All distros are theoretically worthless, it's the desktop that matters

I don’t see the point of reccomending distros, I only reccomend desktops.


  • Dictate the user interface
  • Dictate the user experience and opinion on Linux


  • Dictate init systems and package managers(which literally feels only different when installing apps and how they do it such as sudo apt install ubuntu or sudo pacman arch -yy)

But for beginners, do they care about init systems and package managers?

You definitely have a point there. To beginners it definitely makes little to no difference, what underlying distribution runs the meat part of the system: the desktop environment.

While I mostly agree, I could not say that the underlying distribution is entirely irrelevant. Some distributions have better compatibility with certain desktop environments, for example. Like, if your distribution expects a specific desktop environment, instead of trying to be open to all, then I would expect advanced optimisation and stability on a system that focuses on a single desktop environment.

There are also less technical and more practical reasons. For example, I would expect Ubuntu to be much more user friendly, in case issues arrive. If you run some exotic distribution, good luck in finding help for your specific distribution. However, if you have an issue on Ubuntu, there are a million tutorials out there for solving so many issues.

So, even the meat part is most important to a beginner user, a beginner user also has to solve issues. Very frequently so. Therefore, using an easy distribution, like Ubuntu, makes life easier in total.

The desktop environment is the most visible meat part of the system for a beginner, but the underlying distribution becomes more and more important over time, the more you use the system and the more you take advantage of the vast quantity of features it has available.

1 Like

No but beginners care about

  • ease of install
  • stability
  • helpful user community
    and they are all distro issues, more than dte issues.

There is a lot of sameness about dte’s. All linux window systems function prerty much the same way. If you can use one dte you can use any of them. I went looking for something radically different in Lumina but even there you do the same things in the same way.


Well, they need to have a good documentation/community(either one). Like Archtoo(Arch and Gentoo are known as the hardest distros; they’re like Rust and Haskell) is beginner friendly if you read the documentation.

Only elementary OS has a distro-specific desktop. So Kubuntu and KDE distros shouldn’t exist because KDE Neon exists? :laughing:

The only things that matter in distros for me is package managers, init systems, customization, and bleeding edge. Though all distros offer customizability up to some extent(except package managers, init systems(unless ur a Gentoo/Void kid!), updating).

1 Like

Actually Devuan has some rather clever design that allows swapping between init systems.
And Only Fedora afaik offers multiple DTE’s
You can customize kernels, but it is a pain

And I agree, package management is the heart of a distro.,

Now that I think about it, all init systems do is just execute the first processes on a linux computer. Package managers? They’re like programming languages in a sense, although they all use the same bash shell(which can be configurable for any system, even the proprietary-as-hell MacOS terminal). For example, the reason why Gentoo is considered “difficult” is because it has the most bizarre yet most efficient package manager, Portage, which does it a different way than your family member apt/dnf/pacman. Though @Akito is right; Some distros are made for specific desktops, but Cinnamon-Linux Mint being considered “easier” than Cinnamon-Debian can be a bit… cringe to say the least.

They do a little more… they manage starting and stopping all daemons, not just initd… unless you are systemd with a manage everything megalomania.

yes, I always use systemd. From Zorin to Debian to Arch to Kubuntu.

1 Like