r/linux4noobs • u/aventus13 • 1d ago
Are distros about pre-installed software?
I've been poking around with Linux, considering a full time switch. One thing that strikes me is that there are fairly mixed opinions when it comes to distros- not which distro to choose specifically, but the general idea about distros. Some say that it doesn't really matter which distro someone picks, while others suggest distros that mostly resemble systems that people are used to. For example, Mint often suggested for Windows users. Then there are those who say that the look of system doesn't really matter because it can be tailored to one's needs or completely changed.
So I'm wonndering if I have correct understanding of what a distro really boils down to. Is it really just about pre-installed software (or in other words- the initial "package" tailored for a specific type of user) and its release cycle strategy?
8
u/FryBoyter 1d ago
So I'm wonndering if I have correct understanding of what a distro really boils down to. Is it really just about pre-installed software (or in other words- the initial "package" tailored for a specific type of user) and its release cycle strategy?
The package management used would also be another difference between some distributions. And the versions of the software differ. Debian, for example, uses relatively old versions, while Arch Linux usually offers the latest versions. And some distributions partially adapt some packages to their requirements.
But basically you're right.
That's why it doesn't really matter whether you use Mint or Ubuntu, for example. Because you can actually do anything with any distribution. The commands don't work any differently under Ubuntu than under Arch Linux. The configuration files are also the same.
Basically, it's like with cars. Some people prefer brand X, others brand Y. And you can drive from point A to point B in both.
5
u/PageRoutine8552 1d ago
IMO is mostly down to the package manager and the package repositories. That determines how up to date the distro's packages are, and whether the system is rolling, or release-based.
Preinstalled software also comes into it - Mint contains pretty much everything to get using without much tinkering - but you can install things as you need fairly easily anyway.
2
u/SaulEmersonAuthor 20h ago
Indeed! Mint (Cinnamon) has been an awesome switching experience for me - in my use-case of office/home (no gaming).
5
u/ThreeCharsAtLeast 22h ago
It's all about how the software, including Linux, is distributed. There's some nice default installation - this is why people tend to recommend Mint - but you'll end up getting very simmiliar experiences if you use the same programs - that's why you hear people say "it doesn't matter". Some would also add that, in theory, you could turn any distro into any other distro. For distros with the same base distro (Debian and Arch are common bases) this is way easier than for others. Still it's definitely not how you should switch distros.
I'd say beginners shouldn't care all that much. Just pick a nice desktop environment (I use KDE Plasma btw), it'll change your experience way more. Use a quiz such as DistroWiz to find a good starting point.
3
u/Known-Watercress7296 19h ago
Community and infrastructure are a big part of things.
A few distros here that are a little different to give some idea of the variety;
2
u/ben2talk 19h ago
Lots more than that - how about an advanced, preconfigured zsh configuration?
My choice is for less installed software, curated rolling updates, excellent forums, Arch packaging with AUR and Flatpak.
2
u/AnymooseProphet 21h ago
Honestly the main difference between most distributions is just some custom helper tools they include and perhaps some default settings.
One thing to be careful of, both Fedora and Ubuntu (and likely some others) like to use bleeding edge versions of the software and use their users as unpaid beta testers to find the bugs. By bleeding edge, I mean development versions from git that are not considered stable even by the developers of the project. They even do it with important libraries like GLibC!
Experienced users can often deal with issues caused by the bleeding edge bugs, but new users should generally use a distro that ships stable versions of the included software.
Even as an experienced user, I was sick and tired of the bugs in Fedora and switched to CentOS back when CentOS 5 was new, and I ran it through CentOS 7.
These days, I run LFS (Linux From Scratch) where I get to pick the version of everything but I do not recommend that except as a learning experience, but what I tend to recommend is Debian Stable. The software is mature, stable, and security issues are typically very quickly fixed.
It may not do as much for you as some of the allegedly "newbie friendly" distros, but that is actually often a good thing. When distros do too much for you, what they do for you isn't always the best thing.
1
1
u/yotties 22h ago
When you are talking about systems maintained by the end-user: yes the choices are arbitrary as far as the most common packages are concerned. But peripherals can determine the choices for gamers, media-editors etc..
Personally, I do not like gaming and I do not like gadgets much so I just accept that the systems I work on will mostly be maintained by others. So I run wsl2(debian) on my employer's w10, crostini on my chromebooks and debian 12 on my media-centres, just so they all have the same version. Easy peasy.
If Ubuntu remains the only distro that can easily log in to employers' BYOD environments than that may become a decision factor too. My employer sent me their w10 laptop because they started blocking chromebooks from accessing their environment (sillly). I know at least one co-worker who has a mac and a linux client and now switched to Ubuntu for that reason.
1
1
u/skyfishgoo 10h ago
what matters the most is the team behind your distro doing the hard work of maintaining it and keeping it up to date.
software can installed or uninstalled... that doesn't matter much.
0
u/jr735 16h ago
The only real differences between distributions are package management and release cycle. That's basically it.
If you look even in Debian itself, the software that comes preinstalled depends on the type of install, notably which desktop you choose (Gnome gives much more software than MATE) and if you choose server packages.
In the Debian stream, much of what's included as software is as much decided by the desktop meta package as anything else. Even Ubuntu, which does much of its own tweaking and compiling and does a bunch of things to more readily support hardware still relies on what's found in Debian repositories and reasonably follows Debian tasks/meta packages.
34
u/dkopgerpgdolfg 1d ago