Linux

48371 readers

1507 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r

241

What distros have you tried and thought, "Nope, this one's not for me"? (feddit.uk)

submitted 11 months ago by case_when@feddit.uk to c/linux@lemmy.ml

381 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've been using Linux Mint since forever. I've never felt a reason to change. But I'm interested in what persuaded others to move.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] MiddledAgedGuy@beehaw.org 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Arch. Rolling release is too much maintenance and AUR can be a pain. I do like the minimalist approach though.

For those of a similar opinion and aren't familiar with it, check out Void. Also a minimalist rolling release, but aims for more stable packages so less updating. Decent package selection in their repos as well.

[–] callyral@pawb.social 3 points 11 months ago

Yeah, I used Artix and Arch for a while, but I switched to Void a few months ago and I like it better.

[–] meteokr@community.adiquaints.moe 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't consider arch minimalist. It just defaults to a netinstall with no desktop. Debian's default net install also doesn't have a desktop. Arch is more "vanilla" than debian, but not noticeably more minimal on first install.

[–] MiddledAgedGuy@beehaw.org 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In that it's not a kernel with just a c library and busybox, sure. But for a Linux distro, I think the term applies.

[–] meteokr@community.adiquaints.moe 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

In that it’s not a kernel with just a c library and busybox

This wouldn't be a distro though, at least not in the context of the question being asked by the OP. My point being that Arch isn't "minimalist", because its not really any more minimal than Debian, or Fedora. It is more vanilla than them, preferring to not modify the original sources beyond their packaging, while Debian does do a lot more changes in this regard.

Something like Tinycore, or Puppy are minimalist focusing on running in memory entirely, or Alpine is minimalist by focusing on reducing disk space. Debian, Fedora, or Arch installs, on the other hand, are basically the same in terms of size, unless you also consider them to be minimalist. At which point we are in agreement.

[–] MiddledAgedGuy@beehaw.org 2 points 11 months ago

I concede the point.

Debian, Fedora, or Arch installs, on the other hand, are basically the same in terms of size

This line was the seller. It made me think more specifically that a Debian install without a DE is going to be pretty comparable to a base Arch install. And I don't consider Debian minimalist