Question distro, de/wm recommendations

[PaulosK]

Hello everyone! I 'll format my pc in a couple of days and I am done with windows for a daily driver. I have used linux before (ubuntu, lubuntu, zorin os, tails os and other "just works" distros), so I was planning on installing debian, because I want a distro that is stable and reliable and I am at least familiar with it. However, I am hearing that arch is a better option and that most linux users end up on arch. I don't want to do distro hopping so I would like to know if debian or arch is a better option for me (not a power user, I just want something that is stablem, I work only with apps that are supported on linux, but I want them to just work, also I will use proton db for some games, idc about the learning curve if it is worth it and I want customisability, but not my top priority). Also, if you recommend arch can you recommend a desktop environment (i have used gnome, xfce and lxqt) or a windows manager (I havent use any tiling wm before, but from what i ve seen it looks really practical). Thanks for any recommendations <3.

 

[dmroeder]

If you are not a power user or a masochist, then don't use Arch. The idea that most users end up running Arch is nonsense. I personally wouldn't use Debian either. While Debian is the foundation for most of the distributions that you mentioned, it doesn't necessarily make it the best choice to use. I think you'll find that it doesn't include a lot of repos for packages you might want to install. Plus, when you google "how do I install XYZ", the vast majority of results are going to be about installing on Ubuntu.

Arch will likely frustrate you to the point of not wanting to run Linux. I suppose it is satisfying when you get it to work, but why punish yourself? Use something that already works. Play with Arch when you are bored.

So my vote is Ubuntu. My favorite flavor is Kubuntu. You can always do the power user stuff if you want, it's all still there. The package manager will have most of what you need already there to install.

 

[dmroeder]

I'm going to add, even if you are a power user, which I think I am somewhere on that spectrum, I still use the "just works" distributions. I want do get things done, not mess around. I can still do "power user" things. The beauty is, you can still "power use" the pretty distributions.

 

[Kolvir]

If you want to try an easier version of Arch, check out Manjaro. I've run Arch on different systems, but I had an old laptop that I could just not get the wifi working the way I wanted. Finally decided I didn't have the time to work on it anymore and installed Manjaro where it worked out of the box. Also look at EndeavourOS.

There is also an Arch installer called Anarchy out there that makes the install much easier, but more complicated than Manjaro.

What you really need to decide is if you want a rolling release distro or not and go from there. I think Arch is worth it and have learned a ton about Linux by installing it; Manjaro has a great forum and support community, which often applies to Arch too.

 

[hotaru.hino]

What do you want out of Linux? If you just need a Linux environment to run your applications or do development on, I find distros that have a better "out of the box" experience are best because well... I don't want to spend a weekend setting my OS up. And as mentioned, the option to tweak and mess around with it is still there because it's Linux at the end of the day.

As far as which DE and WM to go with, that's really up to you.

 

[PaulosK]

I just show all your replies. I am using debian 11 and kde plasma since March. The experience is great. I would love to have wayland, but well nvidia drivers. Speaking of drivers, I didnt have much trouble installing them. Almost all my steam games play great and even optix in blender works just like it did in windows. I have only two issues so far, the ui of some applications is too small and i think that there is something wrong with scaling and the notifications widget doesnt work since I went to i3wm and then back to kwin. Anyways, thank you all for your replies.

 

[ComplexNumbers]

FreeBSD performs very well on my system. Here's a test I did comparing it to Clear Linux (this is by far the fastest Linux distro)

FreeBSD 12.3 + Firefox 102
WebXPRT 4 112
Kraken 1.1 1774.6 ms (lower is better)
Speedometer 2.0 62.5
Octane 2.0 16317
Basemark Web 3.0 141.44
SilverBench P3425
JetStream 2 48368
Gimp start time 4.5s the first time
LibreOffice start time very slow, maybe because I installed thousands of fonts
Google ping latency 13.4 ms
RAM XFCE and ZFS 810MB

Clear Linux + Firefox 97
WebXPRT 4 111
Kraken 1.1 1799.9 ms
Speedometer 2.0 74
Octane 2.0 16625
Basemark Web 3.0 272
SilverBench P2216
JetStream 2 62751
Gimp start time 7s the first time
LibreOffice start time 3s or 4s the first time
Google ping latency 13.55 ms
RAM Gnome 910MB

1. FreeBSD is much slower in Basemark Web 3.0 and JetStream 2
2. Clear Linux is much slower in SilverBench

FreeBSD should perform similar to standard Linux distros, maybe slightly faster. And this is the performance where FreeBSD uses ZFS. So if you pull the plug then the FreeBSD data survives, the Linux data may be dead.

 

[PaulosK]

FreeBSD performs very well on my system. Here's a test I did comparing it to Clear Linux (this is by far the fastest Linux distro)

FreeBSD 12.3 + Firefox 102
WebXPRT 4 112
Kraken 1.1 1774.6 ms (lower is better)
Speedometer 2.0 62.5
Octane 2.0 16317
Basemark Web 3.0 141.44
SilverBench P3425
JetStream 2 48368
Gimp start time 4.5s the first time
LibreOffice start time very slow, maybe because I installed thousands of fonts
Google ping latency 13.4 ms
RAM XFCE and ZFS 810MB

Clear Linux + Firefox 97
WebXPRT 4 111
Kraken 1.1 1799.9 ms
Speedometer 2.0 74
Octane 2.0 16625
Basemark Web 3.0 272
SilverBench P2216
JetStream 2 62751
Gimp start time 7s the first time
LibreOffice start time 3s or 4s the first time
Google ping latency 13.55 ms
RAM Gnome 910MB

1. FreeBSD is much slower in Basemark Web 3.0 and JetStream 2
2. Clear Linux is much slower in SilverBench

FreeBSD should perform similar to standard Linux distros, maybe slightly faster. And this is the performance where FreeBSD uses ZFS. So if you pull the plug then the FreeBSD data survives, the Linux data may be dead.

yeah, but i am using my pc to play some games, so freebsd isn't really for me.
Besides, I use blender a lot, are nvindia proprietary drivers even available for freebsd?

 

[punkncat]

I have been using Windows so long that I have a bit of a hard time dealing with Linux distro in that I have to look everything up in a "how to do" way. In spite of that aspect I also tend to suggest Ubuntu or Lubuntu according to hardware. IMO it's the easiest to settle into from a Windows enviro and like all the 'automated' features that have been added to it. I have been using it a VM for several years now and recently started loading it to older machines to get a feel for the real, as it were.

 

[ComplexNumbers]

I have been using Windows so long that I have a bit of a hard time dealing with Linux distro in that I have to look everything up in a "how to do" way. In spite of that aspect I also tend to suggest Ubuntu or Lubuntu according to hardware. IMO it's the easiest to settle into from a Windows enviro and like all the 'automated' features that have been added to it. I have been using it a VM for several years now and recently started loading it to older machines to get a feel for the real, as it were.

I would dare to call Mint and KDE neon the most user-friendly systems. Fedora, Ubuntu and Manjaro are almost on the exact same level of usability, but maybe slightly more difficult.

FreeBSD is not aimed at absolute noobs. But people who have basic Linux or Unix knowledge will often find that FreeBSD is user-friendly and above all the most maintenance-friendly system that exists today.

The OP states in his post that he values stability, and this is what FreeBSD is known for. It is more stable than Debian. It is also more robust than any Linux system:
https://www.quora.com/Which-is-more-stable-and-more-robust-FreeBSD-or-Linux