How to choose your first distro - A guide for beginners (flowchart + text post)
How to choose your first distro - A guide for beginners (flowchart + text post)
So, you're new to Linux? Welcome to our community!
You probably ask yourself
"Where should I start?"
and feel a bit overwhelmed right now.
In this guide, I will show you how to choose your first Linux distro.
This is part of my "New to Linux?"-series, where I will guide you through your first weeks.
TL;DR: If you don't care about this at all, just go for Linux Mint.
As you've probably already heard, "Linux" isn't just an operating system by itself, it's just the engine of it.
You need stuff built around that to get a working desktop. That "stuff" is packaged and distributed, hence the name "distro" (distribution).
Everyone can package this stuff themselfes and make their own operating system.
There are literally hundreds or thousands of different Linux-based OSs out there, and as a newcomer, this choice can be very overwhelming.
This is why you've already came here and asked for advice.
Don't worry, we've all been there!
You can find the "right" one for you if you follow the flow chart.
The flow chart is complementary to the text here. The diagram is for the choice, while the text is more for general information about each distro.
Every distro of the following recommended ones meets all of these criteria:
- Easy to understand and intuitive to use
- You don't have to use the command line
- Works reliable
- Supports Nvidia-GPUs
Choosing the DE
Before you choose your distro, you should choose your prefered desktop environment (DE).
The DE is what defines the user interface and some core apps, so, basically, what you interact with.
Don't mainly choose the distro because of its' DE, you can change that later too if you really want.
The two main DEs (Gnome and KDE) are listed in the flow chart.
KDE
- is very modular and configurable, you can turn it into whatever you want.
- has pretty much everything you can imagine already built in
Gnome
- Is more opinionated, but if you don't like its' unique workflow, you can turn it into a "classic" desktop with minimize/ maximize buttons, task bar, and more, too.
- You can use the
Extension manager/Gnome Tweaksfor doing that or getting other functionalities like smartphone integration for example.
If you like certain aspects of one, but others from the "competitor", you can more or less turn one into the other. You have maximum freedom!
#Differences between distros
**Choose your distro based on the following key points: **
- Release schedule: Some get new features very often, some only once a few years. We refer this as stagnation as "stability" (not to conflict with reliability!)
- Philosophy: What are key values of the distro? (e.g. just providing a well functioning set of software, no matter if it's proprietary; conservative vs. innovative; etc.)
- Base: Many distros are based on other ones. A very common base is Debian or Ubuntu, where many newcomer-guides are based on. It mainly determines what package manager you use in the command line. I personally think that's not as important, since you will use the Software Center anyway most of the time to download apps and updates.
- All other things, like big community, good track record, hardware support, etc., were already taken care of by me.
So, here's the list of every distro shown in the flow chart, with a short description on why it is included.
Linux Mint
It's THE recommendation for every newcomer, no matter where you look. Not without reason:
- Very sane defaults
- Works, just out-of-the-box
- Not too many, but just the right amount of pre-installed apps to get in touch with the Linux app ecosystem
- Simple, yet highly functional
- Hides all "advanced" features in a reasonable way
- Huge userbase, especially for beginners. More experienced users still use Mint, and are always there to help newcomers.
- Doesn't change much, only gets more polished. New features arrive occasionally, but they usually don't change your workflow radically.
- Feels very familiar when you came from Windows, which most people do.
Website: https://www.linuxmint.com/
ZorinOS
It is the main "competitor" of Mint right now.
The big difference between Mint and it is how the desktop looks. While Mint is more old-fashioned in how it looks, Zorin wants to be an eye pleaser by looking more modern. With it, you can choose between different "styles", that mimic the looks of Windows 7, Windows 11, MacOS, and more, depending on what you feel the most comfortable with.
It has a slow release schedule of ~3 years, with some minor polishes in between, which is great if you don't like change.
Don't worry about the "Pro" and "Light" versions. This is not like a freeware app with ads and stuff.
- "Pro" refers to the paid version, that only differs in some extra styles you can choose from. With the payment you get some extra tech assistance and support the developers.
- "Light" is a lightweight version, that is made for old devices to give them a second life and make them perform better than before, while still looking good.
Website: https://zorin.com/os/
VanillaOS
This one is also very promising. It has the same philosophy as Mint, but implements it differently.
It works a bit different under the hood and ensures an always working system you can't brick. If you still fucked up something, or got a bad update somehow, you can just roll back in seconds.
It also updates itself in the background and applies the updates without the user noticing on the next reboot, without any waiting time (unlike the forced Windows updates).
If you become more advanced and experienced over time, you can turn to the terminal and have access to literally any app that was ever made for Linux. Especially if you start using Linux as developer, this is very handy.
Even if you aren't a developer, no, even if you aren't techy at all, VanillaOS is a very good choice if you prefer the simplicity and ease of use of Mint, but want something more modern!
Website: https://vanillaos.org/
[Disclaimer: The new release, VanillaOS 2 Orchid, is currently under very high developement and still in beta. Consider waiting until the new version is officially released for a garanteed smooth experience.]
Fedora
This one is not exactly (but comparably) as beginner oriented as the above are, but still, a very good choice for new users. Fedora is often considered "the new Ubuntu", and is one of the most used distros out there with a gigantic community.
It is community-owned, but supported by the money and development power of the biggest player in the commercial Linux world.
Features:
- Comes with any major DE you want + huge software availability
- Balanced desktop release schedule of 6 months. This ensures both a modern and reliable desktop system
- Everything is pretty vanilla (no theming, etc.) and has very sane defaults
- No big collection of pre-installed software (e.g. Office), bit it is installable with one click in the software center.
- Future-oriented: as soon as a new promising technology is reliable enough, it will adopt it.
Website:
https://fedoraproject.org/
https://fedoraproject.org/workstation/
https://fedoraproject.org/spins/kde/
Fedora Atomic
Fedora Atomic is a variant of Fedora that works different under the hood, while behaving the same on the surface as the regular Fedora does. I don't want to get too technical here, but the pros are the same as the ones from VanillaOS (unbrickable, better security, no half applied updates, etc.).
I'm not sure if I would recommend it over the normal Fedora right now, as due to the other inner workings, you might have the chance to encounter issues when trying to get things working, e.g. an install script you found online.
If you are leaning bit more towards a tech-savy-person and have no problem searching a small thing here and there (only when you need non-ordinary stuff), then definitely check it out. Especially if you already came from another distro and feel dissatisfied.
BUT, keep following in mind:
- If you are just a casual user, you don't need the terminal for this distro. If you want to really make full use of it tho, you might have to use it from time to time.
- On the surface, it looks and behaves exactly like the normal Fedora.
- Compatibility is not fully given, due to the double edged nature of the said new technology.
- Those potential issues or cons sound more dramatic than they are. If you are a normal user, you won't encounter these. Even I never had any compatibility-issues and always got everything working.
One of the coolest things about it, apart from the pros mentioned above, are:
- Most "hidden" parts of the OS are irrelevant now to you if you want to change something -> simpler structure
- You can "swap out" the OS with something different any time you want, while also keeping your data (pictures, games, etc.). If you want to switch your DE for example later on, you can do that very easily by just changing the selected spin. This even works in the extend of rebasing to almost another distro!
uBlue
If you are interested now, then check out UniversalBlue instead of the "official" Silverblue or Kinoite. uBlue offers:
- Many different variants of this distro, but with some quality-of-life changes included.
- Custom builds for special hardware, e.g. Microsoft Surface devices, ASUS ROG, etc., which come working OOTB, are very reliable and don't require tinkering.
- And also special variants for different tastes and use cases, e.g. a security-enhanced variant, as well as
Bazzite
which is one of the biggest and "best" example in how awesome uBlue can be. It's derived from it and is a gaming-focused distro. With it, you get many optimization tweaks and tools for gaming included out of the box, like some performance enhancements for example.
You don't need a gaming distro to play games at all, but if that's what you mostly do with your PC, then maybe consider that.
Links:
https://fedoraproject.org/atomic-desktops/silverblue/
https://universal-blue.org/installation/
https://bazzite.gg
Arch and NixOS
Those two are in the "pain" category. I would never recommend them to anyone starting with Linux, for example because they're fed up with Windows.
Both Arch and NixOS are known to be "for experts only", meaning, they're
- high demanding
- hard to set up and use
- requiring the user to be skilled and to know what he's doing
- don't hold the users' hand
- and don't tolerate user error well.
Why did I still decide to include them in my noob-recommended list anyway? Well, because not everyone wants to start Linux expecting an easy road. There are some people who want to tinker and challenge themselfes, and some birds learn flying the best when kicked out of the nest.
Don't get me wrong! Both Arch and NixOS are fantastic choices and very powerful. They can be fun to use and very rewarding.
What makes them great?
- Minimalism: they come with basically nothing out of the box and require the user to set up everything themselfes. If you've done that, you have an OS that's truly yours!
- Skilled community and great wiki. Especially the Arch-wiki is the number-one-ressource for any Linux thing, and by the point you installed Arch or NixOS the hard way, you got a good understanding in the inner workings of Linux.
- Rolling release: as soon as packages are released, you get them, no big release versions
- Biggest package repositories ever, with many inofficial ones too, created by the user base
- Great package manager
Alternatives
If those pro-points of Arch and NixOS are appealing to you, but sound too hard to get for your taste, here are some alternatives you may consider instead. They aren't my top pick, but still very popular in the community.
- Debian: One of the oldest distros ever out there. It's what a lot of other distros, including Mint, Ubuntu, Zorin, and more, are based on. It's stable (the normal version at least), very flexible (supports many CPU architectures) and minimalist (if you want).
- OpenSuse Tumbleweed/ Slowroll: Rolling release like Arch, but with a bigger safety net behind
- EndeavourOS: Very sane Arch-distro that's already set up for you
Other honorable mentions
Pop!_OS
Also gets recommended often. A popular distro for everyone who likes the coherence of Gnome, but doesn't like the opinionated workflow and more features like tiling. Good Ubuntu alternative, especially for gaming.
- Made by a hardware manufacturer.
- Based on Ubuntu/ Debian.
- Currently a bit outdated. The devs are focusing on their self-developed new DE that's coming soon. I would go for Fedora (general use) or Bazzite (gaming) and add the tweaks myself via extensions when needed.
Still a viable option.
MX Linux
- Great for older devices with non-optimal performance.
TuxedoOS
- Best Debian/ Ubuntu-based distro with KDE.
- Also made by a hardware manufacturer.
You're viewing a single thread.
First of all, I applaud your efforts. Making an all-encompassing guide/flowchart that is able to answer all kinds of needs that new users might have is hard and not done in just a few sittings. And it seems you're willing to iterate a couple more times until you and the community are satisfied with the end result. That's just awesome and highly commendable.
As for my personal critique, perhaps it's noteworthy that I'm not entirely satisfied with the current setup. I think the following would align better with my personal convictions on how I would assist friends and/or family with these matters:
(long text)
- Step 1: Hardware probe. So, somehow establishing what we are working with as this sets severe limitations to our options. Personally I would divide this in three groups:
- potatoes; suited to run only distros like antix, puppy linux etc
- old(er) devices; suited to run DEs like Lxqt, Lxde and perhaps even Xfce etc
- 'modern' devices; suited to run DEs like Cinnamon, GNOME, KDE Plasma etc It's of course important to note that someone with 'modern' hardware is absolutely free to run something like Xfce if they like its design choices (i.e. offering a very stable experience that's unlikely to change for the sake of change). Furthermore, special attention would go out to hardware for which it's known that it requires special attention (like Nvidia GPUs etc). This should result in picking distros that are better suited for running that hardware (like Pop!_OS and uBlue for Nvidia), but also distros that specifically target a piece of hardware; like what uBlue tries to do for Framework etc.
- Step 2: Investigate their intended usage and what software they would rely on. Do they absolutely need Adobe's Creative Suite? Well, then they should at least go for a dual boot or simply stay with Windows. The same would apply to any piece of software they might specifically need, but that simply does not work on Linux. Furthermore, their intended usage might be tied to their motivations for making the switch. Some of which would be: learning Linux, for Linux' improved workflow for specific use cases (programming, workflow benefits related to the use of tiling WMs, pentesting etc), privacy, reviving old(er) hardware, free as in beer, freedom to tinker to their heart's content, F(L)OSS ideology, transforming their hardware into a game console/HTPC/media-box, improved performance under some circumstances or just plain curiosity etc. Each use case comes with its accompanied set of viable distros. Of course, it's very hard to be exhaustive here. Therefore, you're absolutely forgiven for only focusing on some of the more common ones.
- Step 3: Update cadence. Some people hate updates with their lifes, or only tolerate security ones. Others, simply want the latest and greatest at all times. Simultaneously, some may want said updates to occur automatically in the background, while others want deliberate control in that aspect. Lots of different distros exist with lots of different approaches to how updates are handled. As updates are our primary suspects whenever breakage occurs, it's therefore vital that the update cadence is aligned with the user's preferences. Hence a distro should be chosen accordingly.
- Step 4: Priorities. Security vs convenience. Blank slate vs sane defaults. Control and responsibility vs 'managed'. Learning platform vs consumption platform. Means to an end vs end in itself. Performance vs stability; these two aren't mutually exclusive to each other, but helps in determining what the user finds important. Furthermore, ideally these should not be binary choices but allow steps in between the two ends. Finally, each of these choices should also be weighed against one another. Like, if someone highly values security over convenience and believes this choice is a lot more important to them than all of the others, then they should definitely consider Qubes OS for example. Similarly, other conclusions could be made based on a different evaluation etc.
- Step 5: Desktop Environment. Based on the earlier questions, only a handful of distros should remain or perhaps it's even somewhat expected that just a specific distro remains. Regardless, most distros allow different desktop environments to be installed and thus a choice should be made between the different available options. In the case of desktop environments, one should just try out the available ones until a decisive choice can be made. Switching later on is fine anyways.
Having said all of that, whatever is mentioned above is a lot more involved than what you have currently. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if you would deem most of it out of scope.
Moving on to the actual critique:
- While I (somewhat) understand why you've tried to tie one's preferences in earlier used OSes to a potential desktop environment they might like, I do think that this might set new users up for false expectations. Therefore, I would propose to not even go there. If you want them to make a conscious choice on the desktop environment, then perhaps implore them to boot a live USB environment in which they can explore it themselves. The only important thing to note would be that in all cases customization is allowed and thus they shouldn't necessarily abandon a DE for a minor issue as it's most likely easily solvable.
- If this gets good (and it certainly has the potential), then only the flowchart itself will be shared while the accompanied text might be disregarded. In hopes of ensuring that others also read the accompanied text, consider to either (somehow) include the text in the image of the flowchart or include a link to the text and ensure it's easily found and one is somehow able to easily access the text through the link. This might even require a shortened custom url that redirects to the text. The exact specifics are obviously up to you though.
- I can't agree with the inclusion of both Pop!_OS and Vanilla OS. Don't get me wrong, the potential is absolutely there. But both are currently in a major overhaul and need at least one or two proper releases to mature. Expecting new users to either start with the 'abandoned' old release which they might have to abandon themselves when they move over to the (eventually) matured new release or start with (at best) beta software that may come with a lot more trouble than worthwhile is IMO irresponsible.
- I got a ton of smaller (personal) nitpicks, but most of those are related to scope and/or preconceived notions and therefore not worth mentioning here.
Thank you for your elaborate answer! <3
I've been following Linux-related subs (Reddit, Lemmy, etc.) for years now, and I constantly saw the flood of
"I'm a bit techy, but more casual, have normal hardware and use my PC sometimes for gaming. I'm fed up with Windows, what distro should I take?"
-posts. The guide is mainly meant for exact this kind of new users, who are perfectly fine with either Fedora or Mint. I excluded edge-cases, like QubesOS, completely on purpose, as this should be consisting of only 2 (or so) distros with different DEs. This should make 80% of exactly those post redundant. If someone wants a "non-normal" distro, they can still of course feel free to ask.
Hardware probe
I thought about that too, but I think people with super old hardware (32-bit, 500 mb RAM, etc.) are such an edge case too. Most people with halfway recent devices (<5-10 years) have at least 4 GB RAM and should be fine with major distros/ DEs. If they still have problems, they can also come here to ask or choose the "low-performance hardware"-arrow from the chart.
Investigate their intended usage and what software they would rely on
Again, the majority of people coming here are a bit techy casual users. If they had no clue about anything, they wouldn't think about Linux in the beginning, and if they already had a clue or a lot of experience, they would do the research alone.
I wanted this "Choose the right distro"-post to be only one puzzle piece of a collection, where I also want to explain what Linux can do and what it doesn't, e.g. CAD or some games.
By keeping it very short and only focusing on the distro part, it can be linked more selectively.
I also planned posts like "How to Ventoy"/ "How to install, and what problems may occour", why one shouldn't use Linux (expectations), and much more.Update cadence / Priorities
Will include it on the arrows and the text, good idea.
The only important thing to note would be that in all cases customization is allowed and thus they shouldn’t necessarily abandon a DE for a minor issue as it’s most likely easily solvable.
I already put this into the text I think, read the part with Gnome extensions and stuff :)
If this gets good (and it certainly has the potential), then only the flowchart itself will be shared while the accompanied text might be disregarded. In hopes of ensuring that others also read the accompanied text, consider to either (somehow) include the text in the image of the flowchart or include a link to the text and ensure it’s easily found and one is somehow able to easily access the text through the link. This might even require a shortened custom url that redirects to the text. The exact specifics are obviously up to you though.
I thought about using Sozi as a tool to achieve that. I have to research tho how to make a website first.
My idea was to keep the exact structure of the chart, but when you zoom in a lot to the distro, you get the description.I can’t agree with the inclusion of both Pop!_OS and Vanilla OS
Same, but I asked a few days prior in another post if I should include them or not, and nobody disagreed. I see VanillaOS as a great competitor to Mint, especially for people who want something of a managed and simple experience, while also being capable to do normal PC stuff. I see VOS 2 as "stable" enough in just a few weeks, there's mainly only some polishing and fixing in newer under-the-hood stuff, but the surface-stuff is already fine.
While I (somewhat) understand why you’ve tried to tie one’s preferences in earlier used OSes to a potential desktop environment they might like, I do think that this might set new users up for false expectations
That was a suggestion from someone else from the previous post, which I liked, and it shouldn't imply that "Mint is just like Windows" or "Fedora is like using your Android phone" at all. It's mainly about preference, if one likes a simple UI or prefers traditional workflows. How can I make that more clear?
Thank you for your elaborate reply 😜!
The guide is mainly meant for exact this kind of new users, who are perfectly fine with either Fedora or Mint. I excluded edge-cases, like QubesOS, completely on purpose, as this should be consisting of only 2 (or so) distros with different DEs. This should make 80% of exactly those post redundant. If someone wants a “non-normal” distro, they can still of course feel free to ask.
I agree that it makes sense to start with tackling the problem in a way compliant with the 80/20 rule; i.e. 20 percent of the work to deal with 80 percent of the cases. I'm perhaps too much of a (wannabe) perfectionist/tryhard, which is why the process described in my previous post was a lot more involved and (perhaps) therefore more utopian/idealist than realistic. Perhaps I've even alluded to this a couple of times 😅.
I thought about using Sozi as a tool to achieve that. I have to research tho how to make a website first. My idea was to keep the exact structure of the chart, but when you zoom in a lot to the distro, you get the description.
Great idea! FWIW, perhaps an interactive map with pop-ups may be utilized to that effect. Though, there's plenty to consider here and a lot of ways to do it justice. I trust in your capabilities to achieve that splendidly.
I see VanillaOS as a great competitor to Mint, especially for people who want something of a managed and simple experience, while also being capable to do normal PC stuff. I see VOS 2 as “stable” enough in just a few weeks, there’s mainly only some polishing and fixing in newer under-the-hood stuff, but the surface-stuff is already fine.
I haven't installed the beta of its Orchid release yet. So, hopefully my gut feeling is just wrong. Ironically, the first time I installed a relatively immature version of an atomic distro (Fedora Kinoite, but like its first release (so Fedora 35 at the time)), it was a very bad experience and I rebased right away to Silverblue and haven't look back since 🤣. Hopefully others will not be stung by VOS 2, like how I was stung by Kinoite.
It’s mainly about preference, if one likes a simple UI or prefers traditional workflows. How can I make that more clear?
By not naming any of the associated operating systems, but instead opt to distill their respective workflows in plain text. I'm very aware that this is pretty hard without spending way too many words on their descriptions. Therefore, perhaps it's worth exploring if the 'intended workflows' of the different DEs might be (screen) captured and displayed as gifs. Obviously with the caveat that the 'intended' isn't forced upon them and that they're free to change them to better suit their needs.
I’m perhaps too much of a (wannabe) perfectionist/tryhard, which is why the process described in my previous post was a lot more involved and (perhaps) therefore more utopian/idealist than realistic.
Same for me, with the addition of me being a people-pleaser. I already have to select which voice I listen to, since there are hundreds of different ones contradicting each other.
Right now, I think I've spent enough time for the next days :D I will consider making a small website out of that, but that's more of a hobby project and learning experience for me.Ironically, the first time I installed a relatively immature version of an atomic distro (Fedora Kinoite, but like its first release (so Fedora 35 at the time)), it was a very bad experience and I rebased right away to Silverblue and haven’t look back since 🤣
Yeah, I know that too well... the pain of being an early adopter :D Fedora Atomic has matured heavily, and I think it is perfectly usable, both in terms of reliability and availability.
It's just that it is quite different from other distros, especially when you want to install apps. For newcomers, just telling them to go into the software center and selecting the apps to install (via Flatpak) is perfectly enough. It only gets a bit more complicated when they want more and have to turn to the CLI (e.g. Distrobox).Same for me, with the addition of me being a people-pleaser. I already have to select which voice I listen to, since there are hundreds of different ones contradicting each other.
Very commendable! I hope you can remain positive and optimistic. Unfortunately, I've stopped caring much for others' opinions. I hope I'm wrong; but to me most people that engage in these topics somehow lack knowledge, are not very intelligent or just plain ill-informed/ misinformed and obnoxiously oblivious for how wrong they are. This doesn't mean that others' opinions/views are de facto wrong, but I try (as hard as it sometimes is) to assess/evaluate ideas based on their respective merit(s) rather than how often they're voiced or how popular they are.
Fedora Atomic has matured heavily, and I think it is perfectly usable, both in terms of reliability and availability.
Absolutely. I find it hard to recommend other distros, unless something specific is sought after that's either very hard or plain impossible to materialize/accomplish on Fedora Atomic.
It’s just that it is quite different from other distros, especially when you want to install apps. For newcomers, just telling them to go into the software center and selecting the apps to install (via Flatpak) is perfectly enough. It only gets a bit more complicated when they want more and have to turn to the CLI (e.g. Distrobox).
Paradigm shift for sure. Curiously, I'd argue the average Android/iOS-user should be fine with only resorting to the software storefront. So in a sense, non-Windows/Linux users might have it easier on Fedora Atomic 😅. Simply for not having (false) preconceived notions on how something should work/function.
- Step 1: Hardware probe. So, somehow establishing what we are working with as this sets severe limitations to our options. Personally I would divide this in three groups: