There was another post yesterday about this and the community recommended Mint & Pop OS the most. However, I am not looking for windows-like. I want a new & fresh experience like using a smartphone for the first time or switching from ios to android.

While I get why Linux Mint (with the Cinnamon DE) is regarded as a Windows-like, Pop!_OS is far from that. Furthermore, going from iOS to Android is arguably a smaller change than going from Windows to any Linux DE (so even the Cinnamon DE (on any distro)). Regardless, the Desktop Environment is the single most influential part of a distro to how you experience any distro. Therefore, if you actually want a new & fresh experience, then you should definitely check out DEs like Cinnamon, GNOME, KDE Plasma and Xfce^[1]^ on something like a Live USB (perhaps through the use of Ventoy). After you've experienced a bunch of DEs, you should have attained a better grasp of what you like and don't like.

Distrochooser.de recommended kubuntu to me.

While Distrochooser is cool and all, you shouldn't take it too seriously 😅. If possible, consider sharing your results on Distrochooser, that might at least provide us some pointers.

1. Too many to list actually 😅, and most of them shouldn't be of a concern to a new user (or have simply become mainstays on most distros). The most important 'block' would be the Desktop Environment, though. Furthermore, design choices like release model, independent/derivative, opinionated/blank slate, traditional/atomic etc and a distro's popularity are other important factors in making a decision; while we'd refer to none of them as "building blocks of a distro". However, if there are any "blocks" that you would describe as a hard-requirement for you, then it does make sense to look for a distro that meets those. For example, in my case; a configured SELinux and atomic upgrades^[2]^ are required. As such, the decision already boils down to like two distros 😅. The shopping experience approach would perhaps make more sense if you chose a distro with little to no defaults (à la Arch (or Gentoo^[3]^)). Finally, perhaps it's worth noting that ((Dynamic) Tiling) Window Managers' capability of leaving you in awe for the opportunities and possibilities they provide are more substantial. Thankfully, while not as feature-rich, the more established DEs do offer means to engage with (dynamic) tiling (through extensions/add-ons).
2. That's hard to find; obviously distros won't advertise what they're missing. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they have good reasons for their respective design choices. Still, FWIW, resources like these might be helpful to some. However, you should only look at the tables, the texts found above the tables are at best outdated and perhaps even misleading otherwise. Beyond that, if you narrow the choice between just a couple of distros, then I'm sure the community would be more than willing to point you toward their differences.
3. Software I would recommend to anyone would be:
   • Distrobox; this excellent piece of software has single-handedly solved package availability across the Linux landscape. Other excellent endeavors like AppImage, Flatpak, Nix and Snap definitely have their uses and are in some aspects superior; but Distrobox' ease of use (contrary to Nix) and (almost) boundless access to packages (contrary to AppImage, Flatpak and Snap) on top of how well it integrates with the rest of your system makes it my personal MVP.
   • Flatseal; must-have if you ever plan on using flatpaks (which you definitely should consider).
4. It depends entirely on the distro you install. Assuming that you start using a distro with sane defaults (like most new users do), then unless you're using an Nvidia GPU^[4]^ (or other hardware known for causing troubles), you can start using your system however you'd like it; which for most would consist of installing the software they need. Furthermore, concerns related to bloat are a lot less significant/severe on Linux, so you should be fine unless you think the default installed file manager is bloat...
5. I actually don't know. Perhaps it might be related to creating an as homogeneous experience as possible; apps on Linux either rely on GTK or QT for their appearance/looks etc. Therefore, by foregoing one, the 'awkward' 'out-of-place'-experience that some might experience every so often would have been overcome. But this is a rare concern (I'd say). So unless you're very into how your system looks and feels, it shouldn't be a concern to you.
6. I think these questions show that you've put some thought into this and that by itself is already very commendable. And I'm actually of the opinion that asking these questions, especially for someone like you, is important. So I would definitely encourage you to continue with asking relevant questions in hopes of making the transition to Linux as pleasant as possible. As for the distros you've mentioned, chances are high that you'd be content with either one of them. However, I wonder if you're making a conscious choice; like would you be able to state why any of these should be preferred on the basis of merit rather than popular vote^[5]^ or what happened to come out of Distrochooser.

---

1. Important distinction: these aren't selected for how different they operate/behave compared to Windows(/macOS) but for being some of the more polished DEs found on Linux. For a more exhaustive list, refer to the one found on the ArchWiki; which still happens to miss DEs like Kera 😅.
2. I wouldn't call atomic upgrades a building block as it's ultimately a design choice.
3. Gentoo is a great distro, but I would not recommend a new user to engage with it; unless you believe you belong to the sub 1% that can make it work as their first distro. Heck, even Arch is often discouraged to new users. Though I think that Arch might be just up your alley; at least if you enjoy reading the excellent ArchWiki.
4. In which case, either the installer provided by the distro got your back and the proprietary drivers are installed or you're required to install them yourself. Steps related to these are different per distro, but reading up on your chosen distro's documentation should be sufficient.
5. Don't get me wrong; I'm not dismissing the popular vote.

Thank you so much for your insights!

Alright, let's first deal with unfinished business.

DistroWatch as useful as statista.com for suggesting your next travel destination. If you had to travel somewhere and had a list of criteria, but didn’t want to spend all day researching, would you go to a travel agent or open an encyclopedia?

I agree that DistroWatch is very useful as a more general resource rather than whatever you think Distrochooser is capable of. However, similar to DistroSea, it provides excellent information for anyone that is more interested in a specific distribution. Especially the reviews (by both the site maintainer(s) and visitors) are especially very valuable and the closest thing we have to an aggregated user reviews for distros. For good measure, I'm talking about the content of the reviews not the numerical representation.

but I disagree with a lot of things you said.

I'm so stoked to read these. I genuinely mean this btw*; every time someone informs me on why they disagree with me is an opportunity for me to learn new stuff.

I could quote everything I disagree with and write a paragraph

Please do. I mean it.

however it would be a meaningless endeavor as a moderator looking at the post would probably decide against adding distrochooser to the sidebar - regardless of my opinions.

This is very defeatist of you, though. And FWIW something which I didn't expect from you. If you can even make (just) one person (in this case, perhaps me) learn something new, then that should be worth the effort. As you should be aware by now, I'm a lot more active on Lemmy than I should 😅, but this also means that having me (or anyone for that matter) be on your side might just be the thing you need to have this succeed eventually.

XY problem confirmed. Thank you OP!

There have been complaints in posts about people asking for advice on which disto to use, that there are too many such posts.

This is a legit concern.Thank you for trying to tackle this!

Provide users the tools to possibly answer the question themselves before creating a post.

Noble. And in its essence, it makes a lot of sense.

DistroChooser is a self-help tool for that purpose.

As a self-help tool it's very bad. Sorry*. I actually hoped that you would mention how it might be used as a basic requirement for anyone that asks which distro to use. The enforcement could be done with a bot which simply scans if any link to distrochooser is present in a post that remotely resembles one that asks for advice on which distro to use. I would actually even argue against this, but I think we might be able to reach an agreement on which questions are actually worth keeping around for further use...

• keep answering posts --> more complaints, possibly silent quitting of community

Honestly, this is better than to limit newbies to strictly stick to Distrochooser for asking which distro they should use 🤣.

• write bot --> I ain’t got the time, maybe somebody has, dunno what the bot would do

I haven't got any experience with building a bot, but I suppose it works by scanning for words in posts. In that case, simply 'flagging' everything that contains the words "which" or "what" in combination with "distro(s)" or "distribution(s)" and ask them to refer their questions to a dedicated Lemmy community in which they can ask would already solve a lot.

• find alternative website --> I ain’t got the time

You don't have to find an alternative website. Nor write one yourself. As it stands, as far as I'm aware, there's simply nothing that satisfies the basic needs for this.

---

So what do I propose? Relegating these questions to their own dedicated Lemmy community is probably a great and easy solution. If something like a test/algorithm/flowchart/quiz/whatever has to be created, then that one might need substantial effort to get off the ground. However, perhaps comments like these might be helpful as a blueprint.

Sorry, I think I might have confused OmniOS with QubesOS.

😅, but QubesOS isn't a derivative of OpenBSD either. It might have inspired some of its parts, but fundamentally it's a completely different beast.

ZFS is itself a security feature because of how well it guarantees the fidelity of your data.

Do you happen to know if this goes beyond what Btrfs(/Bcachefs) provides on the Linux side of things?

Honestly, I don't know if that's the case; I always got scared whenever I saw the prerequisites for Heads in combination with the strict list of supported hardware. FWIW, the NV41 that's used for enabling Heads on NovaCustom's device is included in the short list of supported hardware for Heads, while -unfortunately- the same doesn't apply to the StarBook. I would love to be proven wrong though!

ADDENDUM:

::: spoiler Alright, let's get to the elephant in the room (Distrochooser's questions). I'll go over every single question and offer my feedback.

1. Software: Use case: This is one of the better questions. But, unfortunately, not without its faults. For one, it somehow thinks that "I want to use Linux for anonymous web browsing." and "I prefer a distribution which is supported by game publishers." is somehow mutually exclusive. The only way this would make any sense at all is if somehow "anonymous web browsing" implies strict adherence to Tails or QubesOS and their guidelines. But since when is it not possible to boot up a Whonix VM on any ordinary distro for anonymous browsing, while Valve's Proton handles everything on the gaming side of things. Furthermore, the inclusion of both "I want to execute all programs in an isolated environments." and "I want to use Linux for anonymous web browsing." on the very first question seems as if the audience that has watched Mr. Robot are somehow treated like first-class citizens, while I thought this intended to be useful for the more general newbie. This also somehow implies that Linux is for the h4ck0rs or something. It would make a lot more sense to pose a question like that after the security sensibility has been measured first. Why is this even the first question? Wouldn't it make more sense to know what hardware is targeted in the first place? Verdict: Fine question, but needs work.
2. Computer knowledge: This question somehow implies that knowing your ways around a computer is better or something for when you want to use Linux. Why? Is it even important to know if one is adept with Windows or macOS before they use Linux? Aren't most people more accustomed to mobiles OSes anyways? If anything, I would argue that preconceived notions on how other desktop OSes work might be detrimental. Verdict: Pointless.
3. Linux and you: This should be useful, right? Well..., didn't we already settle on the fact that we wanted this for new users? So then what does it add if we know they're complete strangers to Linux or (instead) have used it once like 5 years ago? Verdict: Pointless.
4. Installation: Presets: Assuming that "I want to choose the settings by myself" and "I want to configure as much as possible using graphical applications" are the same except for how the former is more akin to an archinstall while the latter is basically the same but with a GUI, then for the new user we would always want the GUI-based, right? Alright, as for the choice that remains... I actually don't know why either one would be necessarily preferred over the other. Being able to choose sounds good, but what actually do we get to choose? This question is honestly too vague for me without grabbing any installer with it. I wonder if you think the same... Verdict: I, personally, don't understand the use (case) or what it tries to achieve. Pointless.
5. Hardware support: The single best question on the list. I would argue the possibility should be explored in which something akin to a hardware probe should be implored in order to dismiss a huge bulk of the distros simply for not being well-optimized for the hardware. Verdict: MVP, while it's already useful in its current iteration, I do think it deserves more work before it can be actually useful for most people.
6. Source for help: I guess this question tries to take into account the dynamic between how user interactions happen with on one hand well-documented projects with a small and non-vocal user base, while on the other hand we have projects that aren't well-documented but depend on user participation to bridge the gap. I wouldn't be surprised if this is yet another artifact from the times in which the "RTFM"-reply was to be expected for asking a stupid question. The 'meta' has changed so much since that this question simply seems outdated and doesn't deserve to be on the list. For beginners, we should always encourage the use of distros with both an excellent (or at least sub-par) documentation and a lively, vocal, active and helpful community. Verdict: Pointless.
7. User experience: At best, it's an artifact of when ElementaryOS actually was a thing and rightfully deserved to be mentioned in recommendation lists. However, at the other end of the spectrum this is a false and misleading dichotomy between GNOME (and GNOME-like DEs) and KDE Plasma (and KDE-like DEs). Honestly, it's an insult to both GNOME and KDE Plasma (and most DEs for that matter) to be compared to macOS and Windows respectively. And I haven't even gone over how it affects oversimplification and the resulting false expectations. Don't get me wrong, I think that -conceptually- asking for how one would like to interact with their system is very important. And if anything, exploring DEs like GNOME, KDE Plasma, Cinnamon and Xfce (etc) is one of the most important steps a new user can take in deciding which distro they should pick. But instead of asking a question like that, we should instead put our efforts into making a test distro of sorts in which one can easily explore different DEs. I'm sure something like that already exists or can simply be achieved through using a bunch of ISOs and Ventoy. But I digress... FWIW, I even saw in your post history that you made the same analogy, which just shows how misleading it is if even a veteran user for 15 years can be misled. Verdict: Pointless. But, conceptually, deserves a lot more love.
8. Distributions: Price: Why is this even included? Yes, I'm aware that Zorin OS Pro exists. But this, by itself, doesn't justify the inclusion of this question. Verdict: Pointless.
9. Distributions: Scope: Does it even make sense to ask a newbie if they would like to choose their own basic programs? I think this question has potential, but requires a precursory question in order for it to be unlocked after it has been determined the user is in fact a 'tweaker'. Otherwise, this question doesn't hold any value. Furthermore, Distrochooser isn't even 'smart' enough to know that minimal installers for Fedora and openSUSE exist for those that seek more freedom in what is installed on their systems... Verdict: Pointless, unless newbie also (somehow) happens to be a 'tweaker'.
10. Distributions: Ideology: For the Libre distros; sure, let's overwhelm the new user with this as well /s. Verdict: Pointless.
11. Distributions: Privacy: I think this question is fine. I think it needs a couple of gentle touches to be actually useful, but there's potential and it deserves its place. Especially considering the amount of people that actually gravitate towards Linux for privacy concerns. Verdict: Fine question, but deserves some gentle touches.
12. Administration: Any new user should be able to install software from something that looks like a storefront AND needs to educate themselves on how the terminal could be used to that effect. sudo apt/dnf/zipper install name-software shouldn't be too much to ask. Verdict: Pointless.
13. Software: Updates: Good question. The conclusions Distrochooser takes from this are laughable, but it doesn't undermine that it's a good question. Verdict: Fine question, needs work.

Alright, so let's make up the score:

• Deserve to be on the list: 3
• Pointless: 8
• The hardware probe should be explored to take over the function of hardware specifics (or anything that's similarly effective)
• Finally, the question about User experience should be reworked to implore the user to try a bunch of different Desktop Environments.

As you should be aware, I wasn't as fire-y in the second half as I was in the first. This might be related to tiredness etc. Regardless, as it stands Distrochooser asks 8 questions too many that are not only pointless, but for their presence they also are misleading; thus they're ultimately bad. Two questions deserve a lot more love for what they're capable to bring to the table and one might argue that their current presence is nothing but a disservice to them. Finally, the remaining 3 questions... Surely, we should be able to ask those through a bot/template, right? Wouldn't that be a lot better and more efficient?

And we haven't even touched upon the myriad of questions that should be asked instead. Security vs Convenience? Which software they intend to use and if they've been able to actually find alternatives for those that simply aren't supported on Linux? Automatic upgrades in the background vs deliberate updates?^[3]^ Etc... :::

---

3. Of course if the user even intends to use a distro that's not 'stable' like how Debian Stable is 'stable'.

I got bored 😅. So here is my second response. But please, before reading this one, consider reading my other reply first. It's a lot shorter anyways 😅.

So fundamentally, I think we're misunderstanding one another. In your defense, I can understand it; as I'm just one of the many responders and you might simply not have been able to take the time to understand what it is that I'm trying to convey and why. In my case, I think it might be related to the XY problem; i.e. you're proposing a solution (adding Distrochooser to the sidebar) for which hope will resolve an issue that remains to be stated. For all we know, you actually try to solve something else and you perceive Distrochooser in being capable of playing a vital role in that without being aware of how else the actual problem should be tackled instead.

In this reply I will try to bridge the gap that might have made you misunderstand what I tried to say in my first comment under your original post.

IMO you’re thinking too much as an advanced user for a simple user.

I think you might be absolutely right. The thing is, though, that I have never been one of those users that post a question like "Which distro?" without providing anything beyond the most basic specifics.

::: spoiler Some insights from my personal Linux journey (FWIW, this is me. And this was more of a last-ditch effort in hopes of finding something to dual boot into. By contrast, for my first distro I had spent a week of my free time digging through (video-)guides and Reddit threads until I had dismissed everything besides the distro I landed on. It seems that I did a good enough job as I'm still confidently using it. And while I've used and experimented with other distros since (mostly as a dual boot), my first distro is the only one I refer to as home. And the interesting part is that I'm fully aware that chances are very slim that a random bystander would ever have suggested me (as a newbie) the use of Fedora Atomic. So by doing the research myself, I've actually enabled myself to start with my ideal distro from the get-go. And yes; that means I've revisited my choice a couple of times by now, but every revisit just made me more confident in my choice. :::

The only point I agree on is the NVIDIA GPU.

I therefore assume you disagree not with the entire post (as you seem to be taking a liking to DistroSea), but instead refer to the parts in which I go over some more fundamental questions. I think you've missed what I tried to say with that and have also missed the hint^[1]^ to make more clear why I even said those things.

Alright, let's dismiss for a moment that the Distrochooser's questions themselves need a lot of work done and proceed right to a 'results-screen'. This is probably how I would fill it in on an average day*. In the very first sentence, we're confronted with the word stable without giving any useful information on what this means and why this is even mentioned here. Similarly, the word unstable is used without ensuring that the (potential) newbie actually has a proper understanding of what it stands for. According to your logic^[2]^ these things shouldn't even matter! So why does Distrochooser even bother to spend a sentence on this for every one of their entries? And that's why I actually agree with you! But if Distrochooser chooses to include it, then they at least have to be precise and elaborate on what they mean with this and why the new user should care. So, to be clear, my two bullet points weren't meant as "Distrochooser should definitely somehow include these as they're vital to their choice.", but instead it was meant as "Alright, if this format for Distrochooser is chosen (with all of its faults), then the least Distrochooser should do is provide information on what the points (and used terms/words/phrases) in the 'results-screen' actually mean for the newbie user. And if it's not addressed, then this automatically discredits Distrochooser as a reliable introduction/orientation to distros for new users.". Because as it stands, a lot of the small niche distros that happen to be derivatives of Debian/Ubuntu are regarded as somehow "stable" while something like Fedora isn't. And thus the newbie that just wants a stable system will be fooled/misled into using any of those fringe distros over Fedora. Which is just straight up BS.

I’ve never heard of nor used Garuda. As I said, feel free to contribute.

Don't worry, others already took care of that. The fact that it hasn't been implemented yet just shows that this is not a productive endeavor. On that note, I didn't even notice how Garuda's more popular sibling EndeavourOS is also absent in Distrochooser's results...

Never heard of DistroSea. It seem like a good complement to DistroChooser anything that narrows down choice

Fixed that for you. Especially considering the fact that Distrochooser is (perhaps) more misleading than anything else. This point is a dead horse by now (at least under this post of yours), but I will be more elaborate at a later point.

DistroWatch as useful as statista.com for suggesting your next travel destination. If you had to travel somewhere and had a list of criteria, but didn’t want to spend all day researching, would you go to a travel agent or open an encyclopedia?

The response on this depends on the XY problem, therefore I will refrain from commenting on this for now.

I think many in the community, like yourself, have forgotten what it’s like to give just enough of a fuck to change something but not to want to be too invested. A beginner isn’t going to want to understand why a system is stable or not: they just want a stable system. You don’t have to explain to them “Yeah, so the configuration is a file, you see? Only you edit that file. Then you run this command that interprets the file and build a dependency tree, downloads everything necessary, to a partition that’s temporarily mounted as read-write, symlinks to…”. Nobody cares. The average user DGAF.

Imagine if you just wanted to get a vacuum cleaner at the store with 3 criteria. Imagine you don’t give a rat’s ass about vacuum cleaner. You just want to point the thing at the ground, let it succ all the bits, but as quietly as possible, and not break down in 2 years to force you back out here. But the sales person you get harps on about the genius of the person who invented some internal component you’ve never heard of, goes on to explain why, ideologically, getting a certain brand is the only way because blablablabla. Maybe you’d buy a vacuum cleaner just to shut them up or walk out of the store.

These two paragraphs are at best you misunderstanding/misinterpreting what I said and why I said those things and that's where I'll leave it (for now).

My optimal experience would be the sales person listening to me, lining up the best candidates, and explaining, in bullet points, why they are there. Then finally, ask me if I have a favorite and to give me a test environment. If I don’t understand something, I can ask more questions.

Generally-speaking, I agree with this. But I hope you're not (even remotely) insinuating that this is even remotely close to the Distrochooser experience.

---

1. Hint: "I’m honestly not even sure if the one(s) responsible for writing the parts of Distrochooser even know(s) themselves" from my first reply.
2. "A beginner isn’t going to want to understand why a system is stable or not: they just want a stable system." and "Nobody cares. The average user DGAF."

Good question! However I think it's wise to concentrate on a particular word/phrase before actually answering your query.

In an immutable setup on Fedora (trying to main Bazzite) is the correct way to use zsh and oh my zsh as my main shell

Currently, it's not always clear if there even is a correct way of installing some of these (more) edge cases. Therefore, I wouldn't be surprised if you'd see 'seasoned' Fedora Atomic users that have all tackled these in very different ways while being satisfied with (not only) their own solutions (but also approve the respective solutions of their peers).

As for your query, I would say that starting to use Fedora Atomic and pointing out correctly some of the more common ways to install software while being aware of the ambiguity that exists with the chosen installation method for this specific piece of software is already very commendable. So I would like to congratulate you on that!

But, you shouldn't be afraid to stick to what's easy (aka don't allow good to be the enemy of perfect). If the extra time required for changing your base system doesn't bother you at all (which happens automatically in the background anyway), then layering it (thus installing with rpm-ostree) is probably the easiest method while protecting you from a lot of possible edge cases you might have to deal with otherwise. Traditionally, zsh (and other shells) were layered (thus installed with rpm-ostree) and uBlue itself included (perhaps still does) just commands to change root shell to zsh, fish etc. This might have changed in the last few weeks, but I think it should still be a safe bet. FWIW, I have never had any troubles pertaining to my zsh installation and any of its plugins (might as well link the managed zsh-config I rely on).

OpenBSD and its derivatives (like OmniOS)

First time hearing of OmniOS, thank you for mentioning it! EDIT: I just took a look at it and it doesn't seem to be based on OpenBSD, at least the one I could find seems to be a derivative of Solaris instead. Though, I might simply not have found what you referred to*.

because it of its security-oriented features, especially things like ZFS

Does OpenBSD's implementation of ZFS offer security features as well?

I would like to switch my daily driver, a Linux laptop, to OpenBSD so I can get used to using it as an administrator, but I worry about OpenBSD being able to support the laptop hardware, especially things like WiFi, BlueTooth, and managing the battery, screen dimming, laptop lid, and so on.

Do you think that using OpenBSD inside of a qube (from QubesOS) is perhaps something worth considering? Or don't you think there's any merit of doing this over the use of any virtualization software found on any other system?

I have another Linux computer with a Radeon graphics card which connects to my TV that my children use for video games, and watching streaming video, and I would like to switch this to OpenBSD as well but I worry that it will not be able to run Steam games very well.

From what I've read, running games on OpenBSD is a lot less mature compared to running games on Linux. Though, perhaps it's worth noting that cloud gaming solutions (like Google Stadia in the past) are known to work great on OpenBSD. Not sure if you would want that, though.

(On a more general note) I definitely agree that OpenBSD works wonderfully on the server side of things. But I've gotten skeptical over time to its feasibility as a desktop OS. Note that I'm well aware that OpenBSD's developers use it as their daily drivers, so I definitely recognize the possibility. However, when it's lacking features like Secure Boot (or any form of Trusted and/or Measured Boot for that matter), I just find it hard to justify putting it on something like a laptop that I carry around all the time. I hope that you can prove to me that my logic/understanding is flawed and that I should reconsider the use of OpenBSD as a desktop OS.

It has been my pleasure 😊!

Aight. I've changed the comment a bit 😅 since. Perhaps it's more useful for you now 😉.

It seems as if the uBlue images ship the required OpenRazer kmod by default. Therefore, I would suggest you to take a look at those. You still need to follow some additional steps though 😅. Which might not be very intuitive... Thus, I propose the following: if you'll rebase to uBlue, you might as well rebase to Bazzite. After the rebase has been completed, the (post-)installation software should already give you the option (it's just a simple toggle) to install OpenRazer. The toggle is clearly visible in this frame.

If you perceive Bazzite as too opinionated for your taste, then perhaps you might opt to the following instead:

install-openrazer:
    sudo wget https://download.opensuse.org/repositories/hardware:/razer/Fedora_$(rpm -E %fedora)/hardware:razer.repo -O /etc/yum.repos.d/hardware:razer.repo && \
    ublue-update --wait && \
    rpm-ostree install -y openrazer-meta razergenie && \
    if ! grep -q "plugdev" /etc/group; then \
      sudo bash -c 'grep "plugdev" /lib/group >> /etc/group' \
    ; fi && \
    sudo usermod -a -G plugdev $USER && \
    echo "Please reboot to apply needed changes."

Which should be the just-entry (and thus responsible) for whatever happens after the toggle is enabled*.

I will simply list a couple of the images^[1]^ I've used over time and provide some personal insights (in alphabetical order):

• Alpine; when I'm restricted in bandwidth and/or disk space. FWIW, apk is even faster than whatever is found on Arch.
• Arch; if I just need a certain package and can't be bothered to look up if it's available on any of the others. Yup, the AUR strikes yet again. Furthermore, if I'm troubleshooting and I find myself on the ArchWiki, then in order to prevent edge cases from happening and thus the provided solutions to not work on the non-Arch distrobox; I rely on the Arch distrobox. It doesn't hurt that pacman (or any of the AUR helpers) are blazing fast. However, if I intend to rely on said AUR packages over longer periods of time, then I often do look for an alternative distrobox to grab the package from instead. While the AUR is excellent for the amount of packages it has, the security standards aren't the best. Thus, if you're security-conscious, then it's better to rely on AUR packages sparingly, unless you're willing to get into the nitty gritty and check how they're built, how the package is maintained and if its maintainer(s) is reliable.
• Bazzite-Arch; my go-to for gaming.
• Fedora; as I'm already on Fedora Atomic, relying on Fedora distroboxes makes the most sense security-wise. Fedora is also known to take security very seriously themselves, so in general this is just very pleasant to rely on for security reasons. The only reason why one should not rely on Fedora for security reasons would be if they're already on something from openSUSE (like Aeon/Kalpa/Tumbleweed etc). In that case, going for an openSUSE distrobox makes more sense for security. Furthermore, if the package I need is one that's widely accessible, then I also rely on Fedora distroboxes. Lastly, currently, my development environments are all Fedora distroboxes. I might eventually change these to Wolfi distroboxes or simply rely on Nix, but that's still WIP for me.
• Ubuntu; I've had to rely on these a couple of times to use software that's known to target Ubuntu. Most recently it was with Matlab IIRC.
• Wolfi; For the security-conscious, this is probably the best choice. Unfortunately, I've only experimented with it so far without too much success. Thankfully, the Bluefin project has made some good use out of it. So I'll try to emulate their ways in the near future.

---

Notable mention goes out to Davincibox. Unfortunately my laptop doesn't have a dedicated GPU, so I can't make use of it. But it's something I'm keeping my eyes on.

NixOS is not a supported container distro, but I do have Nix installed through The Determinate Nix Installer. It's somewhat underutilized currently, though 😅.

---

1. The images will be the toolbox ones if available.

Oh wow! This is excellent news! I hope they'll also provide other privacy/security related features like Heads, the removal of the camera and/or microphone modules, pre-installed privacy screen, tamper-evident screws and packaging.

Thank you for your response. But our conversation seems so far somewhat inefficient. And I fear it might be due to reasons related to the XY problem. Therefore, before I reply to the points made in the above comment, I would like to ask you if you could state the following:

• Ultimately, what are you trying to achieve (and why); what is the problem even?
• What is your solution to this problem? And where does adding Distrochooser to the sidebar come into plan? Have you perhaps thought of other possible solutions and why they might be inferior to the suggested one?

---

Thank you in advance!

Fedora must’ve been during COVID, because I can’t remember the year.

That explains a lot of why you felt that way about Fedora. Thank you for enlightening us on that!

If things are better now, then maybe distrochooser has to be updated.

Can't agree more.

It’s on github, so if you believe it’s become user-friendly, do contribute.

Honestly, I've tried to contribute in the past; but it didn't feel as if they got implemented. Perhaps the maintainer has implemented them without making it noticeable to met, but in its current iteration it doesn't feel as if that's case. I've since given up on it.

Your experience

Just in case*, I’m just the middle-man that connects this specific article by Solène to the audience on Lemmy 😅. I’m sure you’re aware of this, but I just wanted to make sure.

I can’t believe you tried

Just in case*, I'm just the middle-man that connects this specific article by Solène to the audience on Lemmy 😅. I'm sure you're aware of this, but I just wanted to make sure.

But yes, Solène has done an excellent work with her review! Which is precisely why I felt the need that it needed some more exposure 😜.

It is a little sad that OpenBSD can’t optimize by P/E cores, I have been wanting to switch to OpenBSD but obviously Linux supports the most hardware, so I stay with Linux.

Could you elaborate on your willingness to switch to OpenBSD?

It is nice that the makers NovaCustom seem to have done a good job creating a mostly open, standards compliance x86_64 computing platform.

Definitely! I feel as if they might be somewhat underappreciated currently, but I hope their efforts to open source will receive similar mainstream reach like what we've seem for System76 etc.

I agree that Fedora's habit for pushing (sometimes breaking) changes is definitely something to keep an eye out. However, it has been so good over the last (almost) two years. I would even argue that Fedora has become more self-conscious of the consequences and (especially) how this might affect their more casual user base.

Btw, how long ago did you try out Fedora? FWIW, Fedora (Silverblue; to be more precise^[1]^) was the first distro that I've tried and while I've had some experiences with other distros over time (mostly through dual boot), Fedora (Atomic) seems to have become the distro I call home.

---

1. It's probably not as masochistic as you might think for a new user 😅. Though I'd have to say that it took some effort, control and discipline to not instantly go back to Windows (or any other Linux distro for that matter).

While I get why distrochooser.de is romanticized, in its current iteration it's simply not very good and anyone that is somewhat well-versed in how different distros operate and how Distrochooser works, will tell you the same. At best, it provides some orientation into what some of the more common distros are. But it fails to answer some fundamental questions in the process; like:

• What is the relation between a distro and its derivative and (more importantly) how does that matter to a user?
• How exactly does a distribution's chosen release model affect software and updates? And while we're into that, what's even the difference between the "stable" used when talking about point release distros that opt to freeze packages over longer periods of time vs the "stable" that's brought up in conversations regarding update concerns and how they might break software (I'm honestly not even sure if the one(s) responsible for writing the parts of Distrochooser even know(s) themselves)^[1]^.

There are a lot of other fundamental questions that are involved in the decision for picking a distro that would have made a lot more sense than the ones found on Distrochooser. E.g. Do you use an Nvidia GPU and want this to cause no issues in the process of installation and is this your biggest concern? If yes: then just use Pop!_OS. Otherwise, move on to the other questions etc. I think the fact that a flowchart isn't used for some uses and that ultimately priorities aren't brought up to finalize the decision are the two biggest issues that Distrochooser has in its current iteration.

And we haven't even gone over the many distros that despite having little to no user base are still included in the results, while (more recent) 'staples' like Garuda and Nobara are clearly left out for reasons most likely related to the maintainers not being able to keep up with the Linux landscape. Which, to be fair, is quite hard; so I don't blame them. I, in fact, applaud them for their continued contributions and hope that some day it will become something that we can proudly present to others for their first orientation.

Allow me to end this with a question to OP:

• Do you feel the same way about excellent websites like DistroWatch.com and DistroSea?^[2]^
  • If yes; Why didn't you make a similar post for either of the two instead?
  • If no; Why not?

---

1. Sure, there is some overlap in what they mean and how they're used, but it's a very important distinction; otherwise openSUSE's stable rolling release designation for their Tumbleweed wouldn't make any sense.
2. If anything, I think these two actually make more sense to be included.

OP, my request/suggestion would be the following:

In order for us to better help you consider the following:

• Inform us on your hardware specs. You could even rely on the software found on linux-hardware.org for a (so-called) probe.
• Inform us on which distros you've tried. If possible, for each one of them list the following:
  • What exactly didn't work?
  • Did you try any troubleshooting?

---

On a more general note, you shouldn't feel the need to switch distros even if other distros might offer more convenient solutions.

::: spoiler Story time When I was new to Linux, I wanted to rely on the Chromium browser for cloud gaming through Nvidia GeForce NOW's web platform. For some reason, I just wasn't able to get this to work on Fedora. Somehow, while still being mostly a newbie, I stumbled upon Distrobox and decided to give it a go in hopes of allowing me to overcome the earlier challenge by benefiting of the ArchWiki and the AUR through an Arch distrobox. And voila; -without too much effort- it just worked. More recently, after I've become slightly more knowledgeable on Linux, I just rely on a flatpak to get the same work done. :::

---

Moral of the story would be that there are a lot of different ways that enable one to overcome challenges like these. And unless you feel the need to go with a system that's (mostly) managed for you (à la uBlue)^[1]^, you will face issues every now and then. And the only way to deal with them would be to either setup^[2]^ (GRUB-)Btrfs+Timeshift/Snapper (or similar solutions) such that it automatically snapshots a working state that you might rollback to whenever something unfortunate befalls your system or to simply become ever so better equipped in troubleshooting them yourself.

---

1. But therefore demands from you to engage with the system in a specific (mostly unique) way.
2. Or rely on a distro that sets it up for you.

Also, from what I understand, they accept Monero for their laptops.

That's very cool. I didn't even know that. Thank you for mentioning that!

Good to see more laptops being release with Dasharo/Coreboot.

Can't agree more. I hope that Framework will soon follow suit.

Thank you OP for that, but... why should we prefer this over uBlue's work on streamlining this process?

I think I got you now. I won't change my ways; /s is just way too convenient for me to give up on 😅. I guess I'm weak... Regardless, I think you've at least given me some food for thought. So thank you for that!

Thank you so much for sharing your experiences! I'm afraid it might not be very relevant as it's a device that's at least 6 years old by now 😅 (at least according to this source. Regardless, user experiences are valuable. And I'm glad to hear that the device has been working flawlessly for you so far 😊.

Love the down vote, also. Makes me feel like this is reddit all over again. Lmao. Down vote for sharing an opinion of what’s been the best Linux on laptop experience I’ve ever had.

Haters gonna hate, I guess. Don't worry too much about it. The thread you're in (so the one starting with my first reply under this post) also is the most controversial under this post. So I wouldn't be surprised if some folks just down voted indiscriminately for... some reason...

They said they don’t game.

GPUs aren't exclusive to gaming (as you should know).

Why GPU?

OP mentioned the intent to do video editing on the device. Unfortunately, the amount of good video editors on Linux is currently limited to just Davinci Resolve(; sure, the likes of Kdenlive (etc) exists, but none of them are very suitable for professional usage^[1]^). While I'm thankful that Davinci Resolve works on Linux, it's -according to their own documentation- simply not possible to make use of it without a dedicated GPU (at least on Linux). Thus, warranting the need for a dedicated GPU.

That’s horrible for battery.

I'm aware that that's a concern. Thankfully, there are workarounds. And if all else fails, there's always the possibility to make use of eGPUs; which I've actually explicitly mentioned in my earlier reply for this exact reason (without mentioning explicitly for which reason it was mentioned*).

---

1. OP might not even need it for professional use, but I assumed they did*.

That's very valuable! Thank you for mentioning that! To make it even more relevant to OP, I would like to pose the following questions:

• Which CPU?
• Which GPU?
• How has the battery life been? Consider both light and heavy use*

Thank you in advance!

Hmm..., so if I understand you correctly; using /s is lazy, so I should either not try to convey sarcasm in written text or make it more clear that it's sarcasm without saying that it's sarcasm? Perhaps a better question would be: how would you formulate that one sentence? Once again, I'm genuinely curious and I'm thankful that you took the effort to type that down.

Thank you for your reply! Much appreciated ☺️!

To clarify, they do jack shit to add major hardware support (etc).

Thanks! That's the clarification that I needed.

This seems like a disingenuous response.

My apologies if it seemed that way, that wasn't my intention.

Pop isn’t adding anything much to Linux

In absolute sense, to the kernel; sure.

it’s yet another Debian derivative by way of Ubuntu.

That's where we clearly differ. It offers (arguably) the easiest installation for Nvidia drivers (which is especially useful for new users). Furthermore, it has other neat functionality like a recovery partition; which is otherwise absent on any other Linux distro (at least that I'm aware off). I agree that these things mostly benefit the new user rather than the established one. Nonetheless, even if we're not the target audience, we shouldn't be dismissive of the work that others put into their platform.

Cosmic is cool and all, but it’s mostly just eye candy for GNOME at the end of the day.

How can it be for GNOME if it's its own Desktop Environment? Sure, it relies on GTK (like most other DEs). But it's a Rust-based DE, which is (AFAIK) unique and already commendable by itself. Again, I don't understand if you're just trying to be dismissive of other people's work or just being ignorant/misinformed.

System76 also seem to still be developing working with other people skills.

While this particular case is new to me, I can't say I'm surprised. FWIW, even Linux Torvalds himself needed to put effort in self-improving themselves in this department. Therefore, I don't quite understand why you felt the need to bring this up. FWIW, I never said or implied that System76 is some holy organization that can't do anything wrong. You made a vague statement with "The support that these vendors put in for Linux is miniscule" and I only intended to point out some of their continued contributions to 'Linux'. I could have named any other Linux-first vendor, but System76 seemed to be the most renowned and that's why I went with that one.

Tuxedo still haven’t as far as I’m aware released ITE829x Linux drivers (in an upstreamable form) for example; I had to reverse engineer the damned chip.

That's unfortunate. And I think that this short paragraph is the summary of your grievances with these Linux-first vendors. And if that's the case, then it's at least worth mentioning that I'm absolutely oblivious of the challenges that you might have faced in this regard.

This sentiment made me very curious into how much laptop vendors contribute to the Linux kernel in general^[1]^. Unfortunately, there was not a lot that I could find. Perhaps I'm just very bad at looking into that kinda thing. Therefore, if you're aware of a (half-)decent way to somehow see how much effort is done by different laptop vendors in order to support hardware on Linux, then please feel free to notify me of that 😊.

Clevo hardware lacks a lot of the polish that you just quietly get from a major manufacturer.

I'd have to take your word on it as you're clearly more experienced in this regard. But would you be so kind to give an example of two comparable laptops at comparable price-points; one from Clevo and another from a major manufacturer, in which the lack of polish is clearly visible? Like, if I as an average consumer look at the review on the Schenker XMG Focus 16 found on Notebookcheck.net and compare that to the reviews of the laptops it's compared to in its verdict, then I don't notice anything significant. Note that I've mostly just skimped the reviews*.

Sorry, the 3060ti was conflating my desktop; it’s literally a 2060 which is far worse in terms of termals and power.

No problem. Thank you for clarifying!

I have this laptop. I look at the Linux offerings from these manufacturers. I contribute to them.

Thank you for your continued contributions 😊!

I’m not saying that it’s all bad

This wasn't clear in your first reply.

and you seem to be taking this as something of a personal attack.

My apologies if it came across like that, I certainly didn't intend that*. To perhaps better illustrate how I read your first reply, allow me to paste it down below:

::: spoiler My inner thoughts while reading your first reply

Please don’t

Alright, they're not in favor of it, which is totally fine. Let's see what they bring up.

tuxedo/system76/metabox/etc are all rebadged Clevo ODM designs.

False. (I pointed this out in my earlier reply.)

The support that these vendors put in for Linux is miniscule

Vague statement at best. But if support isn't specified as hardware support, then it's another false statement.

and the hardware is “fine” at best.

Another vague statement; but at least their alternative should be better, right?

I for one love my desktop 3700x and 3060ti mobile stuffed into a laptop chassis.

First time hearing this. Internet search didn't give me any pointers. All of their statements so far haven't been written with care, perhaps they've been smoking something. But I'll give them the benefit of doubt and ask them how this works.

No compromises were made on this hardware.

Alright, so they've somehow managed something incredible (if at all). I'm sure they'll tell us what this is and how this is not Clevo. (In retrospect, what did you actually mean with this statement?)

Conversely, Dell and Lenovo laptops tend to have very good Linux support and can be had relatively cheaply, especially if you get something that isn’t bleeding edge.

Okay, I guess that's to be expected. But I don't recall a great experience looking into their catalogue the last time. *checks*; yup, still lackluster at best (pointed to this in my earlier reply).

(Back to normal mode) So, to sum it up: I didn't like your alternatives and stated why. As to your criticism towards Linux-first vendors; 1 false statement, 1 vague statement, 1 false/vague statement. Furthermore, there was a vague description of a device which initially seemed custom at best, but in retrospect seems to be a Clevo after all 😅. :::

---

It’s fine to like these companies. I want them to succeed, but Clevo as an ODM tend to produce products that lack the polish of a comparable (say) Dell, and don’t achieve the same volume of sales as a major manufacturer to achieve lower costs through increased volume (etc) - the cost savings have to come from somewhere and often that’s the firmware, material design, and design quality.

Agreed. I probably couldn't have said it better. But, this doesn't mean that Dell or Lenovo (or any other major manufacturer for that matter) themselves actually accomplish in making good products. Theoretically, they should be able to produce either better (and/)or cheaper devices. However, the fact of the matter is that this simply isn't the case (or at least not substantially/significantly). The Thinkpads sold today are just an excuse compared to the Thinkpads that were sold in the past. Similarly, Dell's XPS series shook the market in the past, but now they've stuck on a bad implementation of what Apple^[2]^ deemed unworthy (talking about touch instead real keys for function keys (etc)).

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure pretty soon (probs with Meteor Lake already) Dell's and Lenovo's Linux offerings (so talking strictly about a subset of their offerings, refer to my earlier reply for the links) will at least be considerable CPU-wise. But until then, if anyone is serious about using their laptop as a proper workstation with somewhat decent battery life^[3]^, then it's simply not worth to bother with Dell (like at all) or Lenovo (unless they're willing to pay a hefty price for it).

So just to be absolutely clear. I don't categorically dismiss Dell, Lenovo or any other major manufacturer for that matter. But for OP's requirements; currently, they seem to be (at best) very expensive.

These products are fine, don’t pretend that they’re perfect though, you’re doing them a disservice.

Alright, so I suppose this is a reaction to the following statements of mine:

"Another bold claim; one which only holds true if merely Apple’s finest go beyond “fine”."

"At which point, the “fine” hardware from the Linux-first vendor not only starts to be attractive but highly desirable by comparison."

I'm sure earlier paragraphs should have been sufficient to explain my thoughts on this. But just in case; they're not perfect. But -IMO- for OP's requirements, they're at the very least worth considering.

---

1. I, perhaps naively, think that contributions to the Linux kernel are most representative for hardware support. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
2. Suffice to say, Apple actually had put thought into their design. Contrary to Dell's excuse of an implementation.
3. Reminder; OP explicitly wanted this.

Np fam. In retrospect, I agree with you that I should have done a better job at making it as clear as possible ☺️.

Hmm..., I think with the level of literacy (or just plain text skimping) we find on the internet, anything that helps in conveying the message is a clear win; especially if merely the use of just two characters enables one to achieve this.

Could you elaborate on what you dislike about it? I'm just genuinely curious*.

That’s a 40% price increase just to get your keyboard layout and a CPU upgrade

Fixed that for you*.

So what happens is that changing the keyboard language comes together with the CPU upgrade from Intel® Core® i3-1315U to Intel® Core® i7-1360P. That's what you pay for*. I agree with you that they might have done a better job at conveying what's happening. For whatever it's worth, I didn't immediately notice this myself. Therefore I tried to contact them in hopes of resolving the issue. They responded very quickly (like within a couple of minutes) and explained what was going on. Props to them for that!

tuxedo/system76/metabox/etc are all rebadged Clevo ODM designs.

Yup, clearly. /s

The support that these vendors put in for Linux is miniscule

Wow, that's a bold claim if anything. First time seeing a Pop!_OS-denier, I assume you also deny the existence of COSMIC? And these are just some of the work done done by System76 only.

the hardware is “fine” at best

Another bold claim; one which only holds true if merely Apple's finest go beyond "fine".

I for one love my desktop 3700x and 3060ti mobile stuffed into a laptop chassis. No compromises were made on this hardware.

Hmm..., very interesting! I'm totally oblivious of the existence of such a thing. If that is your benchmark, then I can actually understand what you meant with your earlier claim. Please feel free to enlighten me on how this works 😊.

Conversely, Dell and Lenovo laptops tend to have very good Linux support and can be had relatively cheaply, especially if you get something that isn’t bleeding edge.

I don't deny this. However, none of Dell's laptops with decent Linux support have an AMD CPU (or one of Intel's latest Meteor Lake CPUs). Thus, at least in terms of battery life, it's not desirable; with battery life being something that OP has explicitly mentioned. As for Lenovo, the Thinkpad-line (the one generally recommended for its Linux-support) with AMD CPUs starts at a very high price. At which point, the "fine" hardware from the Linux-first vendor not only starts to be attractive but highly desirable by comparison.

Ultimately, any discussion on this would boil down to cost vs convenience. As OP hasn't explicitly stated anything on this regard, it seems unproductive to delve into this further. However, strictly speaking, I have to agree with you that the Linux-first vendors are (in almost all cases) more expensive. Thank you for pointing that out for OP.

::: spoiler In case you're as bored as I am 😅. Let's start with stating some facts from OP:

• OP takes the effort to state six wishes/requirements without mentioning price.
• OP implies to at least have considered the Framework laptop, for which the 16 inch variant -the one actually capable of video editing etc- is not a cheap device either.
• OP states: "I don’t want to worry about" when talking about battery life. If anything, that sounds like one that would prefer convenience over cost.

Therefore, I assumed that OP wasn't cost-limited by any means (they didn't state it anyways).

Anyhow, allow me to illustrate how much OP might have to "pay more" for "inferior hardware":

• Found this one on https://old.reddit.com/r/LaptopDeals, a site which you mentioned elsewhere under OP. Seems like a cool laptop, not gonna lie. It's just a random one I picked. Let's see what we can find on the other side:
• Well look at that? Better CPU and better battery, just all around a great package (it even has a mechanical keyboard?!). Furthermore. better warranty terms and possible to extend to 5 years (compared to a measly 1 year for the other laptop). Yes, it's a significantly more expensive laptop. But, (for me) it's clearly the superior deal especially when the Linux support is considered. You're absolutely free to disagree though 😉. :::

My two cents; if you want to use Linux on it, then do yourself a favor and pick a laptop from a Linux-first vendor. So the likes of NovaCustom, Star Labs, System76, Tuxedo and others found on the link over here come to mind. Besides that, it's important that the device in question either has a dedicated GPU (or at least supports eGPUs). Furthermore, choose a device with relatively high battery capacity; they go up to ~99 Wh, so pick something that's at least relatively close to that number.

Feels like pointless recreating of everything that is allready available for years.

This seems to be either blatantly false or simply uninformed.

Sure, for years, there have been many different attempts to explore 'immutable'(/'atomic') distros. And while some concepts have become mainstays, like; atomic updates, some degree of immutability during runtime and to a lesser degree; reproducibility, declarative system management and reliance on (OCI) images. There remains a lot to explore still and differentiation in implementation (however minute) is important as it's not always clear what will and will not stick eventually.

As to your claim of Vanilla OS "pointlessly recreating what is already available for years", the only atomic distros that have been usable for years are Fedora Atomic, Guix System and NixOS. Both Guix System and NixOS are radically different from all the others and Fedora Atomic has only relatively^[1]^ recently^[2]^ started to do the things that actually resemble what Vanilla OS 2 Orchid envisions for their system.

---

1. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OstreeNativeContainer
2. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/OstreeNativeContainerStable

"ABRoot is utility which provides full immutability and atomicity to a Linux system, by transacting between two root filesystems. Updates are performed using OCI images, to ensure that the system is always in a consistent state. It also allows for local atomic changes thanks to the integrated ABRoot package manager, which generates local OCI images with the user's changes, and then applies them on top of the system's default image."

(From ABRoot's page on Github)

This sounds a lot like what Fedora is trying to achieve with their ostree native containers.

Are there any technical differences between the two? Besides, of course, relying on tools with different names etc*. FWIW, it doesn't seem as if ABRoot (v2) allows one to pin multiple deployments, while this can be done relatively easily through the sudo ostree admin pin [-u] <index> command on Fedora Atomic.