I’ve been working and testing to switch my main PC (used for work like audio recording, music, and general multimedia) and have been playing with Ubuntu Studio on my laptop. Loving it so far but I keep seeing people talk about CachyOS, Bazzite, or the new Debian Trixie.
I’m having trouble finding what’s really different about all these distros aside from how they look or slight changes in how they do things (I know Ubuntu Studio has a low latency kernel which seems important for what I need to do). Is there a big difference? Like, if I go with Ubuntu Studio am I gonna end up wiping everything and installing CachyOS or Bazzite or something in a month because it’s better? Or are all these distros basically the same thing with a different look and feel and as long as I choose one that gets regular updates, it doesn’t matter fundamentally?
I’m trying to grasp the Linux concept but being a Windows user my whole life I’m struggling to ‘get it’. Instead of trying to understand in the contex of Windows or Mac, is a better comparison Apple/Android? Like iPhones would be similar to both Mac and Windows (you don’t get to choose much) and Android would be Linux (I know it’s built on it haha) and it’s really just a bunch of different options to do the same thing?
I’ve said it here before and I’ll continue to say it. All the Linux nerds (myself included) have strong opinions when it comes to distros or x vs Wayland, or flatpak vs repositories, blah blah blah.
But in the end - none of it matters. You could randomly eliminate all options except for one distro - and we’d happily pick that over windows. The trick is that you could make any distro like any other - it’s just that the distro did all the work for you. So pick the one that matches how you want to use your pc.
Maybe the only thing that’s not changeable is the philosophy behind the distro. Debian - older stuff for stability. Arch - bleeding edge rolling release. Fedora somewhere in the middle. You get the idea.
“Debian - older stuff for stability. Arch - bleeding edge rolling release. Fedora somewhere in the middle.” Very true. I would add that then there are a bunch of others that fill the gaps in between. For instance, Ubuntu makes Debian easier and Mint makes Ubuntu more open and TuxedoOS makes Debian/Ubuntu far more up-to-date. Then, CachyOS makes Arch more easy and gamable while Manjaro tries to make Arch more stable. Fedora is a perfect blend but those those that have a beef against Redhat/IBM (USA), OpenSUSE is a perfect blend too of the philosophies of Debian and Arch.
For me it mattered. The majority of distros I tested have had audio or graphical issues (or both). Only bazzite and cachyos have worked straight out of the box.
I think Fedora KDE is very refined but I stick to Ubuntu bases as there are some little known programs that I use that only have .deb packages unfortunately
The main differences are:
- package management (how you install new programs)
- release model (fixed vs rolling)
- default desktop environments (the GUI / look and feel)
Yup. Until you get into stuff like immutable distros, because that’s a whole different animal.
You’re on the right track. Linux technically refers to the kernel, the low-level core of the operating system that everything else interacts with and is built on top of. Distros are just collections of components that have been standardized by some group or company.
Linux Mint is heavily customized Ubuntu with a different DE and all of Connonical’s stuff removed. Nobara is a gaming-focused distro built on Fedora with a bunch of kernel modifications and pre-installed software to help games run better. CatchyOS is just Arch but with a really friendly installer that allows less advanced users to still enjoy many of the heavy customizations and cutting-edge software of Arch, etc etc.
Think of it like an engine. You can use the same engine in a bunch of different vehicles. You can also make modifications to the engine itself, but it will still essentially be the same engine.
The #1 rule for new Linux users, especially ones who aren’t interested in becoming power users or tinkering with their OS, is if you’re happy with your distro, stick with it.
There’s no objective “correct” distro. The best distro for you is the distro that works and you feel comfortable with.
Lots of new users become worried that they are missing out on some major improvement in their experience of Linux or feel like they picked the “wrong” distro because some random user dissed it. Don’t pay attention to that, if your distro does everything you need it to do and you enjoy using it, there’s no reason to go looking for something better.
Now of course, there’s nothing wrong with checking out other distros, and if you are somebody who likes to tinker with your setup and doesn’t mind risking breaking things sometimes, then by all means, distro hop away. Almost all distros have a “live boot” option, which allows you to test the OS off of a flash drive without having to install it on your computer. It’s a great way to quickly get the look and feel for a new distro without having to commit.
And of course, there are tons of Linux YouTubers who do reviews of distros, so you can watch those to also get an idea of the different options out there.
Because of the nature of FOSS and the linux ecosystem, you can make most distros look and feel just like any other, so that’s always an option too.
This helps a lot, thank you. I’ve been feeling overwhelmed about making sure I pick the best distro and there’s a lot of info bombardment. Additionally, I love this stuff so I know in a couple months there’s a good chance I’ll want to use another distro and I don’t want to wipe everything again haha.
I use my PC for work, freelance audio production, voiceover, music, etc. I’ve been testing Ubuntu Studio on my laptop and it seems to be going ok so far (learning curve and lack of software aside) but I keep seeing people shoot down Ubuntu. Everyone seems to be talking about Bazzite and CachyOS but honestly I’m getting the impression they don’t use Linux for much more than just gaming.
It all feels a little gate-keepy in ways and I got overwhelmed haha. Think I’ll just keep chipping away with Ubuntu Studio and see if it’ll do the trick for my main PC. Thanks again.
I used Ubuntu Studio many years ago when I was going through an electronica phase lol. It worked fine for me.
Don’t sweat it, there will always be the hot new distros on the block. Right now it’s Bazzite, CatchyOS, and NixOS, back in the day there was Garuda, Arco Linux, Bunsen, MX Linux, and a ton of others. Some are still around, some are long gone. Doesn’t mean they are bad distros, many of them are/were great, but don’t choose a distro just because everybody is talking about it.
Plus, as you get more experience with Linux, the differences matter less and less. There are only a handful of package managers, and unless you have some very specific technical requirements, they all do the same thing and work the same way.
“apt install firefox” becomes “yum install firefox”, or “pacman -S firefox” it’s all pretty much the same under the hood.
And if you use KDE Plasma on different distros, the Discover store works the same across distros, same with any other GUI package installer.
If you keep getting better and get into home lab building or just have several different computers, you might end up using a bunch or distros at the same time on different machines.
Right now across all my physical computers and virtual machines in my home lab, I currently have 9 different distros installed on various machines. Different distros for different purposes.
My general #JustWorks laptops and VMs use Linux Mint, my hardcore gaming rig uses Nobara, my test junker laptops run Debian 13, Void Linux, and Arch for testing random software and messing around. For my Docker containers, I run Debian 12 as the base, for my Minecraft server, Ubuntu Server, my Steam Deck is SteamOS which is just Valve’s heavily modified spin of Arch, and my main lab’s Type-1 hypervisor is XCP-ng, which is basically Fedora under the hood.
IMO distros are just “how little work do I need to do before I get this to work the way I like?” You can make any distro work practically the same if you want it to.
Removed by mod
The main difference has traditionally been the package manager and update schedule, though a distro might offer several options for the second one.
Relatively recently we got another differentiating feature with immutable distros, where updates don’t happen with a package manager but often by downloading or building a complete new image with the newer versions.
Other than that distros mainly set the defaults for you, but you can always change that to work or look like another distro with enough effort.
Basically, don’t worry about it and use what works for you
@Jack_Burton Distros within the same “family” (e.g. Debian, Ubuntu, Mint) are mostly the same with only small differences between them, while the different families have wildly different approaches to various things.
From a new users perspective, a lot of the main ones will probably feel very similar and the main difference you’d notice is stability and compatibility. Don’t overwhelm yourself with choices, just choose a easy to use, high user base, well supported distro to start on (Fedora, Ubuntu, Mint) and if you don’t like it move to something else later
Appreciate it. I’ve decided to stick with Ubuntu Studio as long as I can duplicate my workflow before I make the switch. Think I got into my own head and indecision took over haha.
‘decision anxiety’ is definitely real. there’s literally too many choices and different ways to deliver the same end result.
ubuntu studio is an excellent choice for your use case. you just gotta jump in with both feet
I wanted to write a long-ass comment until I remembered the existence of the following excellent guide: https://lemmy.ml/post/18268622 . Please give it a read 😉.
I’ve stickied that to this community.
That guide is so awesome! Thanks for showing me.
IMO, coming from the systems administration side of Linux, the most significant difference was package management and availability.
RedHat and clones were very conservative and focused on services like web, database, etc. With IBM purchasing RHEL, many switched to Ubuntu. Ubuntu is also favored by devs because the packages were more up to date.
Hi, request for comment: how do you feel about GNU guix? Is this the future of package management we wanted?
I’ve used RedHat and Ubuntu and Arch primarily because of the package ecosystem, and security is definitely major concern for most sysadmins (I am not one).
Is guix going to be the future? Thanks
Noob opinion: they’re all the same, you’re just choosing from the minor differences in the quirks one has over another and it would be easy enough to work around those if you were motivated to.
The real difference is the DE, how quickly updates are pushed, good GUI on a package manager and if it is immutable or not.
For noobs like me it also helps if it has a lot of users so I can find forum posts about my specific problem. Vetrans keep saying that online documentation is enough, but I wouldn’t even know where to start with applying generic instructions to my installation (e.g. how is a wiki going to be able to tell me that my low framerates in Street Fighter 6 are because of split lock protections on my CPU). How would I diagnose the problem to know where to look? This is the major appeal of Debian based systems.
Some are very different to each other, Arch and Debian where the former is at the bleeding edge of software and the later is the most conservative distro out there. Some are very similar, Ubuntu and Kubuntu where they are the same distro with a different desktop environment and default software.
Grass is greener…Linux is a kernel with tools attached that distributions play with and present as they would as a distribution. Packaging (program management) is different throughout with all the distros loving their ‘tool’, or, methodology. Some distros present helpful scripts to get a thing done, or, look a way, or, whatever, and some do not.
Windows tells you, here, you can use this or do this and cannot do this or use that. Linux tells you to simply have at it and makes it all available for you to use or not to use. Windows sits you at the kiddie table whereas Linux gives you materials and tools.
It’s the difference between Windows 11, Windows 11 Pro, Windows 11 for Enterprise, and Windows Server 2025.
There are differences, but not dramatic differences. Some are just better tuned to certain users than others.
First thing to consider is they all use the same Desktop Environments.
Unlike Windows, in Linux the “graphic” is completely separated from the operating system, any DE can be uses on any distro, so trying different distros that come with the same DE, might make you think there’s very little difference (at first look).
Second, almost all distros are derivatives, that contributes to make them feel similar. The original ones are just a bunch: Debian, Red Hat, Slackware, SuSe, Arch, Gentoo, everything else is based either on one of those or on another derivative, if your curious you can have a look at this graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg.
So for example, if you take Ubuntu and Mint, they might look similar because Mint is based on Ubuntu.If you want to see the real differences, you need to look at the original ones, the core differences are: the way software is packaged and managed, and the “philosophy” behind the way the system is overall administered, maintained and released.
Derivatives add differences to the user experience, they main reason they’re created is someone is not completely happy with the way a distro does things and they create one the meets their needs, for example, Debian is improved dramatically on the user experience lately, but many years ago was quite arduous to setup and use for non-experts, so Ubuntu was born.
Now to answer you question
as long as I choose one that gets regular updates, it doesn’t matter fundamentally?
It does matter, tho it’s not as much world-changing as some people seem to think (especially when it comes to gaming).
The most important things are support for your hardware and easy of administration/use. Most distros will recognize and setup your hardware out of the box, but some might require tinkering or extra steps. Some distros automate almost everything so the user doesn’t need to think about it, others require more knowledge and more manual intervention, you have a much finer control of your system this way at the expense of some user friendliness, it’s up to you to decide what you prefer.
Then it comes the Desktop Environment, different DEs do things differently, which one to choose is totally personal preference.
As for software, unless you go after some niche obscure distro, you shouldn’t have problems finding it in the distro repositories. For edge cases you can always use Flatpaks or AppImages.
