I feel like the window manager is important, but for newbies I also consider the package manager and overall installation process to be very important.
I’ve had pretty distros that are basically busted after a package fails to install or video drivers are mucked with. An advanced user could fix most of these issues, but this is usually where a new user may go running back to their previous OS.
A good computing experience for me is all my hardware working with minimal fuss and all the software I expect to be available being a few terminal commands away (e.g. steam, developer tools, etc.)
All major distributions offer all major Environments. I currently use either Debian or Ubuntu and usually install by booting the Netinstall.iso right from the official Servers which installs just the base system without any GUI at all. Then I use tasksel to select the environment. Ok, not every Environment is part of Tasksel but often it is just adding another Repository and running another apt install operation.
And yes, on my experimental computer I often install a dozen environments just because I can. Selectable at Login-Screen.
But now somethings VERY important from someone with 35 years of POSIX experience:
If you are a newby FOR GODS SAKE USE UBUNTU.
And if you are a pro… Ubuntu still is a very good option. Only if your have VERY GOOD REASONS which you COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, only then use something else. Which is Debian for me.
I used Ubuntu for about 2 years in 2006 to 2008, but have been on Windows since. I like Ubuntu, and looking in to dual booting with Windows now. Should I go for Mint instead of Ubuntu?
Canonical, the company that has been taking care of Ubuntu, has made many bad choices (including Amazon launcher, telemetry, Snap packages…). Linux Mint rises as an alternative because of these bad decisions.
Oh damn, I wasn’t aware. Never using Ubuntu again if they try shit like that. But if Canonical goes under, won’t that effect Mint? I mean if it is based on Ubuntu? (If my understand of it is correct)
You should probably go for mint because of the reasons the other person that replied mentioned, but it’s your choice, go with whichever you like (you may also like zorinos)
I’m a newbie, used a derivative of Ubuntu (xubuntu) since my computer is slow and old as fuck, it ended up somehow breaking my pc into only booting the drive with the Linux install on it and refuse to boot anything else not even live USBs (putting back in my windows drive just shows “success Ubuntu” in the top left corner)
If you think it’s bios related please tell me, because I tried to mess with every damn setting related to this (I didn’t try resetting the CMOS but I doubt it will do anything)
If anything it probably made me hate Ubuntu based distros in general (couldn’t try anything else because the pc is fucked)
Hard to tell from the info you provided. It might be a mixup between legacy MBR and UEFI boot. Try enabling legacy boot in UEFI and make sure the boot order is correct, if your PC is really that old it might just be that your Windows install is still booting from the MBR.
I’ll try that, it’s actually the opposite, it has an uefi switch in the bios since it’s so old it probably was the standard to use legacy boot, guessing by the CPU (core 2 duo, idk what model though) it’s probably a 2007/08 prebuilt (by the weird PSU)
It would make sense that it would be a problem with windows if it didn’t have the uefi setting on, but it still doesn’t explain the “Ubuntu success” message I got instead (and that was the case when the Linux drive was completely disconnected )
Will reply after I try it out, if it doesn’t work I’ll try the CMOS instead, if that doesn’t work either then I guess I fucked up my computer beyond repair
Unlikely, only misconfigured. The “Ubuntu success” message might show because your PC tries to boot from a GPT partition on a different disk or you have inadvertently overwritten the Windows bootloader. Booting from a live USB should work but it might take a couple of tries depending on what settings you have changed in the UEFI; also check if your flashdrive is working properly. Apps like the Fedora Media Writer or Rufus can check if the image is not corrupted after writing it to the drive.
Idk, in Rufus I set it to MBR (well it set to that automatically if I’m not mistaken) since I didn’t know if it would support GPT (it’s an old pc as I said), also I only had a single sata cable available so I installed it without the windows drive connected, the error message popped up only after I replaced the drives and tried to boot to the windows one, which wss supposed to be untouched, also as I said no bootable media (I made with Rufus, I could try balena etcher or what you said) but it just skips the boot media when i turn it on, even if i set it to the highest priority in bios (tried Debian, mint, kubuntu, but I’ll try fedora to see if it’s any different)
When I was making the drives in Rufus it didn’t say anything when writing to the drive
Absolutely! I actually recommend Ubuntu for people used to MacOS, and Zorin (based on Ubuntu) for those used to Windows. Start simple and learn from there.
I’m a long time Linux user 20 years or so and have tried loads of distros in that time. Eventually I got fed up and settled on Mint for quite a few years, but about 6 months ago an old colleague told me about Zorin as he was impressed with how it felt ‘proper’ from a user perspective. I tried it and actually liked it so much I fully switched to it as my main OS. It’s got all the user friendliness for when you just want to use it for work tasks, but still everything else underneath for when you want to experiment etc.
I use Arch because not only am I into self abuse, I also enjoy being publicly flogged whenever I ask for help, which is never, because anytime I have a problem with it, there’s a pretty good chance someone else has asked before me.
All my hare-brained development ideas are more or less sandboxed in Docker containers. Rarely I need to schlep out to Sourceforge to get the right app for something. Most of the time there’s an apt or flatpack thing for what I’m up to, but I do go on a spree purging all that from time to time.
My only complaint is with Nvidia driver support/quality/maintenance, but I get that’s not Canonical’s fault.
Until you use software that without up front notice Ubuntu decides to move from APT to Snap without a migration process in place for your settings or credentials. Like has happened with Telegram and with Chromium. And then stuff breaks in ways where you as a noobie would have no idea how to fix.
This is exactly what happened with the Ubuntu setup on my parents' laptop and I've since moved everything over to Linux Mint for them so they don't have to deal with that anymore.
I actually had more issues with Ubuntu than popos. And the one audio issue I had, the system76 guys were fantastic.
Ubuntu is filled with bloat these days, and your actually better off with straight Debian than Ubuntu. Not to mention as a whole Ubuntu has made some ‘questionable’ decisions in recent times
And for new users choosing a distro with big user base (thus having a better support system) should be a top priority. Instead newbies are often advised to use an obscure distro that in theory might be a good fit, but isn’t. Probably those who do the recommendations are Linux testers (using VZ) rather than Linux users and mostly evaluate a distro based on install process and out of the box usage.
Configuring a big distro to your needs is much better than choosing a nishe distro.
I understand the argument being made, but I kind of disagree. Yes, picking a DE in which you’ll be comfortable is really important (and often an undervalued aspect of using Linux for the first time), but I think that the time you need to spend self-maintaining your distro is more important, and is also prone to make-or-break your first-time Linux experience. That’s the most important factor on whether a new user says “I love Linux and want to continue using it” or “I fricking hate Linux, it’s filled with a bunch of problems, I’d rather just use Windows instead”. And that’s why it’s important to recommend beginner-friendly distros, as to avoid frustration of newcomers, because those are more manageable (unless those newcomers want the frustration of managing something that they don’t quite understand :)
Does it matter which one in specific? No, and it’s probably at this point that the DE and visual looks should kick in.
I’ll go one further and say choosing applications is more important than choosing a Desktop Environment.
I’m typing this message on Firefox. I installed it (and updated it) with Debian’s package management system. I clicked on a button on an XFCE panel to open it. But in terms of the time spent interacting with things on my computer I’m using the applications far more than anything else.
nice to have choices. new users are better off with a polished install so they can get back to scrolling. takes work to do some desktops. ran a minimal thing for years at work. forget the name.
That is actually very true honestly but also needing sonething as stable as Debian, bleeding edge as Arch or right in the middle with Fedora and also which kernel the user made need for their hardware is also a factor in this as well. DEs take priority tho as it’s literally the interface you interact with 90% of the time
While many can agree with a desktop environments importance, the desktop environment is rn closely tied to the distro’s philosophy. Many who venture outside the major distros will need to set up their own environment.
