I have skimmed through several articles about Linux distributions and which ones are described as beginner friendly. All of them mention Linux Mint because the look and feel is similar to Windows.

Like someone suggested, they can't be directly compared anyway because if you are choosing what Linux OS or flavor of popcorn you are going to choose, most probably you will not decide to get nothing just because there are so many choices available.

At worst it may slow down your selection process a bit, but I don't see it becoming a reason not to choose anything, unless it is a life and death situation where you have to pick which wire to cut before the bomb goes off. Then you might indeed not to choose any wire, but instead run away to safety and let the captured orphans die in the explosion. Shame on you!

If the reason not to try out Linux is because you are currently using Windows and are relatively happy with it, there I see the real reason being that you don't really have any reason to try Linux, not that there are too many choices available.

If you have already made your mind about leaving Windows, then you will choose some that you see mentioned most often, like Ubuntu or some Ubuntu derivant. If you are curious, you might try something more exotic, at least if you are merely trying them out with bootable USB sticks or even as virtual machines.

In home use, I prefer to keep /home in root (ie. not separated from the root partition) because it uses the hard drive space more efficiently. On a corporate Linux server, I might choose otherwise so that no user can fill the whole root filesystem by uploading shit to their home directory, especially if it is a ftp or sftp server.

If the time comes to reinstall Linux (e.g. change distro), then I rather choose to copy everything from the /home to an external USB hard drive (instead of relying on a separate /home partition staying intact with the reinstallation), and copy the files back after the reinstallation. I tend to keep backups of anything important inside /home on external USB drives anyway...

I also prefer to use a swapfile (instead of a separate swap partition) because it is much simpler to change swapfile's size, location etc., than for a swap partition. The only exception MIGHT again be some corporate Linux servers because their backups systems can generally skip backing up swap partitions every night, while with a swapfile, they will back it up every night for no good reason. Then again that is a minor issue anyway, just wastes some extra space from the backup server.

An interesting site, I recognize maybe 30-40% of the Linux distros on that list. It would be interesting to know indeed why someone decided to make a new distro like, say, Big Linux or Bodhi Linux, was it merely for shits and giggles and learn what it is like to maintain their own Linux distro, or was there really some need that no other distro didn't seem to fill right there.

Then again, I don't have to care for those "unknown" distros, and keep using the ones I know and are happy with.

That list has some non-Linuxes too, like different BSD-variants.

EDIT: Little googling and wikipedian of course reveals what those obscure Linux distros are for:

BigLinux: apparently the point is to be specifically for Brazilian Linux-users (Portuguese), albeit there is an English version as well. So I guess not important for non-Portuguese users then? At first it was apparently based on Ubuntu, then Deepin (WTF is that then?!?), and now Manjaro, so they sure have changed their source distro many times.

Deepin: A Chinese Linux distro, users mainly Chinese. Ok then, fine, move on, nothing to see here I guess...

Bodhi Linux: Based on Ubuntu, and apparently the point is be as small as possible, so for older and smaller computers then? A bit like the Q4OS Linux I used on a very old 32bit 1-core laptop with 1GB RAM and no hard drive (I had to install and run Q4OS on an USB memory stick). Q4OS required only 256MB RAM, 300MHz CPU and 3GB hard drive space, so it was perfect for that use case, even with a GUI that resembled Windows XP quite a lot.

Then there seem to be many Linux distros whose reason to exists seem to be to avoid systemd and offer some other init system. Like Devuan (based on Debian). Oh well, choice is good I guess, preferences vary...

I wasn't trying to compare them I was simply curious. As to this I feel it's not like someone picking a snack to buy or song to listen to and more like someone choosing a new home. With more important choices the chance of choice paralysis will likely be higher, especially with a chunk of the general masses for whom time seems to be in short supply given how much some of them rush about.

I emptied that building out before I ran, I swear! And you're right, with some it will just slow them down and they will eventually pick something. The chances are good though that a number will just stick with their old favorite choice of windows.

I also feel this is a large part of why so many don't change OS. Windows is just what they want and they're ok with it.

I just went with a guide I found online. I should've made the home partition a bit bigger and now i'm stuck trying to see if I can change it around without removing everything and starting over. Oh well, we'll see I guess.

You should not need to make the home partition bigger. Create a new partition, if you have space, and install your games there. I don't game anymore, but I've downloaded a game from my GOG library and it was offering me the possibility to choose the install path, but I don't know if every game has this possibility.

If you want to extend your partition boot from a livecd and resize it with gparted.

And if the home partition can't be extended and you insist to have all games there, make new partition and change the mount point in fstab from the old to the new partition. Copy everything from the old to the new one.

I thought I could only install games and such to home. So I can make a new parition and just install game to that in linux?
Thanks for the information, i'm going to go try that later after I shrink the primary windows parition a bit.

What did your Linux installer offer as a default? As far as I recall, at least Ubuntu/Mint/RHEL don't separate /home to its own partition by default, but keep it in the root partition. RHEL-variants tend to offer the separate swap partition (which I don't want) while Ubuntu-variants tend to offer the swap file. If during the installation you tell it not to create a swap partition and use that space too for the root partition, you can afterwards pretty easily create a swap file.

If there is no specific reason for you to keep /home separated, I'd suggest keeping it in the root partition. Then you don't have to try to decide what is the "right" size for it because you always have all the available free space to use for it. No different from deciding to put your C:\Users\ folder in Windows to some separate partition or drive; most don't do that I guess, they just keep it in the C: partition and don't think about it.

What Linux distro was it anyway, I forgot already?

I forget what the default was. As I like to tinker a bit I made paritions manually when installing the OS and went with some suggestions I found online for parttition sizes. I picked Manjaro with KDE plasma desktop.

It's a game, so it should be running from anywhere on your drives. Try to copy your files from home to another partition, they should be running ok.

The moment you do a deep dive into Linux advanced options you do so by a command shell too.

And sorry, but doing stuff in the Registry or doing something in Linux config files is basically the same. Linux does not got a registry and it is both about finding where to type what.
While there are graphical tools to do such changes for windows too for a lot of Stuff you would do at the registry.

So being a linux guy coming up with "see how complicated it is in windows" is more "i don't see anymore how complicated it is in Linux".

Don't see that it is another Dev team, that it does got other Updates from another source, that it got a different GUI and so on. Or that it would build on a different baseline system (like comparing Debian with Suse).

Ubuntu - Kubuntu?
It is not the first time I wrote this as an example of the mess the Linux Distribution tree is these days.
Why asking again ignoring it.


Btw, with you that MS did a mess with new Windows 8+ and old (bascially Windows 95 or even 3.1) GUI next to each other because they can't manage to bring all options to the new GUI nearly 20 years now.
Using the Godmode anyway (nice hidden option).

And with the GUI changes, I'm pointing at that Windows users simply adapt themself or their system to their likeking (yes, 3rd party software - with companies behind who are eager to fix every problem because they actually sell a software)
While Linux users tend to start something new.
But opening up a new branch for every small change won't help you create the number 1 system.



And again, regardless how much you brag about it
Ubuntu - Kubuntu

I know they are using the Ubuntu Codebase (and basically the Debian one but hey...) but nowadays those 2 are 2 different branches of Linux. With 2 different Dev teams.
And their only fucking difference is Ubuntu is using GNOME (and for some time Unity) and Kubuntu is using KDE.



Current Windows does not support 16 Bit software anymore.
There is old Windows 16 Bit software for example written for Windows 95 or 98. Not talking about games but Software.
There are options to run it

Where it is an odd example.
Why it is odd mocking Linux that there there wouldn't be a software to run it but most likely another Distri that got it by default.

Why did YOU come up with 32bit on 64bit Linux, can't 64Bit Linux run 32Bit stuff by default?
Windows can.

Why do you try to answer with odd examples.


And btw, when you are asking how this mess of Distries is affecting Linux in a negative way.
General Linux Marked share in the Steam hardware survey is 2,08% (checking right now), with the most used one being Arch with 0,17%.
So, the "most used" Linux is not even 10% ! of the overall used Linux installations and less then half of the Windows 7 installations (0,4%).

It does effect the Linux marked share in a very negative way. I posted the "tree" of Linux and Linux is simply a mess.
And without a big single system that is THE bright star - there won't be much more marked share.
Because a bright star draws people by its own weight.

And looking at the hardware survey, Ubuntu makes up roughly as much as Arch, but with 3 different variants (2x LTS and Core), combinded still less then Windows 7.

And the most fun part. After the first 3 biggest Linux installation, there is Windows 8.1 in marked share.
And of those 2.08% share those 3 biggest only got 0,37% (still less then Windows 7).

Linux grew like 0,5% in the past decade for Endusers.
But I got the feeling, Linux guys are absolutely ok with it. Because more of the user type that uses windows would me much more exposure of all the problems Linux got.
Because the only reason Windows is much more attacked then Linux is not the security of the system (most Windows Systems are successfully attacked by active help from in front of the screen anyway), is the marked share and to a lower degree the type of the user base.

Proudly presented by CrowdStrike (ex CTO of McAfee).

"Security Software" aka Antivirus is bricking the system by a faulty update is nothing new. Neither to Windows nor to Linux.

For what I read so far, Debian 12 end of Arpil with falcon-sensor was bricking the Linux system.
Solution "wait for a fixed version or run it in user mode".

And for Windows, well, McAfee was bricking Windows a decade back or so.

Nothing to do with Windows.
CrowdStrike even got a Linux variant, but it didn't killed Linux (this time).


Always willing to make fun about MS when they fuck things up, but credit where credit is due.

So here's the thing, if I don't like the default GUI that windows provides and decide to become one of these third parties that offer an alternative, does that mean I've just created a "branch of Windows"? How is that any different from the Kubuntu guys deciding to offer an alternative to the default Ubuntu UI?

There is a different dev Team maintaining whole Kubuntu and not just a 3rd party application.
You could argue KDE and GNOME being 3rd party applications for Ubuntu.
But the moment you got different Dev Teams (and for some time even payed by different companies) maintaining 2 different Variants of this system with one got Application A build in and one application B, you are very far away from a operating system maintained by one company and a 3rd party software solution that is altering some parts of the GUI (more or less only the start menu).

I sense strong fighting retreat thoughts in this thread from the Linux side...

I suppose in the most general way of speaking you could say that but, not really.

Distros are not really branches of Linux. They are just groups of software bundled together.

I understand that under the monolithic Windows and MacOS you are forced to use what they give you. But on Linux the graphical user interface is just an app and there are several. They aren't really "Linux" or even required at all.

So to me, if you buy a computer from Dell and they ship it with MS Office and another machine from HP/Sony/etc and they ship it with Libre Office I don't consider those 2 branches of an OS. Just the same OS with different apps pre-installed.

That's kind of like what a distro is. Different combinations of pre-installed apps. Not really a branch, which would also imply that the changes could be merged back into the trunk and that just does not happen.