side note i like the use of calvin over that other guy

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.

New Linux Users don't even know the difference.

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As well as tons of "It ruined my whole system" or "Wrote my SSD to death" FUD that is usually outdated but nevertheless persists.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 love K⭐D⭐E

someone who switches away from the distro's default desktop environment is not a new user.

For windows users that go to Linux I always recommend KDE as it looks like windows and it's easy for them to understand and use it!

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....

1. Pacman-based - Arch, Arco, Endeavour
2. RPM-based - Fedora, SuSE
3. 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....

1. Full DE - Gnome, KDE
2. 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.

This isn't a bad take. DE is what is going to keep people from running back to windows right away, mostly. I do think it is better for people coming into Linux not to try to emulate the Windows experience. It is easier to learn when you accept it is going to be different from the start.

I think that SteamOS is a great place to start people off with Linux.

edit: I mean if you plug a steam deck into mouse and keyboard and use it as a linux box.

it has the support of another company hiding as "games" and can WINE pretty easy with Steam controlling the WINE.

Cinnamon is epic dekstop environment

#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.

It's like learning how to interact with Lemmy, and then deciding which app you want to use to interact with it.

I’m a noob using the default Ubuntu DE for a few months now and I’ve gotten used to it, at this point I’m afraid to ask what are the other DEs and whether I should swap over

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.

Both are important. I can't tell you how many times I've had to resort to containers, VMs, or compiling from source, just because some application decided to only provide packages for Arch or Debian.

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

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.