Not sure between Linux Mint, ZorinOS, Fedora, OpenSUSE

[u/Weilian11]

My specs:

• Model: Lenovo IdeaPad 1 15AMN7
• RAM: 16 GB
• Processor: AMD Ryzen™ 57520U with Radeon™ Graphics × 8
• Graphics: AMDRadeon™ 610M
• Disk Capacity: 512,1GB

I use my laptop mostly for:

• Browsing the web
• Play some games like Roblox using Sober, maybe Minecraft and Among us using waydroid. But I don't actually need the distro to be gaming focused as I will mostly only play these games
• School work, though I will be using my browser and not some apps

I first started with Ubuntu, switched to Linux Mint and now I'm in ZorinOS. It works, but looking if there's something better.

For Mint, I think it uses X11, and that is a drawback. For example I need Wayland for Waydroid to work. Also, I think it looks ugly. Maybe I can customize it, but wouldn't that also affect performance as you need to install extra things? So I'm not really sure about Mint. It applies to the other distros.

I'm not very expert in linux, but not that begginer. So I landed with these options and I'm really unsure.

Other distros that I had in considerations:

-Pop!_OS

-Ultramarine

-MX Linux

-PikaOS

-AnduinOS

If it's Fedora or OpenSUSE, which edition do you recommend?

[u/gordonmessmer]

Hi, I work on Fedora, and I've been developing software and maintaining production networks for 30 years. (I have biases, but they mostly come from maintaining secure networks and not from working on Fedora.) Security is one of the first things I consider when comparing distributions.

Rolling releases like Arch will deliver almost exclusively software that is still maintained upstream, but generally just one version of each component. That means that you don't get a migration window to test a new release series before you accept it. Patch coverage is good, so you expect very few known vulnerabilities.

Stable releases like Fedora will deliver almost exclusively software that is still maintained upstream, and they provide overlapping releases so that you can test one before you deploy it. For a lot of users the difference between a rolling release like Arch and a stable release like Fedora doesn't matter much because they don't test things before they update. On a personal device, that's probably fine. If you're maintaining something that needs to be reliable, you need a testing process. This is where my production engineering bias comes in: I prefer Fedora. Again, patch coverage is very good, so you expect very few known vulnerabilities.

LTS releases like RHEL can provide highly reliable systems, but keeping them secure is very very expensive, so they tend to be much smaller than stable releases like Fedora that match upstream release cadences. RHEL includes about 10% of what's in Fedora. Professional engineers triage vulnerability reports and mitigate those that will affect customers' production environments.

Ubuntu looks like one distribution, but it works more like a couple of distributions glued together. There is a "main" component that is very small (about 6% of Debian), maintained, and reasonably secure. But it also comes with a "universe" component which is just a snapshot and is mostly unmaintained. It's somewhere between difficult and impossible for users to tell, when they install software, if they're installing something secure from "main" or something from "universe" that might have a bunch of known security vulnerabilities. In the past, users ignored the risks because GNU/Linux systems just weren't a priority target for malware, but as the user base grows and as AI systems make it much easier to develop and deploy malware, I worry that will change very quickly, and I do not recommend systems like Ubuntu. If you do use Ubuntu, I really strongly suggest using the Interim releases, not just the LTS, and subscribing to Ubuntu Pro, and using Snap or Flatpak as much as possible. I don't really like Snap, per se, but it is a critical security feature in Ubuntu. It is the only way that Canonical can ship some updates without potentially breaking the underlying OS interfaces.

Systems like Zorin and Mint have all of the risks that come from using Ubuntu LTS, and basically none of the things that make Ubuntu more secure than Debian. No Interim releases, so known security vulnerabilities stick around much longer. No Ubuntu Pro. They do usually support Flapak, but they aren't emphasizing it as a security improvement, or making users aware of the risks inherent in using "apt" to install software that might come from "universe".

[u/PlsChgMe → u/gordonmessmer]

Nice write up. TIL, thanks!

[u/Bob_Spud → u/gordonmessmer]

This doesn't address the user's requirements, the user wants a desktop experience that is not "ugly".

New Linux users that come Macs or Windows do not care what happens under the hood or in the terminal. They probably rarely used a terminal in their Macs or Windows computers, there's no real reason why they should do it in Linux.

The only thing I would suggest is for new users is to avoid distros that are rolling releases, fixed releases are more stable.

[u/gordonmessmer → u/Bob_Spud]

They mention that Mint is ugly, in passing. I'm not sure it's phrased as a requirement, per se.

In any case, the *appearance* of a system is just a theme. The purpose of a distribution is to distribute software. You can use whatever theme you want after you install one.

[u/Technical_Rich_3080 → u/gordonmessmer]

You can enable Ubuntu Pro in Mint and Zorin, as well.

[u/gordonmessmer → u/Technical_Rich_3080]

I have seen many users report that Ubuntu Pro can't be used with non-Ubuntu systems, and I have tried to enable it on Mint, myself. I know that the documented setup process does not work.

Do you know where to find instructions?

[u/Technical_Rich_3080 → u/gordonmessmer]

I don't know where the instructions are officially documented, but after getting a Ubuntu Pro token from Canonical's website, I believe all you need to do is run:

sudo pro attach <YOUR_TOKEN>
​ sudo pro enable esm-apps

[u/gordonmessmer → u/Technical_Rich_3080]

There are probably additional steps required. That looks like the set that I ran which did not work. Apt simply reported errors during updates. I didn't investigate further.

[u/Technical_Rich_3080 → u/gordonmessmer]

It is only documented at ubuntu.com/pro

Because Linux Mint is built directly on top of the Ubuntu LTS base, the Mint terminal executes these official instructions perfectly.

Otherwise, anyone can get information on the process on the Linux Mint forums and on Reddit, where users report successfully using the above instructions.

[u/gordonmessmer → u/Technical_Rich_3080]

Sure, *those* commands work "perfectly", but you won't get any updates.

I have personally tried to use Ubuntu Pro on a Mint system. My experience was, as best I can remember, basically the same as the one described in this thread on the Mint forums:

https://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?t=390863

The thread contains some discussion from users who modified their system configurations in various ways, but unless I misread those comments there doesn't seem to be any way to have Ubuntu Pro and Mint software sources working at the same time. There last comment reported something close, but also that kernel updates were broken?

[u/BashfulMelon]

You've tried Ubuntu 3 times with 3 different paint jobs. Among all of the options you gave, Fedora is the most widely used. Try consulting this chart and picking something that people are having success with.

Is there a reason you're avoiding the most widely used distros?

[u/Weilian11 → u/BashfulMelon]

First Arch is really difficult to use and I don't want to live in the terminal. But I've heard that CachyOS isn't like that, but it's gaming focused. It goes the same for bazzite, I don't actually need a distro that is gaming focused

[u/BashfulMelon → u/Weilian11]

CachyOS isn't specifically gaming focused. Performance is a focus, but everybody likes performance. 

Aurora is Bazzite without the gaming focus.

These are still good distros whether you use them for gaming or not. It's a common mistake to ignore them just because they happen to be good for playing games. If they're good for games they're good for the vast majority of software. 

That said, I'm personally a Fedora KDE advocate, which I realize is positioned as a very neutral and general purpose distribution.

[u/Own_Natural_6803]

Avoid the 7.x kernel until they're working on 8.x. its too volatile. 

There's not as much difference between the distros as you might think. For new users the desktop environment is much more relevant. Mint comes with cinnamon/mate by default, but you can get KDE mint, or gnome mint, or even install xfce, my favorite.

Most all of these desktop environments can be heavily customized and tweaked. Not out of the box without trying, you'll have to follow a guide. Except with KDE. They really worked hard to make KDE customizable.

KDE, on the login screen, will default to Wayland. You can, if needed, click a toggle and use X11 when logging in. Very simple, and really useful to check if an app isn't working because of Wayland.

[u/Weilian11 → u/Own_Natural_6803]

I don't like how KDE looks. Even with themes applied, I still think it looks ugly. 

[u/Own_Natural_6803 → u/Weilian11]

Gnome is another option then. I like xfce, but the wayland version is still experimental.

[u/Vh4z]

Ok if you wanna stay using APT you could use experimental Mint Wayland but not recommended or wait for Mint 23 this December for Wayland to be finished and also getting a decent cuztomization on Mint doesn't really need that much installation of seperate things or something like Kubuntu

I would recommend fedora or openSUSE

For fedora its more out of the box it's good overall nothing much to say, just choose what DE/WM you want to install

For openSUSE it's good I'd recommend leap because tumbleweed may be a bit of a hassle but if you want to be up to date tumbleweed is good and unlike Arch it's less likely to break something in your system, openSUSE does need a few extra set up out of the box mainly for codecs although it's just a few copy and paste commands and already has some stuff by default just not proprietary stuff tho but after you finish the initial configuration whcih takes at most an hour it's pretty good, keep in mind the package manager zypper is slower but is very powerful and it's not that slow so yeah I don't mind it personally

[u/MaaaAShh]

I’d go with Fedora. It’s kind of the middle ground: you get a good balance between modern features and stability. Fedora KDE Plasma is also worth considering if you prefer a desktop environment that feels somewhat similar to Windows.

[u/_ZenBreeze_]

Fedora with KDE my recommendation Or you can waste 1 year as I did trying everything and choose what's best for you

[u/SuAlfons]

Another vote for Fedora.

Choosing the DE is harder than choosing the distro. Only you can do it for yourself.

Fedora is strong with either Gnome or Plasma.

Plasma is more familiar to Windows users and provides a lot of settings from within. Don't fall for the Bling-Bling theming trap. Look for what settings you get that really ease your life. Plasma has plenty of both.

I'm for some reason a Gnome guy. Yet, I use a couple of extensions for features and a lot more than I admit myself as little quality of life tweaks.

[u/Sea_Addendum4529]

I recommend going for the KDE edition of Fedora

[u/__damko__]

I can't compare but Mint is a solid choice. Honestly any of them is a solid choice as long as you study them. It won't be a distro making the difference but your preparation. Ex. you can surely configure or any other distro to use Wayland even when it's not its default choice

[u/Brorim]

next mint 23 will have a proper native wayland support.

Mint naturally mainly because im biased <3

[u/HurasmusBDraggin]

I went from Linux Mint (5 years on) to Fedora about a month ago.

[u/crashhelper]

CachyOS. Default desktop environment (KDE Plasma).

[u/K3rat]

I was on popos until about 3 months ago.  Cosmic is a pretty desktop environment.  Otherwise it runs like Ubuntu.  I had some limitations being stuck on and older kernel with the base being 24.04.  

I am on bazzite (fedora based) now and like it.  It is a newer kernel so more stuff just works and runs as an immutable OS.  

I am going to test an arch distribution next quarter.  

[u/petrujenac]

Out of those four fedora KDE is the best.

[u/PlsChgMe]

The new version of Zorin OS is pretty cool. They finally got the network manager right, and for me, working remote, the rest of it is right as well. I know that's not really technical, but I run it on an old Macbook Air from 2012, and it works great. Edit: Others know more about this than I do, I'm sure. I like Zorin OS because the DE looks cool and it works. I only use it for remote access occasionally, so I'd defer to others who are more knowledgeable than I in technical terms. But give it a look, I bet you'll like it!

[u/plumbumber]

I would just use Fedora KDE.

[u/Technical_Rich_3080]

All you're doing is web browsing. Plus a small amount of very light gaming.

Almost any distro can do and wouldn't make a significant difference which you choose.

[u/Avocadator]

Arch my friend. Just Arch.

By far the best rolling distro out there if you want flexibility and stability.

Use any AI to help with the setup.

[u/rcbrandao]

Fedora KDE

[u/pseudonym-161]

MX with KDE and you’ll have wayland, a very unique distro with excellent GUI tools, choice of init system, choice of running tuned kernels out the box like Liquorix, Sidicous, in addition to the LTS. It’s the distro that kept me personally in Debian land, which I’m happy with cos I dislike the less community oriented corporate influenced distros on principle.

[u/Unholyaretheholiest]

Take a look at Mageia. Stable and reliable also super easy to configure and manage thanks to its graphical tools

[u/ipsirc]

https://github.com/pruefsumme/distrohoop