My personal opinion about linux mint, it's a good way for users more comfortable with a windows experienced background to dip their toes into linux. I agree with your manjaro point. Keep up the good work.
@@PeterHonig. Which distros do you like? Assume that airing your opinion would not violate your principle of impartiality and reveal an empathic character flaw.
Years ago Mint used to be Ubuntu with proprietary codecs. Back then, Mint was the last distribution that I wanted to use. It was a derivative of derivative. However, i tried it, and holly sht everything worked right after the install. I didn't have to work on it to make it work right after installing it. This was very attractive to someone with a job and a family
@@PriestApostate yes if you install ubuntu than spend 200h fixing random crap from a clean installation and loosing nights just to make simple shit work but noooo ubuntu decides it will eat your soul! Than yes someone with a life will like it!
I'm currently dealing with Rocky 9 on my desktop (originally I intended on studying for RedHat cert - but with their actions last year, I dropped that), and Debian 12 on my laptop... Aside from getting the wireless working on the laptop, I haven't had much by way of major issues - at least, aside from making dumb mistakes!
@@PriestApostate If it doesn't work for example crappy tp-link wifi cards, the bleeding edge version Linux Mint with the newer linux kernel works out of the box and is stable.
Love how some people here are saying Mint is a distro for those who are 'new to linux', 'beginners', etc. That's just not the case for me. I'm nearly 70, picked up my first home computer 40 years ago, and started tinkering with Linux back in the late 90's. I've tried over two dozen distributions over the years, and used Ubuntu either in a dual-boot capacity, or as my full blown OS for around 10 years. In 2015 I picked up a refurbished laptop, threw Mint on it, not because I'm a Linux newbie, or beginner, but because I was no longer pleased with Ubuntu, and it just worked. That laptop is still running Mint as are the two desktops I have. I don't care for bells and whistles, I just want my OS to work, do what I want/need it to do, and doesn't require a lot of mucking about to get it fine tuned. Bottom line, use whatever Linux distro you want, and feel comfortable with. No way I'm ever going to use Windows again.
Also the whole attitude of "X distro is for newbies/beginners" is embarrassing. People should promote the idea of new users. The amount of elitism among Linux users is holding Linux distributions back
I agree with all above comments. Human nature is to pigeon-hold things. With so many distros in existence I can see the point of pushing new OS switchers into Linux Mint. But the distro should not be classified as a “beginner’s Linux” in a pejorative way. It is a highly polished Linux with relatively few rough edges.
It is a distro that is good for people who don't want to have to tinker, which makes it good for beginners, but that doesn't mean it is bad for experts.
I did a fair amount of "distro hopping" in the past few months, and everytime i try out a new distro i just end up going back to linux mint, i just love it's simplicity, how reliable it is and how hassle free it is, i don't care about having the newest shiniest thing, i just need a computer that gets out of my way and actually let me get stuff done without having to fight with it all the time.
Mint is my go-to laptop distro its just simple and really allows you to just install it and go, it gets you set up with timeshift for a recovery point (it is not a backup), it uses my favorite desktop environments and best of all its super stable it may use outdated packages but if its for a basic user then who cares.
I’ll preface this by saying that I’m different. I agree that Linux Mint simply works. While I don’t use Linux Mint as my daily driver, I keep a usb stick with a Linux Mint ISO on it. I’ve used the live version in so many ways over the years because it simply works. I tend to use OSs like Arch, Void Linux, Slackware, OpenBSD, FreeBSD. At one point a few years ago, my computer would get so messed up that it wouldn’t install anything except Linux Mint. So, I’d install it, boot it, then install what I really wanted over it.
@@mspenelopy Funny that, LMDE was the only distro that I actually managed to completely hose beyond all redemption. Granted, that was more than ten years ago, I was still relatively new to Linux and didn't know what I was doing. I've hosed Arch several times, but I so far I've known what I've done and how to fix it. I'd still recommend Mint to anyone wanting a clean and trouble-free experience, though, not just beginners. I don't agree with the idea that there are beginners' distros, just distros that are good for beginners. Any Linux is as advanced as you want to go with it.
AS/400 and Linux? I never realised they could be combined... I love these rambly linux life stories so here's mine: I started on DEC stations using some DEC "distro" of BSD Unix, all terminal, grep, and vi were all I could remember from that time. When I later moved back to Linux, Ubuntu Karmic so 2009-ish, it took a while to get back into vim, but back in the day vi was (still, like 15 years later) the new shiny replacement of ed, haha, God I'm old. I started the business I'm still in on a used Atari ST1040. It started munching floppies, so I took the plunge and upgraded to a used laptop with actual MS DOS and a 10 MB hard drive. Well this was East Germany so relatively new tech, my colleagues were still using typewriters and some were writing their bills by hand. I managed all my contracts and billing with batch files then, must've been the early to mid 90s. Then there was a Windows interlude of maybe 15 years of boredom and frustration and BSODs and a growing dislike of MS, and now I'm managing all my contracts and billing using bash files. So not that much has changed really.
Yeah and these days Flatpak solves many problems on LTS distros if you need something newer than repo package. I use Mint or Debian on my laptops and Arch on my gaming rig only beacause it gives latest kernels and mesa stuff without messing with repos.
I'm far from Linux Mint fanboy, I don't even use it, sticking first to Fedora, then Ubuntu. But I can see the appeal of Mint. Let me explain. Ubuntu, whenever we like it or not, is the industry standard, when it comes to Linux. I'd say 95% of cross-OS desktop software (Windows + Linux) is developed primarily for Ubuntu, then ported to other distros, likely Fedora/RHEL. And that's why Ubuntu is the base for SO MANY Linux distros - including Mint. The sheer amount of software, support in forums, everything. There's so much documentation, that even a complete rookie when they encounter a problem on Ubuntu/Ubuntu-based distro can fix it. Other thing - Ubuntu is heavy. For older laptops (and I really mean older, like 2nd gen Intel Thinkpads) installing it is no better than Windows. I tested it on my SO's laptop, performance was utter shit. But if you want an easy distro for a casual user, with aformentioned support of community, installed on such old laptop - Mint is the way to go. It's in my opinion a standard distro to revive old PCs for our non-technical family members, who just want to browse Facebook and watch something on Netflix. Third reason - Ubuntu is controversial. It's run by a company, they made a lot of bad/weird decisions over the years, losing users and their trust. Now they push Snaps, which are not the best out there. Mint on the other hand is... It just is. Developed by group of passionate people, funding is 100% transparent (each blogpost states who donated how much, and I think it's AWESOME). It's "your friendly neighborhood Linux".
Totally agree about Ubuntu being the standard; with the AI/ML craze going on, most of those guides are written for Ubuntu. Even Nvidia's supercomputer (Selene) currently ranked #9 on top 500 super computer list runs on Ubuntu.
For older machines I urge you to check out Bodhi Linux. 1. Ubuntu 22.04 based 2. Moksha desktop (fork of Enlightenment) 3. Extremely light weight full gui desktop.
I've worked in 4 different companies that heavily use Linux, in all these companies the standard has been RHEL or a RHEL clone like CentOS. So I think this is debatable. If we are speaking about Desktop standard, Ubuntu could be regarded the standard (ignoring SteamOS).
Been using Fedora since Fedora 17. I am not a fan of Ubuntu at all and fail to see the appeal; Actually I was disappointed that this was commonly the distribution people were first exploring for a desktop, though not so much for enterprise.
I once heard someone call Mint "Ubuntu with sane defaults" and I love that definition. It is a beginner's friendly distro that doesn't put up with Canonical's nonsense, to say all it does is change the desktop environment is a bit of a disservice I'm not even mad btw
I always thought the point of mint was to get rid of ubuntu spyware and try to be windows. But personally it was so out of date that my computer can't even install it.
Not entirely mad no. Granted its Matt he always loves to bash on Linux Mint when he gets the chance which I think at times he can come across as a bit harsh. I've been using it since 2015 and its a solid rock for me (the Debian edition too) unlike pretty much every other distro I've used.
Other than from an Edge ISO that's fair @@crism8868 . Its not made for bleeding edge hardware. Though considering most modern hardware can boot on 5.15 kernel + makes it alot easier to boot and then just install a newer kernel
NixOS is excellent, but not for regular desktop users... NixOS is a reproducible distro, so... ideal for corporate use, for an entire team of developers, for example. So ... "but this worked on my machine" or... "this worked last week" or whatever exuse is no longer a thing with NixOS.
I mean, if we go down that route, Ubuntu is Debian, just packaged in a more approachable manner, or at least that is what it used to be. My wife's been happily running Mint through most of her grad school career and that's definitely proof that it works really well for beginners. Most Windows users who only care about having a system that works and seems familiar to them would be turned off by Gnome based DE of Ubuntu. Mint's Debian Edition is also not too bad, though I run vanilla Debian on my systems.
The desktop environment is not tied to the distro. Ubuntu has different flavors featuring different desktop enviornments, and there is an Ubuntu Cinnamon flavor available
I would like to add a small note that Ubuntu, and by extension, any distro that it's based on, is NOT based on Debian Stable. Maybe it used to be back in the day perhaps, but whatever it was, Ubuntu is now based on Debian Unstable and Debian Testing. Yes, even their LTS edition. If you want Debian: Enhanced Edition these days, you need to use MX Linux. Ubuntu isn't gonna cut it. Mint does offer a true Debian edition, but it's such a barebones offering compared to MX that you might as well just use vanilla Debian at that point. MX Linux is the way. Or AntiX for old PCs. That works too.
Mint is something that a truly new user that is coming from windows can easily tackle. Way back when, I didn't understand about desktop environments vs distros and such. I wanted to try a Linux OS, and Mint was familiar to me as it looks like windows. Gnome was a new scary thing back then to me. Mint is like training wheels, useless to someone who knows how to ride, but can give confidence to those who cant.
It depends on the user and what the user actually wants to do with the computer. My first home computer came into my life when I was in my mid-thirties. The only operating system I was familiar with at first was DOS 3. After a year or so, I finally got my first Windows computer, Windows 3.1 and I played with that for a while and became very frustrated with Windows, particularly after I got my first Internet account, a call-up service that logged you into a Unix server. That is when I first became aware of LInux and wanted to check that out, say around 1996 or 97. The first Linux system I had was Caldera Open Linux which I got in the back of an O'Reilly computer book on a cd. At that time, the first thing that got installed was a compiler and attendant libraries, because the whole installation was from source code which had to compile. Now, this was all automated, if you followed instructions you would do okay, but it was time consuming and you had to wait for around an hour or so while everything was compiling, but you could play Tetris onscreen while you waited. Arch has got nothing on that old Caldera distro. Gentoo might match that experience even today. Maybe I'll give that a try one day. BUT, if Linux Mint, as it is now, were available to me back then, and it was the first Linux system I had used, I would probably have stuck with Windows. Because the very things that frustrated me with Windows, Mint mirrors. I wouldn't have seen the point in making the switch.
Mint is not just easy but also problem free. Back in a day mint used to come with proprietary codecs that you would have to install separately on other distributions. If you are busy and you just want a home computer, why would you use anything that's harder than Mint?
@@hamobu That depends on how you define problem free. All the problems I had with Windows, I had with Mint. It's too slow, programs take forever to load. These are reasons I left Windows. Why would I use a distro that didn't solve the problems I was having with Windows? Of course I wouldn't. From my perspective, Slackware is problem free. Debian is problem free. Mint is not.
From my experience - Mint isn't problem free, but most problems I've run into I was either able to solve, or were non-critical problems. And I've had worse problems on other distros and on Windows, where I would spend days trying to get something important to work with no success. As for desktop environments, for me I like the MATE environment, and - perhaps wrongly? - I assume picking a distro that officially supports MATE is probably going to be less prone to problems than picking a distro that doesn't and then installing MATE by hand. In any case, I've often run into situations where I had to install KDE because I wanted some apps that had it as a dependency, and this sometimes led to weirdness, and always led to massive 'waste of disk space', so I assume installing a distro that has some other desktop environment by default, and then trying to install MATE and uninstall the default one might lead to problems, but leaving the default one installed might also lead to problems, so I just prefer picking a distro that does support MATE out of the box.
@@Tennouseijin When it comes to desktops, I used to default to KDE early in my Linux journey, but later explored other choices. I’m currently using Xfce4 on Debian. I believe that’s what I was using on Mint as well. I’m comfortable with stand-alone window managers such Qtile and Openbox. I’ll probably use Openbox when I get around to replacing my Mint disk with Slackware.
If it wasn't for Linux Mint, I'd have never use Linux on my computer. I tried probably every single major Linux distros, and not even a single one feels as complete, easy to use and polished all at the same time as Linux Mint. Yes, it doesn't use the latest and greatest Linux technologies, but what it does, it does it best!
Same here. My network card won't work anywhere but on LM (relatively modern 2017 mobo). I also daily ran Fedora but it always had problems and once completely broke down by faulty sys package that caused kernel panic right after boot.
I use EndeavorOS(Arch) because I game, but like you Mint is why I even gave other distros a chance, and if it wasn't for the fact I game and need the more up to date dependencies and apps I would 100% go back to Mint and love it. In my opinion it is the best distro overall, everything works, it's smooth, and looks nice in a boring kind of way. I keep a thumb drive with Mint in my bag and install it all the time on old computers and for those wanting to try linux. It just works and is polished and I cant give that same praise to other distros, as good as they are. I love Arch and am learning to love Fedora for what they are but...Mint is just the perfect package.
Linux Mint should switch to LMDE being primary and probably be the only version. I can agree on that. The only thing i kind of don't like is constantly calling it begginers distro. I understand it is exactly that but it's so much more. The distro with the most sane default too. Cinnamon is seriously the most underrated de in my opinion. I like to distro hop and have found many other distros that i can use as daily driver. Fedora until the shitstorm, Debian, pop!_os once they come back eith cosmic de. But mint will be mint i guess 😂
They probably will, but it is not the time yet. LMDE has no "drivers manager", so for nvidia users it is not much different than pure Debian. Give them some time.
Surprised at the mention of Solus. To be overrated you have to be rated in the first place. Joking aside, I always thought of them as being in the same category as KDE Neon - more of a testbed for Budgie (which I like) than a normal distro. Well, until the split at least.
I'm not really feeling you on your criticism of Mint. Every distro could be argued to be a "protest" distro. Don't like something? Fork it and change what you want. That's 99% of distros. Very few introduce anything unique or new. Linux Mint is basically a non-sucky version of Ubunutu, and that's why it's great. (and unlike most other distros, it actually does have some unique features, like Cinnamon).
Linux mint is what ubuntu used to be, it's a starter operating system for new linux users, its easy for windows users to switch to linux mint, ubuntu used to be that but now due to the snaps direction is a mess, I'd never advise a new user to use ubuntu but I'd advise mint.
Linux mint is a great replacement for windows users. I like to get old laptops and give them to kids and linux mint is the distro i always install as its easy for them to learn to use.
On the other side of that, I just put Mint on a couple of old laptops that my parents (76 years old) wanted to watch RU-vid videos on when they are having fun with their after-retirement hobbies. Dad needed something a little more specific in his woodshop, so I put LinuxCNC on that one. Not looking forward to troubleshooting that one, I don't know anything about CNC machines.
I know, I came from Windows when they were aggressively pushing W10. I took Mint, because it is easy to learn. Why bother with something cryptic when there's easier possibilities available?
The thing about NixOS is there's such a learning curve to it before you can even understand what all the hype is about. You basically have to learn a new programming language to take full advantage of it (eg knowing how to create a flake). Downloading packages via the config file and system roll backs were as far as I got, and those alone weren't enough of a sell for me. My system doesn't break often enough for it to be a problem. It may be a cool OS once you understand it, but I haven't got that far yet.
for me one of the nicest things is the flexibility and hackability: since it is a hybrid source-binary distribution (source with binary caches), you can easily change any existing package and it will rebuild it from source with the new build instructions. this combined with the reproducibility means i can distribute these tweaks and make it easy to install for others as well and optionally have my own binary cache for it. (so yes, the main benefits come if you’re a programmer) now, you can get some of these benefits with the AUR and similar systems, but you can’t easily tweak every single aspect of your system the same way with those. in arch there’s a large distinction between the system packages and aur packages compared to specifically arch, i’m just happy that my system doesn’t constantly break and that i’m not forced to upgrade my whole system at once if i don’t want everything to be completely broken. so you get many of the benefits of arch without many of the issues. but yes, the downside of a steep learning curve is indeed a huge downside! and there are still many things that don’t work easily on nixos sorry for the unprompted essay and so confirming the stereotypes about nixos users 😅
The reason why Mint is good is because it's way more polished then majority of other distros. In my experience, things "just work", and there are way less issues or weird errors out of the box than in Ubuntu or other distros. The reason why Arch is good is not the AUR, but because it's relatively stable rolling release distro in which you build your system from the ground up, which gives you a complete understanding of how your system works. No other distro (except maybe Debian) gives you that.
Arch is good because it forces you to understand what you have on your computer at the beginning and you _have_ to decide what programs you want (e.g. if you want a WM, which one?). But then once you have it set up it's super well-documented and a ton of programs work out-of-the-box. I only have one program I didn't write myself that I had to install from source (I created a package for it, but didn't publish), and that one isn't available anywhere except in source form.
I put Mint on my wife's slow Celeron Laptop. It's easy to understand, to maintain and to grasp. I'm al with you, Matt, that they should switch to Debian. If you ditch Snaps anyway you can get away with flatpaks and Mint/Debian-Repos. Ubuntu isn't that much recent anyway. But still: Mint-Cinnamon is still a great and easy experience for new users and I know a few who're using it for years now.
@@EarlOfBurl But that also fights a bit against noob friendlyness they're after at. I like flatpaks for some, but I'd sure as hell wouldn't like to have everything on them as they take ston of space (cough..snaps...buntu) :)
@@jothain We aren't living in 2006 anymore where a few MBs can cause a problem. Even the big ones (compare Libre office for example) aren't that much of a difference. It's installed around 200-ish MB. Not anything to care about really.
@@EarlOfBurl 200mb? My flats took like 5-30gigs. It's beginning to be pia to update as I don't have fiber. Heck my laptop that has like 15 apps Flats take about 5gigs of space. ie. Scummvm deb 100Mb's vs Flat 300Mb's and it's very conservative package. Every single Flatpak upgrade for me is counted in gigs, not megs. It really blows the lid when you get GTK and Qt apps installed.
I started my Linux journey with Mint. I did try Ubuntu at first, but I didn't like the UI, so I lived on Mint for a few years. I think it gets labeled a "beginner" distro because someone who's new to Linux can install it and not really have to think about it all that much. The Cinnamon desktop is clean and functional (I'm using it right now on my Debian 12 install), and things just work right out of the box with Mint. Perfect for beginners, or someone who just wants a solid Linux system. I do agree with most others here that LM should just make the Debian edition the default. I've used both versions and had no issues. Plus, if they have to strip so much out of Ubuntu (no snaps, different UI, etc) why not just skip those steps and go straight to the source? PeppermintOS did that recently, I ran that in a VM and it works great.
At this point, I think Vanilla Gnome is accomplishing what Elementry set out to do. As a long-time Mac user, I tried Elementry OS but found it lacking. While different from a Mac UI, Gnome has a similar coherent/minimalist approach to UI. It's a good DE for people who don't want to theme and retheme their desktop but only want a stable background for their work.
I really don't understand the Arch reasoning. You say the AUR is fantastic, but Arch is the most overrated distro just because of what... memes? I mean, there's also *zero* mention of the Arch wiki, which for me is one of the other best things about Arch linux. In fact, the top 4 on the list is basically.... distros that have big fanbases. It isn't at all a commentary on the distros themselves, or breaking down some myths behind *why* they are popular. Sure, if it was a case that any of them were very highly rated because of some gimmicky feature, but are actually very unstable then yeah - they would be overrated, but I don't think that's the case for any of them. Granted I can't comment on NixOS as haven't tried it yet but..... neither have you?? Ridiculous list with very little worthwhile critique tbh
"Mint is meaningless" ~ Ok, fair call. I came to Mint because Ubuntu came to Unity, in about the middle of 2010, and locked off the use of all other desktops ~ which pissed me off. So I went to Distrowatch and looked, and the num 1 distro was Mint, and Mint had a new thing called Mate, which was a re-birth / fork of the gnome2 desktop. Sold! That's so exactly what I was looking for. Downloaded, installed, and I have been a happy user ever since. If people want to use the Cinnamon edition, that's fine. Some people say Cinnamon is more Windows like. I don't know about that, the thing I like about Mate is how much like Win-95 ~ '98 ~ ME ~ 2k ~ XP it is. Unlike something like KDE Neon, or gnome3 ~ Mate is a completely familiar environment.
I was a big SolusOS user, and it was a great independent Linux system. The first problem was when Ikey Doherty left leaving the rest of the team in limbo. Then when Josh Strobl left to develop the Budge Desktop independently the project slowly began falling apart. I left early 2023 after server outages and the project was even getting the most basic updates and I lost complete confidence. I know Stobl has returned but as you say I can't trust them anymore...which is a real shame.
Ikey has a track record of starting projects with a big splash then vanishing. I empathise with his personal life struggles but 'once bitten, twice shy' holds imho
I’m surprised by the hate on NixOS. I just switched to Linux from Windows and have tried a bunch of distros , but ended using NixOS because of its approach on installing and uninstalling apps. Is it the community that’s the problem or the distro itself? Honest question.
When I started my Linux journey I was distrohopping a bit. Nothing satisfied me. But then I installed Arch and I'm staying there for years. I don't understand why I should change my distro. It is just a fantastic choice for a desktop. The only thing I'm interested in trying in the Linux world is NixOS for my servers for work. I think both of them deserve its popularity
On Manjaro - if you want the benefits of Arch (rolling release, software availability) and more stability, I'd argue that openSUSE Tumbleweed is a much better choice.
Linux Mint is the best, its what the linux world should move towards, a very familiar, complete, plug and play experience with a team that also cares about FOSS and the community. Its exactly what we need to improve Linux, a strong convenient streamlined solution.
Can't say I agree about Arch. It's the only one that is usable on my older laptops, sure I tried others and rip stuff out but that's even more work than to add the things you want in Arch. I use Arch btw and for now I won't leave it.
and because you found a niche use case it means it cant be over hyped? like he said at the very the beginning of the video over hyped does not mean bad, it simply means the fanbase is pushy and annoying.
I agree with this list for the most part. IMO the worst aspects of Solus were lack of communication, even before the recent outages, and the ridiculous policy of not updating the ISO images. Manjaro just breaks and its Plasma theming has lots of visual conflicts and bugs. Mint is near perfect, it's getting long in the tooth in some aspects, but the team is very responsive to users, so i expect it will catch up in these areas. Arch is a pure hobby disto - like building your own kitchen table or hi fi amplifier - you may well end up with a superior product, but a lot of labor is needed to get there. Have not used NixOs. In general, one-step developed Fedora or Ubuntu distros are the best bet - Mint, Pop, Ultramarine, Tuxedo, etc -just because they're easier to use than the prime.
In my opinion, Mint is one of the best for new users to get a feeling of what Linux is about and a soft transition from that evil M$ OS which takes away almost all of your rights of software and your own hardware if you read the EULA.
Your comment is redundant for couple reasons: Debian is one of the longest existing distros, it is independent and runs on many different platforms if not all you can think of. Like a one stop shop, :-)
@@idontknow390u gotta stop by the debian forums and set your eyes upon some help threads sometime; ppl there know things about their computers i never even heard of before
This video gave me a good chuckle and that is far better than taking everything too seriously.Keep up the great job you do Matt you always keep me riveted to your vid's.
To be honest, the top 5 distros i would recommend for people both advanced and new: Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Debian, Fedora, and openSUSE. The others on the other hand... Mx: Nice distro but they still don't have a clean way to upgrade to a new major version. Manjaro: Even if the distro isn't as unstable as many people say, i am concerned about the team behind it. Elementary OS: Like MX, requires reinstall to use a new major version. Plus, the devs are very toxic. Arch: Won't use it as a daily driver because i don't want my system to be breaking unexpectedly. Plus, the arch community looks down on people who use other distros. Its one of the reasons why i didn't want to switch to linux. Solus: Even if the leadership has changed, i will never use it as a daily driver. BTW, this is what i say after 2 years of using linux.
I run Mint, btw and I'm not offended at all by what you say about it. I will offer this hot take, though: I bristle a bit at the term "beginner" or "easy" distro because to my ears it sounds elitist. There is no shame in picking a "beginner" distro like Mint and continuing to use it for years. If you've made your system your own and it works for what you need, by all means - don't distrohop. Don't go to a more "advanced" distro; use what you've got. It's OK to be comfortable with your system, even if it's a "beginner" one. More experienced Linux users (*not* directed at Matt but the community in general) can be really snobby about that sometimes.
I used to obsess myself with finding the right distro for me, until I realized that distros are just basically taking one of the big three and configuring it for a specific use. So to me the choices are between Debian, Fedora and Arch considering that the entire Linux world revolves around those three. Arch is a no-go because I don't like constantly working on my OS every time an update breaks something. So its really between Debian and Fedora.
Some guys are car guys. They want to modify everything about their car because that's what they're into. Good for them. Some guys just aren't car guys. Vehicles are just a tool to get from point A to point B. That's fine. It's the same for Linux. A significant portion of the Linux community is super big into customizing their operating systems. It seems a like of Linux users are more into the operating system than the software they're actually trying to run within it. They're like car guys in that respect, and that's fine. However, there is something really nice about the hands off, just-works-out-of-the-box functionality of Mint. Mint is for someone who doesn't want Windows or Mac, but does want an operating system that just works without having to fiddle with anything. I'm that rare Linux user who doesn't know much of anything about how to use the terminal or even the basic ins and outs of how one Linux distro compares to another under the hood. I have, however, tried a few different distros (like Pop OS, Fedora, Mint, and Steam OS). Only Mint and Steam OS have worked 100% correctly out of the box with no Linuxing required to fix some basic function that somehow broke. Every other distro gives me some kind of issue. Pop OS's software distribution was constantly glitching out, and installing one of the programs removed my ability to play sound from files that were on my computer (although video games and videos played off web browsers continued to work just fine). Fedora had Firefox bugging out in that almost every time I opened a new tab it would open it in a new window and the original tab(s) would crash. I'm pretty familiar with Firefox, and I've never had any issues like that on any other computer or distro I've used. Mint just works. I can (and have) slapped it onto old computers and it just works. I can (and have) slapped it onto computers for other people and they don't need some huge tutorial on how to use it if they're already familiar with Windows XP/7/etc beyond showing them the software manager (which is objectively easier than hunting down .exe files from the internet). To me, an operating system is like a toilet. I couldn't care less how it works; I just want it to work with me having to fiddle with anything. Mint does this whereas, at least in my experience, most other distros don't. Steam OS deserves a mention because that's the only other distro I have experience with that also just works.
As a long time Mint user, I have to agree on it being a protest distro. I switched from Ubuntu to Mint precisely because Ubuntu was heading in a direction I didn't quite like. I tried Debian but found it had some default settings that seemed quite bizarre to me, to the point I would have to configure a lot of stuff to get it to work the way I wanted, and then I tried Mint and found it to be very close to what I wanted by default, requiring less tweaking than Ubuntu (where I would have to disable anti-features) or Debian (where I would have to make things work which didn't work by default). I guess I like protest distros, as I once gave Void Linux a try because I heard systemd is controversial and deviates too much from the Linux philosophy, so I was hoping to switch to a non-systemd distro just in case, but ultimately I got discouraged by the amount of work needed to make the system do what I wanted. Or at least, I wasn't getting anywhere in a timely manner and had to go back to Mint just to get other stuff done. Now after years of using Mint, I'm considering giving Debian another try, mostly because I'd like to try a rolling distro, but being so familiar with the Debian branch of Linux distros and with their package management, I'm not sure I could easily switch to something too different. So I found Debian testing can be considered a rolling release of sorts, which might do the trick for me. I just wonder if my reasons for wanting to try a rolling distro make sense or if I'm doing something wrong xD - my reasons being that so far, I rarely find time to reinstall my system from scratch, so I tend to sit on the same install for years. Usually I used to pick LTS distros for that reason, assuming I can sit on them for, say 4+ years, without having to reinstall. And of course I did try 'dist upgrade' but I always run into problems and every time I tried I had to revert. So I tend to sit on 'old distros' and as a result, waiting years for a good opportunity (i.e. enough free time) to do a fresh install (and configuration which is the most time consuming part, getting a freshly installed distro to do all the things my previous old distro could do), and it tends to cause me problems when I try to install modern software, which often isn't found in the old repos, but workarounds would often cause me more trouble than it was worth. And sometimes I just couldn't find good workaraounds (like when some software is only provided as a snap or flatpak, neither of which I've been able to get working on my years old distro xD ) So I was thinking maybe a rolling distro could be the answer. But then maybe the problem is that I am doing something wrong and, e.g. a better way would be to figure out why my dist-upgrades fail. In any case, no hard feelings for 'hating' on Linux Mint. Not going to unsubscribe :P
I started playing with Linux in 2001, and I tried tens of unix-related operating systems: Red Hat, Mandrake, Slackware, KNOPPIX, Kurumin, Damn Small Linux, Flonix, etc, as well as non-Linux stuff: FreeBSD, QNX, BeOS and later Haiku. I used Mandrake Linux (based on Red Hat Linux) the most, until I switched to Kurumin Linux (based on Debian), and in 2007 I moved to Linux Mint - which I still use to this day, and as a daily driver since 2009, without dual booting. I'm a sysadmin, and I've also done a lot of tech support, so Linux Mint was attractive to me because it offered more than Ubuntu did back when I tried it, and it got out of my way - virtually nothing to tinker to make it useful for me. I'm pretty much a Linux Mint historian at this point, having started so early (v2.2, I think) and using it even at work for so long, without having skipped a single version since. That's why sometimes it's hard for me to understand why people think about Linux Mint as if it's Ubuntu + codecs, or even an Ubuntu protest distro. But considering the distro's age, being older than some commenters online, I shouldn't be too surprised people don't go through the whole history to learn about it, and rather take a look at some articles and/or videos at most, and form an opinion. It would take time and the right sources of information (not opinion), so it's probably harder than worth it. Sometimes I wish the Mint team would have a history page on their own site, to document their progress (and reasoning) as they go. There's a lot of great stuff they did that would surprise a lot of people. Avoiding snap was actually a good decision, but not everyone does enough research before deciding for themselves if it was a good thing or not. Here are a few interesting things they introduced Mint 2.2 (in 2007), which was roughly the beginning of "mint tools": - mintMenu: a custom menu for Gnome - mintConfig: a control center app inspired by SUSE's configuration tools - mintDisk: a partition auto-mounter that puts shortcuts on the desktop - mintDesktop: a tool doing several things but also mounting Windows shares, which almost everyone had back then - mintWifi: a tool that offers a guide, drivers and a wifi troubleshooter so you can get online if you lack connectivity Later, you could even install and uninstall packages from mintMenu. If you knew the package name, it would tell you if it's not installed and gave you a button (as a menu entry) to install it. And if it was installed, you just right-clicked the app and you have an uninstall option there - this exists in Cinnamon to this day, as well as MATE. Mint has always been about offering a Linux distro that even beginners can just use and rely on it not to change radically like some distros have - sometimes as a side effect of the desktop environment moving to a new major release (KDE, Gnome). That's why it's mostly a boring distro, but in the good way - it changes very little visually, and it also gets new features. If anything, Linux Mint is simply misunderstood, not overrated.
Linux Mint isn’t a distribution I would use, but I can see why a lot of people do - people who are either novice Linux users or just people who need an OS for everyday basic use. It’s stable enough, and has an appealing and polished desktop environment. It’s similar enough to Windows to make it an OS any computer user can be comfortable with.
Who is proud of installing Arch Linux? Arch Linux is easy to install and highly customizable through the AUR and other repositories. All you have to do is a little bit of reading to get past any problems you experience. If you want to be spoon-fed, go download somebody else's vision of Linux. Another thing, arch is very stable. If you're really that afraid of arch crashing then install snapper and you can roll back seamlessly if it is broken. Linux offers freedom for everyone to choose. So choose what you want and avoid these hilarious distro wars.
Agreed with ElementaryOS, and I will add something to your comments: It's beautiful, yes. But it is extremely buggy and that thing made me drop it same day i installed it.
Fedora is kinda too boring and corporate to actually end up on a list like this lol. That would be too fun. I say this as someone who dailies fedora lol.
I use Arch for the excellent documentation. Dont really care about the other stuff people like about Arch. I use flatpaks for most of my gui apps. Pacman has most of the packages I need and the AUR is nice for those few things I cant find a package or flatpak for. Great video as always!
Linux mint is Ubuntu for desktop users instead of servers, which Ubuntu focuses more on. The purpose is that it actually focuses on the desktop users and has less controversy. They don't like the way that Ubuntu works because most desktop Linux users don't like how Ubuntu works. But also, they have a Debian based version. Arch is definitely overrated, nobody will argue that.
Matt, Interesting video. I would say that every distro is probably over rated by its fan boys. Personally, I don’t care what you or anyone else thinks about the distro/OS I use (Void Linux & FreeBSD). What I use is based on personal preference, taste, and use case. What I might consider to be good, someone else will consider to be horrible. Arguments over such things are a waste of time and are non-productive IMO. I wondered if Arch would make the list. It would be vastly entertaining to see how Matt, the die hard Arch fanboy, would have responded to this video. You have grown a lot since those days which is to your credit. Take care and keep the sunny side up.
Except for Manjaro's case, I agree 100% in the rest of the cases. Instead of Manjaro I would have put Artix or Endeavoros...I don't know And in Arch we are overestimated we are the fans, which we believe ourselves better than the rest of the people who use Linux
Actually I can understand your reasoning on all of them. Over-rated or over-hyped. I think it often comes down to many users who become very enthusiastic--even fanatical--advocates. I think Manjaro has more benefits than being based on Arch and access to the AUR. First, Manjaro is easy to download. Second, it is easy to install. Third, it has a lot of software available even without the AUR. Now, that doesn't make Manjaro unique. But I do think it can make it useful.
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 Well for me they are over-rated because, once installed, it's very difficult to update or to download software. From my location here in Japan, their repositories and mirrors suck. I don't even know what you mean by 'sane defaults'. It's like all these linux goobers saying stuff like 'it just works' or 'it matches my workflow'.
I like the Linux red white and blue tux sign in the background. What or where did you get it so I can get one as well or ask for Christmas with where to get it from.
I switched to Mint after Ubuntu became spyware by integrating amazon into their menu's and when every new ubuntu distro was less configurable. Its helpful to have Ubuntu as a base because more software works on it. I did have a lot of stability issues. It tends to crash for no reason and really break down unrecoverable.
Linux Mint is not for 'new' users as much as it is for people coming from Windows. That's why it has a look and feel that is close to Win7. The user nightmare known as Windows 8 was the best thing that ever happened to Mint.
I've definitely run into issues with a few of these distros while distro-hopping. Mint didn't "just work" on my old PC, and I was too new to figure out the issue. I settled for Manjaro because it actually worked, but Arch inevitably did its unstable Arch things (I didn't even know enabling the AUR made Manjaro less stable, that probably explains my issues). Then when I got a new PC, I tried installing Solus onto it and that outright rejected my hardware. I've had good experiences with Debian, MX Linux, Fedora (until the recent situation), and Void. I'd suggest MX Linux as a "just works" distro to new users over Mint or Ubuntu. I'd suggest Debian to new users who want to revive very old computers, or learn about the details of Linux in a safe environment. I like Void most of all because it gives you a lot of power to set up your system how you want it, and then becomes stupid easy to maintain once it's set up.
@@tubeincompetence it's pretty hard for beginners, if you don't have any experience with partitionning, drivers, bootloaders, etc.. you will learn quite a bit
I've jumped into the Linux ecosystem a few years ago and tried a few distros along the way. Distro hopping can be useful and can also be wasteful. Your video is an honest take on some of the major problems in the Linux universe, and it's a timely reminder that there isn't any one single distro out there that will remain relevant forever. I'd love to find out how common is it amongst the normal Linux users to reach a point where distro hopping loses its appeal and they simply settle on whatever distro they're on and just learn to put up with its short-comings.
I would say that it depends. Consider someone using a distro for work/business where that distro has to work. That person may be forced to hop if there were a significant failure making that distro unusable. Personally, I use both Void Linux and FreeBSD. Each is fully capable as a daily driver for me. My Window manager setup is identical on each. I have developed the infrastructure to allow me to maintain identical files where needed along with a backup routine. When one has a significant issue, I switch to the other. That’s my solution.
@@donaldmickunas8552 Well, in my books, that puts you squarely in the top one percent...of the top one percent. I, on the other hand, am squarely in the bottom twenty. I've only managed to take off in Kitty Hawk, and keep it in the air...while you've just wizzed by me in an F-22. When I first jumped into Linux, I did so peeved at how much clunkier Windows was getting with each new version, so Ubuntu was my first. Then I saw Mint, so I went there. Then I went to Manjaro, Lubuntu, Xubuntu...even tried Fedora. My last hop was to MX Linux couple of years ago, and it kindda grew on me. I only still keep Windows around on a dual boot because of one lousy proprietary program that's only available in Windows and MacOS... and I can't seem to get WINE to work properly in MX, but because I've grown so used to it, I can't be bothered to distro hop into something else that handles WINE better...if there is anything else out there that can do that at all. But maybe, one day in the future... Hence my wonder.
@@donaldmickunas8552Curious how you deal with file systems. In my experience I haven't found any universal filesystem that works between Linux and BSD. How did you deal with this disconnect?
@@soulstenance PCloud. I use it as my cloud backup. So, I upload a file from one OS then download it to the other OS. I have scripts to handle most of it. ;-) BTW… I’ve read that ext2 is supposed to work that way. I’m hesitant to try that due to the age of that file system.
@@donaldmickunas8552 Interesting. Cheers! Yeah I'd be scared to use ext2 on any system with important data. It's quite old and I don't believe it even supports journaling. Oddly Debian tries to install my boot partition as ext2 by default - no idea why, but I wasn't gonna let that happen. 😅 I find it funny that Linux supports (ish) NTFS, a proprietary file system, but Linux and BSD refuse to support each other's fully opensource file systems. As far as I know the reasons are purely license based, not based on any real physical limitations. It's the only real reason I haven't put much effort into using FreeBSD as a desktop - everything in my house is ext4, bar a few thumbdrives with exfat.
NixOS is amazing for vms/servers. It's definitely not for everyone though since you have to relearn everything plus it doesnt follow the FHS. A way to put it is learning NixOS to a normal Linux user is like a Windows user learning Linux (generalization) for the first time.
I agree! I've been distro hopping since I started Linux this year and I've moved from Ubuntu -> Debian -> Fedora -> Debian -> Slackware -> Arch -> Nixos. Since my transition to Nixos I've loved as a programmer. It's very programmer friendly. It's also very stable and easy to rollback from issues and running unstable. I highly doubt ill leave nixos at this point. Either that or if Nixos had a weird future, then id use nix package manager on Debian. For me, nixos just feels better to use vs arch where dependency hell crashed my machine. I love it since I've moved to nixos
i like your last sentence. i see many people who are quite familiar with linux going around saying switching to linux wouldnt be that hard when at the same time they already get frustrated with something like nixos. they go around telling others they should relearn their workflow when they themselves dont want to do it either. id even argue switching from arch/debian to nixos is slightly easier than windows to linux.
I am a former Linux Mint user who moved on to Debian for his own reasons. Regardless, I cannot accept Linux Mint as "overrated" for one simple reason- it does what it sets out to do and does it well. Add in the many happy users and you have to measures that shows Linux Mint does stack up.
I personally don't use Mint (have installed it and did some basic configuration on it before though), and I have to agree here. Mint is the entry point for many into Linux, it's meant to be easy to get started with, and it's meant to be similar to things like Windows. Without Mint, the Linux community today would be much much smaller still. Linux really needs this ease of access.
I use Solus on my Gaming rig because it games like a dream pretty much out of the Box. Then I run Linux Mint on one laptop and Void on another. Linux Mint for the win on stability.
Unfortunately Matt doesn't have much experience with SoluOS so I would take what he says with a grain of salt. you are right tho SolusOS is a hidden gem that games like a beast
Linux mint is the only distro i've tried that actually works 100% out of the box with no setup. There is a GUI for everything. I have had so many issues over the years with stock ubuntu, but Mint has hardly ever had any problems for me. Mint is the closest thing to "windows Linux" you can get. It seems like Mint is trying to make the switch to Debian with their LMDE releases. It seems more and more likely that canonical is going to go full retard mode and rip away what makes linux, from linux.
For work (my work at least) i can literally install mint and start working the minute it installs. Neither ubuntu nor debian gives me that. You Matt, made me sad 😢
@@TheLinuxCast LOL. Not dissing u mah man. Mint just became a goto choice for my line of work. Just seeing it in a list of distros with sort of a "negative" undertone. But yeah, thats linux, we all have our own needs and thus our own opinions. BTW I liked your video 😁
I would agree with (1) on the list, personally. The installation being difficult is not a good reason to use a distro (the AUR absolutely is). I have a machine running gentoo (mostly for fun) and that was harder to install. In fact, these days if I need to install linux somewhere, I just use manjaro or endeavorOS and then change sources/remove packages so that it's identical to an arch system. The AUR is fantastic and I want access to it, but I'm not going through the hassle of making sure I've configured GRUB right every time I need to install the OS.
I tried NixOS and got the reason why it is so hyped. I would consider it as a simplified reproducible Gentoo if you can tweak the settings you want. However, I use Nix the most inside the other OS like Debian. The nix-shell and nix-develop are really handy when it comes to quick and lightweight development environment setup.
I had used Mint for a few years after Ubuntu because I was tired of Ubuntu making you do things their way. Mint was great, easy, and reliable. After a long stint back on Win 7, I went to Manjaro because I figured I would want something with more customization (rather than a new Windows OS) and I would say it has been interesting. I am enjoying it because it's forcing me to learn stuff about how all the things work (and don't) as opposed to holding your hand most of the time, like Ubuntu and Mint. That's where the Arch-based distros don't provide much in terms of ease of use, but If you want to learn it's a great way to go exploring. I don't think there is anything wrong with recommending Mint to a new user, for that purpose it definitely not 'pointless' in my opinion. I think I'm going to try an LMDE install to mess around with and to program in, maybe just on VM.
Hahahaha! Linux Mint also had their Debian-based edition, prepared in the event Ubuntu goes away, or goes in even worse directions than it did with Snaps. Mint also offers tools Ubuntu doesn't in both editions, offers 3 desktop environments with the exact same "minty tools", and gives you minty fresh breath so when you tell her "By the way, I use Linux Mint" she immediately kisses you and says "Oh no, the bra fell off." Of the eleventy billion distros out there, I would only recommend Mint, Ubuntu, or Linux Light for new users. Most of the rest are hopeless geek messes unsuitable for ordinary users, or specialized versions also unsuitable.
I think you hit the nail on the head with people being passionate about their first distro, I still have fond memories about red hat Linux even though it was discontinued 20 years ago. However, I would argue that most people aren’t enamoured with their distro, they’re enamoured with the desktop environment. In my opinion mint is a good distro not because of the distro, but because of cinnamon, since that is available on many other distros there really isn’t anything special about it any more. I used to say the same about elementary but they screwed up by getting political.
I disagree on Mint, but using the same reasons as mentioned in the video that give me a different conclusion. It takes a stable base and a full repo, then tweaks it to be easy to use out of the box/intuitive. A new user isn't going to want/know to change a desktop (I got nothing against Gnome, though it's not for me - but it's certainly less intuitive than other desktops) or add flatpaks in addition to the standard repos, and that could be the difference between a huge hassle and no issues at all. Mint also avoids telemetry doesn't have/never had integrations with stuff like Amazon. Honestly if I were to make a top three distros for personal desktops that cover almost any hardware/use case Mint would probably make the top 3 (my other two being Debian and Arch). My 2c anyway.
Matt woke up and chose violence! I love NixOS being the honorable mention! NixOS, the Nano of Linux distros. I think once COSMIC is finally dropped, Pop!OS will wind up on this list. And I think it's fair. Nice video as usual. Gentoo is BiS.
I tried Mint for a few days but ended up hopping. My main issue was setting different refresh rates for 2 monitors, a limitation of the X11 protocol. Wayland version is still in alpha. Tracked down a hacky fix but it's not complete. Then I wanted to adjust volume steps for my keyboard volume knob, wouldn't have needed to do that for Gnome desktops. Plus Mint animations and UI are kinda dated imo. That being said, I could see myself coming back when it's more updated, I miss endless applet customizations.
Linux Mint was my first distro so it is a bit like with the first love - it will always be in a sweet spot. But basically you are right. After my fair share of distro hopping I have finally landed with Debian/Sway.
Linux Mint is for people who don't want to be told what they should or should not install on their personal computers. It's also for people who despise Snaps, which should be almost every Ubuntu user. Let's be honest, Snaps is absolute garbage. Many Snap apps just don't work at all or if it works it falls apart at the seams. Granted you can install Ubuntu and just uninstall Snaps but there is also the Canonical debacle to consider. Also, Linux Mint makes it super easy to install and update just about any Linux compatible app out there, be it open source or proprietary. So yes, it's Linux for newbies but it gives you complete freedom over what apps you want on your computer. Even if you're a more experienced user you might not always want to jump through hoops to install an app. Sometimes you just want to get some work done and for that Linux Mint is great. They are already maintaining a Debian fork of Mint, "just in case" so I won't be surprised if they break away from Ubuntu all together in the near future.
The singular problem with Linux, trying to find a home for your perfect system. My 2 partners *LOVE* Linux Mint. I'm an Arch User, i have tried Fedora in the past (it made me happy until Red Hat decided to make a big fucky wucky with their entire credibility), but at the end of the day Arch is where my heart is.
I do agree that Mint needs to perform a bit of soul-searching. Moving to LMDE would be a good thing in the long-run for the distro, as I just don't see the Mint team embracing future changing to Ubuntu by Canonical.
@@hamobu I don't really disagree on the advantages of basing your distro on Ubuntu. However, I do wonder what the people in LM will do when Canonical moves all software into Snap. Will they after every update just do the taxing job of removing it and maintaining their own repository?
@@exnihilonihilfit6316 Dude, calm down. It is no open secret that Mint team has had huge problems with Canonical and are not maintaining LMDE or compiling web browsers just for the fun of it. As perspective consumers and developers of open-source projects, it is exactly us that also need to have conversations about the types of software we use. In fact, I would expect the "stay in our lane" commentary from an Apple ecosystem user.
Mint is awesome distro. It's very refined to have functionality for most new users. It's also 100% useless to say it's useless or that they're "protest" distro whatever the heck does that even mean? They want to use fairly new packages from Ubuntu, which truth to be said has one of the best repositories, so what? I use various distros, but it's utter shaite to say Mint is useless.
All I am saying is I tried Deb 12 recently and it had all sorts of audio issues I had to go figure out, and the website is HORRIBLE. Mint has always been nearly perfect and just works. In my sample size of 1 (lol) I have had a better experience with Mint then Debian or any other Debian based distro(Pop, ubuntu, deb, Mx was pretty great, and many others).
I've successfully decoupled myself from distros by using distrobox and flatpaks so now i could probably use whatever i want and not really feel the difference, which honestly i would recommend everyone cause it reduces amount of distro-specific frustrations
My experience with Manjaro could be described as anything but stable. It broke after trying to update it. People really like Mint in your comments but it hasn't been a great experience for me. Funny thing, I had some things work better in Manjaro than in Mint. It's funny because Manjaro ended up so broken I had to wait over 10 minutes for the desktop to load.
I use Mint because it provides a Windows 7 feel while working, and I see no reason to move to any other distro. Ubuntu reminds me of Windows 10. That's what sent me to Mint.
WIN 10 is great too, in comparison to WIN 7. I am saying this as a linux guy, who does not like Dollarsoft Corporation and it's telemetry policies at all! From a purely technical perspective, 7 and especially 10 are VERY good and stable, even compared to Linux.
@@thomaslechner1622 Windows 10 is a sack of fetid dingos' kidneys after the bacteria have had some days to produce a lot of decay gases. And in terms of stability, I'd rather invest all my savings into a fund tied to the ruble.
Have they figured out self executable installation packages yet or is it still like you hafta get down on the keyboard like your fix'n to launch a space shuttle just to install something, genuinely curious? Just wondering cuz I haven't tried to use it in like a decade.
Nah, there is legit reasons to use other versions of linux. I will agree that nearly all branches are not needed but Debian, Fedora, and Arch all have a legit place and use case. Edit* Honestly I could see an argument for only NEEDING Debian and Arch but Fedora is a great middle distro and getting wild popular for a reason.
by your logic, all derivates of Debian (including ubuntu and mind) and all derivatives of Arch are all "protest" distro, since they went out of their way to create a different distribution than it was intended to be.
As a daily user of Linux Mint for years I don't think it's a useless distro. I've tried the regular ubuntu and their studio edition as well. Both did have problems after three or four updates. Studio for example didn't reach the login screen and did let me with a black screen where nothin' could be done. I know I could have search solutions on the web, forums and blablabla but I like things that don't crash. On the other hand with Mint never had a problem with updates. I upgraded from 18.x to 20;x to 21.x on several computers with zero hassle. So why should I stick to Ubuntu that, cherry on top, has a desktop i don't feel comfy with. i know a DE can be changed, but why should I when Mint offers Cinnamon I do like a lot? I'm also using Big Linux (Manjaro based) for the same reasons. Ease of use, DE I like (KDE plasma on this one), not a single problem with updates. I'm not a power user, just a daily user. I know how to use the console for simple tasks but in general I prefer doin' things graphically, and both distributions are really cool for that too.
based list. however.. i don't think it's fair to call nixOS simply a linux distro. it's so different it's kind of it's own thing. like, debian and arch are kind of the same thing, except one updates and the other one doesn't. and every other distro falls somewhere between those two. nix doesn't live in that spectrum and that makes it pretty novel. i use debian stable btw.
Not everybody looks at OS as a toy to play with. By default one should install OS, forget about OS and start doing the real world work using a set of applications. This universal truth predetermined the success of Ubuntu. Lately Mint replaced Ubuntu. It is as simple as that. Not everyone has the time and desire to play with different operating systems and Linux distributions all their lives.
Right?! I would have put Ubuntu at number two instead. Linux mint would probably end up as an honorable mention if I were to make a list of my own. It's great but there are a few alternatives out there that could be argued as being comparable in quality.
Very interesting take and I think you make a lot of good points. Arch Linux is probably the most overrated because of how far the meme has traveled. Manjaro used to a solid argument but now that Arch has their own installer and Manjaro has had multiple instances of forgetting to renew their SSL Certs as well as other things, I think calling it overrated is fair at this point. The way you ended the video was funny too
Manjaro strikes a balance, it's a rolling release with a certain amount of stability. It's also easy to set up. I barely touch the AUR stuff but it's nice that it's there if needed. It works well for me.
I have been using Linux since Ubuntu 6 or 7. I don't know how many distros I have tried but at some point, I gave up all of them. The main reason was that inevitably something broke on an update soon or later. I guess that was happening on the main updates. I really don't remember. But it happened many times. Every time. The exceptions were those distros I didn't use much or I was just trying them. Not to forget - Crunchbang. That one was OK. And I love that kind of minimalism. Now I am on Arch. For a long time. I didn't install it. A friend of mine did. He did it twice because I gave my laptop to my brother and I have a "new" one. So… a new installation. I know that most of you will argue on that but that Linux distro is the most stable I have ever used. It just works. I still don't know how to install Arch and I don't care for now. If I needed to do it, probably I would try to write some script to make it easier after that. I am lazy and I like to automate everything. Well, such scripts are available now so I don't need to do even that. I like Arch. I am not a fan of it and I won't snap if someone tells me that it is overrated. I don't care at all. I like it because it works, I have no trouble with it at all. And it pushes you to learn.
In my own opinion: Arch: Too overrated. The people who shill for Arch Linux are toxic. Plus i don't want to use a distro without any QA. Solus: Lots of people were shilling for it at the start, but the changes in leadership made it lose those shills. I wouldn't trust it as a daily driver even if other people do. Manjaro: Its the opposite of overrated. Many people actually criticize it for their DDOSING the AUR a few years back and also for the expired SSL certificates. Elementary OS: Well, its a locked down OS with no way to upgrade to the new version and with toxic devs. Not using it. Mint: Mint isn't overrated. Many people like it because its primary focus is computer users who don't care about the operating system they're using. Plus, even if it doesn't have Wayland yet, its not a reason to be beating down on it. NIXOS: Nix OS i haven't used it enough, but the learning curve discouraged me(for now...).
