Everyone should choose their first distro based on what his friend/neighbor uses already. Direct support can't be beaten.

Good effort but.. Why is Debian "for grandpa's" now? Do you not know that you can install KDE and other DEs on Pop (and most other distros)? Why is the terminal treated like some dark and arcane device only to be used by "the old ones"? Ubuntu left off just because you don't like snaps regardless of the fact that it has a huge user base and tons of documentation and user support forums?

Leave out the immutables, rolling distros like Arch and other small community distros - there lie dragons. If somebody wants that pain they will seek it out themselves. You're just muddying the water with that. Then stick to ones you get good hits from Google with "my sound isn't working on distro name".

Also - maybe start by explaining what a distro is? Mostly that they're the same basic libraries packaged differently. beginners sometimes don't even know whether they can run the same things on each. Like - yes you can play the same games on mint and fedora.

I would explain desktop environments separately - they are typically the most confusing thing to Linux newbies. e.g. that you can often choose between them on the same distro. And that they can even be installed at the same time and chosen on login so people can experiment. A true "newb" will often not even recognize that the DE isn't the os itself.

I would avoid the phrase "beginner friendly" as 1) it makes it seem like it may be limited compared to others and 2) is too vague. "Easy to install and use" and "have a good community for support" are better metrics to judge by and are what beginners want.

Ubuntu needs to be here for this to be serious. I run pop and will Google "how to X on Ubuntu" because it'll return more hits. Finding support is a huge part of why you pick one distro over another.

No mention of Debian as the main and default option? Come on now. Debian with Gnome or even Ubuntu with Gnome are just as good as Mint.

While I appreciate the post, and, organized as it may be, it runs afoul of every post like it. It is too much choice and too much information. No amount of formatting will change that. If you want people to switch to Linux make the choice for them. They don't want to choose.

Do you like pain and wasting as much time as possible? Gentoo. Jk jk I’ve never used it, I’ve only seen memes about it.

Yeah a lot of this chart just doesn't make sense to me. You trolling op?

For example, pop os uses a very opinionated version of gnome? Since when? Seems barely modified to my eye.

Also you recommend kde plasma to Mac users? Gnome seems WAY closer to me.

I don't get why you'd spend so much time if your info is all just going to be a little bit wrong

I like pain

I am in this picture and I don't like it.....

If you gave this to 14yo me choosing my first distro then I would have just given up. There are too many choices, just point noobs to something that works well and let them choose based on the DE.

Calling GNOME a mobile UI perfectly sums up why I hate it on a desktop/laptop

How is TuxedoOS the "best" distro with KDE Plasma? What about Kubuntu?

I'm only referring to Arch now because I have no idea about NixOS.

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

In my opinion, you are making the mistake of equating all Windows users. But not every Windows user is the same.

An acquaintance of mine, who works full-time as a Windows administrator, was able to install and configure Arch manually on his first attempt, for example. But yes, other Windows users would despair.

But that's exactly why you shouldn't make blanket recommendations, but rather recommendations based on the wishes and knowledge of the person who wants to use Linux.

high demanding

Basically, you should be able to read and willing use a search engine. That's all you really need.

hard to set up and use

If you use archinstall, which has long been an official part of the Arch iso file, you can install Arch within a short time. But I don't think manual installation is very difficult either. Because if you follow the official instructions, you can simply execute many of the commands mentioned therein without having to change them beforehand.

And what do you mean by hard to use?

I've been using Arch for over 10 years, almost like any other distribution. Apart from only 3 things, 2 of which can be automated.

• Before an update, I check whether something has been published at https://archlinux.org/news/ that affects my installations. If so, that has to be taken into account. The check itself can be automated with https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/informant, for example.
• The cache of pacman must be cleaned regularly. This can also be automated with a hook (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Pacman#Cleaning_the_package_cache).
• From time to time, I synchronise my configuration files with the pacnew files. There are tools for this (https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/pacman/Pacnew_and_Pacsave#Managing_.pac*_files)

requiring the user to be skilled and to know what he’s doing

Not necessarily. The most important thing is that the user is willing to read, that he is willing to use a search engine and that he is willing to learn something new. And that is often the problem these days.

And shall I tell you something? Even after several decades with Linux, I often have no idea what I'm doing. But I'm still trying to acquire new knowledge.

don’t hold the users’ hand

I agree with you here. Arch is, among other things, intended for users who want to solve their problems themselves. But that doesn't mean that you can't get help. However, it is expected that you first try to solve your problems yourself. And if that doesn't work, you should ask smart questions. However, this guide does not only help with Arch. Basically, it is (even if it is now partly outdated) still one of the most important pieces of knowledge you can have.

and don’t tolerate user error well.

I have been using Linux for over 20 years and have therefore already used several distributions. Basically none of them tolerate errors. If I make a mistake when configuring Alacritty under Ubuntu, for example, basically the same thing happens as under Arch.

Edit: Please don't take this post the wrong way. My point is not to claim that Arch is like Ubuntu, for example. But these myths that have formed around Arch (e.g. that you can only learn Linux properly with Arch (which is complete nonsense)) are a bit annoying.

Hello OP

Can I translate this to my language and post on my lil' blog about Open Source stuff?

I personally dislike recommending NixOS at all for new Linux users. Even though it's packaging and file system differs from other Linux distros, it's necessary to understand how general Linux works to understand why and how NixOS works.

E.g. systemd services in NixOS are often times more complex as they include the full nix store path or execute a script which simply executes a command. This is because of how they are generated and obvious once you have experience how other distros systemd units look like.

PS: I appreciate you helping people find a good distro. I'm merely nitpicking and complaining which doesn't help anyone :D

This is helpful info. I've been thinking of doing a dual boot for a while just for better privacy, keeping Windows for gaming only.

Who knew recommending Distros could be so controversial 😛?

Seriously though I think this is a great flowchart and you took on board the more reasonable suggestions from the intial post. This flowchart now quickly eliminates some of the distro choice anxiety. Worst case a newbie might end up on a distro like mint and then end up migrating to a different one.

One comment I had is that I actually didn't know what opinionated DE meant without googling despite being a long time Linux user (maybe thats just my ignorance) and I wonder if a newbie might be confused maybe there's another way of saying it (flexible versus simple?).

Anyway, I really think early me would have appreciated this when I first started even if that would been ultimately "use Ubuntu" back then.

great list !! meowz theres nothing i can think of that u missed so well done :3

I feel like EndeavourOS should just be a side option from Arch with the statement "I want to install the OS with a GUI"

So biased. If you don't know what distro to choose, go with kubuntu, mint, or pop. That simple.

Very nice. I’d suggest adding ChimeraOS next to Bazzite.

Also I’m not sure I’d recommend Vanilla to a beginner yet. It’s a very cool OS, but it’s got a lot of new tech that most instructions online won’t work on, and would frustrate a beginner.

Great write-up, thank you OP!

I'd like to suggest an addition: I often get the question: but will distro XY run on my device? Then I suggest to boot from an USB stick and try everything in a live session without installing anything. (And if people are just curious how it will look and feel, I recommend https://distrosea.com/)

Also, I miss the mention of Cinnamon. Mint is very popular as you have already said and the "flagship" version comes with Cinnamon.

Thank you for the advice. Im going to try Linux Mint, but im interested in privacy. Is it true they dont collect data?

Last week I tried Ubuntu on a dual boot and eventually uninstalled it because i had messed some partitions up and also it felt like I had to do a lot more to get every day stuff to work. Now, I am considering doing it again but with better partitions and more patience. But how come I don't see Ubuntu on this list?

EndeavourOS is supposedly "more reliable" than Arch? How's that?

I promised myself I wouldn't cry because slackware didn't make the cut, yet here we are.

-hops on nix soapbox- As someone currently trying to set up a NixOS server, your bullet point descriptions of it are incorrect except maybe the last 2. You're just describing Arch.

In fact Nix tolerates user error extremely well and arguably makes every effort to be error-proof. A wrong user config means it flat out won't compile and just revert to the past working config.

I agree it's a pain - at first - and requires a strong base knowledge of how Linux in general works. -hops off-

I just gotta say this looks great. It paints a quick picture with broad strokes, just like a newbie needs. Kudos.

What about window managers? i3wm as example

This might be easier: https://distrochooser.de

Year of the Linux desktop might just happen if you keep making flowcharts like this.

It must really suck for Windows or Mac users whose flowcharts only have one flowchart box between them and actually using their computer ;P

Hi, Thank you for this post! Maybe it's just me but your flowchart link is broken.

I wouldn't recommend Fedora for NVidia users because it wants to be Wayland-only. The introduction is quite good though

A good answer to "Where to start", is not likely to be "determine your Linux distro of choice".

Which isn't to say that what you're doing is not a good way help with getting a quick idea of what to expect from the different distros.

But the original question, might be better answered by explaining some concepts instead:

• that mobos boot into storage mediums. And what would need to be different for it to then boot into Linux.
• bootable USBs, and how to find images for different Linux flavours, how to write them to a USB
• what typically to do in bios to change the boot priority order.
• that many Linux distros images can be ran, live. Without needing to affect anything.
• what to do if you like it, and actually want to install it. Be that as dual boot, or replacing windows. What are common pitfalls, etc.

These concepts, IMHO, are much more important, than what distro. Because it gives them the tools to understand how easy it is to just try stuff out, without having to commit to anything. Picking the wrong distros then isn't a big of a deal.

If I were to make a comment on the chart itself. I think there is some value in describing what some distros are tailored for. But I find it curious how little that would matter to me. Things that matter to me are:

• Software management system (pacman, apt, yum, etc)
• How many use it, and factoring in confirmation bias, do they like it?
• Is it built on top of something else, and if so, what does it add?
• Who maintains system packages
• What is the particular distro trying to do? Focused on a particular usage (e.g. pentesting, daws, academic, etc), stability, special hardware, ... etc.

Many distros are different by only having a different list of software installed by default. That... Is nice if you want to try it out with a live USB. But, it doesn't matter all that much. For example, Arch is considered one of the least advisable for beginners, but, it also has the AUR that covers a lot more than most other package systems. Some things are easier to get ahold of than say Ubuntu.

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:

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.

I keep coming back to Mint+cinnamon as my daily driver and debian+xfce on older hardware. They just work and both distros and DE are simple and familiar coming from win10. There are enough built-in customization options for me to get the desktop looking how I want it but I don't have to spend a day configuring it if I don't want to. It might be a basic choice for basic people, but I was up and running in about an hour and after a month of not booting into windows I wiped that old drive to make room for data. I may switch over to LMDE at some point, but that is more philosophically motivated than an actual need.

There's something to be said for simplicity.

I think I would split Guix & Nix based on your flavor of functional language heritage: LISP or ML

Endeavouros is Arch. It has the calameris installer and a selection of defaults, tools, etc. But there is no real difference to arch.

Alpine

How to choose your 1st distro:

-Have 1 monitor: Linux Mint

-Have more than 1 monitor: Fedora

-Have a potato PC: AntiX

Thanks for the write up @Guenther_Amanita@feddit.de ! That will guide my further distro hopping I wanted to know what you meant by 'outdated' regarding Pop!_OS? What's wrong with it?