What do you consider to be the “Goldilocks” distro? the one that balances ease of install and use, up-to-date, stability, speed, etc… You get the idea.

I’m not a newb, these last few years I’ve lived in the Debian and derivatives side of things, but I’ve used RH, Slackware, Puppy :), and older stuff, like mandrake/mandriva and others. Never tried Suse or Arch, and while Nix looks appealing, I need something to put in production rapidly. I have tried Kinoite in a VM, but I couldn’t install something (which I can’t remember), and that turned me off.

Oh I’m on Mint right now, because lazy, but it’s acting up with a couple of VMs, which I need, I really don’t have the time or desire to maybe spend two days troubleshooting, and I’m a bit fed up with out of date pkgs.

  • Badabinski@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    7 days ago

    For me, it’s Arch for desktop usage. When I first started using Arch it would not have been Arch, but now it’s Arch. The package manager has great ergonomics (not great discoverability, but great ergonomics), it’s always up to date, I can get a system from USB to sway in ~20 minutes (probably be faster if I used the installer), it’s fast because it doesn’t enable many things by default, and it’s honestly been the most reliable distro I’ve ever used. I used to use OpenSUSE ~10 years ago, and that broke more in one year than Arch has in ten.

    I personally feel like Arch’s unreliable nature has been overstated. Arch will give you the rope to hang yourself if you ask for it, but if you just read the emails (or use a helper that displays breaking changes when updating like paru) and merge your pacnews then you’ll likely have a rock solid system.

    Again, this is all just my opinion. It’s easy for me to overlook or forget all of the pain and suffering I likely went through when learning how to Arch. I won’t recommend it to you, but I’ll happily say how much I’ve come to enjoy using it.

    • Kongar@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      For me I find endeavoros to be the goat. I realized that when I install arch and then the “essentials” for me - I basically recreated what endeavor does. Except endeavor does it with like three clicks on the installer. So now I just install endeavor. Gnome, nvidia drivers, pacdiff and meld, text editor, yay, you get the idea…. No bloat, no bs, quick install with exactly what I would do manually with arch.

      I also know this take is controversial-but I like flatpaks as well. Sometimes you gotta mess with flatseal, and sometimes the AUR package is clearly superior. But they usually get the job done well.

      It’s nearly impossible to break arch if you use the AUR as little as possible AND read the arch homepage for manual steps BEFORE doing an upgrade.

      • Thorned_Rose@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 days ago

        I’m a long time Arch user (10 years) and I love EndeavourOS + Pamac (from Manjaro) as a simple install that I can easily maintain on family members computers or on our Laptop if I’m feeling lazy.

    • ugo@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      +1. Arch is super easy to install, just open the install guide on the wiki and do what it says.

      It’s also really stable nowadays, I can’t actually remember the last time something broke.

      As a counterpoint, on ubuntu I constantly had weird issues where the system would change something apparently on its own. Like the key repeat resetting every so often (I mean multiple times an hour), weirdness with graphic drivers, and so on.

      That said, I also appreciate debian for server usage. Getting security updates only can be desirable for something that should be little more than an appliance. Doing a dist upgrade scares the shit out of me though, while on arch that’s not even close to a concern.

        • Anarchistcowboy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          I started using Linux almost exactly 1 year ago and this is the conclusion I’ve come to. Although I do play around with nix on the server every couple of months, I’ll figure it out someday.

    • D_Air1@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      I agree. Arch really won me over with how they do things. Sometimes less is more.

      1. Not splitting packages as much means that I can compile pretty much any program without thinking about dependencies most of the time.
      2. Arch doesn’t autostart programs just because I downloaded them.
      3. While I’m not necessarily attached to having the latest and greatest of every package. There are often times where I do want the latest and greatest of some package and it was out of date on point release distributions. (Before someone comments flatpak. The most important collection of software I want up to date is the Desktop Environemnt and my Desktop Environment of choice is KDE Plasma.)
      4. Lastly, the pkgbuild format is dead simple and I have actually managed to roll my own packages compared to some other distros.
  • LeFantome@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 days ago

    Sounds like you want EndeavourOS.

    Installs in a few minutes to a fully configured and usable desktop environment of your choice. It is Arch ( uses the same packages, uses the same kernel, has access to the AUR ). A huge benefit of the Arch repos is the up-to-date package universe as well everything you are likely to want being in the repo or AUR.

    Don’t underestimate the maintenance and reliability benefits of not having to cobble stuff together from multiple sources.

  • gramgan@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    7 days ago

    NixOS. Declarative system management is just so unbelievably simple and reliable that I couldn’t ever see myself going back to a traditional Linux system.

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 days ago

      NixOS is too different and poorly documented for me to call it the true goldilocks distro, but man am I loving it

    • Neo@lemmy.hacktheplanet.be
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      I’m building a batteries included desktop OS based on NixOS. A bit like ZorinOS, ChromeOS or Mint but with NixOS as a base. It’s a bit ambitious and still in an early stage, but it’s been great fun for me using the Nix package manager as a solid tool to build stuff. Check it out at https://nixup.io/ or https://github.com/nixup-io/desk-os if you’re curious. Anyone with the nix package manager installed and flakes enabled can just execute nix run github:nixup-up/desk-os to spin up a VM with a demo.

  • Tundra@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    6 days ago

    Debian Stable + flatpaks. If I were to install it again, I would probably use spiral Linux.

    I’ve moved to cachyOS, I’ve been getting into running local AI, and they offer an optional prebuilt SDK.

    (with Debian I would have to install CUDA myself, which would cause issues on kernel updates)

  • iopq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    NixOS is super easy. It gets a bit complicated when you use flakes, but you don’t need to to start.

    You just put the system packages into the configuration so you can replicate that system everywhere.

    But if you don’t care, just install everything to the user profile! It just works like any distro then, no config files to mess with

    The first power spike you will experience is actually setting up a service like Jellyfin by just editing the configuration.nix, though. It’s so much easier than having to mess with the configuration yourself (someone already did the work for you)

  • rebeltrouper@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 days ago

    For me it was Gentoo. I am not sure what it is but for my work it just works better. Tests shows it runs faster for my work and comes with all the tools I need to compile things. I really like the package naming scheme and use flags. I also like the custom-ability of it as well. Tried arch and others but hated it. Also I think the documentation on Gentoo is insanely good.

    • JetpackJackson@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      My main distro is arch but I installed gentoo on a spare laptop and im really enjoying the granular control and the choices available, like if I want to use the binaries I can, or I can use a bunch of USE flags, it’s very nice. Emerge is slightly slower than pacman for me but I can live with that. I should learn to write some ebuilds though.

  • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    Fedora. Installer is a bit rubbish (being replaced soon) but it’s not difficult.

    In terms of speed, stability, and being up-to-date it’s been exceptional IMO.

  • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    If you’re lazy (which I take to mean you like low maintenance) and haven’t tried a rolling release distro, you need to try Manjaro. It’s downstream of Arch (like Mint vs Debian) but with a lot of QoL improvements that take the edge off.

    It’s"Goldilocks" for me because it’s rolling and has recent packages but also very low maintenance. I was sick of 3rd-party repo incompatibilies and update issues on Ubuntu.

    It’s a curated take on Arch in that it sources packages from Arch but holds them back until they’re in a decent shape. Recent example was the Plasma 6 which they’ve held back a couple of months until most bugs had been cleared, but normally they release packages on a 2 week cycle.

    It works out of the box, keeps working indefinitely (5 years going for me), and they have integrated system snapshots if you use BTRFS for root, just in case (automatically takes snapshots before every update, which you can restore from Grub). Never had to use a snapshot (did it only once to see if it works).

    Limitations of Manjaro compared to Arch:

    • Not as bleeding edge due to holding packages for a while.
    • You have to stick to their way of doing stuff, like their tools for graphics drivers and kernel management.
    • You have to stick to a LTS kernel or at least keep one installed as backup at all times.
    • It won’t change your kernel major version for you, ever. Some people see this as a disadvantage, personally I greatly prefer it.
    • You have to stick to their stable package repo. If you use their unstable/testing repos all bets are off (which is not going to be news to someone familiar with Debian).
    • You get access to the AUR but the usual warnings apply since AUR is even wilder than Sid. Some people say they’ve ran into trouble installing some AUR packages on Manjaro due to missing dependencies. It’s never happened to me but I can see how it could happen due to the package delay.
    • You can’t say “I use Arch btw”. Arch fans tend to hate Manjaro because they see its limitations and hand-holding as antithetical to Arch’s goals.

    Regarding that last point, there’s a very vocal minority that will smear Manjaro any chance they get All I can say is, try it for yourself.

    • Quazatron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      I can confirm it works as advertised, has very low maintenance and good performance.

      I use it for gaming with Steam, Heroic, Lutris and a bunch of emulators, web browsing, some light development and home lab.

    • steeznson@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 days ago

      The Manjaro team have had well publicised mistakes in the past which I think the community were right to highlight. However to be fair to them it was like a decade ago they had the PGP one, and they seem to have become a more professional outfit since then.

      • lemmyvore@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 days ago

        All distributions make mistakes. It’s a complex job. Debian stable had a local root elevation exploit on for a while a couple of months ago and nobody batted an eye. People would have a field day if that happened to Manjaro.

        It’s a double standard borne out of the resentment of a vocal minority and that sucks. The Linux community wastes so much energy on these pointless feuds. (And then they wonder why there’s never the year of the Linux desktop…) Linux and FOSS are not about treating user share as a zero sum game but unfortunately there are people who can only think in terms of “if you use another distro you’re dumb and I must ridicule you”.

        It’s an especially narrow-minded take with distros like Manjaro, which is different enough from Arch that its users were never going to use Arch anyway.

  • Clearwater@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    Arch, because I use niche software and the AUR doesn’t always get along with Manjaro very well (ungoogled-chromium-bin is the worst offender). Switched to arch, configured it identically to my manjaro install, and all has been well.