Stop recommending distros, recommend doctors instead. Every smart human being knows that there's no high quality operating system better than Windows 11. Why do you even bother recommending spyware like Linux?
Distros does make a difference as well. I'd say recommend both. I have SEVERAL desktops on KDE Neon - which is just Ubuntu with KDE as a DEFAULT desktop. Also have MATE, XFCE, and I dunno, more stuff.
For many people, "my google isn't working" can mean "my connection to the internet isn't working", "my web browser isn't working" or "the search engine isn't working". So, I clearly see the point in don't talk about what's beneath the DE to a Linux beginner, or to any person who doesn't have interest in computers beyond it being a mandatory task when doing their job.
I work in a tech hotline for an internet provider. I stopped counting long ago the times I had to tell people that they should enter their router's address into the address bar instead of Google's search bar
Because the most used operating systems (Windows, Mac) only have 1 desktop environment so it's only natural. And when someone actually uses Linux, most of those people aren't really gonna change their DEs once they choose a distro. Even if they do, there can be compatibility issues. So yeah, it's not quite the same as Google and Google Chrome
This should have been the first video that I watched two years ago when I first started trying to figure out what this Linux thing was all about. It took me a lot of time to realize that all my good and bad impressions were impressions of desktop enviroments and that it is DEs that really make the difference in the eyes of the newbie.
This video relevant as now bruh, 2 years ago you don’t have much to choose. Tell me what a not huge difference at all from 2 years ago, distro support and integration?
Linux has a problem where the biggest advocates are the most experienced people, and often they don't have the perspective necessary to nicely introduce newbies into the community.
Welcome aboard to the wide world of Linux. I determined about ten years ago to become windows free after a long stretch of dabbling that began with redhat 7.3, and the very first thing I did was compare gnome with kde - I liked kde better, but you might disagree. Except for being at work [which I have no contol over tech choices], it has gone well. There are some quirks from time to time.... I find I must pay attention to video card and printer selection when building new systems, but its never been a show stopper - and as Linux shows staying power, things have improved over the last two decades. Today... I'm working from a kubuntu system that just won't quit.
...until you realize the distro's choice of package manager is probably more important than the desktop if you're anything more than a rank newbie. So now you're on something like Mint which runs Cinnamon so you're not really on mainline KDE or Gnome anymore...
Very few newbies are going to care about the difference between distro and desktop. As a casual Linux user I have zero interest in installing new desktops, I just go with a distro that defaults with something I like to make my life easy
The point is not to try many environments for yourself; the point is to point noobies to the most accessible solution to them, the one that will make THEIR life easy.
Great video! My husband and I are brand new to Linux, and like you said, choosing Pop OS was not the biggest thing for us, but trying KDE Plasma desktop instead of the default Gnome made things much easier to use. We ditched Windows altogether on our desktop and laptop, and found all the info online very helpful in our decision.
I love your approach to simplify the choice. My wife uses MacOS and when she told me she wanted to try linux I told her... just try any linux with Gnome. She picked her own distro after a quick "best gnome distros" I've been using Linux for 20 years and I've tried dozens of distros but always end up using any distro with KDE. Each to their own!
I saw the title and knew I have to drop a like and watch this video. After watching it, I fully agree with the desktop environment being the main thing to choose from. It made me remember my first tries using Linux, was Ubuntu in my case when they were still using Unity as default and I was fine with that despite blindy downloading it back then and not looking at screenshots, but when the switch to GNOME Shell happened I switched to Xfce before going down the rabbit hole of distro hopping haha. After trying some DEs (Xfce, Cinnamon, MATE, GNOME, KDE, Pantheon) I found that for my use case of having minimal hardware accelaration due to having lower end hardware, DEs like Xfce, MATE, and Cinnamon were most usable even inside a VM, while GNOME and KDE with their animations and compositing just chugged hard, then there's Pantheon which was a weird one that worked fine in terms of performance but did not have a lot of stuff I would expect in a DE and its pretty limited settings.
Finally! Someone answers these questions and does a fantastic job describing the multitude of choices a new user has to weed through. I believe this is why more newbies find it difficult to adopt the Linux platform. It's extremely confusing with so many districts, when people are really looking for the perfect GUI for themselves. Great video!
Being able to install different DEs on the same distro only works on paper. From experience, every time I've mixed 2 DEs at the same time -- it was short of a total disaster. At least a major inconvenience to use. So, one can't really use this abilitg in such a positive light, as if it's so easy and simple.
Me, a new Elementary user: “I like your words computer man!” Honestly I’m often super lost in what the differences is in all of these things, which lead me to having a terrible time trying Linux in the past. Elementary helped by being super simple for this here casual user.
That's a cogent argument, Nick. I'm a Linux missionary, and most of my potential converts balk at confusing things like Terminal. They want a simple mouse click environment. That's why if they come from Win 7, I recommend XFCE (as with Zorin) and if they come from W10, Cinnamon (as with Mint). No others, as good as some others are.
@@yash1152 Because a machine that came with 7 will handle Zorin better, and one with 10 will handle Mint. Both are excellent beginner distros that closely resemble the OS they replace under my recommendation.
Haven't watched the video yet, but I think this makes sense. To a new user the difference between distros is the desktop. I still think certain things are made easier by your distro, tutorials that focus on apt instead of pacman for example.
@@TheLinuxEXP if they use say just a graphical installer, it will be fine, but if they read tutorials and see to use a terminal, then you might get a situation like linus on manjaro using apt. But sticking to a gui and not checking there and not going to a terminal will do them fine for everything
That’s why I usually suggest getting a debian distro. Then pick a desktop environment such as cinnamon, gnome or kde. Usually suggest a popular desktop environment as it’s usually better, more complete and better support. Then find a distro that comes with one of those.
I mean, ultimately they're going to download a distro and not a desktop environment, so they have to know about distros anyway. It's definitely correct to say that the DE is by far the most important part of a distribution (for newbies especially), and people should be told clearly about that so that they don't conflate different things OR feel overwhelmed by uselessly detailed info as newbies. Giving desktop environments more importance when we introduce new people to Linux is definitely a good idea, but I think presenting it as an either/or choice is ultimately hard to apply in "the real world", where in making a real recommendation you can't avoid talking about distros.
When I was planning my switch from windows to Linux (~4 months ago), I was choosing between Ubuntu and Garuda. I choose Ubuntu because of the vaaast community support it had (and also stability).
tried both (currently on kubuntu). had good experiences with both but arch felt a bit weird to use for me but other than that, both are made really good
@@SirRandallDoesStuff if the choice is between Ubuntu and Garuda, then Ubuntu clearly have a much bigger community support. Yes, there may be other options with community support as good as Ubuntu, or even better, but for some reason that only the OP knows, they weren't under consideration to begin with.
Same here, although I switched over ~8 years ago. I didn't really care what desktop environment I was using, so I just went with what distro had the most support at the time. One of the first things I did was install a whole bunch of different desktop environments anyways. As it turns out, XFCE is the one I like best.
"Many people will choose Garuda Linux because it looks very different from other distros even though you can replicate that look in minutes on any KDE-based distro". Feeling called out... but I would say you're spot on about what new users are drawn towards. Garuda really opened my eyes on what KDE can do. All other default KDE-based distros looked too corporate.
Whilst I think many of the points here are good ones, I think as a beginner you also don't want to start with a distribution that will mean you need to separately install or enable things like printing support, DVD playback, graphics card support, access to your network fileshares, access to a full range of software in repositories (or even a GUI package manager!), etc., rather than having these things work 'out of the box' (or at least as nearly as possible). Similarly, beginning on a distribution where it's hard to search for information on fixing problems, or where you'll end up in the kind of forum where if you don't know how to give good information from log files you'll receive a mauling from regulars and be told to RTFM will be a very negative experience, and may cause people to give up. But yes, where you are dealing with relatively popular and beginner-friendly distributions (and there are lots of them now!) there's not so much difference and I'd agree that the desktop is probably going to be more of a factor in satisfaction.
Yes, for a beginner the DE is more important that the actual distro it runs on. And now we have to take the beginner down the rabbit hole why Ubuntu, Fedora and Pop!_OS all use GNOME yet look so different at the same time 😅 (Not to forget that we are completely unprepared when they find out about the other Ubuntu versions and the rest of the based on Ubuntu gang 😬)
"And now we have to take the beginner down the rabbit hole why Ubuntu, Fedora and Pop!_OS all use GNOME yet look so different at the same time " ....What's the answer to that?
@@sweetmelon3365 Honestly, I have no good answer for that. "Gnome is versatile and can be configured to your liking" is true, yet not really. A new and inexperienced Linux user will not change anything because they don't know how. Moreover the ordinary person wants a PC that works and not a machine to tinker and play with.
The AUR makes things a lot simpler for the new user. Arco makes setting up your own DE easy. The main line DEs suck - and I can throw shade because I'm not a tuber and Manjaro and KDE do suck coincidentally.
I'm just going off by the title and thumb. You are absolutely right that people shouldn't be recommending distros and instead focus on DE's but that is a part of the problem, some DEs are made for certain distros or work best with certain distros (Gnome & Fedora) Now i'll watch the video, brb.
Great topic! This is a question I've had for years and I still dont understand why for example Arch is SO important ..it adds almost nothing compared to the desktop experience.
Exactly! Peiple like it because it gets updates really quick, but it's a terrible choice for a production device for someone who doesnt read changelogs
People love Arch because it is minimal and lets them set up their computer exactly how they want it. It has a fantastic amount of desktop environment choices (AFAIK more than any other distribution, even Debian), and all of the package stay up to date. It targets a pretty specific type of user though, and most people will not have a good experience with it if we're being honest.
@@edwardnihal248 if by production you mean like install once never update or restart (like for a server) Debian, and for workstations that get turned off and updated I'd recommend Fedora and unironically Arch
Finally, I've been trying to figure this out for what feels like ages, and this is the first video I've found that very clearly and simply states the difference.
Very true. For me what made the difference was finding out about gnome. The first couple times I tried Linux I tried Manjaro xfce because I’d heard good things about manjaro and xfce is the first one listed on the downloads page. Each time I tried it the environment wasn’t for me and I confused it with thinking Linux wasn’t for me. Then eventually I tried pop os and gnome just clicked with me. Then after a few weeks I went back to the Manjaro download page and got manjaro gnome and it was perfect. Another factor was probably just that I have a dual gpu laptop I use with an external screen and the default pop os nvidia only setting fixed my display issues and helped me realize what I needed to do to fix it on other distributions
I don't understand the green trend. Manjaro, openSUSE, and Mint are all doing it - I love green but I just don't think it works very well for an operating system.
I agree that it should be DEs and not distros that should be the influential factor, but there's a caveat I'd like to add. I DO NOT recommend installing DE that does not come default with the distro. Rather get the official version; for eg, if you want KDE on Ubuntu get Kubuntu instead of installing KDE on Ubuntu. For all the touted flexibility of being able to install DEs, the reality is that there are some configurations that will get messed up and the overall theming and visual appearance will be affected. Uninstalling it is going to be a hassle and you won't be able to clean it up. I don't know if it has been improved now but that was my experience. It's beginner-friendly as well. Live-testing the distro with the preferred DE is far better rather than having to go through the hassle of installing it through terminal.
This makes sense now. When I first started fooling around with Linux, several years ago, the desktop managers weren't as complete and powerful as they are now. There were things I could ONLY do in terminal, and there wasn't adequate newbie-friendly documentation for me to get things done. When I went back to Linux (starting with some Ubuntu flavor or other), the desktop environments were much more complete. I'll still stick to distros that come with non-free codecs, but other than that... the desktop makes the difference.
Totally agree with you. I am still on windows for work, but.... all my machines that lost support over time and still works perfectly are all on Linux. I am speaking about 2008 hardware onward, with no issue whatsoever apart a Wi-Fi card back in 2009.. which as been solved by the Linux community then. I hate throwing away perfectly healthy machines just because MS or Vendors stop supporting (driver issues...).
Exactly. Whatever hardware you have, Linux should have a distro and desktop for you. An OS that can run all systems, currently. Making the installs and updates easy is key to growing the ecosystem.
Excellent video! You couldn't be more correct. In my case, I've always been more comfortable using KDE/Plasma. Maybe because it was the first DE I used. Any distro that I have tried or used as my daily driver (Tumbleweed) has always been on the basis on how well they implement KDE/Plasma.
Thanks! Finally, someone that has a similar view about Linux and Beginners!!! The very first moment I tried to chat with someone about this a new religious war was fought about Distros, packages and likewise. When I tried to explain that all these things are klingon speech to non-star-trek-viewers they told me that you have to learn linux as you do with other OS's. On my argument that learning Android or iOS take only Milliseconds for knowing what tapp, hold and slide does the discussion was terminated.
After watching RU-vid for last two days to choose what distro to choose as my first Linux system this video has made it much easier to understand it all.
Distro does make a lot of difference. Opening snaps vs actual snappy native packages, or software install experience. There are a lot of things that a user will face immediately beyond the desktop. I personally recommend manjaro kde to any new user, because its the only distro that i am reasonably sure will not force the user to use terminal for a week at least(for setting up ppas in ubuntu for eg) and the DE is comfortable to windows users
It's important to separate the two and recommend one and the other. As for distributions, their original intent was maintenance and distribution of the GNU/Linux operating system, in modern times it generally means in the form of packages. Each of the major distributions has a different philosophy and approach, which can greatly impact your experience. For example if you were to recommend MATE desktop, which is available on a lot of distributions, the experience of the user can vary greatly depending on the things like the age of packages in the chosen distribution. Cosnmetics don't always tell the whole story.
Wish I had watched this video when starting on Linux. I totally agree. I remember the confusion when installing Ubuntu KDE and not understanding why it looked so different from the last time I used it. In my experience: Gnome: if you come from Mac and want an easy to use and intuitive desktop which works great on laptops. KDE: if you come from windows and want a slick and powerful highly customizable desktop. XFCE: if you crave speed and performance over anything else. On low spec hardware it runs smooth and on high end specs… well, it’s so fast you’ll feel like your in the future.
You are absolutely right! My first experience, waaaaay back in the 90s, when we didn't have so many choices - I was lost. Nothing made sense. I stuck with Windows and didn't look at Linux again until 2006. The distro I ran in to was Ubuntu, back on Gnome 2. It was Windows like enough I could easily tell where I was going, and unique enough to not be boring. I liked it, but... eh, why do the work of switching. ...and then I saw the previews of Windows Vista! That's it, I'm leaving Windows. I dual booted Windows and Ubuntu for a while, then moved Windows to a VM, and eventually, the Windows VM got relegated to the 2 minor tasks I use it for today - Grabbing DRMed content from proprietary libraries (content I paid for) and removing the DRM, and a few old Windows games that just won't run in Wine. I get nostalic. However, that experience with Gnome 2 shaped my entire Linux journey. I was on Ubuntu, and got upset when they went to Gnome 3. I got used to Gnome 3 and now it's my favorite. I left Ubuntu for Ubuntu Gnome when regular Ubuntu went to... I dont remember its name, that DE we all hate. When Ubuntu Gnome went away I defaulted back to Ubuntu, then went to Pop for a while, and eventually graduated to Manjaro which I use now. And what did all that have in common? I kept following my favorite DE. Sure, I have preferences for package managers, I've grown to love ZSH more than BASH, and my laptop performs better on Manjaro than it did on Pop... but I'd give any of that up to stay on Gnome Shell if I had to! The only times I don't use Gnome shell are on computers with low specs, or when the hardware makes it limited (I have a tablet that I haven't been able to use another distro with, so I'm stuck with Jing's DE). I have a beater laptop that runs Manjaro with XFCE - BUT, I moved the XFCE panel to the top. It's as Gnome-ish as I can make it.
You have a valid point about all the distros. When I first moved to linux from windows the common suggestion was linux mint. Then after distro hopping I learned about DE's and found cinnamon on a different distro but was familiar with it from trying mint. I soon realized for appearance it's all about the DE. I tried different distros with the same DE and quickly learned the kernel, and the linux base have absolute importance on what's under the hood of the DE. With that said I think most distros are geared toward appearance and the bundling of packages to showcase a custom build of linux on a paticular base distro. I struggled with it at first the idea of a distro on top of a distro made little sense to me. After installing linux 100's of times now I can say I prefer to customize every copy I install. No matter how many distros I try I always find something I want to change about it. I got comfortable with Ubuntu as a base and customized it to my liking, I've now moved onto Alpine linux for a complete system customization catering to what I want from my PC and the results are amazing. Bottom line we all need a PC that serves our purposes and most distros achieve this, making a transition from windows to linux more comfortable. Much like windows you will want to customize linux and most of those changes for beginners will be in appearance so choosing a DE makes complete sense.
I'd come to that conclusion after trying a whole lot of distributions - difference being I watch you instead of the reverse. I just finished updating 5 systems from Mint 20.2 to Mint 20.3 and every laptop or desktop runs as before. That leads me to claim that the people behind Mint are world class!
I feel distro is more important to me than desktop environment, though I've grown up with Linux so don't know what it's like as a beginner. I feel somewhat matters is stability and ethos of interaction. So I feel to get the desktop environment on the distro that makes sense, e.g. something like openSUSE for someone vaguely proficient with technical management whereas a distro that aims to have all proprietary codecs and 'just work' like Manjaro I think aims to be nowadays but might be less intuitive to configure might be better. I know openSUSE as my distro doing quite a lot its own way through yast separating it from desktop may be making me less impartial, as another example I have heard that openSUSE is much slower to update in NA than the EU, something that it's true a beginner on leap(non-rolling release) might not be that effected by but might still lead to a bad user feel. Still feel that ethos of distro's effects the feel substantially.
This is the first video where I completely agree with him. The desktop is the visible thing. The distro carries out the instructions input through the desktop. The distro can us one desktop or many. For example, I have more than 5 desktops on openSUSE leap 15.3. The distro can make setting up and customizing the desktop easier or harder. That is what you should make a distro selection based upon. Some distros may not be as good as others on things like heavy-weight numerical calculations or some specialialities like that.
I'd say the second most important aspect is how up to date packages are, when I started using linux I used linux mint and the outdated packages really drove me nuts because I was missing features
I think it's more important to recommend flavors of distros than either of those. Sure, you can install another DE on any distro, but that doesn't mean it will be a pleasant experience. Flavors already have everything ready to go for a specific DE. I'm not a super advanced user, but I've used Linux long enough to be comfortable. I recently tried to install KDE on my Xubuntu install, just to see how people on the fancier side of things live nowadays, and the experience was a massive clusterfuck. Sure, I had a working desktop environment, but since I didn't know each and every bit and bob to install, "working" is the best I would call it. And that's not even getting into the amount of work I had to do to get my XFCE install fixed.
tbh as mac user i was quite forced to switch in the old style ubuntu gnome(launpad ☑️ mission control ☑️ dock ☑️ integration ☑️...), elementary isn't close to macos while damn ubuntu is basically the same gestures and feeling...it could have cons but, as workflow, it is like my mac. if you are windows based, well, choose whatever you want...everything is better but macos is great and only ubuntu give those vibes of workflow. for mac users ubuntu is the only real good choice!
I always ask a potential switcher if he/she used Win or Mac until now or what he/she preferes, then I recommend Mint Cinnamon or Ubuntu. Then they can choose to distrohop by their own afterwards. ;)
I disagree. Garuda Linux, FerenOS, kubuntu, Manjaro KDE, and Fedora KDE all use the KDE, but your OOTB and on-boarding experiences will be MASSIVELY different between all of them. Same with Gnome, with Ubuntu, Fedora, Manjaro-Gnome, Pop_OS, and Zorin OS.
@@TheLinuxEXP I mean ideally I want something like Ubuntu Budgie Welcome where they just give you Desktop Layout Switcher as part of on-boarding. Personally, I think on-boarding is the most important factor.
@@TheLinuxEXP The funny thing is I tried 3 different desktops and Cinamon won on letting me use my girlfriend as background the way I was used to from Windows 🙂
@@TheLinuxEXP you are contradicting your self, in the video you say you would only recommend a DE to newbies, but in the above comment you say you wouldn't recommend a "distro" that doesn't ship the vanilla experience. is that not recommending a distro? so which is it? you recommend a distro or DE... or maybe both? I know I typically recommend a distro and DE for newbies
me: "Yes, you'll be good with Linux by using KDE Plasma" friend: "But where can I get it? There seem to be a lot of distros" me: "It doesn't matter! Pick one to your liking" friend: "Okay" later they chose PearOS
Not many "Linux people" get it, but this video really pinpoiont it. I am 46 and have been using windows from version 3.1, the last 30 years as an IT pro, but late last year I made the jump to Linux, and I would agree, the desktop matters, the rest is just when something does not work and you need to Google it... Mint with Cinamon desktop, with Google Chrome installed and a Windows user is right at home (Firefox is just not good enough). The OS is supposed to support what the user wants to do, not be in the way as many "Linux people" want it to or be a platform to sell more stuff as Microsoft want, just start my game or let me browse the web...
I agree with many things you say, but still I think the distro choice is also important. The first thing I do when I'm going to install someone a Linux distro is showing them some distros from distrotest website so they can choose something they feel comfortable with. I tell them that the looks can be modified and explain a little bit about the update policies of some distributions and this part is why I find distributions important. Not everyone is willing to upgrade an OS every 6 months like Fedora forces it's users to do and not everyone is willing to have lots of updates continuesly with a rolling distro. Some people prefer being able to have a system stable from 2 to 5 years without thinking about an upgrade. Some users I now won't be able to handle Arch or Debian and will be calling me constantly and finally get the distro removed out of frustration. I think distros and DE are both important for a new user. What's much more important IMHO is to have a welcoming and kind community and hopefully a friend who can help them with pacience to do the switch
I'm brand new to Linux. I chose Pop OS for two reasons - it had an Nvidia ISO and it looked like the majority of what I use would "just work." And for the most part that's exactly how it's been. But it's still a learning curve, and if I wasn't used to fiddling with hardware and drivers back in the Windows 98/Windows XP days, the minor headaches I've had with this would've been a lot more daunting. There's definitely a lot of truth to the idea that aesthetics will drive a lot of adopters to one distro over another, but on that basis, I would have greatly preferred the Manjaro KDE distro. I almost used that one, but it looked like I was going to give myself far more headaches than I would have wanted to deal with jumping in. I know that I can switch desktops, and I will when I know what does and does not break some of the functionality of Pop OS (I use laptops with dedicated GPUs so it's important to me I am able to make use of the power I am paying for with as little hassle as possible), but making sure my machine works with minimal hiccups is my top priority. Looking around, there are some great channels that talk about Linux. This one. Some Ordinary Gamers, Mental Outlaw. But there's a lot of channels where you can tell they've used Linux for so long they have no idea what the average user is looking for. It comes down to this - when Linux is as easy to install and hassle-free as a Mac or Windows installation fresh out of the box, Linux has the potential to take a nice chunk of the market. I've wanted to jump into Linux for years. So far Pop OS has done a great job of meeting my needs. If the focus was on what would cause the lease amount of hassle for a new user, adoption of Linux would be a whole lot higher.
100% agree, Nick. I give interested users a 30 second synopsis on what's considered bleeding edge (Not recommended for beginners), leading edge, and most stable (but older packages). Then I show them the Fedora spins page and give a quickie description of each. No one has chosen the more stable but older packages option, but if they did, I'd happily show them same same Debian based DEs. Cinnamon, KDE, eh Gnome, etc. That'll be their real Linux first impression. Everyone's got their own workflow.
Absolutely agree with you. I've tried many KDE based distros it's not DE issue but some distros were not stable. Then used and still using Manjaro KDE. So no matter DE but distro.
6:45 I beg to differ. Just because you are a beginner does not mean the phiosophy for example stops mattering, for many people the whole reason they are switching to linux is the free software philosophy, so of course the philosophy is going to be one of the top priorities. 7:10 they did absolutely matter to me, flatpaks still for some obscure reason seem to crash my system. 7:38 I agree that everything should be available graphically, but you should still make the pc do what you want it to do 8:43 let me remind you, linux beginner != computer beginner.
OMG, this advice totally helps with how I'm looking at selecting a distro! And I'm a nerd. I'd never really thought of picking by DE because I thought of distros as a guess at what will be bloated while missing dependencies. If I can find a DE I can live with, I might mind less if I have to figure out how to make each thing work.
The only thing I would say is that the choice of DE should determine the distro, not the other way around. Some DEs are not packaged well or supported on some distros. For example, if you want the best version of Cinnamon, you probably want LM or LMDE. If you want to try, e.g. the sway compositor, you will have a tough time on debian because it doesn't even ship a default configuration. Better off to try it on endevouros.
I agree, but even then, there are distros that are more or less beginner friendly for other reasons. For example, I wouldn’t recommend Debian to a beginner, as its “free software only” policy could give problems to a beginner, especially with drivers (looking at you, NVIDIA).
One thing I like about Arch installers ( or even Arch distros that are basically just an installer, like Antergos[rip] ) is they let you choose the DE on install. Usually there's a recommendation, but you could choose. I don't understand why Ubuntu still has all these spin-offs like Kubuntu or Xubuntu, when they could just offer the different DE in the installer. Putting that in a new users face will at least let them know there were other options.
Nice Insight. I always tell people to try the big 4 Desktops, XFCE Gnome KDE Cinnamon.. figure out which one you like first... then figure out the rest. Debian Fedora or Arch based or there distros based off those. I was just thrown into GNome.. and it was my least favorite but I had no idea about the others. I thought Ubuntu Gnome was Linux and that was it.. Hated it.. then I did some research... found what worked for me and have been a Linux user since. The Journey has been great kept my mind busy during the pandemic coming out of the pandemic I learned about Video and Photo editing... Networking, organization in my file systems. Kept a folder off my system for all the speed bumps I got through as my reference guide. Separated them out by the distro's Debian Arch and Fedora. I hopped around for a while, I still do just to see whats going on but once you find your DE the rest starts to come together. Learning the alternative programs to windows only softwares and things like that. I only use Windows for Ableton and Rekordbox the rest is Linux. Even then I send my files through my Linux system to the directory on windows.. as I hate going through there file manager.
One thing that makes Mint "special" is that its implementation of Cinnamon is fully native. I mean, most of the time you that doesn't really mean much but there's cases where certain DE's have small issues on other distros and the native implementations are generally the safest bet. For instance, Fedora's implementation of Gnome is simply the best, Ubuntu modifies Gnome quite heavily on the other hand. On Arch you can get pure Gnome as well but in my experience, you might encounter some issues at some point because of Arch's Gnome packages being maintained the way they are, those are especially noticeable when it comes to extensions. An ever more noticeable case of the native experience being the best is Pantheon - as you brought up. Generally unless a distro has an "official" release of a certain desktop, you might have a slightly "suboptimal" experience. But yeah I've always agreed with the point of this video and always recommended people to look at different desktops rather than choosing their distribution based on its initial "look".
My sister was considering switching to linux, and i started going through various distros with her and realized this. After that, i switched to a manjaro live distro usb i have with a whole bunch of DEs in it just to show them off
After a few years of not knowing how to change the Desktop environments, I have distro hopped and always came back to LM. I do like GNOME and KDE but I didn't know you can change LM Cinnamon to one of those others. I wish it was simpler to do so.
I think you have a good point on differentiating distros and DEs, but I would argue distros are still more important, even for look. because: - Distros are very much integrated with their DEs. Installing another DE would not yield the same, smooth and optimize experience. For example, the different elements may be inconsistant if you use a different DE (apps, icons...) - Installing multiple DEs may cause conflicts. - Customizing DEs to look like another distro is also not trivial. There are a lot of caveats like downloading icons, fonts, setting colors... and it's probably still worse - In other words: Defaults are important!!! I tried installing KDE for my manjaro gnome edition and there was sooo much problems. I also tried installing cinnamon for Ubuntu and mint simply looks much better, AND I face many problems. Of course, for a advanced user it might be easy to switch and customize DEs, but for beginners, not so much. For beginners, DEs are pretty much part of the distro (or the different "flavors" or "editions").
I recommend they begin with WMs instead of DEs. Because if you begin with DE then you get used to it, but after you gain experience you'll want to switch to tiling WM instead however because now you are accustomed DE and it will be extra hustle to get used to a tiling WM. If you begin with a tiling WM however, learning curve might be steep, but once you get used to it, you are basically done. Plus the distro matters a lot to me. For example, without pacman and aur, it feels like being back to dark ages, for me.
The type of distribution doesn't matter if you don't install it and never update it. As a plain user in an office with a professional system administrator only the apps matter. But if you are your own administrator the concrete software distribution matters. Does Linux come with the proprietary drivers? Which apps are available? How well do upgrades work?
the key phrase here is "for a newbie". i use arch entirely because pacman and the AUR are amazing and update incredibly quickly, and i don't like having extra packages built-in that i wont ever use. i don't care much about what desktop environment im on, so long as its got a package manager with everything i could ever want. but for a beginner, the main difference between distros besides the desktop they each ship with is just the packages built in, especially in the terminal, which beginners aren't really too big on using.
I realized this a few months ago (from another YT vid). Since then I've developed a strong preference to KDE Plasma, and distros that use it. Haven't made a switch yet though, am still on Zorin OS.
Completely agree. I would say, that generally i would recommend Pop (not gnome 🙂) to newcomers no matter previous experience, since it is so simple, nice looking and easy to comprehend, that it doesnt matter if you are from windows mac or anything else. The "normal" user of windows would get confused by the plethora of choice and options in kde (in my experience), so that wouldnt be the first stop if you ask me
I am a apprentice as IT Sppecialist since like half a year. On my personal and work devices, I use Windows but on my spare notebook, I have installed Zorin. And tbh I chose it bcs I dont have the time to build everything from ground up. I have shown my desktop to some off my family members who aren't tech savvy at all and they didn't even notice that it was Linux.
Great video. My first distro was Ubuntu and I hated it. Turned me off of Linux for years. Then I tried Mint and it was ok, but nothing exciting. So I left Linux again. Then I had to learn server stuff for my business and somehow ended up on CentOS, and loved it. But of course I used CentOS with no GUI. Now I know enough about DEs to know that any can be installed on any distro, but I still need to figure out how to do that and now I don't have time because I'm 29. If I knew this 10 years ago, I had way more time on my hands back then to distro hop and learn all of these customization tricks and procedures. I literally went through the trouble of hackintoshing my laptop to get away from Windows which is a million times harder than installing a DE on Linux, because I had given up on Linux and MacOS excited me. Linux isn't sexy in people's minds. That's the problem.
This is so true. Out of all the things that I look for in a distro, 90% of them are related to the desktop environment. Sure, there are other things which I consider that I find important such as package formats, how stable the distro is and how often the distro and its apps get updated. But mainly it's the desktop environment that matters the most. It is certainly much less intimidating to show a new Linux user a list of desktop environments to choose from first and explain the differences between them, rather than straight away referring them to a massive list of distros. Just a few things I'd like to point out: > While it is true that most new users shouldn't be concerned about more technical things like package formats, I don't think it is a good idea to completely ignore them while helping them find a distro. You don't have to explain all the differences to them, but it might be a good idea to make some of those choices for them at first. For example, if you know they hate it when apps take ages to load, you might want to direct them to a distro that doesn't use Snap. It *IS* still part of their first impression when they run Firefox and find it takes ages to load. > While you can install any desktop environment you want on any distro you want, it is best to recommend that new users use a distro that comes with the desktop environment they want by default. Especially if you're new to Linux, why would you want to waste time installing a distro and then installing a different desktop environment that doesn't come with it when it's much more convenient to just install a distro that does come with it by default? For a new user, there is no point in installing Ubuntu and then installing Cinammon on Ubuntu instead of just installing Linux Mint. > If you choose to help a new user choose a distro by first showing them the differences between all the different desktop environments and getting them to pick one, distros which use heavily modified versions of a certain desktop environment (eg. Pop OS, Zorin OS) should be included in that list as separate choices. Also, I'd personally say that Ubuntu's modifications to GNOME are enough to qualify as a different desktop environment from vanilla GNOME, although that is highly debateable. Even though it's just 2 extensions, for me a permenant dock and the addition of minimise and maximise buttons are enough to make the difference between a desktop environment I think is terrible and one that I think is decent.
You've hit a few nails on the head there Nick. Coming from windows myself and trying Linux for years without success, I think it depends on how computer literate you are. If you're a power user on Windows, Linux Mint isn't going to cut it for you. By the same token if you're a basic user, something like KDE might be too overboard. And that's where distros come in. As you said, some distros customise the release which can make or break the experience until you know what you're doing - then it doesn't matter so much. And all of these things add up to the experience - What file manager is included, email, browser etc. Even to how it's configured to look out of the box. IMO I think new users should try a few DE until they know how they will work with Linux and what they feel comfortable with. Then add on other considerations like Package Managers, file managers and how easy it is to change the looks. Personally I didn't like the Debian package managers of a lot of those distributions, but liked the way Manjaro and Arch did things. All personal preference.
8:03 This commentary is perfect! As beginner user of linux, all the videos about best distro and desktop environments are about updates, and technical terms. I just want an good interface for handling bluetooth. The windows experience for a few of these things is terrible and I want to switch to linux because of it. Macs have this a bit more thoughtful approach to the “dummy user”, but they are too expensive in my region
Yesss, finally someone said it!!! Remembering when i was new, for someone that doesn't know linux there's no difference between distros, and 10 later, personally i haven't noticed the matter on so much distros. The main difference is in desktops!!!
great you mentioned garuda linux, I'm slowly learning linux, and installed arch using the installarch script (no fuss, real good) and chose kde, but i wanted to emulate the garuda look, it took me a little more than just minutes, but in the end I replicated it perfectly, as it is all open source, and up for the taking
Most important things a Linux new user cares about from a distro: Desktop environment, software/package manager, built-in software, ease-of-use, comparability, and support from distro maker/community.
It all comes to work flow. I started with Linux mint 7 many years back. It had gnome 2 on it. I had a great experience and it got me into the community of Linux users. Gnome 2 back in the days kind of reminded me of Win XP in Classic 9.x theme so made it easy to access in the early days.. I now use Manjaro with a pretty KDE setup but really could care less what distro I use as long as I can get DXVK working on it for my games..
You're completely right. I started my journey with Ubuntu 7.10 (and the on and off Linux) but I still don't understand or care to learn what the fuss with systemd was about. I already have a day job and will never have the time (or interest)to get to the level of the sys admins. Gurus who expect everyone to get to their level of understanding miss the fact that others already may have a job or a hobby that doesn't involve dissection of their computers.
Most new users I would just install Linux Mint Cinnamon, because of the DE and everything else that Mint does to make things easy for people. And then download better icon and theme options. Also show them the better cinnamenu in case they prefer it. Some people I would also show Zorin, Kubuntu, Pop, and Ubuntu also for a little choice in DE, but always the LTS for stability. And let them pick what they are comfortable with. First started on Ubuntu for it's simplicity and unique feel since was very different than windows and used it for years. Then distro hopped all the things for couple years. Back to LTS myself with rolling plasma in KDE Neon and super happy with it! Although appreciate lots of other options out there as well.
As a new Linux user (Mint / Cinnamon) two years removed from this original video release, I absolutely do not understand the differences between various desktops other than some look different than others. And, since they all seem to be highly customizable, and since I have a particular arrangement that I am comfortable working with which would get applied to all desktops pretty much regardless of other factors, I'm terribly terribly unclear on differences and distinctions between desktops or why it even matters. Have you a video for that?
This is a really good take on the subject. The Desktop is what you see and work with as a beginner. And always use one of KDE or GNOME based to begin with, then go for different DE or even just window manager. (And personally I preferences Gnome, as there are not to many alternatives. Never liked KDE, but YMMV, and I have no problems that others use KDE, good for them. And yes, you can configure Gnome too) Those legacy package are WAY better then the bloat flatpack etc. Even RPM is better. And yes, you can still minimize windows in Gnome. But it uses some short set of key bindings to work great. And on servers, you don't want any desktop at all.😉
I remember when I was messing around with installing Linux on my surface pro 4 which pretty much was junk after 7 years of use. For KDE I loved the GUI and tons of options I had to customize right from the GUI. However, for some reason, it didn't work well with my surface touchpad and just kept jumping so I had to switch to something GNOME-based and that was a much better experience for the device I had. The power button on the surface actually functioned properly and the keyboard worked with no need to go into the terminal. (Imagine trying to log into a tablet where the touch didn't work, the surface type cover didn't work and the power button only would sleep on KDE LMAO). You just need to find the right desktop for your device, I wanted a more tablet-like experience so GNOME was the best-looking one for me.
This video should be suggested for ANYONE that is interested in trying Linux. As you said, instead of muddying the waters with the choice of distro's, cut through the BS and discuss the desktops and pick the one that makes you feel comfortable enough to start. I truly loved your statement about what makes Linux Mint special... it is the green color that is everywhere.... too true. Well done Nick.
The distro still matters. A beginner is likely to be better off with a "stable" periodic release distro, rather than a rolling release. Every user will sooner or later face problems and that is when they look for help. A popular distro has a bigger community and a smaller distro may be abandoned with little chance of getting help. Even if the DE is how you interact with the computer, the support is also part of the experience. Any desktop can be installed on any distro, but it is all these other things you can't really change.
One peculiar distro that tweaks gnome so much that make it totally different is ZorinOS. In that case, I would recomend Zorin (the distro) over Gnome (the DE), because no beginer will take the time to tweak gnome that way.
So my attempt to install Xfce on KAos left me with a system that was not able to boot. So not all distros make it easy to go with any desktop environment you want. Linux Mint Cinnamon gets in the way if you just want to install Gnome on Linux Mint.. etc. Solus is still the best Distro for Budgie, Deepin Linux is the best way of experiencing Deepin Desktop. So choose which desktop you like sure, but also some distros support those desktops better than others.
