Yes, there are several user-friendly BSD-like options available.
Yes, there are several user-friendly BSD-like options available.
Considering BSD could be a better choice compared to a straightforward Linux distribution. Linux has many options, which can be overwhelming. BSD is similar to around ten different distros, making it easier to navigate. It feels like a PC version of OS X. I had high expectations for PCBSD or TrueOS, but unfortunately, those didn't materialize. Also, BSDs tend to lag behind in hardware support updates.
BSD's support for new hardware falls short compared to Linux. Many features that function well on Linux, like Steam, often don't work or are limited on BSD. While you can install any BSD version as a desktop, I wouldn't recommend it—BSD is primarily intended for servers, whereas Linux was originally built for desktops. For a more user-friendly experience, consider using a Linux distribution that suits you. Avoid niche options and stick to well-known ones; this keeps things straightforward. For beginners, Ubuntu is a solid choice due to its friendly interface and extensive documentation. If you prefer a different look, Kubuntu offers a Plasma desktop, which resembles traditional Windows settings rather than the standard GNOME found in plain Ubuntu. Ubuntu also provides helpful tools like point-and-click installers for troubleshooting, something not always available elsewhere. The abundance of free and open-source distros means you can modify or fork any to suit your needs. There are also creative communities that rebrand existing distributions with new themes, wallpapers, and names.
Manjaro works well. Try it out. Keep in mind that rolling updates are more prone to issues than fixed releases, especially if you don’t update regularly. Most distributions now offer methods to upgrade smoothly between versions without needing a fresh ISO.
I wouldn't choose anything relying on Arch Linux if you prefer something stable. With Arch-based systems you need to stay informed through the official news on the site because updates often require manual steps to prevent issues. It isn't particularly intuitive. Manjaro is built around Arch but differs significantly. When it comes to ease of use, what feels simple depends on you. If you're okay with a bit of effort for tasks like setting up the NVIDIA driver, Fedora would be a good option. You can add RPM Fusion repos in DNF and install drivers manually via the official site—it won't handle everything automatically. I find Fedora to be reasonably current without being cutting-edge. It's straightforward but not as user-friendly as some other distributions. They lack intuitive driver interfaces and similar conveniences.
The situation can be quite challenging for beginners using Linux. Many distributions lack consistent hardware support, making BSD especially difficult compared to more popular options like Ubuntu. While I don’t agree with calling something “user friendly” as simply easy for newcomers, the term highlights how BSD often feels less obstructive and more intuitive for those who understand what they’re doing.
Consider exploring Nomad BSD, derived from open-source BSD. It isn't recommended as a primary operating system, though it could be enjoyable for experimentation.
I have a personal aversion to Manjaro's development team due to their past behavior and packaging approach.
Many users feel overwhelmed by the wide variety of Linux distributions. In reality, most differences are mainly about appearance. There are systems based on Debian (like Ubuntu, Mint, KDE Neon, PopOS), Arch (such as Arch and Manjaro), RHEL (RHEL, Fedora, CentOS), and Gentoo (including its smaller versions). This means you don’t need to start from scratch every time you switch. For example, once you’re comfortable with Ubuntu, transitioning to Debian, Mint, or PopOS won’t be a challenge. Ideally, having just a few popular options would help newcomers feel more confident, but the current situation encourages constant branching instead of uniting developers.