this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
18 points (95.0% liked)
Linux
56895 readers
773 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If you should prefer an established distro over a new one, how is the new one ever going to get mass adoption? And let's be honest, if a distro is a one man or small team project, mass adoption is no guarantee of longevity.
OP is still a very new Linux user (if at all) that hammers on stability in every one of their posts. My comment was written with that in mind. But, even in its current version, it isn't absolute and leaves room for nuance/exceptions by using terms like "(almost)" etc.
Veteran users with awareness of the Linux landscape are somewhat able to discern the upcoming serious projects with a future from the to-be abandonware. FWIW, I've championed distros like Bazzite (and its uBlue siblings), CachyOS, Nobara, PikaOS and secureblue far before they had any serious recognition (if at all). So I'm definitely with you that promising projects deserve adoption, support and more.
Agreed. I believe the "somewhat" I used alludes to that. One might argue that the concept of absolute guarantee doesn't exist. Even with Arch and Debian*; though I'd argue they come closest IMO. Nevertheless, there are definitely gradations between Arch/Debian and a student-owned hobby project that was created just today.
Mass adoption is a relatively easy metric to gauge. And (often) comes with tons of support/discussion across the internet that will prove to be useful for the new user.
Please feel free to provide other metrics that OP or others might appeal to.
Ah, I missed that nuance. In such a case, I always recommend one of the big three, Ubuntu, Mint, and Fedora. When they've been using that for long enough to know what they don't like about it, it's a good time to start exploring the wider ecosystem.
Yeah, they've been around long enough that I'd be surprised if they vanished. I would add openSUSE and Slackware (even though it's a one man project) to that list. Of course Patrick Volkerding could get fed up with maintaining Slackware at any time.
That can be a double-edged sword, especially if the distro has been around a long time. What the user finds can be out of date and now just plain wrong. Ubuntu definitely suffers with this.
Besides longevity and adoption, I would argue that whether it has new enough drivers and firmware to support your hardware is the most important metric out there. For example, if your hardware is newer, you should likely choose Fedora from the big three.
Excellent point! Thank you for mentioning this! I feel this is often overlooked for reasons I don't understand. Thankfully, we can teach (new) users how they can navigate around this: e.g. by mentioning the version of the distro within the search query OR by simply being wary of old(er) info.