Top Linux distribution for everyday use is Ubuntu. It’s user-friendly, stable, and great for daily tasks.
Top Linux distribution for everyday use is Ubuntu. It’s user-friendly, stable, and great for daily tasks.
I’m finding it a bit unusual both visually and in terms of how the system handles tasks, but I’ve been trying to stick with vanilla Fedora. It seems relatively straightforward to get started without needing to configure anything overly complex. The main challenge is getting comfortable with the gnome interface rather than the underlying setup. I’m hoping to experience using it differently from Windows, so I might prefer a KDE Fedora environment instead.
I also suggest Void Linux, particularly the version with XFCE and glibc available on their official site. I've outlined the detailed steps for installation here: It isn't the simplest setup among Linux distributions. Solus offers a more straightforward installation process. Based on my experience, installing Void is quite manageable and it performs better in stability and boot speed compared to Solus after installation. I haven’t tried MX Linux yet, but positive feedback exists about it, including in this recent article: MX Linux 21.2 – A solid Debian-based option worth considering. As another alternative, consider Manjaro, KDE Neon, Mint, Solus, or Fedora. I wouldn't recommend Ubuntu, despite some early praise. Its performance has declined significantly since 2010, and many recent updates have failed to meet expectations. The main drawbacks are slower startup times, slightly reduced app responsiveness, and Snaps causing performance drops. Security and overall reliability haven’t improved, making it feel like a weaker version of Void. Ubuntu's current state is largely disappointing, not because it’s bad, but because it lacks the improvements that once set it apart.
Based on the discussions, I'm considering Arch or Void. Stability is key for me; I don't want an OS that might suddenly crash. If it pushes me toward using the terminal, that feels positive. Learning the command line is something I appreciate. @Defunct Lizard I'll also explore distrowatch to see what's happening in the community. Thanks for all the helpful comments!
FreeBSD stands out as the most reliable platform, closely aligned with traditional Unix environments. It evolved directly from pure Unix roots. I rely on it every day and praise its superior audio capabilities compared to other OSes, along with unique features such as Jails and bhyve. Its ZFS implementation is top-notch and its networking stack is among the quickest, matching NetBSD. Whether you're learning FreeBSD or Linux, it integrates many open-source tools popular in Linux, and its Almquist shell closely resembles Bash. Compared to Linux, FreeBSD offers greater flexibility—ideal for routers, firewalls, NAS devices like TrueNAS—and performs better in those areas. I've been using Arch for over five years. In my view, Void has some pros: 1) systemd slows it down during startup 2) it has fewer standard packages but a vast AUR collection, which many see as its strength; however, compiling becomes time-consuming and AUR issues can arise over time. 3) Xfce on Void is remarkably fast, surpassing what most other distros offer. 4) Theoretically, Void should be more stable, but in practice you rarely face real problems with Arch within six months, or very little at all.
For educational use, consider using FreeBSD or Void alongside Nix installations. Nix offers more than 80,000 packages, making it a versatile tool. Mastering its package management will be valuable across FreeBSD and most Linux environments. It’s not the simplest package manager, but it develops into a stronger skill compared to navigating Arch Linux’s AUR.
Linux Mint with Cinnamon desktop is a popular choice for various tasks like web browsing, email, documents, spreadsheets, audio, video, and accounting. I've installed it on over 50 systems, and many users find it convenient, especially those who previously relied on Windows. You can also write code easily from the Terminal if that's your preference.
He claims he isn't necessarily seeking the simplest path, which suggests Mint provides minimal or no extra benefit. Almost everything he plans to do on Mint will likely consume his time compared to setting up Void with XFCE—startup, login, interface responsiveness, launching apps, app performance, and shutting down. He’ll waste time in any of those standard scenarios because of Mint. He also mentions directly: I’m trying to push myself to learn Unix. What will he gain from using Mint? Mint is a point-and-click environment that barely teaches anything, even after three decades of use.
How does this work? What time difference is involved? Is Mint designed to save time, or is the focus on efficiency? He mentions it can be used daily but warns it might not be very stable. I’m confused about his use of “janky”—does that refer to performance issues? We need clarity on what he means by “daily driver” and what exactly we’re dealing with.
The extent of the differences will vary greatly depending on the hardware. Consider a worst-case situation: an old HDD from 12 years ago paired with a system that originally cost around $600. The startup will be at least 16 seconds slower, login will take a few extra seconds, you'll lose about one second or more each time you open the app, the apps themselves run about 5% slower, the Mint interface feels less responsive, and closing the computer adds a few seconds. This results in constant time loss within your workflow. Mint's package manager also contributes to delays, making XBPS noticeably faster than 'apt'.
It seems you're asking about how to speed up a slow computer. The answer would be: try using Windows, switch to an SSD, and update your software. This usually helps improve performance quickly.