I guess I'm open minded because I'm a noob with Linux yet I've worked with XFCE, LXQt, KDE, and GNOME (in that order), and none of them were a pain, except possibly LXQt, which was super clunky to customize, but it ran amazing on weak hardware, so I'm giving it a pass. I reckon I'd be cool with Cinnamon, MATE, Unity, or even one of the lightweight DE's.
Yet, all of these DEs I've used were on Ubuntu based distros. I feel afraid to encounter weird things with other distros. For example, doesn't DaVinci Resolve only run on Ubuntu based distros?
Yeah... but if the packagers dont test it, or ship "stable" KDE Plasma 5.27 which will simply not get most bugfixes (Debian, MX Linux and many more will have these issues for 4 years!) its actually important what Distro you choose.
It is not if
your Desktop relies on Xorg garbage which is "stable" and will not evolve
your Desktop is minimal and Distros orient their schedule on it (GNOME)
Just hopped back over to linux mint again after years of making due with Windows
Went with cinnamon cuz pretty.
switched to CobiWindowList so I could see all windows on either of my monitor menu bars.
switched to CinnVIIStarkMenu for a more familiar menu system.
Not much change, I can lean on the habits I've gotten from windows, and now my switch is pretty much unnoticeable to me.
Funny enough, Lutris has made it alot easier for me to access games I usually would just have downloaded, like my itch.io library. Proton has tackled all my other games fine. Hell, I even got Tarkov running smoothly, even though you can only do offline raids on Linux ATM.
Same here! I joined lemmy right around the time my main hdd took a dump--so there was probably a bit of influence coming from here...While scrambling to get another windows installed (and encountering a bunch of obstacles along the way) i finally decided to just try Linux Mint Cinnamon. Tbh, i wasn't sure if my computer was bricked by the time i finally got mint to start up via usb. When it started working, i tried a few basic things--browsing the web, playing music, videos etc. When it all worked with a minimal amount of fuss, i decided it was time to give up windows if i could. Haven't been back to windows since!
This isn't a bad take. DE is what is going to keep people from running back to windows right away, mostly. I do think it is better for people coming into Linux not to try to emulate the Windows experience. It is easier to learn when you accept it is going to be different from the start.
Its easier to learn if your muscle memory is still similar
taskbar with apps, aligned to the left
nearly no workspaces, everything through clicking
normal Window decorations
normal start& app menu
filemanager with features
firefox, thunderbird, libreoffice, inkscape, xnviewmp, freefilesync, kate, krita, ... all the cross-platform software you can learn before switching
I dont agree at all. I switched from KDE which is basically just the way better Windows 10. Windows 11 looks nice but is incredibly bloated, Windows is rock stable though which I admire. KDE is the exact opposite poorly.
But at the beginning the mix of familiarity and "wow a filemanager with tabs is so cool" made me stay with KDE immediately.
DE is how you interact with everything else on the computer for anyone thats not a 100% terminal hackerman.
a good, simple, easy to use windows-like DE is probably one of the most important things for a new user. Since it will influence how easily they can handle and do anything and everything else.
That was definitely the case for me. There were definitely other factors that shaped my decision, but the biggest "click" was finding my preferred DE. So long as I can go about my day-to-day computing, everything else is easier to figure out.
In my case, it's GNOME with a couple extensions like Dash to Panel and ArcMenu. I know, some people would prefer not to use extensions, and yes, my system just looks like Windows now, but it works for me. :P
I really, really wish that the Tweaks and extensions I use were defaults. I always have to mess around for a bit to make Gnome the way I like it.
Almost makes me go KDE. KDE has a lot of defaults I prefer. That said, having to go find the K version of whatever distro makes me a crazy person too. sigh
Yeah, I get that, and honestly agree. I just like the rest of GNOME, so it's worth it. Plus I've tried KDE before, and it could be a bit finicky. Like, all the options are there, but it weirdly takes longer to get it set up in a way I like, and sometimes I run into issues along the way. With GNOME, yeah, I have to add the extensions, but once they're installed, it's pretty much exactly what I want.
That said, I totally get why someone would love KDE, especially if they like the tinkering and getting things just right. I also check it out every now and then, so maybe one day it'll grow on me. :)
Every time I try KDE again, it feels so cluttered and all over the place with extra buttons everywhere and things scattered all about. So I go through pages and pages of customizations and settings to tame it into something that isn't hideously distracting, and... I realize that I've made it look pretty much like Gnome would with a couple of extensions and way less effort, so I go back to Gnome. 🤷
That was my experience, too. After tinkering with KDE a while, I tried GNOME, added a couple of extensions, and it was like a wave of relief when it suddenly turned into almost exactly what I wanted the entire time.
It's a bit weird. KDE is so customizable that I don't want to do it. If a distro has nice defaults, great, but if I'd have to start with a fresh, default KDE install, I wouldn't want to bother.
I remember doing that for reddit back in the day. I downloaded a bunch of apps, then picked the one I liked best. Good to see devs doing the same for Lemmy!
It's mostly true. Someone coming from windows may struggle with gnome, while cinnamon is pretty easy to them. If it comes down to the decision between Gentoo and Linux Mint this, of course, isn't true anymore, since Gentoo is way to complex for a beginner to understand.
Tl;dr: This is only true if you apply this to different distros with the same complexity(e.g. Pop_OS! or Linux Mint).
On the other hand, for someone just learning to use computer (ie. a child), GNOME in it's simplicity would be just great.
I feel like we've all been accustomed to the dumpster fire that is Windows, and selecting a DE that resembles it. GNOME feels and looks more like Android or iOS that have proven to be easy to learn from ground up and it still manages to offer a great desktop experience even if limited in customization many more advanced users want.
The “what you go for it’s entirely your choice” mantra when it comes to DE is total BS. What happens is that you’ll find out while you can use any DE in fact GNOME will provide a better experience because most applications on Linux are design / depend on its components. Using KDE/XFCE is fun until you run into some GTK/libadwaita application and small issues start to pop here and there, windows that don’t pick on your theme or you just created a frankenstein of a system composed by KDE + a bunch of GTK components;
The most important thing for most new Linux users would be a pathway to getting support. Because of this the distro you use matters much more than the DE because each of the major distro's have different pipelines that the funnel users in to getting support. The package manager lock in is distro dependent and depending on the philosophy that they subscribe to can be the difference between how many steps a new user has to take to get a working system up and running. Thankfully, with the rise of flatpak, appimage and snap being more popular than ever package availability is much more streamlined but that is another layer on top of an already overwhelming package system for new users. The defaults for all of this depends on your distro which can be different. Heck we haven't even gotten to support cycles which depending on user needs can be different. Because not every user has or wants what comes with for example maintaining an rolling release distribution. Did they setup their system to have snapshots so they can roll everything back when the new kernel update breaks something system critical and they have a presentation at 2:00? None of these things are really DE dependent but are baked in to the defaults you subscribe to when you choose a disto. The good part is that if you don't like how something is configured you can change everything easily depending on how well documented it is. This is why it's more important to choose a distro with good documentation or at least a active enough community so when you run into hangups you can get some sort of resolution.
Getting "Linux" support online usually means Ubuntu, but I ran into a Mint problem back in the day (I wanna say about 2014 or so...) And Clem himself replied to me personally with, not just a link to a fix, but an actual "copy and paste this exact thing into the terminal" reply, and it totally fixed me up. Clem being the guy who is in charge of Mint.
Always left me with a warm feeling about Mint, and I keep coming back.
Using LMDE 6 Cinnamon on one of my boxes for that reason.
Great take. But you know the real sneaky one that trips you up? File system.
I wouldn't call myself a beginner, but every time I install a Linux system seriously I see those filesystem choices and have to dig through volumes of turbo-nerd debates on super fine intricacies between them, usually debating their merits in super high-risk critical contexts.
I still don't come away with knowing which one will be best for me long-term in a practical sense.
As well as tons of "It ruined my whole system" or "Wrote my SSD to death" FUD that is usually outdated but nevertheless persists.
Honestly nowadays I just happily throw BTRFS on there because it's included on the install and allows snapshots and rollbacks. EZPZ.
For everything else, EXT4, and for OS-shared storage, NTFS.
But it took AGES to arrive to this conclusion. Beginners will have their heads spun at this choice, guaranteed. It's frustrating.
Makes sense to go simplest as possible on a home pc and even home sever. More important with raid and production capacity planning or enterprise stuff.
I did NTFS because both windows and Linux can read it. Do I know literally any other fact about formatting systems? Nope. I'm pretty sure I don't need to, I'm normie-adjacent. I just want my system to work so I can use the internet, play games, and do word processing.
I once tried to install my Steam Library in Linux to an NTFS partition so I wouldn't have to install things twice on a dual boot system. Protip: don't do that.
chkdsk -f (or r or whatever the third option is), reboot twice, but do it multiple times because steam on linux asks you to reinstall the games in the exact same spot and you accidentally do it because you're not paying close attention due to the mild panic windows threw at you?
There is a guide here that says you can do it, but my experience was that I installed the games in Windows on my D drive, mounted the drive in Linux (Mint, I think), and when I tried to play them The system locked up. Rebooting into windows, Steam said the game files were corrupt and I had to reinstall them. I've always just kept two separate game libraries on any dual boot systems ever since.
Interesting. I was able to use the files perfectly fine from linux, but windows threw a tantrum when I tried to boot and removed everything linux had touched.
I once heard that the trick to this is you need to let Steam "update" every game before you switch OSs. If it doesn't get to finish this, it will bork. That's also highly impractical I feel though.
So yeah on my dual boot Linux is for making things and doesn't see my main Steam library. Win10 is just for games. :p
EDIT: Win11 or 12 won't be a problem because I'm confining them to a VM for only the most stubborn situations, and doing everything including gaming with Linux. :D
If I read lsblk correctly, I am using ext4 for my whole drive. I have used linux for some years now, but I never bothered to learn more than "next next next done" when installing my OS.
Does BTRFS popOS allow BTRFS? Should I bother for a daily driver?
Only have one HDD and using a laptop, ext4 has been working well enough so far. I only wonder if there is something else I should use for my home drive for better disaster recovery.
It really depends on the disaster. Snapshotting isn't strong disaster recovery protection. It's more like I'm about to do something stupid and need to undo. If you need real disaster recovery slap an NVMe in an external enclosure and sink them up occasionally. Or set up sync thing or something like that.
In practice BTRFS is a bit faster and on a Distro like Fedora or Opensuse they already integrate it to do system backups while running (copy on write).
In practice it just works and you dont use all the fancy possibilities, because a majority of the Linux world still sticks with ext4 for whatever reason, so Filemanagers and backup tools wouldnt reach everyone.
Its a perfect example of Linux slowing down itself by desperately refusing to change
Xorg
old Desktops
old software, system packages, damn appimages
no automatic updates
ext4 instead of something modern
Ext4 is from 2008. BTRFS is even older from 2007, but was only declared stable in 2013. More innovation, more testing time, more "dont use it yet, it is unstable". Ext4 probably never was as they didnt try that much.
Ext4 is the safe bet for a beginner. The real question is with or without LVM. Generally I would say with but that abstraction layer between the filesystem and disk can really be confusing if you've never dealt with it before. A total beginner should probably go ext4 without LVM and then play around in a VM with the various options to become informed enough to do something less vanilla.
It makes adding space easier down the road, either by linking disks or if you clone your root drive to a larger drive, which tends to not be something most "end users" (I try not to use that description but you said it heh) would do. Yes, using LVM is optional.
It's all skippable if you want... Just put a large / filesystem on a partition and be on your way. There are good reasons for using it in some cases (see my response now).
Can you explain LVM in practice to me? I used ext4 and now Fedora Kinoite with BTRFS, the filsystem never makes any problems and some fancy features just work.
In practice, you would split a disk up to keep /home separate from/ and probably other parts of the filesystem too like /var/log.. this has long been an accepted practice to keep a full disk from bringing something production offline completely and/or complicating the recovery process. Now, you could use partitions but once those are set, it's hard to rearrange them without dumping all the data and restoring it under the new tables. LVM stands for Logical Volume Manager and puts an abstraction layer between the filesystems and the partitions (or whole disk if you are into that). This means you can add Disks arbitrarily in the future and add parts of those disks to the filesystems as required. This can really minimize or even eliminate downtime when you have a filesystem getting filled up and there's nothing you can easily remove (like a database).
It's good to know but with the proliferation of cloud and virtual disks it's just easier on those systems to leave off LVM and just keep the filesystems on their own virtual disks and grow the disk as required. It is invaluable when running important production systems on bare metal servers even today.
I should also point out that some modern filesystems like btrfs and zfs have these capabilities built into the filesystems natively so adding LVM into the mix there wouldn't add anything and could, in fact, cause headaches.
Lending my voice to this as well for most, my thought is EXT4, without LVM, deferring to the preferred FS for the distro. It is a mature, stable, and reliable choice and logical volumes complicate things too much for beginners.
If dual-booting, yeah, definitely an NTFS partition for shared storage (just be aware that Windows can be weird with file permissions and ownership).
Yes, I listened to a podcast about that recently. Linux was far with XFS or something, but then Apple came, improved their HFS and actually made tools for it and it got better.
BTRFS is just as established as etx4, just not as damn old. It also just works, and it has advanced features that are crucial for backups. But I have no idea how to use btrbk and there is no GUI so nobody uses that.
But as a filesystem that just works like ext4, plus the automatically configured snapshots in both regular and atomic Fedora systems and OpenSuse, BTRFS is awesome.
Only outdated Distros that fear change stick with ext4, at least thats my opinion.
I'm still figuring it out. I know ExFAT works across all desktop OS's, NTFS works with Linux and Windows, and ext4 only works with Linux.
But it took a half hour of googling to figure out you can't install Linux on NTFS. I planned to do that to ease cross platform compatibility. Oops. I'm also attempting a RAID 1 array using NTFS. It seems to work, but I'm not sure how to automatically mount it on boot. I feel like I might have picked the wrong filesystem.
Hey there friend! Sorry to hear about your woes.
From my understanding in practice, ExFAT is usually better as more of a universally readable storage system for external drives. Think, using the same portable drive between your PS5, friend's mac, and whatever else. Great for large files and backups! Maybe not as much for running your OS from.
My approach and recommendation would be that you don't want OS's seeing each others' important business anyway. Permissions and stuff can get wonky for instance.
So your core Linux install can be something like EXT4 or BTRFS. I like BTRFS personally because you can set up recovery snapshots without taking tons of space. It does require a little extra understanding and tooling though, but it's worth looking into. (There's GUI based BTRFS tools now though. Yay!)
EXT4 is nice and reliable and basic. Not much to say, really! Both can do RAID 1.
Next, a /home mounted separately, this COULD be NTFS if you really wanted that sharing. (BTW there's some Windows drivers that can read EXT4 I think?)
BUT I feel more organized using a different way:
What I do personally is keep an NTFS partition I call something like "DATA" or "MAIN_STORAGE" and I mount this into my /home on Linux. It's usually a separate, chunky 4TB HDD or something.
On Windows this is my D:\ drive, and it's also where I store my project files, media, and whatever else I want easily accessible. Both OSs see those system-agnostic files, but are safely unaware of each other's core system files.
In Linux, you can mount any folder anywhere, really! You can mount it on startup by amending your FSTAB on an existing install or setting the option during installs sometimes.
So the file path looks something like /home/MonkeMischief/DATA/Music
It's treated just like any other folder but it's in fact an entirely separate drive. :)
I hope this was somewhat helpful and not just confusing. In practice, it'll start to make more sense I hope!
The important thing is to make sure your stuff is backed up.
... Perhaps to a big chonky brick formatted as ExFAT if you so choose. ;)
I am experimenting with Linux on two devices: My daily driver laptop and a desktop.
The laptop is set on a dual boot from 2 SSDs. The first SSD contains Windows and has one 2TB NTFS partition. The other SSD has a 250GB partition for ext4 where Ubuntu lives and a 750GB partition for ExFAT.
The desktop has a 500GB SSD with ext4 for the OS, and has two 4 year old 2TB HDDs for data. This is why I'm trying to run them in RAID 1. For cross compatibility (and what they were already formatted as), they are in NTFS.
What do you think of that? Am I using adequate filesystems?
Honestly, I'd say the defaults most distros use will be fine for most users... If they don't know why they should use one filesystem over another, then it's almost certainly not going to matter for them
Agreed. I used to be the tech support for my family members. Everyone I switched to Mint Cinnamon stopped calling me. (That's also when I realised my relatives never call me to share good news or to ask about me.)
