Not a hot take at all. Asking someone to go from a GUI heavy operating system to a command line heavy one and be just as productive is lunacy. Like all major changes it is important to ween off the old thing.
My biggest hurdle with the switch has been permission related issues, and you can't deal with those cleanly with a UI, and every help thread under the sun throws out a bunch of command line commands giving a solution without explaining why those changes are needed. It may seem like Unix 101 to experienced Linux users, but it is really cryptic to newcomers coming from operating systems that are...cough more lenient with their permissions.
There is also a mentality that UIs are much more idiot proof than command line. UIs are written by people who actually know the OS so we can't accidentally delete our home folder because of a typo. It is a very legitimate concern.
Great take. But you know the real sneaky one that trips you up? File system.
I wouldn't call myself a beginner, but every time I install a Linux system seriously I see those filesystem choices and have to dig through volumes of turbo-nerd debates on super fine intricacies between them, usually debating their merits in super high-risk critical contexts.
I still don't come away with knowing which one will be best for me long-term in a practical sense.
As well as tons of "It ruined my whole system" or "Wrote my SSD to death" FUD that is usually outdated but nevertheless persists.
Honestly nowadays I just happily throw BTRFS on there because it's included on the install and allows snapshots and rollbacks. EZPZ.
For everything else, EXT4, and for OS-shared storage, NTFS.
But it took AGES to arrive to this conclusion. Beginners will have their heads spun at this choice, guaranteed. It's frustrating.
I started with Ubuntu and slowly tried getting used to Gnome over the course of a few months (mainly using windows, every now and then hopping into Ubuntu when not gaming). I learned of KDE, tried it in Kubuntu, and it all instantly clicked for me. I switched over in about a week and haven't had much reason to boot Windows since.
It turned out that front-facing experience was incredibly important to me.
Not a hot take, I keep saying the same thing in different threads. I was not able to switch to Linux for years before I understood that I have problems with Gnome not with Linux itself, tried KDE and given I was migrating from Windows it clicked immediately.
After you gain some experience, DE becomes mostly irrelevant, but it is crucial for starting off in an unfamiliar environment.
There's Two Main Choices:
Packages....
- Pacman-based - Arch, Arco, Endeavour
- RPM-based - Fedora, SuSE
- Aptitude-based - Ubuntu, Debian
Choose Pacman for rolling release, bleeding edge. Pick aptitude for servers and pick RPM if you want something that 'just works'.
Desktop....
- Full DE - Gnome, KDE
- Window Manager - Awesome, i3
High end machines with lots of fancy features and ease of use pick a full DE. WM is good for speed and low-end hardware but harder to use.
I 100% agree! Am a pretty new user of Nobara as a daily driver, switched like a month ago (I did have extensive CLI experience with Linux servers, along with Kali VM for work), and I've only realized what DE actually is only a week ago, because no one mentioned how important choice it is - it was usually just a note, that wasn't given enough importance.
So please, if you're ever recommending any linux distro to somenone who's asking, please include a short paragraph about what DE is and how importnant choice it actually is, and that they should not ignore it. I hated Gnome, and KDE feels so much better (only found about it when reinstalling broken first Fedora install to Nobara), but I didn't know I can switch or that there was that choice in the first place - I though KDE vs Gome is a back-end thing, similar to X11 vs Wayland. It's not, but people don't usually explain it when recommending distributions.
And for new users choosing a distro with big user base (thus having a better support system) should be a top priority. Instead newbies are often advised to use an obscure distro that in theory might be a good fit, but isn't. Probably those who do the recommendations are Linux testers (using VZ) rather than Linux users and mostly evaluate a distro based on install process and out of the box usage.
Configuring a big distro to your needs is much better than choosing a nishe distro.
I use xfce btw
That was definitely the case for me. There were definitely other factors that shaped my decision, but the biggest "click" was finding my preferred DE. So long as I can go about my day-to-day computing, everything else is easier to figure out.
In my case, it's GNOME with a couple extensions like Dash to Panel and ArcMenu. I know, some people would prefer not to use extensions, and yes, my system just looks like Windows now, but it works for me. :P
#You are perfectly right.
All major distributions offer all major Environments. I currently use either Debian or Ubuntu and usually install by booting the Netinstall.iso right from the official Servers which installs just the base system without any GUI at all. Then I use tasksel to select the environment. Ok, not every Environment is part of Tasksel but often it is just adding another Repository and running another apt install operation.
And yes, on my experimental computer I often install a dozen environments just because I can. Selectable at Login-Screen.
But now somethings VERY important from someone with 35 years of POSIX experience:
If you are a newby FOR GODS SAKE USE UBUNTU.
And if you are a pro... Ubuntu still is a very good option. Only if your have VERY GOOD REASONS which you COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND, only then use something else. Which is Debian for me.
Just hopped back over to linux mint again after years of making due with Windows
- Went with cinnamon cuz pretty.
- switched to CobiWindowList so I could see all windows on either of my monitor menu bars.
- switched to CinnVIIStarkMenu for a more familiar menu system.
Not much change, I can lean on the habits I've gotten from windows, and now my switch is pretty much unnoticeable to me.
Funny enough, Lutris has made it alot easier for me to access games I usually would just have downloaded, like my itch.io library. Proton has tackled all my other games fine. Hell, I even got Tarkov running smoothly, even though you can only do offline raids on Linux ATM.
The most important thing for most new Linux users would be a pathway to getting support. Because of this the distro you use matters much more than the DE because each of the major distro's have different pipelines that the funnel users in to getting support. The package manager lock in is distro dependent and depending on the philosophy that they subscribe to can be the difference between how many steps a new user has to take to get a working system up and running. Thankfully, with the rise of flatpak, appimage and snap being more popular than ever package availability is much more streamlined but that is another layer on top of an already overwhelming package system for new users. The defaults for all of this depends on your distro which can be different. Heck we haven't even gotten to support cycles which depending on user needs can be different. Because not every user has or wants what comes with for example maintaining an rolling release distribution. Did they setup their system to have snapshots so they can roll everything back when the new kernel update breaks something system critical and they have a presentation at 2:00? None of these things are really DE dependent but are baked in to the defaults you subscribe to when you choose a disto. The good part is that if you don't like how something is configured you can change everything easily depending on how well documented it is. This is why it's more important to choose a distro with good documentation or at least a active enough community so when you run into hangups you can get some sort of resolution.
It's mostly true. Someone coming from windows may struggle with gnome, while cinnamon is pretty easy to them. If it comes down to the decision between Gentoo and Linux Mint this, of course, isn't true anymore, since Gentoo is way to complex for a beginner to understand.
Tl;dr: This is only true if you apply this to different distros with the same complexity(e.g. Pop_OS! or Linux Mint).
For new Linux users choosing a distro IS choosing a desktop environment. Installing a new DE that's different from the default is not a day one Linux task, so the default for the distro is what matters. Yes. the DE is the most important factor in choosing a distro, but saying that means the distro doesn't matter is just fundamentally incorrect and unhelpful.
I'll go one further and say choosing applications is more important than choosing a Desktop Environment.
I'm typing this message on Firefox. I installed it (and updated it) with Debian's package management system. I clicked on a button on an XFCE panel to open it. But in terms of the time spent interacting with things on my computer I'm using the applications far more than anything else.
I feel like the window manager is important, but for newbies I also consider the package manager and overall installation process to be very important.
I've had pretty distros that are basically busted after a package fails to install or video drivers are mucked with. An advanced user could fix most of these issues, but this is usually where a new user may go running back to their previous OS.
A good computing experience for me is all my hardware working with minimal fuss and all the software I expect to be available being a few terminal commands away (e.g. steam, developer tools, etc.)
That is actually very true honestly but also needing sonething as stable as Debian, bleeding edge as Arch or right in the middle with Fedora and also which kernel the user made need for their hardware is also a factor in this as well. DEs take priority tho as it's literally the interface you interact with 90% of the time
cinnamon eh?
Yeah... but if the packagers dont test it, or ship "stable" KDE Plasma 5.27 which will simply not get most bugfixes (Debian, MX Linux and many more will have these issues for 4 years!) its actually important what Distro you choose.
It is not if
- your Desktop relies on Xorg garbage which is "stable" and will not evolve
- your Desktop is minimal and Distros orient their schedule on it (GNOME)
This doesnt apply to
- KDE
- Cosmic
- Hyprland, Sway, Wayfire
- LXQt getting Wayland support probably
I understand the argument being made, but I kind of disagree. Yes, picking a DE in which you'll be comfortable is really important (and often an undervalued aspect of using Linux for the first time), but I think that the time you need to spend self-maintaining your distro is more important, and is also prone to make-or-break your first-time Linux experience. That's the most important factor on whether a new user says "I love Linux and want to continue using it" or "I fricking hate Linux, it's filled with a bunch of problems, I'd rather just use Windows instead". And that's why it's important to recommend beginner-friendly distros, as to avoid frustration of newcomers, because those are more manageable (unless those newcomers want the frustration of managing something that they don't quite understand :)
Does it matter which one in specific? No, and it's probably at this point that the DE and visual looks should kick in.
Permanently Deleted
I agree with that take until...
The “what you go for it’s entirely your choice” mantra when it comes to DE is total BS. What happens is that you’ll find out while you can use any DE in fact GNOME will provide a better experience because most applications on Linux are design / depend on its components. Using KDE/XFCE is fun until you run into some GTK/libadwaita application and small issues start to pop here and there, windows that don’t pick on your theme or you just created a frankenstein of a system composed by KDE + a bunch of GTK components;
I guess I'm open minded because I'm a noob with Linux yet I've worked with XFCE, LXQt, KDE, and GNOME (in that order), and none of them were a pain, except possibly LXQt, which was super clunky to customize, but it ran amazing on weak hardware, so I'm giving it a pass. I reckon I'd be cool with Cinnamon, MATE, Unity, or even one of the lightweight DE's.
Yet, all of these DEs I've used were on Ubuntu based distros. I feel afraid to encounter weird things with other distros. For example, doesn't DaVinci Resolve only run on Ubuntu based distros?
I'm still not fully across Linux because my job requires me to use Windows everyday. That said I've been using Pop_OS! On my personal machine for over two years now and its been flawless, requires little upkeep and minimal use of the terminal, the times I've needed to install stuff using the terminal has also been flawless which gives me extra confidence.
Whatever gives the least complicated experience and just works with little extra work is what will win out in the end for the day to day user. People generally just want to get on their machine, use the programs they want and not be interrupted by anything else from the computer, barring updates, we have all come to understand the importance of updates as routine maintenance.
I just installed Kubuntu over my Ubuntu partition because of this meme haha
I use i3wm btw
nice to have choices. new users are better off with a polished install so they can get back to scrolling. takes work to do some desktops. ran a minimal thing for years at work. forget the name.
While many can agree with a desktop environments importance, the desktop environment is rn closely tied to the distro's philosophy. Many who venture outside the major distros will need to set up their own environment.
Sudo alone should be the deciding factor.
Meh, I feel that the only important choice is the type of distro; source, rolling, stable, immutable, reproducible, etc. as that'd impact difficulty to some degree.
Beyond that, it's not a big deal. Newbies will just pick the DE their most comfortable with. The popular DEs don't really have difficulties, just differences.For short-term comfort yes, though eventually the hassle of switching may outweigh that, and some users may prefer a longer-term view?
