Why Do I Recommend Choosing Mainstream Linux Distributions? Niche Distributions Have Plenty of Problems!
What Linux distribution do I recommend? I can only say that people should use mainstream Linux distributions more.
The longer I use Linux, the more I want to solve fragmentation through dictatorship. Yet free software can never be unified.
The deeper I go down the FOSS rabbit hole, the more I gradually discover that I am standing on the anti-diversity side.
There is a joke that it is hard for Linux computers to get infected because there are too many distributions, and every system’s libraries are different, so viruses easily show no such file or directory when executed.
To solve this problem, all we can do is call on everyone to think clearly about what they are pursuing.
I have no decision-making power over the Linux community. These are only my own thoughts. This is yet another rant.
Diversity for Diversity’s Sake#
Let’s start with an article: Grub & Systemd, A FOSS Monopoly. Am I the only one that sees Linux Unity as a bad idea?
Seeing this, I could not help thinking of the meme: “Can you be smarter than the ancestors? Zhang Xianzhong.jpg”
People who refuse to accept change and casually bring out the “Unix philosophy” to pontificate need to change. Even now, there are still people opposing Systemd, deliberately choosing distributions with other inits. Their reason for insisting on this, “do one thing and do it well”, looks more ridiculous as time passes. The same applies to other new Linux technologies, such as Wayland, Pipewire, Flatpak, and so on. These things are slowly becoming the standards of the next-generation Linux desktop. Although they are not perfect, we should remain optimistic. Yet there are still many people who do not criticize the progress of these things from a technical perspective. Instead, they rely on mockery and insults (just think of the ranting tone of 4chan /g/ users), believing everything is a RedHat conspiracy to rule the world. Someone even created a flatkill.org website to attack Flatpak.
Just like social activists who desperately insist DRM is a bad thing, they emotionally say, I oppose it! But if they cannot offer a better solution (such as making something like LibreDRM), then it is just blind opposition.
Although open source community fragmentation has long been in the genes of Linux distributions, and some users deliberately love promoting weird distributions just to be different, even claiming diversity purely for the sake of being different, some things really should be standardized. This solution will not satisfy everyone, but at least the result will not be too bad.
What Counts as a Mainstream Linux Distribution#
Now to the main topic.
My view of non-mainstream Linux distributions is shown in the image below. This image is truly hilarious. Hannah Montana Linux, made for the TV series Hannah Montana, is absolutely one of the most famous meme distros. And this thing wants to fight other distributions?
Of course, there is still a gap between a niche distro and a meme distro. It is hard for anyone to define which distribution is more mainstream and which is niche. After all, even MX Linux once occupied the DistroWatch rankings, that inexplicable heresy that does not adopt Systemd. But the ones that laugh until the end are often the Linux distributions that remain in the top ten after five or ten years.
My personal picks for the most mainstream Linux distributions are: Debian, Ubuntu, Linux Mint, RHEL, Fedora, Rocky Linux, Arch Linux, openSUSE, and Gentoo. They have been tempered through countless trials, and their communities are large enough! Users are spread all over the world. What the original projects provide is already good enough; there is no need to use derivative Linux distributions.
In fact, after using Linux for a long time, you gradually learn what mainstream distributions are. Look at the projects small software developers release on Github! If they do not use Flatpak/AppImage/Snap, what package formats do they prioritize releasing? Most likely .deb and .rpm, right? If there is no package for your system, are you supposed to compile it yourself?
Besides, so many Ubuntu derivative distributions can have APT dependency breakage (for example, Ubuntu packages may not necessarily work on ZorinOS), so what about other even more niche distributions? It depends on the maintainers’ skill, whether their documentation is detailed enough to help users when they encounter difficulties, and whether they can maintain software quality. Not everyone is as capable as the Slackware author.
For distributions developed through great effort to support specific computer hardware, such as Pop_OS!, Tuxedo OS, and Asahi Linux, I respect their work. But they are, after all, not as “general-purpose” as Debian. For ordinary users, meaning freeloaders who do not intend to contribute upstream development, choosing a non-mainstream distribution is torturing yourself. To put it bluntly, it is a waste of time. Playing with them occasionally is fine, but they cannot be used as your main production system.
Systemd and FreeDesktop Are More Widely Accepted Standards#
Linux has too many distributions, and fragmentation is severe. Linus Torvalds has also talked about this, and he especially likes to break userspace.
The long-term atmosphere of the open source community has also caused many “standards” to appear. I believe everyone has seen the xkcd comic. A single piece of open source software can have many solutions fighting at the same time, with the survivors ultimately depending on community acceptance.
In recent years, the only certain winning example is Systemd. On the init battlefield, it killed traditional SysVinit, along with alternatives such as S6, runit, dinit, OpenRC, and so on. Only a few distributions are still resisting.
I very much agree with Systemd wanting to manage everything and unify system service management. I even think using systemd-homed and systemd-nspawn is not unacceptable.
In addition, compared with Systemd, the “standards” with higher acceptance in the Linux community should be the series of specifications formulated by FreeDesktop.org. They give desktop software developers standards to follow, so software does not have to wonder where to find configuration files.
Specialized Niche Distributions, No#
The problem with Linux is that there are too many choices. If it were only software diversity, that would be fine, but if even the underlying graphical desktop environment and system services insist on being “diverse”, things become very complicated.
Above I talked about Systemd unifying the world. Now only niche distributions still refuse to use Systemd for various reasons.
Next is the problem of specialized Linux distributions.
When it comes to Linux distributions, I am very averse to specialized distributions. For example, China has the modified deepin, while Taiwan has ezgo. They say these are specially modified for national conditions and preinstall a series of software they think you will need (especially for users accustomed to Windows and Android operations). Bullshit! The aesthetics of the Republic of China have ruined the aesthetics of the Linux desktop. With a pile of miscellaneous software built in, if you want to install something, can you not install it yourself? Rather than doing these things, they should contribute upstream localization.
In my humble opinion, rather than spending time maintaining your own Linux distribution and making so-called “mega patch collection CDs” yourself, it is better to gather everyone’s strength and put energy into the development work of “mainstream” and “general-purpose” systems. And call on everyone to follow FreeDesktop standards when doing things, instead of downstream patching or making distro-specific hacks.
Hey, but even Ubuntu itself is a system modified from Debian that pushes a modified GNOME. It itself has destroyed upstream things.
If you pursue a “pure” Linux system, that option does not exist. Perhaps Debian and Fedora better conform to the standard of vanilla software.
But for desktop users, considering ease of use, reputation, and many other factors, Ubuntu, supported by a commercial company, is still the best choice. At least Ubuntu LTS is only slightly less stable than Debian Stable. Before Fedora stops treating users as lab rats, I will not recommend it. Although Canonical often makes strange decisions too, and the community also criticizes Ubuntu for not liking to upstream its own changes. Sigh!
At least everyone could just focus on developing things for Ubuntu, right? No No No, why should I listen to your Ubuntu standards?
Actually, I also have complaints about Ubuntu. For example, GNOME really is not as usable as KDE Plasma, which is why I install Kubuntu instead of adapting to GNOME.
That is right. Although I pursue “standards” and unity, you cannot force me to use garbage like GNOME. Even if it has the largest share, no way! I am going to use KDE Plasma.
Overly Radical Distributions Are Also a No#
Honestly, I do not really agree with Linux distributions that take overly radical approaches. It is like when I discuss system backup strategies and there is always someone recommending some Fedora CoreOS variant used by a small minority, promoting a non-mainstream BTRFS backup method paired with immutable rootfs to protect the system. rollback is great, but I do not want to rollback all day, especially because distributions based on rolling updates are hard to keep stable.
A pure Wayland environment no longer counts as a radical feature. Now there is a future trend toward adopting the “immutable distro”. I do not know whether it will successfully replace the traditional package update model of the past. Do people really think everyone is a normie willing to be held hostage by the ChromeOS model?
By the way, now another new Arch distribution has risen. The previous ones were Chakra, Manjaro, and EndeavourOS. Now what is it, CachyOS? Believe me, sooner or later you will return to pure Arch Linux!
This reminds me of when I used to post videos on Bilibili. There would always be deranged people leaving comments. Some told me I should use Redox OS because it is written in Rust, the safest language. In the past, under a post where someone asked how to revive an old Windows XP computer, I also told them to install Plan 9, because that person said they wanted to try different operating systems. So why did you not dare install what I recommended? It is roughly this kind of show-off nerd mentality.
Everyone wants to show how special they are, but an overly radical style is not suitable for everyone.
So Which One Should You Use?#
Actually, I cannot make myself “cater to the mainstream” in everything either, because would that not turn me into a puppet drifting with the current?
For example, my personality is closer to the spirit of free software, so I should probably be more suited to Debian Stable. But to cater to the masses, I chose the more “mainstream” Ubuntu LTS. Yet because of a bit of rebellious psychology, I chose a variant carrying KDE Plasma, refusing to let GNOME limit my vision.
I think it is precisely this “spirit of rebellion” that causes fragmentation in the Linux community. If everyone has even a slight difference in thought, it is not surprising that people write their own desktops or even create distributions. This is the established curse of open source software. There will never be a solution that satisfies everyone, unless a company can sell belief like Apple, or Google’s Chromebooks are dumped in massive quantities, forcing everyone to accept a uniform user interface.
Fine, fine. Everyone’s thoughts are different, and no single Linux distribution can suit everyone’s taste.
But I think that at the current stage, people should choose the Linux distributions that contain the greatest amount of community consensus: mainstream and mature distributions, rather than some niche distro that shows how unique one’s horizons are while ignoring unity.
