Built a new system, but there are so many Linux options! Which to pick?

[rejor11]

Hey all. I recently built a new PC.

EDIT!!

Holy godzilla, this thread kinda blew up. So I ended up installing Ubuntu, and it's working well for me. In the end, it was really the only version that made sense for me. I'm still fairly new to Linux (though not the command line). Furthermore, my company uses Ubuntu for many of its servers, so it made sense to use something similar for personal / work usage. 

 

I read through the replies here. Thanks for the discussion. I'm gonna close this thread if I can, since my question has basically been answered at this point. Thanks for your help guys.

 

End EDIT.

 

I have plans to make this a dual-boot system. I already have Windows 10 pro installed on one m.2 drive, and I plan to install Linux onto the other drive. I will be using it for work; I do some design, some writing, and quite a bit of coding. For writing and design, I typically use my MacBook. I also use it for coding, but definitely need to setup my desktop at home to work with.

 

I don't think I'll need to be able to access the Linux drive from Windows. But, I should be able to access the Windows drive from Linux, since I might have to do some design stuff with Windows programs. If that's not possible, it's not a big deal; i can just use a usb drive to transfer required files as needed, or some kind of cloud storage.

 

So, I don't need something that's super user-friendly, but something that is easy to get up and running quickly would be nice. I've looked at a lot of different Linux distros, but there are quite a few options out there. So, having a bit of trouble deciding which would be best. I'm guessing the end-choice might be Ubuntu?

 

If you need specs of my pc, you can look here: https://pcpartpicker.com/b/q9gwrH
I heard that sometimes a Linux distro won't be compatible with certain parts. Are there any ways to work around that if I have problems? Also, I have a 144hz wqhd monitor; will Linux be able to support that? I suppose that will be more of a drive issue, if anything else.

 

 

Edited October 23, 2019 by rejor11

[Firewrath9]

Ubuntu 18.04 LTS should be good.

[LloydLynx]

On 9/27/2019 at 7:42 PM, Firewrath9 said:

Ubuntu 18.04 LTS should be good.

Not with that 5700XT, at least not out of the box.You're gonna want to use a newer kernel and mesa drivers. If you're fine with twice a year upgrades then Ubuntu non-LTS should be good, version 19.04 right now. Still, you're gonna want to upgrade the kernel and get the stable PPA for the mesa drivers.

[rejor11]

On 10/2/2019 at 5:41 AM, TheJooomes said:

Not with that 5700XT, at least not out of the box.You're gonna want to use a newer kernel and mesa drivers. If you're fine with twice a year upgrades then Ubuntu non-LTS should be good, version 19.04 right now. Still, you're gonna want to upgrade the kernel and get the stable PPA for the mesa drivers.

Thanks for the info. I actually installed the LTS edition of Ubuntu before seeing this post. I was able to get the drivers from the AMD site for my 5700x for Linux and installed them. If anything, I'm running at my preferred resolution at 144hz. So... seems good for now?

I dont plan on gaming on Linux, just with my windows partition. Maybe if I played games it would be different.

[Dat Guy]

Why are you focused on Linux?

[wasab]

13 hours ago, Dat Guy said:

Why are you focused on Linux?

What else is he gonna use?

[Dat Guy]

Well, either Solaris (illumos) or "a BSD", of course - with FreeBSD probably being the best choice this time as it is relatively easy to transfer macOS knowledge to it.

[Talon_3361]

Fedora, Debian (Sid/rolling), OpenSuse, Arch

[Worstcaster]

I'm running Mint currently.  It is based on Ubuntu (which is based on Debian), but has a more windows like appearance.  So far I have tried Ubuntu, Mint, and Manjaro and I like Mint best.

[Nuuskis911]

I'd start with Fedora with your favorite looking Desktop Enviroment. After the installation you can use kvm virtual machine to find your truly favorite DE. Changing the DE is really easy. But Fedora netinst is superior because you build your own looking OS. After getting used to linux I suggest going with Arch.

 

I started with Ubuntu (16.04) and it is widely suggested for the first distro. But after I found firstly Fedora minimal install (always hated how bloated Ubuntu is) and after a while turned to Arch. Now I've been with Arch only for 14 months.

[SilverSoul]

Distros don't matter that much, only thing that differs is if one's a rolling release vs fixed most of the time. Some tools like package managers are also slightly different. Pick whichever you want.

[KashiwagiTsuki]

I vote Arch Linux, which has most package.

If you are new to Linux, then you can try to install Manjaro, based on arch and it is out of box.

[Dat Guy]

47 minutes ago, KashiwagiTsuki said:

Arch Linux, which has most package

The Arch Linux website lists less that 11,000 packages - considering all platforms:

https://www.archlinux.org/packages/

 

Gentoo has almost twice as many.

 

 

[KashiwagiTsuki]

2 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

The Arch Linux website lists less that 11,000 packages - considering all platforms:

https://www.archlinux.org/packages/

 

Gentoo has almost twice as many.

 

 

But Arch has User-community Repository(AUR)

https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/?SB=p&SO=d&O=0

It contains 59000+ packages.

[Dat Guy]

Available third-party packages count as a distribution's packages as well? In this case, all distributions have (roughly) the same amount of available software.

[KashiwagiTsuki]

1 minute ago, Dat Guy said:

Available third-party packages count as a distribution's packages as well? In this case, all distributions have (roughly) the same amount of available software.

But users of most of other distributions can't install those third-party packages through Package management tool. Especially using GUI.

Well...exactly I don't clear about your definition of ‘third-party packages’. Because users could directly use AUR as a source of package Package management tool. BTW the whole AUR is contained in arch's website. And there are still 'third-party' packages besides the AUR... 

My limited experience with other distributions show me that it's more complicated to install those packages made for other distributions.

[Dat Guy]

1 minute ago, KashiwagiTsuki said:

Especially using GUI.

Now this is a funny point made in a discussion about Linux.

Each Linux distribution comes with a compiler. Linux users who don't want to know about this kind of stuff should probably stick with Windows and/or macOS. (Nothing's wrong with that, honestly.)

 

5 minutes ago, KashiwagiTsuki said:

My limited experience with other distributions show me that it's more complicated to install those packages made for other distributions.

./configure ; make ; make install - although lately, other build systems have stepped in, such as CMake and Meson and whatever. I guess there are ways to automatize that.

 

Anyway: How many of the "available packages" are

• still maintained and
• an actual application, not just a library which itself is of no further use to the users?

[KashiwagiTsuki]

4 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

Linux users who don't want to know about this kind of stuff should probably stick with Windows and/or macOS.

That's right. But the beginners may stick with GUI tools for a a period of time. So I think it is still a factor.

 

7 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

./configure ; make ; make install - although lately, other build systems have stepped in, such as CMake and Meson and whatever. I guess there are ways to automatize that.

Yep, a lot of package could install in that way. Users can compile and build the package step by setp. What I complained about just like sometiomes the dependence packages got a different name. Or some rare library files are a little hard to figure out which packages are they come from.

I think that is the reason I praise the assistant tool of AUR or pacman. It helps the compile and install automated.

16 minutes ago, Dat Guy said:

Anyway: How many of the "available packages" are

• still maintained and
• an actual application, not just a library which itself is of no further use to the users?

I think what you said makes sense. But I have no idea where to find the data about the number of "avaliable packages"

I just find the data about total amount of packages from here:

https://repology.org/repositories/statistics/total

[Flygenring]

2 hours ago, KashiwagiTsuki said:

I vote Arch Linux, which has most package.

If you are new to Linux, then you can try to install Manjaro, based on arch and it is out of box.

Even with the AUR, which doesn’t really count imo, that’s not really true. Debian has 59000 packages in their own “real” repositories. 

[Bacon soup]

Ubuntu 19.10 should be coming out next week, or end of month, if it's not already out. 

[wasab]

On 10/16/2019 at 5:43 AM, KashiwagiTsuki said:

But users of most of other distributions can't install those third-party packages through Package management tool. Especially using GUI.

You can with gui installer like synaptic package manager. 

[wasab]

Duplicate. 

[jpenguin]

On 10/7/2019 at 5:27 PM, wasab said:

What else is he gonna use?

HiakuOS??

[impure]

Obviously Ubuntu. When you google an issue on Linux half the time the answer is for Ubuntu. And it also appears to have the best package support. If something really bothers you about it just install a different desktop environment.

[jpenguin]

Another +1 for *buntu ( prefer kubunu myself)

IMO OpenSUSE leap is nice to start on too