I've switched from Windows to Linux (Mint) year ago, as it's one of the most easiest distro to start with.
I'm fascinated about Arch Linux but not sure I can build it from ground up yet.
But I'm just curious to know what Linux distro you guys are using, so at is your Linux distro?
It's frequently that case that new users of Linux think there is something to be gained by "trying" (and continuously reinstalling) different Linux distributions.
The reality is that the software that makes up Linux (iirc there are 30k packages in Debian) is generally available across all of these distributions to a greater or lesser extent.
It's all the same software with relatively minor changes made to it to fit into the particular distribution.
You can use almost any desktop environment from any of these.
The underlying system software is aligning quite a bit these days as well with systemd.
Stick with a distribution.
When something goes wrong, try not to reinstall but instead figure out the problem and fix it.
Modify the system to your liking and in the process actually learn the pieces that make it up.
Document, for yourself, the things you did so that you can be confident you actually learned something that you can reproduce.
However, there are exceptions. There are experimental (though actually most are very much usable for real-world or even everyday tasks) distros with markedly different and more unconventional software stacks. Examples include Alpine, Morpheus, Sabotage, Void and NixOS. One should not be discouraged from trying those, not least of which is precisely to see other ways of integrating systems beyond the status quo.
I wouldn't go as far as to say, don't care at all. Maybe just avoid overthinking. :)
Main differences of distros to keep in mind:
1) The default setup. (Desktop environment, already installed software, etc.) 2) Available packages. What software and versions of software are available to you without much hassle. 3) System upgradeability. (Rolling - always up to date, or a 6 month release schedule or something in between)
If I were to suggest something, It would be a variant of Arch called Antergos. You get an Arch linux that:
1) Is as easy to install as Ubuntu/Mint etc. 2) Good default setup selection. (Multiple desktop environments and more arguably the benefit of little bloatware) 3) It IS arch, just a extra enabled repository. (Antergoses own). This means you get the AUR (Arch user repository) that gives you easy access to packages that other distros might not have, although they are less reliable. (Though I have yet to see any problems in 2 years) AND the latest versions of much software. (Again can be bad, but in my experience I've only encountered minor annoyances that get fixed quite fast). BUT WAIT, there is more! It's rolling release. Always up to date. :)
In my experience the stability concerns of arch are a myth. If they do occur, it's not like you see crashing of your computer or massive graphical anomalies. Sleep might not trigger properly for a day or two or something like that. And rarely. But this is just my experience. :)
Antergos = Newest SW, rolling release, easy install, good default setup selection, AUR, the fantastic Arch wiki and probably more.
I am at the level where I can self-solve all my own problems, but if you are a beginner then stick with one of the major distros. Ubuntu and Ubuntu-based distros like Mint can't be beat for the sheer size of their community. Any problem you have, someone else has hit it before, they probably solved it too.
Arch Linux is a great learning experience, you really learn what the components of your system do, how they work, and how they interact together. Everyone should use Arch for a while as they become intermediate Linux users. Eventually maintaining your Arch system becomes a chore which eats into your "computer stuff" time.
Once you're at this level, you know what software you want, and you know how most of it works under the hood. Distros are now just different boot screens with different things pre-packaged and different things available in their repos. Use whichever distro provides what you need and gives you the least drama.
I've also, switched from Windows XP/7 to Ubuntu then Linux Mint. Used Linux Mint for about a week and found Arch Linux. Been using Arch ever since. If you need help with setting up Arch see official wiki @ https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_guide But if you're a beginner in Linux world I would recommend you start with "Manjaro Linux" which is based on Arch Linux. It has graphical installer and works out of the box. Between, I think Manjaro Linux website has moved to https://manjaro.github.io/
I've also wrote a post last year on how to install Arch Linux. But I highly recommend the above official wiki instead.
http://www.distrogeeks.com/arch-linux-2014-install/
cache in case the site down because of Hacker News lol
http://web.archive.org/web/20150425182255/http://www.distrog...
15 years ago I didn't mind spending hours (days weeks) tweaking config files to get everything about my distro absolutely perfectly customized, now I just want it to work out of the box and get out of my way so I can get real work done.
Cinammon also has the nicest workspace management of any desktop environment I've tried, which is a solid bonus since it's probably the DE-specific feature I interact with most on a day to day basis.
That said, it is a massive time sink. The first couple of weeks I spent pretty much all my spare time trying to get something usable, and it was probably a couple of months before I preferred my setup to, say, windows (which is what I had been using up to that point).
Once you know the ropes there are a couple of packages you can install to make installing from the AUR easier (like yaort, or pacaur), but you should really know how to do it yourself before relying on these tools.
I stopped caring about my WM a while ago and mostly just use Fluxbox with some small menu tweaks.
I used Slackware at the very beginning of my Linux time in the 90s, and I really liked it. Now I am considering to use it again in face of Debian's non-optional move to systemd.
Mind you, this is for a desktop machine built from parts. If I could justify the purchase I'd buy a Mac laptop and use Mac OS on that.
Ubuntu 14.04 LTS on all of the servers.
People often ask about the distro when really other things are probably more important for most people. Things like the desktop environment or package manager probably have more impact.
However, I recommend that you get Ubuntu up and running on your hardware first. Hardware support out of the box should be good enough to identify that things are mostly working (or not). Then put Arch on it. Arch is a great distro to learn on. Set aside a weekend. You'll learn a LOT and can always roll back to Ubuntu (or Fedora, though that has it's own out-of-box limitations) if you don't enjoy the Arch process.
I dabble in Fedora from time to time, and deploy a LOT of Ubuntu boxes, but I stick with Arch personally due to familiarity and the AUR.
Edit: I also stick with Arch because, no matter what distro you use, if you search for the solution to an issue you are having, you are likely to find the Arch Wiki is one of the top results. The wiki is a generally outstanding resource.
Now I run a customized version of the Awesome window manager on my Arch box, along side OS X. Wouldn't use anything else. :)
TL;DR Arch with the Awesome window manager.
For my desktop, my history is DOS, Win 3.11, Win ME, Win XP, Gentoo, FreeBSD, Ubuntu, and Lubuntu. For servers, Gentoo, FreeBSD/OpenBSD, and Ubuntu LTS/OpenBSD. I use OpenBSD for network installations such as gateways.
It's not hard to install because of how great the wiki is, just take a look at the Beginner's guide and you're all set. I personally prefer it to Mint/Ubuntu because of the packaging system (easy to rebuild packages from ABS, modify AUR ones etc)
On my work desktop workstation, I'm using Fedora 21, with applied tweaks using the fedy tool[1].
Linus Torvalds runs Fedora as well - http://www.tuxradar.com/content/interview-linus-torvalds-lin...