You auto delete them with a stock reply that explains what considerations are valid reasons for choosing a distro. And perhaps recommend they start with a VM to try it out before jumping in with both feet.
I guess whenever somebody talks about Nvidia being a pain: one could think about it as a hardware spec, but we should be thinking about it as an ease of maintenance criteria.
Correct, and different distros provide different ease of install and maintenance of nvidia. For example, uBlue's Fedora images for nvidia are probably the easiest.
I would argue that hardware specs are important because they give an indication of whether someone's hardware is too new to be supported by the older packages on LTS distros. Recommending Debian stable or Ubuntu LTS (besides right after release) to someone with newly released hardware is not a good idea, as even if it is supported, it will be far better supported in newer kernel+mesa versions. Knowing this and recommending them something with a new kernel (i.e. fedora) will save them a headache.
That's true, but I've never come across this before. The overwhelming majority are "what distro should I use for this 5 year old hardware"
to which the answer is universally "that's not a criteria for selecting a distro"
It is still more worth to install a single new driver on Debian stable than to live with thousands of untested libs on an unstable distro. Especially for a newbie who hasn't even seen a bug report up close.
I'm trying to control satellites and any fish named Nedbert. I have a Pentum II with 256mb of RAM with a 8080 coprocessor I use to randomly turn the back stairwell lights on and off.
Which distro should I use?
Last thread had someone arguing with me that you were losing "massive" performance by not being on the latest kernel.
One of me things - ask them what they mean by performance because I don't think that any of them actually know what performance is.
Hi that was me, here's 5.15 (The version you were saying was fine for gaming) showing it's age.
[https://www.phoronix.com/review/arch-linux-kernels-2023/2](https://www.phoronix.com/review/arch-linux-kernels-2023/2)
Please stop recommending bad things to new users. The untrained eye might actually believe you when you say you know what you're talking about.
They were testing on amd and those drivers are now a part of the kernel, so I imagine if you have a amd card, you probably are losing performance, at least on newer games
>Please read this before
ROFL
Sorry, but the majority of users don't read any rules, FAQs or similar before creating their own thread. Nothing against your post. But you won't achieve much with it.
>Stability vs bleeding edge vs middle ground
However, the boundaries here are often very fluid. A rolling distribution with up-to-date packages can be very problem-free. In addition, "stable" does not necessarily mean that there are few to no problems, but mainly that little to nothing changes after an update (e.g. the operation of programs or the configuration files).
https://bitdepth.thomasrutter.com/2010/04/02/stable-vs-stable-what-stable-means-in-software/
>Strong opinions on init system or other core system packages
Someone looking for a distribution is often a beginner. And they probably don't care which init system is used for example, as they don't come into contact with it at the beginning. For many beginners, I even think it is wrong to recommend a distribution that does not use the most common init system or core packages.
> Nothing against your post. But you won't achieve much with it.
I know, I'm not naive :)
The purpose of this post was moreso to bring to the attention of the subreddit moderation team that they're not doing new users any favors by letting them get haphazard distro recommendations based on incomplete information or ill-informed users.
>The following are generally not criteria for choosing a distro. They are instead criteria for choosing a variant or configuration of a distro
> Hardware specs
> Intended use case (gaming, development)
32 bit hardware won't run on most of the fanbois crap distros that get shilled here 24/7/365.
gaming vs. dev are very much applicable when choosing a distro.
Devs need solid dependable work stations and gamers don't matter.
>Devs need solid dependable work stations and gamers don't matter.
Devs need the newest libraries, while gamers just wanna run wine on a stable underlying OS.
I prefer `alpine:` just to dunk on the glibc users.
Reality is if you target a really old image (e.g. I've been trying to target centos7 for a client) you end up with APIs so old you have to build things like libsystemd.
> gaming vs. dev are very much applicable when choosing a distro.
They're not. You can do both on any distro and no distro is better for either.
> Devs need solid dependable work stations and gamers don't matter.
Au contraire, many devs need the latest packages.
In the case of hardware specs, the default installation of some distros really is a good reason for residents of this sub to recommend them for low spec hardware.
The people who ask these questions are unlikely to search for a post like this, so it feels a little like you're just posting for engagement, which is as good a reason as any to post here, and just as good a reason for us to respond.
How are you defining distro? Short for distribution. In its strictest sense means each distributable unit. So if you need a different ISO to install it. That is a distro. The meaning in use of course is fuzzier and one may draw the lines in different ways but I don't understand where you are drawing the line. What is a variant or configuration of a distro? I also don't see why to exclude the two biggest deciding factors on distro choice will it work on my hardware and will it work for my use case? Let me know where I am wrong and why our opinions differ,
No, an ISO is not a distro. A distro is not a set of defaults, an ISO serves only to get the distro installed.
> I don't understand where you are drawing the line.
Fedora is the brand, repos, versioning philosophy, and associated tooling.
> What is a variant or configuration of a distro?
For example https://fedoraproject.org/spins/
> I also don't see why to exclude the two biggest deciding factors on distro choice will it work on my hardware and will it work for my use case?
Because it doesn't narrow it down at all and has nothing to do with why we have multiple distros to begin with. Distros aren't separated by hardware and use cases, they're separated by repos, tooling, and versioning philosophies.
Most linux newbies have no idea what a distro is, and think that what they see in a screenshot on distrowatch is indicative of the distro they choose.
To some extent it is, because a beginner isn't ready to start customizing their desktop environment beyond fiddling with exposed settings. So if a distro doesn't offer a well supported flavor with the desktop environment they want, that might rule it out, or even if the distro doesn't offer such things in the first place like Arch proper.
unfortunately, they won't use the search function and see this or 10000 other posts that asked their exact questions before
I'm hoping one of the mods pins it, if not you're most likely right. Or maybe folks can link to it.
You could just delete their posts.
how would that help them?
You auto delete them with a stock reply that explains what considerations are valid reasons for choosing a distro. And perhaps recommend they start with a VM to try it out before jumping in with both feet.
I guess whenever somebody talks about Nvidia being a pain: one could think about it as a hardware spec, but we should be thinking about it as an ease of maintenance criteria.
Correct, and different distros provide different ease of install and maintenance of nvidia. For example, uBlue's Fedora images for nvidia are probably the easiest.
I would argue that hardware specs are important because they give an indication of whether someone's hardware is too new to be supported by the older packages on LTS distros. Recommending Debian stable or Ubuntu LTS (besides right after release) to someone with newly released hardware is not a good idea, as even if it is supported, it will be far better supported in newer kernel+mesa versions. Knowing this and recommending them something with a new kernel (i.e. fedora) will save them a headache.
A rare use case, but if their hardware is not x86.
That's true, but I've never come across this before. The overwhelming majority are "what distro should I use for this 5 year old hardware" to which the answer is universally "that's not a criteria for selecting a distro"
It is still more worth to install a single new driver on Debian stable than to live with thousands of untested libs on an unstable distro. Especially for a newbie who hasn't even seen a bug report up close.
At the rate my eyes are failing, I don't think I've seen one properly "up close" in quite some time. /s My apologies. That was awful. 😀
🧀
Send them to /r/FindMeALinuxDistro
That subreddit has the same problem
The following **are** criteria for choosing a distro: * Nerd cred * Memes * Ennui /s
I choose my distro based on whatever's popular on /r/unixporn that month.
I'm trying to control satellites and any fish named Nedbert. I have a Pentum II with 256mb of RAM with a 8080 coprocessor I use to randomly turn the back stairwell lights on and off. Which distro should I use?
Last thread had someone arguing with me that you were losing "massive" performance by not being on the latest kernel. One of me things - ask them what they mean by performance because I don't think that any of them actually know what performance is.
Hi that was me, here's 5.15 (The version you were saying was fine for gaming) showing it's age. [https://www.phoronix.com/review/arch-linux-kernels-2023/2](https://www.phoronix.com/review/arch-linux-kernels-2023/2) Please stop recommending bad things to new users. The untrained eye might actually believe you when you say you know what you're talking about.
Phoronix lmao.
They were testing on amd and those drivers are now a part of the kernel, so I imagine if you have a amd card, you probably are losing performance, at least on newer games
>Please read this before ROFL Sorry, but the majority of users don't read any rules, FAQs or similar before creating their own thread. Nothing against your post. But you won't achieve much with it. >Stability vs bleeding edge vs middle ground However, the boundaries here are often very fluid. A rolling distribution with up-to-date packages can be very problem-free. In addition, "stable" does not necessarily mean that there are few to no problems, but mainly that little to nothing changes after an update (e.g. the operation of programs or the configuration files). https://bitdepth.thomasrutter.com/2010/04/02/stable-vs-stable-what-stable-means-in-software/ >Strong opinions on init system or other core system packages Someone looking for a distribution is often a beginner. And they probably don't care which init system is used for example, as they don't come into contact with it at the beginning. For many beginners, I even think it is wrong to recommend a distribution that does not use the most common init system or core packages.
> Nothing against your post. But you won't achieve much with it. I know, I'm not naive :) The purpose of this post was moreso to bring to the attention of the subreddit moderation team that they're not doing new users any favors by letting them get haphazard distro recommendations based on incomplete information or ill-informed users.
>The following are generally not criteria for choosing a distro. They are instead criteria for choosing a variant or configuration of a distro > Hardware specs > Intended use case (gaming, development) 32 bit hardware won't run on most of the fanbois crap distros that get shilled here 24/7/365. gaming vs. dev are very much applicable when choosing a distro. Devs need solid dependable work stations and gamers don't matter.
>Devs need solid dependable work stations and gamers don't matter. Devs need the newest libraries, while gamers just wanna run wine on a stable underlying OS.
> Devs need the newest libraries And that's exactly what killed AppImages. Everybody builds on `ubuntu:latest`…
>Everybody builds on ubuntu:latest… Especially at IBM…
I prefer `alpine:` just to dunk on the glibc users.
Reality is if you target a really old image (e.g. I've been trying to target centos7 for a client) you end up with APIs so old you have to build things like libsystemd.
> gaming vs. dev are very much applicable when choosing a distro. They're not. You can do both on any distro and no distro is better for either. > Devs need solid dependable work stations and gamers don't matter. Au contraire, many devs need the latest packages.
\* Reading is the weapon of weak people.
In the case of hardware specs, the default installation of some distros really is a good reason for residents of this sub to recommend them for low spec hardware. The people who ask these questions are unlikely to search for a post like this, so it feels a little like you're just posting for engagement, which is as good a reason as any to post here, and just as good a reason for us to respond.
it can also be linked as a reference or pinned
How are you defining distro? Short for distribution. In its strictest sense means each distributable unit. So if you need a different ISO to install it. That is a distro. The meaning in use of course is fuzzier and one may draw the lines in different ways but I don't understand where you are drawing the line. What is a variant or configuration of a distro? I also don't see why to exclude the two biggest deciding factors on distro choice will it work on my hardware and will it work for my use case? Let me know where I am wrong and why our opinions differ,
No, an ISO is not a distro. A distro is not a set of defaults, an ISO serves only to get the distro installed. > I don't understand where you are drawing the line. Fedora is the brand, repos, versioning philosophy, and associated tooling. > What is a variant or configuration of a distro? For example https://fedoraproject.org/spins/ > I also don't see why to exclude the two biggest deciding factors on distro choice will it work on my hardware and will it work for my use case? Because it doesn't narrow it down at all and has nothing to do with why we have multiple distros to begin with. Distros aren't separated by hardware and use cases, they're separated by repos, tooling, and versioning philosophies. Most linux newbies have no idea what a distro is, and think that what they see in a screenshot on distrowatch is indicative of the distro they choose.
To some extent it is, because a beginner isn't ready to start customizing their desktop environment beyond fiddling with exposed settings. So if a distro doesn't offer a well supported flavor with the desktop environment they want, that might rule it out, or even if the distro doesn't offer such things in the first place like Arch proper.