I have tried Linux as a DD on and off for years but about a year ago I decided to commit to it no matter the cost. First with Mint, then Ubuntu and a few others sprinkled in briefly. Both are "mainstream" "beginner friendly" distros, right? I don't want anything too advanced, right?
Well, ubuntu recently updated and it broke my second monitor (Ubuntu detected it but the monitor had "no signal"). After trying to fix it for a week, I decided to wipe it and reinstall. No luck. I tried a few other distros that had the same issue and I started to wonder if it was a hardware issue but I tried a Windows PC and the monitor worked no problem.
Finally, just to see what would happen I tried a distro very very different than what I'm used to: Fedora (Kinoite). And not only did everything "just work" flawlessly, but it's so much faster and more polished than I ever knew Linux to be!
Credit where it's due, a lot of the polish is due to KDE plasma. I'd never strayed from Gnome because I'm not an expert and people recommend GNOME to Linux newbies because it's "simple" and "customizable" but WOW is KDE SO MUCH SIMPLER AND STILL CUSTOMIZEABLE. Gnome is only "simple" in that it doesn't allow you to do much via the GUI. With Fedora Kinode I think I needed to use the terminal maybe once during setup? With other distros I was constantly needed to use the terminal (yes its helped me learn Linux but that curve is STEEP).
The atomic updates are fantastic too. I have not crashed once in the two weeks of setup whereas before I would have a crash maybe 1-2 times per week.
I am FULLY prepared for the responses demanding to know what I did to make it crash and telling me how I was using it wrong blah blah blah but let me tell you, if you are experienced with Windows but want to learn Linux and getting frustrated by all the "beginner" distros that get recommended, do yourself a favor and try Fedora Kinoite!
edit: i am DYING at the number of "you're using it wrong" comments here. never change people.
People generally recommend Debian-based distributions because they tend to be more popular, have more applications designed first and foremost to work on them, and tend to have the most community support because they are more popular.
I've also found that the documentation online is much better, or at least easier to search, with Ubuntu in particular than any other distro. This is probably mostly due to popularity at this point as you said, but I think they got that popularity because of the straight forward and easy to digest documentation. And I'm not just talking about self-help support forums, I mean published and polished wikis and guides hosted by the distro itself.
A crash 1-2 times a week sounds very strange no matter what Linux distro you're using. I would suggest testing your RAM right away, it could be a hardware problem.
It's not a RAM problem lmao it rarely crashed on Windows and it's not crashed with Fedora either.
If you did a full memtest and it came out good then OK.
I'm just saying don't discount hardware issues. Bad RAM blocks are notoriously hard to diagnose by use alone because there's not just one symptom you can point at, and they can manifest themselves wildly differently on different apps and different OS depending how large the blocks are and how they are spread.
Luckily there's a very simple and straightforward test you can make to put it out of your mind.
That doesn't mean anything. I once had an issue where every few hours, a random application would crash on Arch Linux, but not on e.g. Debian or Windows. But this wasn't an Arch issue per se, but was instead related to an UEFI overclock setting (which defaulted to on). After turning it off, everything worked fine.
So while it seemed like an Arch issue, it was actually hardware/overclock related, it's just that the other OS wouldn't run into the trigger for the crash.
Why does nobody here ever recommend Fedora to noobs?
It does happen. It's simply not the popular choice for the following reasons:
- Fedora and its predecessors were until relatively recently simply more cumbersome in use compared to Debian and Ubuntu;
- There was a time (like at least over 10 years ago) in which package managers didn't necessarily know how to resolve dependencies. However, Debian's package manager at the time did it earlier than the package manager found on Fedora's predecessor. Hence, this was a clear reason to prefer Debian or Ubuntu over Fedora('s predecessor).
- Freezing packages and offering stable releases with two years of support (like Debian does), has been and continues to be a very pleasant way to run your Linux OS. That's why, even in the past, Fedora's slower cousin (i.e. CentOS) was very popular (though being RHEL clone didn't hurt either). Fedora, on the other hand, offers a semi-rolling release cycle of 6 months with only 13 months of support since release. With semi-rolling release, I refer to the fact that some packages are frozen and some are not frozen. Hence, you should expect daily updates. Access to the latest and greatest software is great. However, every update is a possible cause/reason for something to bork/break on your system. It's therefore unsurprising that some prefer the predictability found on other distros. Though, for the sake of completeness, one has to mention that Fedora Atomic does a great job at tackling this problem; especially the uBlue projects.
- A couple of years back, Fedora switched in quick succession to systemd, Wayland and GTK4. Thankfully, I didn't experience this for myself. But, from what I could gather, it was a mess. Users, perhaps rightfully so, questioned Fedora's decision-making. While Fedora wasn't particular loved, this didn't help to retain new users, nor did it help to cultivate a trusted environment.
- Due to the previous reason, Fedora has not particularly been a very popular distro. Hence, troubleshooting your issues through Google is less straightforward compared to Linux Mint or Ubuntu. Additionally, as Fedora's user base has primarily been more experienced users compared to the ones found on Linux Mint or Ubuntu, it's unsurprising to find less discussion on elementary stuff. Simply by virtue of Fedora's user base already being past that.
- Fedora, like Debian and openSUSE, offers a relatively bare bones experiences. It does make a lot of sane decisions for you. However, it doesn't focus on being particularly GUI-friendly or newbie-friendly. By contrast, distros like Bazzite, Linux Mint,
Manjaro,MX Linux, Nobara, Pop!_OS and Zorin OS (amongst others), do put thought and effort into streamlining the experience as much as they can; especially for newer users. - While Fedora is
primarilycommunity-driven, Red Hat's influence is undeniable. As such, people that hate corporate interest and/or Red Hat and/or IBM will favor the use of Arch and Debian.
Having said all of that, I've been using Fedora Atomic for over two years now. Heck, Silverblue was my first distro. And it has been excellent so far. Furthermore, with Bazzite (based on Fedora Atomic) and Nobara (based on Fedora) often mentioned in conversations regarding beginner friendly distros, even if Fedora itself isn't explicitly mentioned, the ecosystem is clearly healthy and will continue to flourish.
- Fedora and its predecessors were until relatively recently simply more cumbersome in use compared to Debian and Ubuntu;
Because on Fedora sometimes you are required to use terminal for some stuff like installing nvidia drivers and you dont really want to send a total beginner to Fedora
idk I have only needed the terminal once, with Ubuntu/Gnome it was a daily occurrence.
The problem with Fedora and especially the atomic versions is that when you Google "how to do X on Linux" you pretty much always get information for Ubuntu and Debian derivatives. The atomic versions have it mildly harder because now you also have to learn how immutable distros work, and you can't just make install something from GitHub (not that it's recommended to do so, but if you just want your WiFi to work and that's all you could find, it's your best option).
It's not as bad as it used to be thanks to Flatpak and stuff, but if you're really a complete noob the best experience will be the one you can Google and get a working answer as easily as possible.
Once you're familiar and ready to upgrade then it makes sense to go to other distros like Fedora, Nobara, Bazzite, Kionite and whatnot.
I don't like Ubuntu, I feel like Mint is to Ubuntu what Manjaro is to Arch, Pop_OS is okay when it doesn't uninstall your DE when installing Steam. But I still recommend those 3 to noobs because everyone knows how to get things working on those, and the guides are mostly interchangeable as well. Purely because it's easy to search for help with those. I just tell them when you're tired of the bugs and comfortable enough with Linux then go start distrohopping a bit to find your more permanent home.
And not only did everything “just work” flawlessly, but it’s so much faster and more polished than I ever knew Linux to be!
Congrats, you are very lucky. But try to survive couple of version upgrades before recommending it to noobs.
I've been running Fedora OStree variants for over two years. I version upgraded and rebased between entirely different spins, rawhide and over to ublue variants then back to fedora mainline. All off the original install, keeping my userspace intact. Never once has it self destructed.
Years ago major upgrades and to lesser degree even minor upgrades made me to give up trying to keep installation running. I don’t even remember if it was Red Hat or Debian.
Eventually I realized, that I like running newest version of Desktop and I ran into cases of getting frustrated with lack of newer versions, which had fixes for issues I ran into. Then I realized that best wiki was not a snapshot distribution.
In the end I tried rolling distribution and remain happy for years.
Debian or derived distribution is easiest to get google help for and it is the simplest choice for me, when running on the cloud.
Although, Alpine is pushing through containers quite forcefully.
Unfortunately boring distributions don't get recommended because users of boring distributions don't bother commenting on distribution discussions.
And it's really unfortunate that obscure distributions have more vocal fans, because boring distributions are much better for beginners.
Ironically this is how I feel about Arch, for me it's worked flawlessly for years.
I don't bother getting in 'discussions' about using it, because if other people have problems I'm not going to convince them that I don't.
It's mostly the installation and initial setup that's a pain on arch, so definitely not a beginner distro, but very good nonetheless
Yeah totally, I think to use Arch successfully you need an opinion about what your system needs, and that takes experience with using Linux.
Installation is pretty trivial these days with the install script
When the time came to pick which boring old man distro to use, the people who picked and would recommend fedora all got jobs supporting rhel. They don’t have time or energy to devote to computer touching when they get home from their serious business jobs making sure the computer keeps increasing shareholder value.
Fedora is very good.
I do, Fedora is simply the best and meets the most use cases. It combines good privacy and security out of the box with a clean UI (at least with Workstation and KDE spin) while having a package manager that's easy to learn and easy access to Flathub and up-to-date apps (can't stress this enough, even windows and Mac keep apps up to date and don't hold them back for the sake of LTS (sorry Workstation Debian fans). It also brings in newer and better technologies without breaking almost anything (at least for me).
This is just my opinion though, I know people like to reccomend Mint but I personally do not like it, and despise it's desktop options (I am one of the people that do not and never have liked Cinnamon).
I wouldn't recommend fedora plain, but the ublue atomic spins are great. Really solid lots of choices (use case, DE, hardware...) personally I use bazzite on the desktop and aurora on the laptop.
I've been having a tough time with it. Maybe I'm unlucky with my hardware and setup. Spend hours this week recovering from a black screen after upgrading to F40. Issue with Plymouth + Nvidia + Luks at boot. Also getting Nvidia to work on F39, my first install. Secondary computer (laptop) macbook 2017, keyboard doesn't work with Fedora compared to Linux Mint.
I'd recommend Linux Mint for beginners after my experiences. imho
Nvidia can be a bitch. And it's unfortunate that Fedora isn't particularly well known for handling that graciously.
I’d recommend Linux Mint for beginners after my experiences.
Absolutely fair. FWIW, if you ever feel like giving Fedora another chance, consider doing it through its derivative (i.e. Bazzite).
I would not encourage anyone to join the EL universe as I don't consider it as stable as others.
TLDR; Redhat's being absorbed into IBM and they don't care about RHEL. RHEL (in my view) is dying a slow death. Without RHEL, there is no Fedora or Centos Stream. There'd also be no Rocky or Alma, as things currently stand.
(Although if that happened, I'd not be surprised if the users of Fedora merged with Rocky and Alma in some form of new and fully independent distro - we've already seen how well such disasters can be worked around)
Longer reasoning: Redhat, in my view, have made some unpredictable and frankly terrible decisions over the past few years with RHEL which have caused a great deal of concern in the business sector about its stability as a product. (Prematurely ending Centos 8 six years early, paywalling the source code, and more recent anti-rebuilder steps. They also treated the community team working for Centos appallingly throughout these leading to many resignations.) Further more, these were communicated without warning or consultation and have sometimes come across as petty and spiteful, rather than as professional business decisions.
IBM bought Redhat shortly before this happened, mostly for its cloud services. It seems from the outside that RHEL is being squeezed. There have been two major rounds of layoffs. In all, this paints a picture of a company that is in decline and we've seen a reduction in contributions to the excellent work done by Redhat in the foss world. IBM have a long history of buying and absorbing companies - I don't see why Redhat would be any different and RHEL doesn't make enough money.
Our company is moving away from EL and I know of several others who are doing so. We're all choosing Debian.
I've recently converted two people from Windows to Linux with Fedora Kinoite. One of them has been using it for maybe two months now without a single issue and the other just started using it with positive first impressions. I find it very modern, simple, and familiar. The atomic system just works too. I enjoy it much more than Mint
Agreed on all counts! I really can't express enough how impressed I am.
