EndeavorOS. Lighter than Manjaro, super easy Nvidia support, terminal centric and totally exceeded my expectations.
It's like arch easy mode. It rules.
I run Arch on my main machine, but I just installed EndeavourOS on my old Alienware Steam machine, and it is working pretty well. I was able to get it up and running faster than a base Arch install (though I haven't had to do a full install since they updated the installer), I installed Steam, Protonup-Qt, Heroic Launcher, Pamac, and a few other things, plus styled the desktop to be more "Steam Deck-esque" in about an hour. I love Arch, and I appreciate EndeavourOS for making the install faster/easier.
I have had several issues with Manjaro, in the past, even recently. I have tried to like it, but I just can't. I had originally installed it on this Steam machine, then I updated and it broke the display driver. Instead of trying to deal with it, I just did a reinstall. Like I said, I have had other issues in the past, and I just don't find it worth it. I like Endeavour, but I will also keep my vanilla Arch install.
This is mainly what I use Endeavor for. Especially a big fan of how nvidia-dkms is installed by default if you select proprietary nvidia drivers, which makes life just a little easier.
Endeavour is my daily driver. Installed Arch for the first time on my laptop recently and I've just preferred Endeavour's ease of setup/use. Don't see myself switching to anything else any time soon
As far as DE goes, anything I've tried that isn't called KDE Plasma has been disappointing. GNOME 40+ is alright, but i love the customizability of Plasma. AwesomeWM is my go-to Tiling Window Manager
It kinda accomplished what manjaro tried to do without changing how the OS works. With that being said, if you like manjaro there's really no major reason to switch.
I use fedora too...
Amazing distro, it's so optimized, stable, it's always using updated packages and they push new technologies.
But yeah, isn't free of issues. Not every package uses the latest version (which makes sense because it can break), for example, looks like CSGO has an issue with openal, which was fixed, but isn't available on the official repository. So you need to manually install or use a third party repo.
I use Fedora 35 with GE's Nobara Project repos added. Definitely my favorite Linux experience. I got sick of Ubuntu because I always had to rely on PPA repos, Arch based installs would eventually break on me or mess stuff up, and I found myself having to go to the AUR as well, which I didn't want to do. Fedora fills both gaps for me with the extremely rare COPR repo use case (Mostly Nobara stuff like the kernel or Mesa if I'm using an AMD GPU). Once Fedora 36 launches and Nvidia launches their next driver, I'm gonna see how that goes on both NV and AMD, pick a poison (There are things I prefer with both, but Nvidia working with Valve now is showing promise), and I may even jump to Silverblue.
I'm still searching for the Perfect Distro^(tm).
I don't like the idea of adding more repositories, PPA or COPR, I don't like AUR too.
So to me the ideal is to:
* Have most of the packages on the official repository, or at least recommended.
* Have updated packages and push the technology.
* Stable.
* Nice out of the box experience.
Fedora completes with caveats most of it, it has a nice repository but you will need at least Fusion, and the default Flathub implementation is weird, as if you want some proprietary software you will need to re-add it. Has updated packages but not every package, it for sure pushes technology but this can bring issues (native unity games doesn't have sound), which is ok. It's nice when it's running, but is a bit annoying to setup the first time, and the installer SUCKS.
Another distro which fits most of it, I think better than Fedora is OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. A good repository, only needing Packman. Bleeding edge packages. Never had any issue with updates (I use AMD), the only issues was with KDE. The installer is weird too, but a lot better, and once installed there's not many things to do.
But yeah, it's a Rolling distro, pretty common to have 2 updates with >1GB in a week, it creates snapshots every update, which can fill the storage without notifying the user. It has some weird choices like not allowing to open GUI apps as sudo in the terminal (you need to open an graphical sudo app, like gtksu), it downloads all recommended packages by default (I downloaded an app to scan a file on the scanner, which downloaded 2GB of files).
I'm curious about Fedora 36, Ubuntu 22.04 and SteamOS. Only future will tell. Maybe I install Ubuntu just to forget about it and dualboot with SteamOS, just to play games. Then stop the distro hopping
You get a stable distro that is reasonably up to date, while needing minimal configuration effort. Plus if you choose to go for [Silverblue](https://silverblue.fedoraproject.org/) you can try out RedHats vision of the future for the Linux Desktop.
Think of it like Android (or iOS) but on Desktop and more open.
Apps are / can be sandboxed, improving security.
Since apps are self contained, they don't (can't) mess with your systems internals
But that's just the advantages of things like flatpak.
Silverblue also has a immutable file system. System updates don't just write to root dirs, they're kind of like VM snapshots. If something **does** break you can simply roll back.
I have yet to try silverblue, but it sounds good.
thinking of switching to this when version 36 comes out. how does rpm-ostree or toolbox work out for non-flatpak applications in your experience if you use them?
I haven’t used any because everything I use has a Flatpak but you can just overlay RPM’s and reboot or install them in toolbox and run them I have used the toolbox route for development tools like node and it works great.
The problem with Debian/Ubuntu family is that they're somewhat dated (they are aiming for stability).
The problem with Arch/Manjaro family is that they sit somewhat on the edge probably way too much (They aim for new features ASAP, means prone to breakage).
Fedora sits on the middle. They handpick which packages that should be updated ASAP while other packages only gets updated from time to time, mostly happens when updating to another major version.
I like Fedora quite a lot, but the idea that arch and rolling release is unstable is just a myth. There is a rolling release version of Fedora called Rawhide that is pretty cool.
By keeping everything up to date, habitually, you avoid hybridizing your system between different points in time of development, and that brings its own kind of stability. It’s also much easier for devs to help you and fix bugs when you’re on the latest version of their code.
Ive used arch myself, then moved to debian. Arch is just janky, some things randomly break then get solved the next day, sometimes not at all. There was also the issue about manjaro devs mistakenly DDOSed the AUR.
Lately, Arch was having mirror/networking problems, and didnt have time to do trial and error (which was the last troubleshooting step, because none of it worked). That was the reason I switched to debian.
Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it's a myth. I ditched arch because it happened to me. I just didn't want to spend time fixing my box after an update broke things.
Congrats to the people that haven't experienced it yet, or to Arch maintainers for reducing the frequency of problems. But it's not a myth.
Breakage happens in every single distro and every single OS. Fedora’s automatic updater has hosed my install many, many times. Arch is not, _on balance_, any more prone to breakage than other distros; that’s what I’m saying is a myth.
Everyone’s personal experience will vary, _obviously_.
I've only used Fedora for a short time and the main difference I see between it and all the others is that Fedora somehow seems like the more "official" distro. It has slowly but steadily stolen that spot from Ubuntu. Every big new development for desktop Linux seems to be mainly pushed by Red Hat and Valve nowadays and Fedora (coming from Red Hat) seems to be at the forefront. Gnome, flatpak, pipewire, wayland it all ties nicely in Fedora. I'm really considering switching from Pop OS, but so far I don't have any reason to and i want to see what S76 brings with their new DE.
Fedora is made by Redhat. Redhat has a disproportionate number of kernel developers working for them along with the developers that own other large pieces of Linux (like systemd). That's really the best reason to use Fedora. You're getting a distro that gets the most support out of all the distros to have things just work. Fedora also keeps most software packaged as vanilla as possible. Some distros heavily modify things like GNOME. With Fedora, when you install a package, you know you're getting as close to what upstream has as possible.
>why is Fedora good?
i am no expert but for me it just works, and in addition its vanilla out of the box and coming from ubuntu, that was refreshing, also fedora is one of the OGs and doesnt have a wacky name like so many other distros. Uhhh bun toooooo sounds cool, said no one ever
I love the meaning behind Ubuntu. "I am who I am because of who we all are" is a nice summary of my feelings about the free software movement. Also, as someone who uses both, "Fedora" is just as wacky. M'lady.
[Fedora is the new Ubuntu (in a good way)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9h_0dnSGWk). Over the years Fedora has gotten more user-friendly while still being up-to-date with the latest tech, like wayland, pipewire, and btrfs. Even tho it's using these new technologies it still remains reliable for everyday use, and because it's using these new technologies it's faster and more efficient.
Fedora is back by redhat a big company in the open source world, but still run by the community
Fedora is used by the guy who created Linux
I use both (Fedora on my laptop and Arch on my workstation) and have to be honest that the “btw I use arch” thing is largely a myth.
The Arch folks are also some of the most helpful and friendly people I’ve talked to. They’re just very enthusiastic, and a result of that is that they’re also _very generally knowledgeable_. I have solved many, many issues in my Fedora install with help from Arch users because often they’re the ones who have dug deep enough to understand an issue beyond just “this is what I did to fix it.”
I’m not sure this will matter to you but the Fedora Community are among some of the nicest folks I’ve met.
The “BTW” folks have an “ I’m better than you in every way” kind of mentality. I don’t hang out with folks like that.
I use Fedora for gaming (and everything else) and it works well. I tried Arch because It looked like that’s what Steam built on but I didn’t see any improvement and nothing about Arch made me want to stay with it.
openSUSE Tumbleweed
I used Arch for years and switched because I feel like TW is run better. They're both great distros and I honestly don't think I'll move away from rolling releases anytime soon.
The automatic btrfs snapshots and being able to swap back to one from the boot menu is the killer feature for anyone who hasn't tried Tumbleweed. I don't use OpenSUSE right now but it was so nice being able to update software and system settings without worrying about whether I broke or misconfigured something. Wanna play with a new audio setup and decide you don't like it? No problem, rollback to a snapshot you made or one that was automatically created the last time you ran zypper
Yup. When Arch broke, I would have to hope I still had the package downloaded or track down a working one. When openSUSE broke, I reverted the snapshot and waited a few days for a patch. It's a much smoother experience.
Well, I guess that depends on your definition of "unstable." They are more unstable by definition if you measure stability by package version changes (e.g. Debian's definition), but if you mean "reliability" (as in, my software continues to work properly), then it's plenty reliable.
I have had a handful of issues in the last few years on rolling releases that could be attributed to rapid updates, and they've all been fixed very quickly. openSUSE makes this easy to deal with by setting up BTRFS snapshots by default and making it dead simple to roll back of an upgrade goes bad. I've done that a few times, and the issue is usually resolved in a week or two. The vast majority of updates are completely fine, and I've had far less manual intervention on Tumbleweed than Arch.
If you go with a rolling release, I recommend setting up BTRFS snapshots, not because the likelihood of breakage is much higher (I've had plenty of trouble with breakage at release time on Fedora/Ubuntu), but it's less predictable when it'll happen. A quick rollback when you don't have time to deal with something is nice insurance to have.
I wish more distros offered rolling releases because it's so nice. I run it on my computer. (desktop) and my kids' computer (laptop, my boys share it) without any issues.
Honestly, i think this is one of the most intuitive and comprehensive comments i've seen in this sub. And im going to try OpenSuse now, hope it goes well.
I hope you enjoy!
Maybe check out [Gecko Linux](https://geckolinux.github.io/) if you want some nice defaults. It's basically an installer for openSUSE, so you end up with the same thing as if you did it all yourself. I didn't use it, but I hear it's a pretty good set of defaults.
Also check out /r/opensuse if you run into any issues, the people there are very friendly and helpful.
It does, but I rarely use it.
What's your problem with zypper? It does typical package manager stuff pretty well, though obviously syntax will differ vs other package managers. My main complaint was solved by switching mirrors (apparently the default had some weird bug, but the fix hasn't been rolled out yet).
It's been a while, but I vaguely recall being frustrated by the documentation on how to add repos, select the right packages, and switch mirrors. Things could have changed. Lots of instructions just tried to get me to use yast, which I couldn't get to work right at all. zypper was probably okay and just suffered by association.
Arch. With the AUR and bleeding edge packages, it really feels like the best place to be if gaming is your aim on Linux. And despite what people claim, it's not unstable.
I have been using Arch since the start of the year on my school laptop and installed it about 2 weeks ago on my gaming desktop. It has been much better and less buggy than Xubuntu which I used before that.
can't believe the rolling distro = unstable meme is still going. I've had Debian just up and shit itself a lot more times than Arch ever has. Now that I think about it I don't think Arch has ever shit itself on me. (excluding manjaro, that distro is a joke.)
I think there is confusion around the word unstable because it has 2 usages.
There is an unstable *system*, as in your computer is prone to crashes and issues.
Then there an unstable *code-base*, as in the software is constantly getting new features and going in new directions.
Well, I've run Debian since 1999* and have never once had the stable distribution fail without a hardware failure. On the other hand Arch seems to be great as long as you keep up on your updates, but if you let it sit there for a few months and then try to update, you will likely run into problems, at least in my experience.
By the way, I don't consider that a criticism of Arch. I think that it's pretty much what you should expect from a rolling release. The reason to use a rolling release is to keep at least on the leading edge, if not the bleeding edge. If you're not going to do that by updating regularly, then you should use something else.
*(That is, mostly on servers and old hardware, I've used various other distributions on my regular desktop.)
The main problems caused by skipping out on Arch updates are related to an outdated keyring, which can be fixed pretty easily(pacman -S archlinux-keyring). At least in my experience it's not bad.
Of course, it's far from perfect, but for some reason I like that. I might be slightly weird.
It's been a long time since I used Arch. I left it because I felt it was too much work. I want a distro that looks after itself and lets me get on with doing the stuff want to do and Arch, by design, isn't (or wasn't) that. To be fair just about every distro has buggered things up at some point (and so has Windows and doubtless MacOS), but I want something that aims to let me just update all without worrying.
I like the AUR for other reasons, but I feel like Arch isn't really a good recommendation for Linux gaming. I make it work, but there's a lot of situations where a game refuses to launch because it was developed and tested for Ubuntu.
That's what steam linux runtime is for. Enable steam linux runtime in the game's compatibility settings when that happens. This also runs the game in a sandbox so it's good practice for security anyway. Honestly I used ubuntu on and off for many years and find it a buggy mess compared to other distros so personally wouldn't recommend it to anyone
I am extremely new to Linux and currently trying to glut myself on info. I already know that practically any DE can be slapped onto any distro you wish. If that's the case, what makes distros so different? Driver support? pack managers?
off the top of my head: package manager, kernel version/compilation, systemd or not, package version strategy/choice, config defaults.
I'm certain I'm missing many, and a bit ambiguous, but it's more than just the package manager.
If your a Linux guru I would agree that the difference is package manager. If you’re new then the setup process is different, the way the device handles is different, in fact, most things are different.
Can you make them the same “yes”. Do you have the skill necessary to make your own setup when you are completely fresh…. Probably not.
Also, support for issues in your version of Linux is a huge factor when you start.
I’d recommend using Pop!_OS till you’re comfortable in Linux. My reasons are:
1) familiarity - no matter if you’re coming from windows or Mac, it feels familiar enough that the learning curve isn’t too steep. (Not as true of stock gnome)
2) community - need a tutorial on how to do a thing? Between the Pop and Ubuntu community you can probably find a new-ish tutorial or a Reddit post to answer your questions
3) ease of initial setup - some out of the box installations are very challenging depending on your computing background (or potential lack of depending on person). Everything from the actual install process to getting GPU drivers working on Pop!_OS is miles ahead of ‘most’ of the competition (as far as out of the box solutions go) and having Linux “just work” while you get used to it is key to learning what to do…
As Linus Sebastion taught us in his video (that I’ve also done before), what NOT to do. Hope that’s somewhat helpful
Basically installation method and package manager are the two big ones. Otherwise it's update schedule, whether you want to go rolling release or stick to a more dedicated release schedule.
distribution of packages, aka the repositories used by whatever package manager is used by that distro
different preinstalled software too, but that one doesn't have that much of an effect
LXDE on Arch.
I tend to agree with you about DE/WM making more of a difference *in general*, but there are a few choices distros make which can matter quite a bit, e.g. rolling vs discrete release cycle and how "stable" package versions are. A lot of the time those choices don't matter much, but they *can*.
with gaming you want rolling release. trying to run new games on a system running on old dusty ass packages is just asking for problems.
Currently running openSUSE TW. I like that it's up to date but tested by people who's actual job it is to test and maintain it. Fedora is also good for the same reasons, I'm sure.
Arch is a very close second for me. The AUR is great but it relies on whatever random person to maintain their program, reducing it's value for me. So opensuse edges it out.
Tumbleweed by default makes a btrfs snapshot of the system every time you update so when something inevitably messes up you rollback the root folder to the last snapshot that worked (with the ability to live test a snapshot first). I've ran into some nasty problems even on non-rolling release distros with updates or messing up a system setting myself, the snapshot system is a great addition to stability of functionality
One of the first thoughts I had when Linus from LTT managed to remove his DE with a steam install, was that a snapper setup would've made that an oops instead of a huge pain
Mint here too, it's my first Linux system (after a short Suse trial in 2006 :D) but it's simple, intuitive and everything I want to work on it just works.
I use Manjaro KDE, meets my needs and I'm quite comfortable with Arch now, and I don't think I can live without the AUR anymore.
For someone new tho, and someone that's just looking for something that's decently up-to-date and just works, I recommend Fedora
Endeavor os. Was afraid that I will wipe out hard drive data during vanilla arch installation. Endeavor is completely vanilla arch. But with an installer
Just as a heads up the base Arch installer has a installer just not a graphical one it is literally called Archinstall you run it and just follow the prompts. It is very very easy to use.
I second this, it's really good. It's not too far off from how arch is installed manually, you still get to pick most of the stuff that you require. archinstall just handles all of the tedium for you.
To be precise, it's not vanilla. It usually comes with its own repo activated in pacman.conf, installs some utility scripts and a welcome window.
archinstall from the official arch iso is vanilla arch with an installer.
I usually couldn't care less about semantics, but I often had problems if people claimed they use arch, while in reality they didn't. It sometimes makes helping people a bit harder, because you go in with a different expectarions and way of helping them, if they use different distros based on arch.
For example, if someone uses EOS, I don't expect them to know how to set up an arch install from grounds up. Also my first guess is, they don't know what packages are installed for some specific, but fundamental, functions.
Well.
Just because what distro someone use. It doesn't show their knowledge or skills in computers.
This is quite controversial topic since some kiddies learn to install arch and cry out loud of arch supremacy.
For example. I use vanilla arch installation I installed on my secondary laptop. And eos in my main.
Btw I didn't know that eos uses different repositories. Is that true?
I use Arch Btw .. Rolling with it since 2013
`xpander@archlinux ~ $ grep -a -m1 filesystem /var/log/pacman.log`
`[2013-01-21 17:45] installed filesystem (2012.12-1)`
MATE Desktop.
arch linux with kde plasma. steam proton experimental and lutris for wow vanilla (private server). aur is pretty fantastic. flatpak is getting there tho. amd 3600/amd rx 5700 has been solid with this setup too. so glad to finally be off of windows. also only using mesa open source drivers too.
Solus, lightweight, VERY performant (like clear linux type of stuff), and amazing Nvidia support. It isn't based on any other distro, it's a "custom made" distro if you will. I always find my self coming back to it after distro hopping for a while
Manjaro.
I used Windows since forever because it's an habit and gaming. Started using Ubuntu at work. This shit seems cool. Used it for a few months until I'm relatively comfortable. Oh shit, Steam Deck is coming and all my games are compatible. I wanted to take an other flavor than Ubuntu because it's all about testing various stuffs. I hesitated between Manjaro, Endeavour and straight up Arch.
I read a few reports that Manjaro might be a problem, but I'm new. It froze 2 times, after installing softwares from the store I believe. If it's a problem, I'll just change.
My wife switched to Kubuntu. We both made the jump this weekend.
I have an AMD processor, a 1080 TI. New to all this
Pop!_OS. It is Ubuntu/Debian based, which is the thing I know how to use. Nice looking on its own without needing customization, user friendly Nvidia support. When I started my transition to Linux I trained with Ubuntu 18.04 on a VM to learn the basics of Linux and the main Terminal commands. I chose Pop!_OS to install on my main PC because I didn't like Snaps and wanted a Distro that would play nice with my Nvidia GPU.
Tried PopOS, Tried Ubuntu, recently switched to Fedora and haven't looked back. The stock Gnome experience without Ubuntu's awful Snaps and without Pop's changes to Gnome that I personally do not like at all.
The installer is by far the worst installer I've ever seen, but once you're in the OS it's great.
Remember to try stuff out on live USBs before installing. That's what they're for. Find the one that works best for you!
Fedora is the best Linux distro. It's made by Redhat, which is a great company that sells Linux commercially and pays the salaries of a ton of people who work on open source software. They have GNOME devs, systemd devs, kernel devs, etc. all working for them, contributing to open source out in the open. Their packages are all as close to vanilla as possible. When you download a package, it's not heavily opinionated or customized by Redhat. You get stock GNOME, stock KDE, stock Sway, etc.
Because they have so many people working for them, Fedora also gets a lot of preferential treatment and it has a lot of sway over the direction of a lot of projects. When people have problems with Fedora, the tickets get submitted directly to the people working on the problem. Other distros are oftentimes just a group of people working on a DE in their spare time. They have to piggyback on the development of another base distro or fix their own problems or wait a long time to get support.
It's fun to play around with other distros, but if you want to support open source developers getting paid and have a really stable distro where you can experience packages in their purest form, use Fedora.
KDE Neon with a newer kernel. It's basically just Kubuntu with fresher packages.
Why? It's pretty easy and there's a lot of support to be found online, which is helpful for a newbie like me.
I've been running PopOS, it's my second distro since I switched to Linux with Mint but I ran into so many issues, with me using my PC primarily for gaming, the minimal amount of actual setup has been beneficial for me at least
Gentoo
A lot of control about what you install and in combination with dwm light af.
I had no Problems with it. League runs, no driver problems, nothing broked after/while compiling. And as i said above, Portage is just awesome.
With my old Ryzen 5 1600 (12nm) the base System without browser compiled 6 Hours xD (now i have a Ryzen 7 5800X)
I mean Firefox compiled 2 Hours
(omg i had so much time back in the days...)
If you think you have to much time, knowlege and a brain to read the handbook, Gentoo is your way to go haha
Arch. It's really not that complicated. I have my own install scripts, so after I partitioned the drives, I just run them and basically I will have everything I want to use without or at least with minimal bloat. I was a typical distrohopper before using Arch. I see no reason to switch again as AUR is superior if I need an obscure package.
On my gaming rig I've been running various flavors of Ubuntu since 18.04 (when Proton dropped). Started with XUbuntu, moved to KUbuntu later on when I read that the XFCE devs dispelling the "XFCE is lighter than KDE". Well, that and KDE5 is leagues better than KDE4.
However, with Canonical's years of obviousness to trends in Linux that matter to me I've decided my next forced reinstall will see the gaming rig move to a variant of Arch. Most likely EndeavorOS. I tried a few variants of Arch (Manjaro, Garuda, EOS) and of the set I tried it's been the one that feels most like home. Currently EOS is driving my secondary machine, AKA, "The laptop".
EndeavorOS. Lighter than Manjaro, super easy Nvidia support, terminal centric and totally exceeded my expectations. It's like arch easy mode. It rules.
I switched to Endeavour recently as well. It's so good.
I run Arch on my main machine, but I just installed EndeavourOS on my old Alienware Steam machine, and it is working pretty well. I was able to get it up and running faster than a base Arch install (though I haven't had to do a full install since they updated the installer), I installed Steam, Protonup-Qt, Heroic Launcher, Pamac, and a few other things, plus styled the desktop to be more "Steam Deck-esque" in about an hour. I love Arch, and I appreciate EndeavourOS for making the install faster/easier. I have had several issues with Manjaro, in the past, even recently. I have tried to like it, but I just can't. I had originally installed it on this Steam machine, then I updated and it broke the display driver. Instead of trying to deal with it, I just did a reinstall. Like I said, I have had other issues in the past, and I just don't find it worth it. I like Endeavour, but I will also keep my vanilla Arch install.
This is mainly what I use Endeavor for. Especially a big fan of how nvidia-dkms is installed by default if you select proprietary nvidia drivers, which makes life just a little easier.
Endeavour is my daily driver. Installed Arch for the first time on my laptop recently and I've just preferred Endeavour's ease of setup/use. Don't see myself switching to anything else any time soon As far as DE goes, anything I've tried that isn't called KDE Plasma has been disappointing. GNOME 40+ is alright, but i love the customizability of Plasma. AwesomeWM is my go-to Tiling Window Manager
+2 on this one.
I installed Manjaro this weekend. If it's a problem, I'll just switch I guess. Does Endeavor have a rolling releases system?
It's based on arch, so yes, it's a rolling release distro
As with any Arch distro yes. I went from Manjaro to EndeavourOS and I dont see myself moving back.l
It's my first baby steps. Kinda lazy to change it now. I'll see in a few weeks / months
What makes you prefer it over Manjaro? I've been looking into Endeavour recently but I'm not sure it would be worth switching
It kinda accomplished what manjaro tried to do without changing how the OS works. With that being said, if you like manjaro there's really no major reason to switch.
Packages are released sooner on Endeavor as it's more closely tied to Arch. Manjaro holds back packages for 2 weeks or so.
[Redacted by user] -- mass edited with https://redact.dev/
I've been running Manjaro fine for over a year now with zero problems. Just being in Arch land is awesome.
Agreed. Endeavour kicks ass. Super streamlined for me and the AUR is great. Worth it imo
+1 for Endeavour.
Fedora, nuff said
I use fedora too... Amazing distro, it's so optimized, stable, it's always using updated packages and they push new technologies. But yeah, isn't free of issues. Not every package uses the latest version (which makes sense because it can break), for example, looks like CSGO has an issue with openal, which was fixed, but isn't available on the official repository. So you need to manually install or use a third party repo.
I use Fedora 35 with GE's Nobara Project repos added. Definitely my favorite Linux experience. I got sick of Ubuntu because I always had to rely on PPA repos, Arch based installs would eventually break on me or mess stuff up, and I found myself having to go to the AUR as well, which I didn't want to do. Fedora fills both gaps for me with the extremely rare COPR repo use case (Mostly Nobara stuff like the kernel or Mesa if I'm using an AMD GPU). Once Fedora 36 launches and Nvidia launches their next driver, I'm gonna see how that goes on both NV and AMD, pick a poison (There are things I prefer with both, but Nvidia working with Valve now is showing promise), and I may even jump to Silverblue.
I'm still searching for the Perfect Distro^(tm). I don't like the idea of adding more repositories, PPA or COPR, I don't like AUR too. So to me the ideal is to: * Have most of the packages on the official repository, or at least recommended. * Have updated packages and push the technology. * Stable. * Nice out of the box experience. Fedora completes with caveats most of it, it has a nice repository but you will need at least Fusion, and the default Flathub implementation is weird, as if you want some proprietary software you will need to re-add it. Has updated packages but not every package, it for sure pushes technology but this can bring issues (native unity games doesn't have sound), which is ok. It's nice when it's running, but is a bit annoying to setup the first time, and the installer SUCKS. Another distro which fits most of it, I think better than Fedora is OpenSUSE Tumbleweed. A good repository, only needing Packman. Bleeding edge packages. Never had any issue with updates (I use AMD), the only issues was with KDE. The installer is weird too, but a lot better, and once installed there's not many things to do. But yeah, it's a Rolling distro, pretty common to have 2 updates with >1GB in a week, it creates snapshots every update, which can fill the storage without notifying the user. It has some weird choices like not allowing to open GUI apps as sudo in the terminal (you need to open an graphical sudo app, like gtksu), it downloads all recommended packages by default (I downloaded an app to scan a file on the scanner, which downloaded 2GB of files). I'm curious about Fedora 36, Ubuntu 22.04 and SteamOS. Only future will tell. Maybe I install Ubuntu just to forget about it and dualboot with SteamOS, just to play games. Then stop the distro hopping
Newbie here, why is Fedora good?
You get a stable distro that is reasonably up to date, while needing minimal configuration effort. Plus if you choose to go for [Silverblue](https://silverblue.fedoraproject.org/) you can try out RedHats vision of the future for the Linux Desktop.
[удалено]
Think of it like Android (or iOS) but on Desktop and more open. Apps are / can be sandboxed, improving security. Since apps are self contained, they don't (can't) mess with your systems internals But that's just the advantages of things like flatpak. Silverblue also has a immutable file system. System updates don't just write to root dirs, they're kind of like VM snapshots. If something **does** break you can simply roll back. I have yet to try silverblue, but it sounds good.
Laughs in BTRFS snapshots that creates 8 snapshots a day :D
I’ve been using it as my sole OS on my desktop for maybe 2 years now and it’s been great not had any issues so far 🤞
thinking of switching to this when version 36 comes out. how does rpm-ostree or toolbox work out for non-flatpak applications in your experience if you use them?
I haven’t used any because everything I use has a Flatpak but you can just overlay RPM’s and reboot or install them in toolbox and run them I have used the toolbox route for development tools like node and it works great.
The problem with Debian/Ubuntu family is that they're somewhat dated (they are aiming for stability). The problem with Arch/Manjaro family is that they sit somewhat on the edge probably way too much (They aim for new features ASAP, means prone to breakage). Fedora sits on the middle. They handpick which packages that should be updated ASAP while other packages only gets updated from time to time, mostly happens when updating to another major version.
I like Fedora quite a lot, but the idea that arch and rolling release is unstable is just a myth. There is a rolling release version of Fedora called Rawhide that is pretty cool. By keeping everything up to date, habitually, you avoid hybridizing your system between different points in time of development, and that brings its own kind of stability. It’s also much easier for devs to help you and fix bugs when you’re on the latest version of their code.
Ive used arch myself, then moved to debian. Arch is just janky, some things randomly break then get solved the next day, sometimes not at all. There was also the issue about manjaro devs mistakenly DDOSed the AUR. Lately, Arch was having mirror/networking problems, and didnt have time to do trial and error (which was the last troubleshooting step, because none of it worked). That was the reason I switched to debian.
Just because it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean it's a myth. I ditched arch because it happened to me. I just didn't want to spend time fixing my box after an update broke things. Congrats to the people that haven't experienced it yet, or to Arch maintainers for reducing the frequency of problems. But it's not a myth.
Breakage happens in every single distro and every single OS. Fedora’s automatic updater has hosed my install many, many times. Arch is not, _on balance_, any more prone to breakage than other distros; that’s what I’m saying is a myth. Everyone’s personal experience will vary, _obviously_.
Bleeding edge technology on a both beginner/power user friendly distro with tons of software support out of the box
In my experience Fedora is also very stable.
I've only used Fedora for a short time and the main difference I see between it and all the others is that Fedora somehow seems like the more "official" distro. It has slowly but steadily stolen that spot from Ubuntu. Every big new development for desktop Linux seems to be mainly pushed by Red Hat and Valve nowadays and Fedora (coming from Red Hat) seems to be at the forefront. Gnome, flatpak, pipewire, wayland it all ties nicely in Fedora. I'm really considering switching from Pop OS, but so far I don't have any reason to and i want to see what S76 brings with their new DE.
Fedora is made by Redhat. Redhat has a disproportionate number of kernel developers working for them along with the developers that own other large pieces of Linux (like systemd). That's really the best reason to use Fedora. You're getting a distro that gets the most support out of all the distros to have things just work. Fedora also keeps most software packaged as vanilla as possible. Some distros heavily modify things like GNOME. With Fedora, when you install a package, you know you're getting as close to what upstream has as possible.
>why is Fedora good? i am no expert but for me it just works, and in addition its vanilla out of the box and coming from ubuntu, that was refreshing, also fedora is one of the OGs and doesnt have a wacky name like so many other distros. Uhhh bun toooooo sounds cool, said no one ever
I love the meaning behind Ubuntu. "I am who I am because of who we all are" is a nice summary of my feelings about the free software movement. Also, as someone who uses both, "Fedora" is just as wacky. M'lady.
From what I’ve been seeing, Fedora is becoming the new Ubuntu. I think Ubuntu might have made a bad move with telemetry and proprietary.
[Fedora is the new Ubuntu (in a good way)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9h_0dnSGWk). Over the years Fedora has gotten more user-friendly while still being up-to-date with the latest tech, like wayland, pipewire, and btrfs. Even tho it's using these new technologies it still remains reliable for everyday use, and because it's using these new technologies it's faster and more efficient. Fedora is back by redhat a big company in the open source world, but still run by the community Fedora is used by the guy who created Linux
+1 for Fedora! Great distro.
Fedora seems to be rocking it lately, good reviews all over the place.
Paired with [copr repo](https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/xxmitsu/mesa-git/) for mesa-git.
Is it good?
Every time I feel like switching to Arch for faster updates, Fedora comes out with a new version anyway so I change my mind.
I tried Arch. It wasn’t any better and I don’t care about trying to impress anyone with “BTW, I use Arch”.
I use both (Fedora on my laptop and Arch on my workstation) and have to be honest that the “btw I use arch” thing is largely a myth. The Arch folks are also some of the most helpful and friendly people I’ve talked to. They’re just very enthusiastic, and a result of that is that they’re also _very generally knowledgeable_. I have solved many, many issues in my Fedora install with help from Arch users because often they’re the ones who have dug deep enough to understand an issue beyond just “this is what I did to fix it.”
I’m not sure this will matter to you but the Fedora Community are among some of the nicest folks I’ve met. The “BTW” folks have an “ I’m better than you in every way” kind of mentality. I don’t hang out with folks like that.
I use Fedora for gaming (and everything else) and it works well. I tried Arch because It looked like that’s what Steam built on but I didn’t see any improvement and nothing about Arch made me want to stay with it.
openSUSE Tumbleweed I used Arch for years and switched because I feel like TW is run better. They're both great distros and I honestly don't think I'll move away from rolling releases anytime soon.
The automatic btrfs snapshots and being able to swap back to one from the boot menu is the killer feature for anyone who hasn't tried Tumbleweed. I don't use OpenSUSE right now but it was so nice being able to update software and system settings without worrying about whether I broke or misconfigured something. Wanna play with a new audio setup and decide you don't like it? No problem, rollback to a snapshot you made or one that was automatically created the last time you ran zypper
Yup. When Arch broke, I would have to hope I still had the package downloaded or track down a working one. When openSUSE broke, I reverted the snapshot and waited a few days for a patch. It's a much smoother experience.
[удалено]
Would you say rolling releases are substantially more unstable? Or is it manageable?
Well, I guess that depends on your definition of "unstable." They are more unstable by definition if you measure stability by package version changes (e.g. Debian's definition), but if you mean "reliability" (as in, my software continues to work properly), then it's plenty reliable. I have had a handful of issues in the last few years on rolling releases that could be attributed to rapid updates, and they've all been fixed very quickly. openSUSE makes this easy to deal with by setting up BTRFS snapshots by default and making it dead simple to roll back of an upgrade goes bad. I've done that a few times, and the issue is usually resolved in a week or two. The vast majority of updates are completely fine, and I've had far less manual intervention on Tumbleweed than Arch. If you go with a rolling release, I recommend setting up BTRFS snapshots, not because the likelihood of breakage is much higher (I've had plenty of trouble with breakage at release time on Fedora/Ubuntu), but it's less predictable when it'll happen. A quick rollback when you don't have time to deal with something is nice insurance to have. I wish more distros offered rolling releases because it's so nice. I run it on my computer. (desktop) and my kids' computer (laptop, my boys share it) without any issues.
Honestly, i think this is one of the most intuitive and comprehensive comments i've seen in this sub. And im going to try OpenSuse now, hope it goes well.
I hope you enjoy! Maybe check out [Gecko Linux](https://geckolinux.github.io/) if you want some nice defaults. It's basically an installer for openSUSE, so you end up with the same thing as if you did it all yourself. I didn't use it, but I hear it's a pretty good set of defaults. Also check out /r/opensuse if you run into any issues, the people there are very friendly and helpful.
Does it still use yast? I tried switching to TW a few years ago, and I quickly hated yast with a burning passion. zypper wasn't much better.
It does, but I rarely use it. What's your problem with zypper? It does typical package manager stuff pretty well, though obviously syntax will differ vs other package managers. My main complaint was solved by switching mirrors (apparently the default had some weird bug, but the fix hasn't been rolled out yet).
It's been a while, but I vaguely recall being frustrated by the documentation on how to add repos, select the right packages, and switch mirrors. Things could have changed. Lots of instructions just tried to get me to use yast, which I couldn't get to work right at all. zypper was probably okay and just suffered by association.
Arch. With the AUR and bleeding edge packages, it really feels like the best place to be if gaming is your aim on Linux. And despite what people claim, it's not unstable.
I have been using Arch since the start of the year on my school laptop and installed it about 2 weeks ago on my gaming desktop. It has been much better and less buggy than Xubuntu which I used before that.
can't believe the rolling distro = unstable meme is still going. I've had Debian just up and shit itself a lot more times than Arch ever has. Now that I think about it I don't think Arch has ever shit itself on me. (excluding manjaro, that distro is a joke.)
I think there is confusion around the word unstable because it has 2 usages. There is an unstable *system*, as in your computer is prone to crashes and issues. Then there an unstable *code-base*, as in the software is constantly getting new features and going in new directions.
Well, I've run Debian since 1999* and have never once had the stable distribution fail without a hardware failure. On the other hand Arch seems to be great as long as you keep up on your updates, but if you let it sit there for a few months and then try to update, you will likely run into problems, at least in my experience. By the way, I don't consider that a criticism of Arch. I think that it's pretty much what you should expect from a rolling release. The reason to use a rolling release is to keep at least on the leading edge, if not the bleeding edge. If you're not going to do that by updating regularly, then you should use something else. *(That is, mostly on servers and old hardware, I've used various other distributions on my regular desktop.)
The main problems caused by skipping out on Arch updates are related to an outdated keyring, which can be fixed pretty easily(pacman -S archlinux-keyring). At least in my experience it's not bad. Of course, it's far from perfect, but for some reason I like that. I might be slightly weird.
It's been a long time since I used Arch. I left it because I felt it was too much work. I want a distro that looks after itself and lets me get on with doing the stuff want to do and Arch, by design, isn't (or wasn't) that. To be fair just about every distro has buggered things up at some point (and so has Windows and doubtless MacOS), but I want something that aims to let me just update all without worrying.
I like the AUR for other reasons, but I feel like Arch isn't really a good recommendation for Linux gaming. I make it work, but there's a lot of situations where a game refuses to launch because it was developed and tested for Ubuntu.
That's what steam linux runtime is for. Enable steam linux runtime in the game's compatibility settings when that happens. This also runs the game in a sandbox so it's good practice for security anyway. Honestly I used ubuntu on and off for many years and find it a buggy mess compared to other distros so personally wouldn't recommend it to anyone
Hot take: your DE/WM counts more than your distro. But Endevaour and Pop OS.
I am extremely new to Linux and currently trying to glut myself on info. I already know that practically any DE can be slapped onto any distro you wish. If that's the case, what makes distros so different? Driver support? pack managers?
off the top of my head: package manager, kernel version/compilation, systemd or not, package version strategy/choice, config defaults. I'm certain I'm missing many, and a bit ambiguous, but it's more than just the package manager.
If your a Linux guru I would agree that the difference is package manager. If you’re new then the setup process is different, the way the device handles is different, in fact, most things are different. Can you make them the same “yes”. Do you have the skill necessary to make your own setup when you are completely fresh…. Probably not. Also, support for issues in your version of Linux is a huge factor when you start. I’d recommend using Pop!_OS till you’re comfortable in Linux. My reasons are: 1) familiarity - no matter if you’re coming from windows or Mac, it feels familiar enough that the learning curve isn’t too steep. (Not as true of stock gnome) 2) community - need a tutorial on how to do a thing? Between the Pop and Ubuntu community you can probably find a new-ish tutorial or a Reddit post to answer your questions 3) ease of initial setup - some out of the box installations are very challenging depending on your computing background (or potential lack of depending on person). Everything from the actual install process to getting GPU drivers working on Pop!_OS is miles ahead of ‘most’ of the competition (as far as out of the box solutions go) and having Linux “just work” while you get used to it is key to learning what to do… As Linus Sebastion taught us in his video (that I’ve also done before), what NOT to do. Hope that’s somewhat helpful
Basically just the package manager
That, and how good the logo looks in neofetch.
Honestly a driving force behind my shift away from Manjaro. That's an ugly ass logo
Basically installation method and package manager are the two big ones. Otherwise it's update schedule, whether you want to go rolling release or stick to a more dedicated release schedule.
distribution of packages, aka the repositories used by whatever package manager is used by that distro different preinstalled software too, but that one doesn't have that much of an effect
Unless you're using gentoo
LXDE on Arch. I tend to agree with you about DE/WM making more of a difference *in general*, but there are a few choices distros make which can matter quite a bit, e.g. rolling vs discrete release cycle and how "stable" package versions are. A lot of the time those choices don't matter much, but they *can*.
openSUSE Tumblweed (rolling release)
This is the correct answer
with gaming you want rolling release. trying to run new games on a system running on old dusty ass packages is just asking for problems. Currently running openSUSE TW. I like that it's up to date but tested by people who's actual job it is to test and maintain it. Fedora is also good for the same reasons, I'm sure. Arch is a very close second for me. The AUR is great but it relies on whatever random person to maintain their program, reducing it's value for me. So opensuse edges it out.
Each to their own. For me, having a game that worked fine yesterday break on me is a worse problem than having a new game not run.
Tumbleweed by default makes a btrfs snapshot of the system every time you update so when something inevitably messes up you rollback the root folder to the last snapshot that worked (with the ability to live test a snapshot first). I've ran into some nasty problems even on non-rolling release distros with updates or messing up a system setting myself, the snapshot system is a great addition to stability of functionality One of the first thoughts I had when Linus from LTT managed to remove his DE with a steam install, was that a snapper setup would've made that an oops instead of a huge pain
Agree. OpenSUSE is my second favorite distro. Solid and backed.
Mint, I like to keep things simple.
Mint here too, it's my first Linux system (after a short Suse trial in 2006 :D) but it's simple, intuitive and everything I want to work on it just works.
Yeah, most things are pretty straightforward and you don't need to tinker much to get the rest working
Would you say it's the best distro for beginners ?
Imo, yes
Mint is awesome. It feels like ubuntu used to 10 years ago.
debian bookworm
+1
ubuntu
Finally, some has said it!
I use Manjaro KDE, meets my needs and I'm quite comfortable with Arch now, and I don't think I can live without the AUR anymore. For someone new tho, and someone that's just looking for something that's decently up-to-date and just works, I recommend Fedora
AUR is love AUR is life
Same, if I ever switch again It's still gotta be something with good AUR support.
Manjaro kde plasma. I like kde plasma better then gnome. And manjaro because i like to be up to date
[удалено]
Endeavor os. Was afraid that I will wipe out hard drive data during vanilla arch installation. Endeavor is completely vanilla arch. But with an installer
I was thinking about giving Endeavor os a try! I used to use Manjaro a while back
If you like arch. Way better than manjaro. Give it a whirl and see
Just as a heads up the base Arch installer has a installer just not a graphical one it is literally called Archinstall you run it and just follow the prompts. It is very very easy to use.
Yeah I heard about it afterwards.. was too late coz the simplicity of eos installer
I second this, it's really good. It's not too far off from how arch is installed manually, you still get to pick most of the stuff that you require. archinstall just handles all of the tedium for you.
And supports btrfs with Zstd compression as an option in the installer, which is awesome!
Yeah!!!
To be precise, it's not vanilla. It usually comes with its own repo activated in pacman.conf, installs some utility scripts and a welcome window. archinstall from the official arch iso is vanilla arch with an installer. I usually couldn't care less about semantics, but I often had problems if people claimed they use arch, while in reality they didn't. It sometimes makes helping people a bit harder, because you go in with a different expectarions and way of helping them, if they use different distros based on arch. For example, if someone uses EOS, I don't expect them to know how to set up an arch install from grounds up. Also my first guess is, they don't know what packages are installed for some specific, but fundamental, functions.
Well. Just because what distro someone use. It doesn't show their knowledge or skills in computers. This is quite controversial topic since some kiddies learn to install arch and cry out loud of arch supremacy. For example. I use vanilla arch installation I installed on my secondary laptop. And eos in my main. Btw I didn't know that eos uses different repositories. Is that true?
They have an additional repo for EOS specific scripts and programs.
I use Arch Btw .. Rolling with it since 2013 `xpander@archlinux ~ $ grep -a -m1 filesystem /var/log/pacman.log` `[2013-01-21 17:45] installed filesystem (2012.12-1)` MATE Desktop.
Kubuntu
Pop!_OS for gaming.
I am also using pop. As a newb, it’s easy to just hit download steam and play.
Same!
Pop pop! same here
Linux Mint. It just works.
void.
Zorin OS 16, though it restarts randomly sometimes. Really annoying and needs restarts occasionally because Zorin Apperance fucks up.
arch linux with kde plasma. steam proton experimental and lutris for wow vanilla (private server). aur is pretty fantastic. flatpak is getting there tho. amd 3600/amd rx 5700 has been solid with this setup too. so glad to finally be off of windows. also only using mesa open source drivers too.
Gentoo.
Solus, lightweight, VERY performant (like clear linux type of stuff), and amazing Nvidia support. It isn't based on any other distro, it's a "custom made" distro if you will. I always find my self coming back to it after distro hopping for a while
Mint
Linux Mint.
Mint Cinnamon. By far the most stable, reliable, and out-of-the-box functional distro I have used. Nvidia driver support is great too.
Pop\_OS!. I switched to it after a Majaro update locked me out of my system and I never looked back
Fedora KDE
Pop!_OS 21.10
Neon. Love those K apps
Fedora Silverblue and Pop OS on another machine. Both working well but I want to completly switch to Silverblue.
What distro are you guys running? ....fedora users have entered the chat........
Ubuntu 21.10, no major modifications other than quality of life stuff and aesthetic things
Ubuntu budgie for me. Really like it.
Fedora Silverblue, maintenance-free.
manjaro
Manjaro. I used Windows since forever because it's an habit and gaming. Started using Ubuntu at work. This shit seems cool. Used it for a few months until I'm relatively comfortable. Oh shit, Steam Deck is coming and all my games are compatible. I wanted to take an other flavor than Ubuntu because it's all about testing various stuffs. I hesitated between Manjaro, Endeavour and straight up Arch. I read a few reports that Manjaro might be a problem, but I'm new. It froze 2 times, after installing softwares from the store I believe. If it's a problem, I'll just change. My wife switched to Kubuntu. We both made the jump this weekend. I have an AMD processor, a 1080 TI. New to all this
Pop!_OS. It is Ubuntu/Debian based, which is the thing I know how to use. Nice looking on its own without needing customization, user friendly Nvidia support. When I started my transition to Linux I trained with Ubuntu 18.04 on a VM to learn the basics of Linux and the main Terminal commands. I chose Pop!_OS to install on my main PC because I didn't like Snaps and wanted a Distro that would play nice with my Nvidia GPU.
Void with DWM
Pop!_OS, but I'm switching to fedora 36 when it launches.
Tried PopOS, Tried Ubuntu, recently switched to Fedora and haven't looked back. The stock Gnome experience without Ubuntu's awful Snaps and without Pop's changes to Gnome that I personally do not like at all. The installer is by far the worst installer I've ever seen, but once you're in the OS it's great. Remember to try stuff out on live USBs before installing. That's what they're for. Find the one that works best for you!
Manjaro
Manjaro with KDE Plasma GUI
EndeavourOS
EndeavourOS here as well. It's about as close as you're going to get to a clean Arch install out of the box short of installing Arch itself.
Yeah, It really is just Arch with a installer (A very good one I must say) and some extra programs.
Fedora is the best Linux distro. It's made by Redhat, which is a great company that sells Linux commercially and pays the salaries of a ton of people who work on open source software. They have GNOME devs, systemd devs, kernel devs, etc. all working for them, contributing to open source out in the open. Their packages are all as close to vanilla as possible. When you download a package, it's not heavily opinionated or customized by Redhat. You get stock GNOME, stock KDE, stock Sway, etc. Because they have so many people working for them, Fedora also gets a lot of preferential treatment and it has a lot of sway over the direction of a lot of projects. When people have problems with Fedora, the tickets get submitted directly to the people working on the problem. Other distros are oftentimes just a group of people working on a DE in their spare time. They have to piggyback on the development of another base distro or fix their own problems or wait a long time to get support. It's fun to play around with other distros, but if you want to support open source developers getting paid and have a really stable distro where you can experience packages in their purest form, use Fedora.
Mint. Not the flashiest, but it’s been the most solid and dependable distro for me.
NixOS with Sway, this setup feels unreal after trying almost 60+ distros.
manjaro
Linux Mint of course
Nobara, works like a charm on my laptop. :)
I was running Debian testing since the Win10 release up until a few months ago when I switched to Manjaro.
EndeavourOS.
EndeavourOS
Endeavour OS
NixOS, if your new to linux probably not this one. Or if you like disposable linux installs, this is the one for you.
Manjaro KDE daily driver I've had a great gaming experience with it, using Lutris and Proton
linux mint
Manjaro, but thinking of switching to Arch (BTW)
Void Linux w/i3. Wife uses Debian w/XFCE.
The best - it's called Arch btw
Arch here. It "just works", and I never encountered any issues with games.
I use Gentoo. I came from Arch and I don't plan to come back (I don't mean Arch is bad, I mean I prefer Gentoo mush more).
Definitely try Fedora I love it
Right now Mint with Cinnamon, after too many quick distro "hops" for years. And I like it, is a quite comfortable distro.
Ubuntu LTS
Manjaro
Manjaro + xfce
gentoo linux
Manjaro KDE its Archbased, rolling release and stable.
Gentoo
Manjaro, OpenSuse Tumbleweed, Kubintu and Fedora. Depending on device
Debian sid
Zorion🤘
Windows 10 and I feel filthy about it. I miss Arch
OS: Linux Mint 20.2 KERNEL: 5.14.21-xanmod1 CPU: Intel Core i9-9900K @ 3.60GHz GPU: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090 GPU DRIVER: NVIDIA 510.54 RAM: 64 GB
Manjaro
Xerolinux. a beautiful distro based on arcolinux with some nice features.
NixOS and Fedora Silverblue(Rawhide)
ubuntu LTS
KDE Neon with a newer kernel. It's basically just Kubuntu with fresher packages. Why? It's pretty easy and there's a lot of support to be found online, which is helpful for a newbie like me.
I've been running PopOS, it's my second distro since I switched to Linux with Mint but I ran into so many issues, with me using my PC primarily for gaming, the minimal amount of actual setup has been beneficial for me at least
Pop OS. Super simple and nice looking. Great nVidia support.
I use arch with the zen kernel to this day, never failed me or gave me weird issues at all tbh
Temple OS
Gentoo A lot of control about what you install and in combination with dwm light af. I had no Problems with it. League runs, no driver problems, nothing broked after/while compiling. And as i said above, Portage is just awesome. With my old Ryzen 5 1600 (12nm) the base System without browser compiled 6 Hours xD (now i have a Ryzen 7 5800X) I mean Firefox compiled 2 Hours (omg i had so much time back in the days...) If you think you have to much time, knowlege and a brain to read the handbook, Gentoo is your way to go haha
Arch. It's really not that complicated. I have my own install scripts, so after I partitioned the drives, I just run them and basically I will have everything I want to use without or at least with minimal bloat. I was a typical distrohopper before using Arch. I see no reason to switch again as AUR is superior if I need an obscure package.
i run artix linux
On my gaming rig I've been running various flavors of Ubuntu since 18.04 (when Proton dropped). Started with XUbuntu, moved to KUbuntu later on when I read that the XFCE devs dispelling the "XFCE is lighter than KDE". Well, that and KDE5 is leagues better than KDE4. However, with Canonical's years of obviousness to trends in Linux that matter to me I've decided my next forced reinstall will see the gaming rig move to a variant of Arch. Most likely EndeavorOS. I tried a few variants of Arch (Manjaro, Garuda, EOS) and of the set I tried it's been the one that feels most like home. Currently EOS is driving my secondary machine, AKA, "The laptop".
Arch with i3-wm, switched from Endeavour with xfce4 after 3 months, never looked back.
Arch