For me

Mint

Manjaro

Zorin

Garuda

Neon

  • IuseArchbtw@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Mint is definitely not overrated. It has done much for the community because they created a distro that is easy to understand if you switch to Linux, easy to maintain and mostly works out of the box. Also they don’t use snap.

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Agreed. I just have better things to do than muck about with my OS. Just slap Mint on that fucker and get on with your life. Now, of course I i know that many people like to tinker and have everything just so. I’m not in any way knocking that. But if you just want minimal hassle Mint is the shit.

  • nerdschleife@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Manjaro. It just breaks itself randomly, and performs poorly. Endeavour / ARCO Linux are more stable

    • Zucca@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      Wasn’t Manjaro supposed to be the stable version of Arch? That’s what I’ve heard.

      The few years I had with Arch was pretty nice, but when something broke, it was pain to get it back working because downgrading wasn’t (isn’t?) supported. I guess I should have used snapshots of my whole system back then.

      • nerdschleife@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Honestly straight arch was more stable for me. I barely knew anything about the AUR back then, I didn’t break it installing or tweaking anything. I just customised KDE a bit. I didn’t even have a dedicated GPU - I was using Intel integrated

  • Certainity45@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    For me, every non-mainstream distro. IMO every fork which is just a rebuild .iso should ratherly be an install script and extra repos. Simply because the lack of maintenancers and userbase tends to make those projects to die or getting updates way less often tahn should. People should join any existing project rather than creating new ones.

  • Bobby Turkalino@lemmy.yachts
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Arch

    • Being 64-bit doesn’t make you special, my Nintendo 64 is 27 yrs old and it’s 64-bit

    • Being bleeding edge doesn’t make you special, all I have to do is sit on a nail and now I’m bleeding edge too

    • Rolling releases don’t make you special, anyone can have those if they take a shit on a steep slope

    /s (was hoping we’d be able to leave this behind on reddit, but alas, people’s sense of humor…)

    • polygon@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      11 months ago

      I know you’re making a joke but I was convinced recently to try out Arch. I’m running it right now. I was told it’s a DIY distro for advanced users and you really have to know what you’re doing, etc etc. I had the system up and running in 20 minutes, and about an hour to copy my backup to /home and configure a few things. I coped the various pacman commands to a text file to use as a cheat sheet until muscle memory kicked in.

      …and that was it. What is so advanced about Arch? It’s literally the same as every other distro. “pacman -Syu” is no different from “zypper dup” in Tumbleweed. I don’t get the hype. I mean it’s fine. I don’t have any overwhelming desire to use something else at the moment because it’s annoying to change distros. It’s working and everything is fine. As I would expect it to be. But people talk about Arch like its something to be proud of? I guess the relentless “arch btw” attitude made me think it would be something special.

      I guess the install is hard for some people? But you just create some partitions, install a boot loader, and then an automated system installs your DE. That’s DIY? You want DIY go install NixOS or Void, or hell, go OG with Slackware. Arch is way overrated. That doesn’t mean it’s bad, but it’s just Linux and it’s no different from anything else. KDE is KDE no matter who packages it.

      • LeFantome@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        You are saying that the elitist reputation of Arch overblown. I agree. It is not that Arch it self is overrated though. Arch is awesome ( and not as “hard” as people make it out to be - we agree on that ).

        My favourite distro right now is EndeavourOS and that is just easier to install Arch.

        • polygon@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          I guess I used a whole lot of words to say what you just did in just a few sentences. Thanks for summarizing my thoughts. Just out of curiosity though, why EndeavourOS? See this is also something that tripped me up. I see quite a few Arch spinoffs that all claim to be easier versions which naturally lead me to believe Arch itself was complicated. Which again is probably a community/communication problem and has nothing to do with the OS itself.

          • Thorned_Rose@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            I run Arch as my daily but I installed Endeavour as my teen’s first intro to Linux (and also because I couldn’t be arsed manually installing Arch). I really liked Endeavour’s Welcome screen thing. It has yay installed by dafault and you can run stuff like system update just from pressing a button on that Wecome UI. Which means my teen who is clueless about pacman and has no fucks to give for learning can run and install stuff just from clicking buttons.

            As to whether it’s better or worse than Manjaro (which is my usual go to for Arch based newbie distros), I’m not sure. I think Endeavour feels lighter on its feet than Manjaro but I haven’t dine any benchmarks to say for sure. I do like pamac and have it installed on my system and I do think it’s great for new folks or people who like a GUI. That said, you can still install EndeavourOS and plonk pamac on there too.

            • polygon@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Ah, I see. That sounds like a completely fair scenario for using something a little more automated. Thanks for sharing.

              Arch seems fine and I’ll probably stay here for at least another few months, out of laziness if nothing else. If I’m not completely happy I’ll probably end up back on Tumbleweed which is my usual daily, but I can’t say I’ve had any problems that would drive me back immediately.

      • Swiggles@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Arch is supposed to be used, it is a normal distribution. It is not hard, it is simple. That’s its whole philosophy.

        It is only difficult if you are new to Linux, because it doesn’t hold your hands and has no opinion about a lot of things hence you must make many decisions yourself and configure everything like you need it. You have to know what you need and want.

        The notion of a difficult distro for the sake of it is ridiculous. Who would ever want to use it? Arch is popular, because it is easy to use, but lets you configure the system to your desires for the most part.

  • moitoi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    The good/bad Linux distro circlejerk.

    People are constantly speaking about what’s the best or worst distro in long argumentation loosing their time. Instead, it would nice to make people actually switch to a Linux distro and stay on a distro. Each people people switching from another OS is a win. This matters and how making Linux distros more accessible to everyone.

  • Captain Beyond@linkage.ds8.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    The notion of there being underrated or overrated distros is, itself, overrated. No, there should not (and cannot) be “one distro to rule them all” because different people have different needs.

    Remember that in the free software community we have the freedom to modify and share everything. Those “overrated” distros exist because someone saw a need for them, and they are widely used because other people agree. If Debian was good enough for every use case why do these other distros exist? Why doesn’t everyone just use Debian?

    • ShranTheWaterPoloFan@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      The issue is new users.

      If you have a vague understanding that Linux has distros and to switch to Linux, you’ll likely Google “best Linux distro.” Results that say “they all are good for different reasons” are unhelpful. Having sort through 50 options isn’t helpful.

      New users want to know what to install. This means that some distros get hyped up as the best, and then people point out the cracks.

      Until there is a clear and objective list of distros with pros and cons labeled the cycle will continue.

  • s20@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Gonna go with Manjaro. I can’t, for the life of me, understand why it gets the support it does. It’s not fantastic to begin with, with an apparently incompetent management team. Add in that all the theming is flat and lifeless, and I’m just confused.

    I mean, any Arch derived distro with an “easy installer” kinda confuses me. Archinstall is fairly easy to use (although a bit ugly), and most other Arch based distros seem to miss what I see as the main point of Arch: getting to know and personalize your system. So things like Endeavor, Xero, etc. Don’t make a lot of sense to me either. But at least they’re not effectively accidentally DDOSing the AUR…

  • dotslashme@infosec.pub
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Ubuntu. I think of it as the Yahoo of linux distros. It used to be good, but then they made terrible decisions that ultimately made them irrelevant.

    • selokichtli@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      More like OpenOffice. It still has some power on its branding, but new users should stay away from it and go for LibreOffice, that is any other main distro (Arch, openSUSE, Linux Mint, Debian, etc.). There’s nothing exciting happening in Ubuntu anymore, but a lot of people still know its name.

  • yrmyli@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    For me there is only two distros. They are Arch an Debian. But that is only me. I don’t think that any of those distros are overreted they just have their own user types and needs.

      • garam@lemmy.my.id
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Ubuntu, ootb works, but snap all over, and ubuntu pro ads everywhere… I can’t even reinstall the company laptop into Fedora because of their policy… In the end I wrote a piece interface cli to make me felt at home using dnf masking apt, flatpak masking snap, and any dnf or flatpak behavior, works on snap or apt… it’s nightmare, but at least help me coup with using ubuntu… cope… COPE…

        • twei@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Okay, but what is “overrated” about them? I don’t like Ubuntu either, but I don’t think it’s overrated. It just is where it is

          • garam@lemmy.my.id
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            10 months ago

            Easyness, where it’s not. Fedora is better for noobs than ubuntu in my opinion.

            • twei@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              If you’re arguing for ease of use: they’re pretty much on a par with each other. If you’re arguing for ease of software installation I’d prefer Ubuntu over fedora, as Ubuntu is still the first linux distro any proprietary software company will port their software to (even though it’s gotten better over the last few years), which is probably the only thing the average user cares about: does my software run or not?

  • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    11 months ago

    All of them: communities are so used to blow their own horn that every Distro becomes overrated in the public debate.
    Each single distro is “fine” at best.
    Except for Debian.
    Debian is Great, Debian is Love.

      • OrdinaryAlien@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        I’ve used Arch on many different computers over the years. It’s not stable, it breaks. I don’t understand why it’s great. Debian (minimal install) is better.

        • SaltyIceteaMaker@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I’ve only had one problem with arch (it broke after an update once) except for that one problem it was always very stable and solid in my experience.

          Debian is too “old” for me. I prefer bleeding edge and i refuse to use any flatpaks or such because they are a pain in the ass to set up right in my experience

      • pH3ra@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I’m gonna say “no”, but just by personal preference.
        I agree that, if you’re skilled enough, 90% of distributions out there are completely useless once Arch and Debian are available.