Quite a few posts about selecting a distro to use. Maybe it's time to make that link a little more prominent?

  • throwawayish@lemmy.ml
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    While I get why distrochooser.de is romanticized, in its current iteration it's simply not very good and anyone that is somewhat well-versed in how different distros operate and how Distrochooser works, will tell you the same. At best, it provides some orientation into what some of the more common distros are. But it fails to answer some fundamental questions in the process; like:

    • What is the relation between a distro and its derivative and (more importantly) how does that matter to a user?
    • How exactly does a distribution's chosen release model affect software and updates? And while we're into that, what's even the difference between the "stable" used when talking about point release distros that opt to freeze packages over longer periods of time vs the "stable" that's brought up in conversations regarding update concerns and how they might break software (I'm honestly not even sure if the one(s) responsible for writing the parts of Distrochooser even know(s) themselves)[1].

    There are a lot of other fundamental questions that are involved in the decision for picking a distro that would have made a lot more sense than the ones found on Distrochooser. E.g. Do you use an Nvidia GPU and want this to cause no issues in the process of installation and is this your biggest concern? If yes: then just use Pop!_OS. Otherwise, move on to the other questions etc. I think the fact that a flowchart isn't used for some uses and that ultimately priorities aren't brought up to finalize the decision are the two biggest issues that Distrochooser has in its current iteration.

    And we haven't even gone over the many distros that despite having little to no user base are still included in the results, while (more recent) 'staples' like Garuda and Nobara are clearly left out for reasons most likely related to the maintainers not being able to keep up with the Linux landscape. Which, to be fair, is quite hard; so I don't blame them. I, in fact, applaud them for their continued contributions and hope that some day it will become something that we can proudly present to others for their first orientation.

    Allow me to end this with a question to OP:

    • Do you feel the same way about excellent websites like DistroWatch.com and DistroSea?[2]
      • If yes; Why didn't you make a similar post for either of the two instead?
      • If no; Why not?

    1. Sure, there is some overlap in what they mean and how they're used, but it's a very important distinction; otherwise openSUSE's stable rolling release designation for their Tumbleweed wouldn't make any sense.
    2. If anything, I think these two actually make more sense to be included.
    • onlinepersona@programming.dev
      hexagon
      ·
      11 months ago

      IMO you're thinking too much as an advanced user for a simple user. The only point I agree on is the NVIDIA GPU. If you feel up to it, contribute. The website's code is on Github https://github.com/distrochooser/distrochooser

      I've never heard of nor used Garuda. As I said, feel free to contribute.

      Do you feel the same way about excellent websites like DistroWatch.com and DistroSea?

      Never heard of DistroSea. It seem like a good complement to DistroChooser. It works for most usecases:

      • narrow down what fits for you by answering a questionnaire (DistroChooser)
      • if you feel like it, test a few of the suggested distros from the questionnaire on DistroSea

      DistroWatch as useful as statista.com for suggesting your next travel destination. If you had to travel somewhere and had a list of criteria, but didn't want to spend all day researching, would you go to a travel agent or open an encyclopedia?

      I think many in the community, like yourself, have forgotten what it's like to give just enough of a fuck to change something but not to want to be too invested. A beginner isn't going to want to understand why a system is stable or not: they just want a stable system. You don't have to explain to them "Yeah, so the configuration is a file, you see? Only you edit that file. Then you run this command that interprets the file and build a dependency tree, downloads everything necessary, to a partition that's temporarily mounted as read-write, symlinks to....". Nobody cares. The average user DGAF.

      Imagine if you just wanted to get a vacuum cleaner at the store with 3 criteria. Imagine you don't give a rat's ass about vacuum cleaner. You just want to point the thing at the ground, let it succ all the bits, but as quietly as possible, and not break down in 2 years to force you back out here. But the sales person you get harps on about the genius of the person who invented some internal component you've never heard of, goes on to explain why, ideologically, getting a certain brand is the only way because blablablabla. Maybe you'd buy a vacuum cleaner just to shut them up or walk out of the store.
      My optimal experience would be the sales person listening to me, lining up the best candidates, and explaining, in bullet points, why they are there. Then finally, ask me if I have a favorite and to give me a test environment. If I don't understand something, I can ask more questions.

      1. narrow down options --> DistroChooser
      2. test them --> DistroSea
      3. more questions --> right here

      CC BY-NC-SA 4.0