a distro. The only experience I've had with linux has been daily use with arch over the past year and I'm getting ready to reformat tomorrow.
What is your point?
It is a distro that removes the requirement of learning a linux environment. In my opinion, I think ubuntu is where the future should not be directed to.
The concept of not using terminal is fucking cancer. Terminal (Bash) is where the power is.
I'm sure you're right, but there are end-users who don't give a fuck about using terminal. I'd go bat shit crazy if every time I jumped on a computer to do anything, I was confronted by a terminal or command prompt. Call me crazy.
What? I am skinny and have a clean and maintained body.
Offending on this site is expected. This site is full of shit stirring retards. Why would anyone be offended over google results, uneducated Americans, and a shit load of curry dickheads.
I'm actually using it right now. Other than being an rpm distro and now the being able to use a Deb package I kind of needed, it's pretty great. It looks absolutely great out of the box. Get something like gnome tweak tool and change the gtk theme and you'll have a great looking non-neet desktop.
So what if people use ubuntu with no knowlege of cli? You have to realise that having more people using linux over win/osx is better than nothing. If people want to learn how to use the terminal then they can just install one of hundreds of other distros. Believe it or not some people just want to switch to linux because they're fed up with the bullshit of ms/apple
I think I'm just going to partition my shit in 3, install Mint, Debian, & Cinnamon. See what the fuck is up with those three, see how ridiculous the installation process is and then decide which one to wipe and free up space for the other. And then if Im feelin frisky, I'll wipe my laptop with openSUSE and attempt Arch. LET IT BEGIN.
Learning what a .deb file is will be enough for people to survive in debian.
Having that stable OS is ubuntu without the increased risk of using edge programs.
It will teach users the same things as
>Not downloading from untrusted repos
For windows users, this is downloading from websites and installed .exe files. <<Not as a written fact.
Using ubuntu takes away some education that is applied to security, long term usability, and recovery. You will have a system that will become unstable since you refuse to maintain dumps and more.
Why should you have to deal with the cancer to get to the "goodish"? Arch is good as a power user too, and the installation and daily usage isn't so retarded that /g/ recommends newfriends install it in order to ruse them like with gentoo. Anybody who uses gentoo fell for the meme.
Yeah I know. I too let /g/ get to my head and think about switching to Arch so I don't have to deal with upgrades to new Ubuntu Versions every 9 months and I can feel elitist and like a tech hipster, but right now Ubuntu MATE 15.10 just werks for me and I don't see why I should re-learn a lot of stuff as I don't have much time on my hands as I need to write a Master thesis.
I definitely see the appeal of Arch, but I would never-ever recommend it to a beginner, because it will just turn them off Linux forever and we should be converting people rather than turning them away with elitism. Also, use cases and demands on an OS vary between people, something that NEETS on /g/ sometimes tend to forget.
You still aren't pointing out though what is wrong with using ubuntu. You know you don't have to use unity and install the full ISO from the site. You can rely on the command line as much as you want with it, without being forced to
I started loonixing on arch and honestly would recommend it to anybody. Granted, I had no idea what the shit from the installation guide was doing the first time through, but daily usage of arch was how I made my way into the linux world. I looked at debian and ubuntu and mint and all the other shit desktop distros and couldn't even deal with the lack of customisability after having used arch, so I guess if you want to ever be able to use a retarded desktop distro, you shouldn't start on arch, but otherwise, fuck it- why not?
>The concept of not using terminal is fucking cancer.
oh /g/, you did it again! shall we use fire to scare these gollums neets away?
signed: a senior dev that uses terminal 24/7 but lives in the real world and knows that linux distros needs to be like eOs / mint if they actually want to be used in something that's not a server with no gui
I have used arch.
>Story time (shit story)
>I developed a script for it to be configured as a proxy gateway.
>This gateway would scan packets.
>Forward 10 days, the system was being attacked due to its connection to the internet 24/7.
>Ok, I said.
>I knew a flaw in the default squid package that needed an update
>I did a selective update
>Never turned back on.
>The update did not use a safe squid package and thus would crash the kernel on each startup.
>I had configure squid to start on boot.
I will never again use that shit. It was not worth wasting time on it. I had projects due and arch was not a viable programming platform for this reason. I could had fixed it, but the point was that it could be develop more, shaped to your needs with a lot of online aid.
Arch, in my opinion, is for unemployed people. The troubleshooting is rather time consuming. Locating problem causing packages takes to long.
Anyway. Arch is not for me.
>Arch, in my opinion, is for unemployed people.
worked with eOs along with a colleague that was using arch... he switched to eOs in less than 10 days after having troubles with dual monitor (daily), mouse drivers, wifi drivers, installing non-free packages, etc.
the only cool thing is the speed of pacman, nothing else... use at least crunchbag anyway if you have a sane mentality
They don't have to be like mint at all to be usable; but unfortunately they need to be like mint for normies to start converting and for the userbase of linux to grow, which is obviously a good thing. Even though I'm like a lot of the faggots in this thread who uses terminal 24/7, mint and ubuntu and debian definitely fill a niche.
>a senior dev that uses terminal 24/7 but lives in the real world
Are you in the real world now, or simply think you work as a linux admin/programmer?
Complete bullshit as soon as you state senior anon. Old cunts here is considered 12 year olds.
I went to CentOS as a pure development platform.
My company I work for would blacklist the use "unstable" stable systems. We had no choice but to use CentOS.
As a server OS, it is reliable for projects. Updates had zero reports of system errors.
At home, I use debian, but as a simple testing platform.
Not OP but it is true.
No profession or educated employee would allow me to use that cancer in the production labs.
"Oh I will just load this python script"
Stupid fucking thing has a broken package.
Serious answer here. I'm using Opensuse 42.1 Leap currently. 100% stable for me. Just make sure you install ffmpeg for proprietary codec support.
I'd recommend Arch, it stopped me distro hopping. Great package management. Don't believe what people say about poor stability. The drivers in the repo are great, they are heavily tested. AUR. Once you have installed Arch it isn't complicated at all, a simple system that only installs the packages you choose.
The biggest hurdle is installation, but after you install it the first time you'll realise just how simple it is.
With multi-monitors, that largely depends on which desktop environment you use, however if you didn't want to use one there are other utilities. But if you were to install Cinnamon, Gnome, KDE, XFCE... Or any full desktop environment, the multi monitor stuff will be extremely easy to setup via settings GUI.
Gentoo is a god-tier OS. It's as flexible ad a GNU+linux system can get. The only downside is the compiling time when updating large packets, which doesn't occur that often.
If you are a beginner, though, I'd recommend you to start with debian unstable+proprietary drivers without systemD. IMHO, this is the best configuration for a desktop/laptop. Ignore arch: it tends to fuck up your configuration over time, even in case of the most stable package. Pacman+AUR are good, but not worth the hassle.>>52666564
>The concept of not using terminal is fucking cancer.
The concept of using tools to simplify tasks is cancer, you've heard it here first! Why use knives when we can use our own open source rocks?
The number of options can really be daunting, just dive in somewhere and you will probably end up using something like Arch eventually. There is no universal best option, the main thing that changes between distros is pre-installed applications, environments and the package manager.
In an ideal world.
If you started using a terminal more you would realise how great it is, it's not a feel, it's not a vibe, it's because everything is within your reach.
I've actually mentioned it lots of times, but the truth is, most of /g/ doesn't understand squat about Linux. They base distro choice on how it looks out of the box.
A good example is the standard "try Debian or Arch" recommendation. You'll see this a lot, yet it's completely retarded, they're about as different as 2 distros could be: one is super stable and outdated, the other is barely stable and bleeding edge. One is rolling release, the other has versioned releases. Different package managers, different inits. One has an installer with entire DEs available, the other makes you install and get a DE from scratch by yourself. One is suitable for servers, the other is suitable for modern laptops. The things they have in common are the Linux kernel and coreutils, really.
Yet you see morons recommending them together all the time like they're both good solutions to the same problem when they couldn't be more different. Why? Because /g/ has never used them. They see people who use Linux go with either so they assume they're both similar.
Only ever used Xfce. Dabbled with Plasma 4 briefly but got rid of it quickly. Arch with Xfce has been extremely stable for me. (Thinkpad, dual monitor + docking station at work. I work in Academia and mostly use R, Python and QGIS and some other stuff.
I love OpenBSD, but for a complete noob? I guess it could be done, but the mailing list is less than welcoming to people who do have a good idea what the fuck they are doing. They aren't going to be the least bit helpful, or nice towards a complete beginner.
Even though I use Arch, recommending it to someone as unexperienced as OP is just daft. Go install some Debian derivative or OpenSuse. Exact choice depends on which Desktop Environment you want. As others have mentioned, these distros are all very similar, apart from their look out of the box. Just choose one you like.
Do not spend too much effort customizing everything. It's really only worth it with a rolling release distro.
XFCE is an extremely nice, lightweight and simple Desktop Environment. If you want something more shiny, Cinnamon works fine as well. Mate supposedly as well. Afaik mint is great with Cinnamon, Xubuntu for XFCE. Since both are based on Ubuntu, there is a lot of support available on the internet.
I have never tried Opensuse. But many people seem to value it highly and it's been around forever. I really don't think you can make a wrong choice here.
unless you have a really specific edge use case then go for one of the ubuntu variants
lol if you want to learn, just read some short intro to linux and youll learn more than using shitty arch
Debian is the best choice.
What's good enough for servers is good enough for me. Plus it's stable as hell so you don't waste time trying to fix shit when it wasn't your fault to begin with.
Combine with Xfce and you have god-tier desktop that's good for absolutely everything.
Switch to Mint and start reading a book about Linux. It'll be stable and comfortable while allowing you to delve into more unfamiliar aspects of Linux.
This is the best advice you'll get here.
Are you an idiot? The latest version of Linux on Debian doesn't even support Bay Trail processors.
>doesn't mention that fedora is a testing field for RHEL
How is this a problem? How does it affect me in any way?
>the package base is way smaller
Again, how does this affect me? The RH repos have everything I ever needed, more up to date than any other distro except for Arch or unstable releases, with the exception of mpv and a codec bundle.
But why would you do that? I know it's possible, but you lose the convenience of having your package manager updating it for you. If you really want an up-to-date kernel how about using a distro with an up-to-date kernel instead of using an outdated one and hacking a new kernel in it?
4.4 is a LTS kernel and having really stable packages except the one you need to be bleeding edge is a practical thing. of course you could also use testing which is on 4.3.3-7 right now.
>. Arch is great for weird and exotic errors like that, it's the most unstable distro you can find. It barely works and require a minimum of 10-20 hours a week to troubleshooting weird shit.
You should really consider suicide.
>sudo nano /etc/apt/sources.list
>add contrib and non-free
>add deb.multimedia.org (or whatever the right repo is)
>sudo aptitude update
>sudo aptitude install ffmpeg firmware-linux-nonfree
same goes for the non-free iso really. debian has these codecs, drivers and whatever but they are disabled by default because they are non-free and/or have licensing issues in some countries (US and mp3 afaik)
>is rolling release
so is debian testing and unstable which LMDE is based on
i also think LMDE is nice for a beginner but it can't compare to debian for anyone else.
which tools? i am genuinely curious because i used it for 3 weeks before switching to debian fully and i never used them afaik.
it's more like debian testing with older and less stable packages.
Debian testing and unstable aren't stable for production environments. If you miss up to date packages, either use backports, or a different OS entirely.
Here's the beauty of it OP: you can try any you like. Check them out as live installs or a dual-boot partition initially and assess them that way. Be patient, but don't waste your time on something when it's grating or requires way more setup/tweaking than you require.
I can't comment on any of the distros currently because I haven't booted a Linux distro for a while, but here's my $0.02:
- Never tried Debian, but lots of popular distros are based on it (like Mint and Ubuntu) and it has a reputation for being super solid because its release cycle is quite lengthly.
- Mint was always super easy to get up and running and I had very few issues with it. Nice beginner distro for sure, I'd recommend it to anyone exploring Linux for the first time.
- openSUSE was the first distro I ever installed. I fucked my Windows partition and it didn't like my video card one bit, but that was back in 2006 and probably more down to experience than anything. I recall it being highly configurable via GUI and practical for general use though. Some weird bugs.
- Arch, I've never tried. I understand that it's great for custom builds and their updates are insane. I installed Manjaro on a netbook that was well over the hill and that worked really well, but kinda nullifies all the things about Arch that its users seem to love.
Another one you could try is Crunchbang (#!). Super minimalist, mostly context menu driven. Good way to not *quite* rely on everything being handed to you on a plate, but still have easy access to shit as a beginner.
Bunsenlabs user here.
Manage to fix up most of the things that didn't work at the start (Broadcom, power settings), but never really got to fix this annoying problem where you have to alsactl init to get sound back.
Go Mint or Suse for starters, then once you get the hang of things, Arch with Architect/Antergos.
>What ridiculous bugs? The only problem I had with opensuse before I left is it not having some isoteric packages I need to use.
Not that guy but can confirm suse has the most absurd bugs. I happen to like suse so every once in a while i'll install the latest version. The installer is perma-bugged so it's always a hassle to get it up and running. After that things start breaking here and there. Sound will mysteriously disappear. Btrfs backups will vanish into thin air. MPV will refuse to work under smplayer. Fglrx will crap out. I can fix a lot but usually after a few weeks the system will be patched together with dirty hacks and unwanted solutions. Ymmv but this is the only distro that gives me this shit. I have a laptop running fedora for years, never had to reinstall, not even between version upgrades. Suse will stop functioning with a simple zypper update.
Debian is not outdated. It would be outdated if it didn't work. Just because it doesn't have all the newest bells and whistles doesn't make it outdated. Stability enables people to use their computer instead of tweaking the operating system all the time.
Well, I wouldn't go that far, but I do think the ability to use a terminal is quite important in understanding how computers work.
It took me years before I got used to using Windows instead of DOS. For the longest time the GUI felt like a computer for the intellectually disabled. In fact, Windows over time alienated me from the computer and I became more and more stupid. Insert a series of sad faces here.
>I looked at debian and ubuntu and mint and all the other shit desktop distros and couldn't even deal with the lack of customisability after having used arch
Obviously you didn't learn much about Linux when playing with Arch.
I don't know about drivers but I do like Arch. Very easy to customize, lets linux be linux instead of trying to wrap it in some shitty installer that chokes when you try to do something unusual.
You can customize them if you don't use the graphical installers, but then the documentation is shit.
Arch also has great software availability.
>[Debian] is super stable and outdated
People that miss up to date packages should consider backports, which mostly eliminates this. http://backports.debian.org/
FYI people, never use testing or unstable for a production environment. Use backports, or use a different OS entirely.