Pop!_OS is definitely worth considering as it’s one of the few distros that goes as far as providing a recovery partition and offers one of the best experiences for those with Nvidia GPUs. Furthermore, Pop!_OS’ maintainers (read: System76) are actually financially incentivized to make their distro very polished and newbie-friendly as their distro is used on the hardware they sell.

On the flip side, Pop!_OS is currently in a major overhaul to replace GNOME with COSMIC; their own homebuilt Desktop Environment. As the Desktop Environment is arguably the most important contributor to how one experiences their Linux system, the eventual change might disrupt your workflow and you might even be too accustomed to GNOME to consider COSMIC at that point. The ongoing work on COSMIC has even meant that Pop!_OS has missed three major releases and are still clinging on their release from April 2022; thankfully it’s based on Ubuntu’s LTS (read: Long Term Support) release, so they aren’t particularly in rush to get a new release out and can rely on Ubuntu for security updates.

Regardless, COSMIC’s unsure future does leave a lot to be desired and does pose the question if perhaps other options should be considered more seriously instead.

Therefore, my personal recommendation would be either one of the following:

• If you just really like what you see from Pop!_OS, then just install its 22.04 release and you should be good until April 2027. As time goes on, you might be deprived from new developments and features; but at least updates etc will not be able to (potentially) corrupt/break your system in the meantime.
• Wait until April next year; when they’re supposed to release a new version. If you like what you see and the update and the changes are well-received by the community, then consider installing that one instead. It should be supported for 5 years, which is plenty to not worry about your system in the mean time.
• Go look elsewhere. There are hundreds of actively maintained distros out there. While not all of them are worth considering, there are at least a dozen of them that are worthy contenders. In case you’re interested to get the community’s help in finding a distro, consider answering the following questions:
  • Do you use an Nvidia GPU?
  • How would you rate your tech savviness on other operating systems?
  • How eager are you to learn and/or invest time to use your Linux system?
  • Do you prefer to have up-to-date software at all times even if that means daily/weekly updates that might potentially break some functionality?
  • Security or convenience?
  • Opinionated or blank slate?

A shortlist of distros worth considering for a beginner (from easiest to hardest): Linux Mint, Ubuntu, Debian/Fedora/openSUSE and Arch.

I don’t own any devices with an Nvidia GPU. Therefore, I can’t share my own experiences but only the ones from the community. If my memory serves me right, it should work. However, as usual, expect some strange behavior at times. Thankfully, getting back to a working system shouldn’t cause you any troubles on Jovian-NixOS. Nonetheless, it’s something to keep in mind.

I’d definitely like to get some of the classic multiplayer games running on emulators as well.

Bazzite does allow easy install of EmuDeck and RetroDECK during first installation, which should cover most of your emulation needs. For completeness’ sake; Batocera does exist. However, I’m not sure if it runs e.g. Steam games as good as Bazzite runs retro games.

to use as a media centre and multiplayer gaming system in my living room

Based on this, you’re basically looking for the ‘game console experience on your couch’. If that’s the case, honestly you shouldn’t look beyond^[1] Bazzite.

If, instead, you actually wanted to play retro games primarily, then please let us know.

1. While ChimeraOS and HoloISO also offer the ‘game console experience’, they don’t support Nvidia GPUs. So you would be on your own at best; which would be a horrible experience for a new user. If you feel particularly adventurous, then Jovian-NixOS is actually another option. But arguably less newbie-friendly compared to Bazzite.

I don’t know by heart if it’s able to do your bidding, but perhaps it’s worth checking out penguins-eggs. I guess the following would be its elevator pitch:

"penguins-eggs is a console tool, under continuous development, that allows you to remaster your system and redistribute it as live images on usb sticks or via PXE.

The default behavior is total removal of the system’s data and users, but it is also possible to remaster the system including the data and accounts of present users, using flag --clone. It is also possible to keep the users and files present under an encrypted LUKS file within the same resulting iso file, flag --cryptedclone.

You can easily install the resulting live system with the calamares installer or the internal TUI krill installer."

The link for uBlue didn’t work for me. For those interested: uBlue

Understandable! Please consider coming back to this at some point (also possible in private) as I’m genuinely curious to hear from you.

I disagree with most of the benefits you list

I’m curious to hear your objections.

chief among them “increased security”

Do you deny that specific protection to some attacks is provided through the chosen model of ‘immutability’ on at least one of the atomic distros?

not to mention half of them are already supported by traditional package managers

Hmm…,:

• atomicity; nope
• reproducibility =/= reproducible builds for some packages (if that’s what you meant)
• declarative system configuration; ansible (and any other solution that I’ve witnessed being mentioned in such discussions) succeed (at best) at convergent system management, while e.g. NixOS does congruent system management by default. Consider taking a look at this page if you’re interested in what these are and how they’re different. (Spoiler alert) congruent is better and therefore more desirable.
• increased security; security is not limited to chosen model for ‘immutability’ if at all; as Qubes OS (read: most secure and private desktop OS) doesn’t rely on it for its security. So I can understand where you’re coming from, but I have yet to see any non-security focused distro that provides the elevated protection against particular attacks that some atomic distros offer by default.
• built-in rollback functionality; sure, this is not exclusive to atomic distros. Perhaps I should have done a better job at making clear that it isn’t a feature provided necessarily by atomicity. But, the fact that I listed it at the very end, alludes that it isn’t as exclusive and consequential as atomicity is. At this point, however, it has become almost synonymous with atomic distros, while the same can’t be said about traditional distros.
• regarding the consequences; I’m unaware of any distro that does those out of the box (barring Pop!_OS with their factory reset). Though, I’d love to be educated on this.

I was genuinely curious so thanks for the rationale.

It has been my pleasure ☺️! I’m also genuinely curious to read your reply to this comment😉.

Not OP. But for me, atomic updates, reproducibility, (to some degree) declarative system configuration, increased security, built-in rollback functionality and their consequences; rock solid system even with relatively up to date packages, possibility to enable automatic updates in background without fearing breakage, (quasi) factory reset feature, setting up a new system in just a fraction of the time required otherwise are the primary reasons why I absolutely adore atomic^[1] distros.

1. I prefer referring to the so-called ‘immutable’ distros as atomic distros instead. It’s more descriptive, because the distros aren’t actually ‘immutable’ but instead they’re atomic.

Distrobox is directly inspired from Toolbx and was created because of limitations of Toolbx and how Toolbx’ maintainers didn’t want to implement some features at that moment in time.

Currently, Distrobox is almost a superset of Toolbx. Though, I’ve come to the understanding that Toolbx does better at some tasks.

If you would like to stick to just one of them, then Distrobox is probably still the better one and should be preferred. However, if its added functionality doesn’t do it for you, then please feel free to continue using Toolbx.

Why is toolbox preinstalled and not distrobox?

Because Toolbx predates Distrobox and is developed by developers that are associated with Fedora and even specifically designed in hopes of solving some issues pertaining to Fedora’s Atomic distros.

Thanks for the explanation!

I didn’t like Runit

Unfortunate, but not very surprising 😭. I hope it (or another init) will one day be more than a viable alternative to systemd, so that the hegemony will cease to exist.

the package selection wasn’t great

While not applicable in all cases, I’ve had great success with relying on Distrobox in case I had to rely on the repos of another distro to get my software.

As for siduction, it was just a touch too buggy (i.e. XScreensaver caused the laptop to freeze when I closed the lid) and too preconfigured to be able to resolve easily. It also played havoc with my school’s BYOD internet.

Interesting! I didn’t know that siduction is relatively unpolished.

I’ll probably go back to it at some point, though.

I wonder if perhaps SpiralLinux does a better job.

Of course, the main reason for this new install is that I just bought an SSD, and I’d rather start fresh than try to flash my old hard disk across.

Relatable 😜.

Looks good!

Are you just exploring the waters? Or were you discontent with Void and siduction?

I mostly want to discourage distro hopping with the belief that they’re missing out on a program or desktop, only to end up on windows because they’re tired of reinstalling everything.

Thank you for being thoughtful! I just wanted to add some nuance with my previous comment.

One important thing you need to know about distros: they’re all the same under the hood.

This is true for the traditional model in which the package manager is the main differentiator between distros. Therefore Arch, Debian, Fedora, openSUSE etc and their derivatives (which make up about 90% of the distros found on DistroWatch) are indeed mostly the same.

But the likes of Gentoo and NixOS etc don’t quite fit the bill. Granted, a new user should only very rarely (if ever) start their Linux journeys on any of these advanced distros.

Lots of great answers here already so I will only address a couple of things that haven’t been mentioned:

Regarding Fedora Silverblue:

• Currently, Fedora Atomic Desktops are in a major shift to accept OCI container images for delivery of packages. This means that the built image becomes one compliant to OCI and that we boot into an OCI container as our system. As OCI images are relatively declarative (not to the extent that NixOS does (yet)), it becomes possible to have a set of config files (most importantly, the so-called Containerfile) in which your system is ‘declared’/‘configd’. In case you’re interested into how this looks/works, consider taking a look at uBlue’s startingpoint or if you’re more interested in the scope of configuration into Bazzite and/or Bluefin.
• apx is available as a COPR on Fedora Atomic Desktops.
• Nix can be installed on Fedora Atomic Desktops using Determinate Systems’ installer.

Regarding Vanilla OS:

• They’re also moving to a model that’s very close to where Fedora Atomic Desktops is heading towards. So, expect a similar way to config/‘declare’ your system.

What are your thoughts on the three four distros mentioned above?

It’s a question of polish if you’d ask me. With Fedora Atomic Desktops and NixOS being advantageous due to being more established and better funded. I wouldn’t write off Vanilla OS yet as they seem to know what they’re doing. Though, I wouldn’t keep my hopes up for blendOS as its main developer was unaware of which MAC was configured by default on blendOS (spoiler alert: none, at least at the time).

Furthermore, NixOS is literally its own thing and unfortunately infamous for its steep learning curve. If you can afford to learn and conquer NixOS, then NixOS should be the recommendation; unless (like me) you seek SELinux on your systems.

Between Fedora Atomic Desktops and Vanilla OS; Vanilla OS is still in its major rewrite/revamp. The alpha builds are there, but I wouldn’t recommend using those on production machines. Fedora Atomic Desktops, on the other hand, has been going strong for a while now and the uBlue-team has even succeeded in making the OCI-stuff accessible for the general (Linux) public. So if you want to switch now and NixOS is/seems too hard; then Fedora Atomic Desktops it is. On that note, I recommend to check out the uBlue project.

Which ones are the most interesting, and for what reasons?

Honestly, all of them are really interesting, but NixOS does the most unique stuff; with only Guix doing something similar within the Linux landscape. To give you a taste of some of the wild stuff found on NixOS; there’s the so-called Impermanence module which -to my knowledge- happens to be the closest thing to a usable stateless system we’ve got; period. Consider reading this excellent blog post in case you’re interested to know what this entails.

What is a reliable yet affordable option to get started?

Unfortunately, good affordable hardware on which Linux is properly supported is hard to get by. I’m personally fond of vendors like (in alphabetical order) Framework, NovaCustom, Star Labs, System76, Tuxedo. But other vendors like ASUS, Dell, HP and Lenovo are known to sell devices that do a considerable job at supporting Linux; consider to check the compatibility/support for their devices through resources like linux-hardware.org.

Are my concerns based in reality or is Linux going to be able to handle everything windows does without issues?

Regarding video types; I don’t think you should have any problems regarding those; on some distros it might not be supported by default, but that should be solvable with a single command. Relying on flatpaks^[1] instead is another viable solution and is enabled by default on a lot of distros. Moving on to word document templates; I suppose the suite of cloud-based services found in Microsoft 365 should work regardless. As for the question if the templates would work on LibreOffice, ONLYOFFICE and the like; I simply don’t know. On to familiarity of OS and using it for business purposes; most distros that are friendlier towards newer users have been setup with sane defaults. Therefore, I don’t think there’s a lot that could go wrong as long as you’re interacting with a GUI. When interacting with a command-line interface, note that information found on the internet is often times outdated. Therefore, if you’re hesitant or unsure; consider interacting with the community for some help. We’re all in this together!

is Linux going to be able to handle everything windows does without issues?

You should be totally fine aside from some software that’s known to not support Linux at all.

What else might I need to know to use Linux comfortably from the get go?

Ask yourself the following questions:

• To what degree are you interested to learn how it all works and to experience what Linux offers?
  • If you see it primarily as a means to an end, then pick a distro that does an excellent job at accommodating your workflow without requiring you to relearn more than necessary.
  • If instead, interest in Linux itself is the main driving force behind the switch, then please be mindful that the Linux rabbit hole is very real.

Is it going to take a lot of time and effort to get Linux running how I need it to?

Somewhat related to the previous question*. Like, there are distros out there that I can install for my grandfather and he wouldn’t even notice the difference. But even some (relatively) mainstream-distros can be daunting for so-called power users of Windows. E.g. I would argue I was your average Windows-user; play games, browse the internet, email, write documents, video-editing, run software required for my studies etc. It took me about two weeks before I was ‘comfortable’ on Linux. And even then, some of the software I used for e.g. video-editing just didn’t want to play nice^[2].

So, yeah, sell me on Linux, please.

If you want freedom and control over your devices, there’s simply no viable alternative.

1. Software management on Linux -at least on the surface- is closer to Android/iOS than to Windows. You should rarely (if at all) feel the need to find software through your browser. Instead, you should interact with so-called package managers. This can be achieved through either a command-line interface or a storefront with a GUI that behaves like those found on Android/iOS etc. Coming back to Flatpak; this is an (upcoming) universal (read: (mostly) distro-agnostic) package manager that tries to solve a lot of problems that traditional package managers have had. There’s still a lot of ongoing work for it to achieve its design-goals to the fullest, but even in its current iteration it works excellent and therefore it’s unsurprising to find it enabled by default on a significant chunk of the Linux landscape. Software that are packaged using this technology are referred to as flatpaks (or flatpak if singular).

2. In retrospect, this seems to be primarily rooted in the fact that my machine isn’t that powerful in the first place. On Windows, it managed because it was better optimized for it. Unfortunately, on Linux, this was not the case.

We would love to help you! But please consider helping us by providing more information:

• Do you actually want to switch distros? Or just interested in what’s out there?
• If Fedora 39 didn’t satisfy you, then what exactly is bothering you?
• What is it that you seek from your distro? Being out of the way? Freedom? Polish? Blank slate? Security? Privacy? Ease-of-use? Up-to-date? Big repos? etc

Star Labs’ take on the matter.

Furthermore, if one is sensitive regarding their cybersecurity, then one is likely to adhere to the zero trust security model and thus choose to simply not trust; which would include the closed source BIOS. coreboot, on the other hand, at least allows one to audit it themselves. As Linus Torvalds has been approached for implementing backdoors, it should surprise nobody that (some) of the vendors we buy our devices from have been as well and thus our BIOSes might not have been as safe as one would like to believe. Qubes OS, the most secure OS on desktop, shares the view that coreboot is preferred over closed source BIOSes due to reasons related to trust.

Besides the already mentioned Star Labs and System76, there’s also Insurgo, Nitropad and NovaCustom.

As for an exhaustive list on the matter, unfortunately, I don’t think something like that is out there. Though both Canoeboot (formerly known as Libreboot) and Dasharo do have their own respective lists.

The simple virtue of being able to genuinely express these words; “I don’t know”, “Sorry” and “Thank you” (or any derivative of these*).