Reviews of All Linux Distros (That Matter)
Firstly, once you reach basic competency in Linux, different distributions don't
matter. A lot of newbies analyze distros based on what they look like when you
install them, often not realizing that it's a pretty simple affair not just to
change superficial things like your theme and setup, but entire desktop
environments. Basically all distro reviews online are wastes of time for
people who know what they're doing. When I came to YouTube, all Linux YouTube
was was people constantly installing distro after distro in a virtual machine
and critiquing minutiae. It was a bleak and boring world. One of my first and
greatest achievements on YouTube was making this video: How to choose a Linux
distro: Stop Thinking!, which went
semi-viral and sort of put a damper on distro reviews. Either way, I'll say what
I think about different distro minutiae here.
Things that matter
Free software. If you are switching to Linux, there is no point
of you just using junk proprietary spyware "apps" that you used on Windows. Any
distribution that advertises proprietary software as a feature should be viewed
as suspect. You can always install proprietary software if there is some
particular need (usually the only "need" is a lack of knowledge of free software
that is more extensible and performs the same tasks and more).
Up-to-date software. This matters because if you want to install
a program, you're often going to need recent libraries/depencencies. This is
especially important if you want to use software in active development: say
software for video-game compatibility on Linux.
No gimmicky additions. Probably the worst thing you can do is
install a distribution that puts a giant wall between you and the system itself.
One of the biggest advantages of using Linux is the ability to understand
what's going on on your computer and optimize it. If you use a distribution that
hand-holds basic things, it might seem convenient at first, but as time goes
on, you won't have a clue when that fragile system fails.
Consistent and reliable maintainence. Lastly, you'll want to
make sure that your distribution has humans on the development side that are at
least fixing basic problems. As programs change and are updated, it often
requires some changes in your distro's repositories and more. Unmaintained
distributions are usable, but it becomes annoying to deal with as time goes on
if you want to install software with the distribution's package manager.
Ubuntu
Ubuntu is a common distribution because it is the distribution shilled by the
company Canonical. Canonical has probably had a positive effect on making
GNU/Linux more widely used and accessible, but Ubuntu has a lot of long-term
headaches that will plague users.
That said, Ubuntu is nearly the worst distribution for new users. It is
maintatined at least, but fails on all the metrics above:
1. It advertises proprietary software in its software center and
encourages users to use programs because they are "familiar" from Windows.
2. It releases slowly and you'll run into problems if you try to
install something out of the box.
3. It is full of gimicks, the elephant in the room being the Snap
system, but Canonical has thrown in a lot of junk features in the past and a lot
can break.
Debian
Debian is just a more reasonable version of Ubuntu: it separates free and
non-free software clearly—it has a optional version that allows unstable and
testing packages for some recent software and it has so few gimmicks it's
probably the most boring distro!
I haven't used Debian much as a desktop system (I do use it on my servers), but
the package manager and even the release speed of the testing versions isn't
quite fast enough for me personally.
Artix and Arch
Artix is the distribution that I use and have been
using for a while. It is really the same thing as Arch,
except for Artix allows the usage of different init systems (I use runit).
Arch and Arch-based distributions are "bleeding-edge" in their release time and
have access to the Arch User Repository (AUR) allowing the single widest
software library of all major Linux distributions.
Artix offers many installable desktop-environment ISOs for newbie users, but
thankfully they don't over-bloat them with gimmicky features. Arch itself only
has an official minimal installation, and that's kind of its thing.
If I had to choose, Artix is the distribution that I recommend for both novice
and most veteran users.
Manjaro
Manjaro is another Arch-based distro. I've even recommened it before for new
users in the past and installed it on many people's computers in real life, but
I will admit that my view on it is souring. They have definitely started to go
the way of Ubuntu by adding lots of extra features, directly people to rely more
on flatpak and "harmful" systems and generally adding more layers of
abstraction between the user and the system.
All the good things that can be said about Manjaro can also be said
ofArtix, which also has easy to install ISOs, so I
consider Artix the superior system.
Parabola
Parabola is the FSF-approved, all-free software version
of Arch Linux (it also has an OpenRC version for soystemd-haters). In the
abstract, Parabola is my optimal distribution, but I don't actually use it
anymore for two reasons:
1. It uses the Linux-libre kernel, which is all free software, but
networking will not function with laptops with proprietary wifi cards.
2. It is not quite as well maintained as Arch and Artix, and you'll be
a little more likely to run into package breakage.
The second problem isn't the end of the world, but it can be annoying.
Gentoo
Gentoo is one of the best distributions and excels in all
of the 4 requirements I give. Not only is non-free software obviously separated,
but it isn't too difficult to have your Gentoo install with a Linux-libre
kernel if you want.
Gentoo is also unique because it is a source-based distribution: you can set
basic compilation settings for your programs and have a lot of control over
them. While Gentoo is very well maintained, you actually end up with a good
bit more control over your system. That is a responsibility that has some
prerequisite knowledge of course, so Gentoo has a reputation of being difficult
to install.
If you want to look into Gentoo, you should first be familiar with Linux and
what specific kind of system you want. When you first install Gentoo, because
you can customize it so specifically, it obviously helps to know what exact
network backend you're comfortable with, whether you want to use GTK or QT, or
many other little things that a Linux noob might not know too much about.
Void
Void is another great distribution. It's notable also
for using runit instead of soystemd, having a musl version, and having a package
system reminiscent of Arch, but in many ways more minimalist and extensible. It
again separates free and non-free packages, and has a wide repository of them,
included even more installable via the xbps-src system which is somewhat
analogous to the AUR, although unlike the AUR, I don't believe it's quite as
easy to update packages.
Void has had a somewhat tumultuous development culture. It was originally the
brainchild of one man, one man who went missing for a year... After he returned,
drama eventually caused other member of the team to encourage his retirement.
Either way, while I used the distro for a while and was one of the first people
advertising it online, I never remember this translating into any downstream
problems on my computer.
Distro not here?
This is only a list of distributions that I've used for a bit. I don't do
"distro reviews" or just install random distributions just to test them, so if
it isn't here, I'm not going to have an experience-based opinion.