I've been using various Linux-based operating systems as my daily driver OS' for almost a decade, and in that time, I've developed opinions. I won't say good opinions, but they certainly are opinions. I've noticed that, at least recently, the opinions that I have seem to be relativegly uncommon. I can't tell if this is because the people who disagree with me are louder than those that agree with me, or if they truly are unpopular opinions, but I hold them nonetheless. All that being said, I should clarify what I mean by "opinion", since it is a little different when it comes to my Linux takes. Usually, when I say opinion, I mean something that, although somewhat subjective in that they are most likely influenced to some degree by my own biases, I do have some set of objective justifications for my opinions. When it comes to Linux, however, I am a big proponent of the idea of personal preference. To me, an OS is a tool that allows the user to get work done, and as a result, that tool does not necessarily have to be the same for each and every person. So, my linux opinions are probably going to be different than most other Linux users that you might come across, but foundationally my opinions are as they are because I have found, through considerable experimentation, that these opinions best form an operating system as a tool that best accomodates my personal needs and preferences. I am not, nor ever, going to argue that the way that I personally prefer my Linux OS, or any OS for that matter, to function, is the objective best means to use a computer. I believe anyone who suggests that the way they use their computer is objectively the best are wrong and silly. Maybe in the future I'll discuss further why I think that way, but for now that's beyond the scope of this post. Moreover, this post is written with Linux-users in mind. As such, I won't be explaining all the concepts presented in this post for a general audience. If you would prefer a more generalized post, hit me up on neocities and I might look into writing one.
I don't care for auto-tiling window managers. This is something that may come as a surprise to anyone who has spent some time in Linux-related forums or watching Linux-related videos on YouTube, since auto-tilers have gotten pretty big as of late. Take a quick stop through r/unixporn and you're sure to see mostly just some generally similar looking Hyprland configurations. Although I do see aesthetically why people like Hyprland, and understand the considerable performance improvements that come from running a light-weight autotiler, as well as the efficiency that comes from auto-tiling, it just isn't for me. Although I do love tiling, I prefer how it works on Gnome, KDE, and quite honestly, Windows, mainly, holding down the super key and moving arrows or WASD to move the window around the screen to specific corners or sides. This is how I configure all of my DEs to function because that's just how I generally prefer to work. Sure, autotiling is efficient and convenient, as it prevents me from needing to manually tile the windows, I have personally found it to be a bit of a headache with how somewhat thoughtlessly I open programs, terminals, files, etc. When I tried daily driving awesomeWM for instance, I ended up having a mess of smaller and smaller windows spiralling down in to an unusable degree because I had opened so many things without noticing. For context: I have ADHD, and this is a fairly common experience. When I am forced to manually tile my programs, I'm also forced to be a bit more thoughtful with what I have open and running, and as such I tend to not have so many superflurous things open and running. This is especially beneficialy on Gnome, where I frequently make use of the Activities feature where I will flick my mouse to the corner of the screen and have all the things I have open pop up in front of me for easy closure and switching. I've gotten so used to this, that I use a similar feature on KDE when I use it, and have trouble returning to other DEs like MATE which don't have that feature. I've found that this is the most comfortable way for me to use my computer and keep productive.
Somewhat related: I like my DEs to be pretty. Call me vain all you want, but even lots of auto-tiler users seem to agree with me, consdering how popular down right spectacular looking Hyprland configs have become in the community, with entire groups like r/unixporn popping up almost exclusively dedicated to that clean, modern aesthetic. Sure, sometimes I want a more nostalgic, functional feel, like is found with iceWM, MATE, or the default configs of XFCE, but to be quite honest, I really don't think those looks have aged terribly well. As much as I hate MacOS for a number of reasons, one thing I do not hate about it is its aesthetics. It is a very visually pleasing OS, and I find myself returning to DEs that are similarly sleak, and modern, but at the same time, comforting. For this reason, Gnome is, by far, my favorite DE. Sure, it isn't as customizable as KDE, and not as optimized as MATE or XFCE, but the aesthetics of Gnome are second to none. I would go as far as to say that Gnome is prettier than MacOS. I use Gnome as my primary DE on all my systems, and no matter what I do, I keep coming back to Gnome because of how comfy it makes me feel. It does everything I want it to do, in the way I want it to be done. Although I can use other DEs, in fact I run several at any given time on different machines, Gnome is always on the machines that I use the most.
This is one that will likely give me some hate. I genuinely like Ubuntu. I think its a fine OS, and I use it on my main work laptop that I use every single day. Although it is a very popular OS, possibly the most popular or at least most well known Linux-based OS, it has historically been fairly controversial among hardcore Linux users. It seems to me, at least anecdotally, that Ubuntu is considered baby's first distro, a beginner friendly but ultimately poor quality distro that will inevitably get replaced by one of the adult distros like Arch. As someone who has daily driven Arch for a number of years in the past, I can say confidently that this is not the case. Ubuntu is a fantastic system if you want everything to just work. If you don't want to think, work on constant configuration and customization, and if you need something reliable that is super easy to fix with crazy good community support. In fact, when it comes to community support, Ubuntu is only rivaled by the Arch wiki in terms of usefulness. There is not a single version of Linux that I have had an easier time troubleshooting than Ubuntu, in the rare cases that I even need to troubleshoot at all. Ubuntu really does "just work". Sure, Snaps are a pain in the ass, but its effortless to get Flatpak set up even on the most recent version of Ubuntu, so I really do not understand the hate when it comes to having a reliable system that is pretty, and will get the job done when you need it done. As I've gotten older, and have gotten somewhat bored of constant experimentation and configuration, I've found that stablility is what I look for most in a Linux distro, whic his why:
I fucking love Debian. I run it on most of my computers, it just never fails me. When I need to get work done, and I don't want to think about my operating system at all, I boot up Debian. I have never broken a Debian install, I've never fucked up my drivers on Debian, I've never had a program that I installed through official channels fail to work properly on Debian. Every single thing I try to do on Debian, so long as it is through the official apt and deb repositories, just works perfectly. I've used Debian + Gnome with just a few extensions for personal preference as my primary OS configuration for years now, and I don't see myself going back. It just works so well at everything I want it to, and has the staying power that I'm not worried about it losing support one day. Debian is KING.
Gatekeepers be damned, Archinstall is awesome. I remember the days when archinstall didn't exist, and the only way to install arch was to do it all manually. That was all fine and good, I've done tons of installs that way, but it did mean that I just wouldn't install Arch on all that many computers because I didn't feel like going through that process every single time I got a new computer. Instead, I would run arch on the computers I wanted for testing bleeding edge software and to experiment, and nothing else. But after archinstall became good, I now do installs of arch all the time on tons of different computers. Its become just so effortless, that it doesn't make a meaningful difference in terms of energy expenditure to install arch instead of, say, Ubuntu. Generally, the people who are strongly opposed to archinstall have argued that if you use it instead of installing manually, you will be unprepared to fix your arch system when it inevitably breaks. Although I agree with this to an extent, I do think that it is largely unnecessary to install arch manually every single time. Instead, I think it makes more sense to make sure you are able to install it manually at least once (since this will teach you a lot about Linux in general, and will make sure you know how to fix your system when it breaks), but after that point, it just makes sense to go with the easier, faster route. I am firmly in the camp of wanting Linux to grow in the desktop space, and the only way we can do that is if we make Linux an easier, friendlier experience for new users. And if we constantly protray ourselves as being these computer obsessed loners who spent hundreds of hours typing away at a terminal rather than getting actual work done, the linux desktop will not grow. I have heard it argued that Arch is not for "normies" so to speak, and Ubuntu exists for them, but I would argue that to a normie, Ubuntu and Arch may as well be the same thing. They don't know the difference between different distros, and if they here "linux is mostly just clacking away at unix commands in a terminal" in reference primarily to arch, they are likely to assume that is also applicable to Ubuntu, or Debian, or another more user-friendly experience. Because of that, having more, easier ways of engaging with any given linux operating system I think is only a good thing, and because of that, I love archinstall.
FOSS operating systems are better than proprietary operating systems; I hope that anyone who is passionate about the Linux community will agree with that statement. Because of that, I would like for FOSS operating systems to grow in the desktop space beyond the single digits within my lifetime. I care about people, and care about people having a safe, secure, and private computing experience where they are able to take ownership of their systems, rather than be allowed to use their systems by massive mega-corporations like Microsoft and Apple. With that in mind, I want Linux to grow in use, not be relegated to the hardcore users of the 90s who are able to and enjoy installing Gentoo. Gatekeeping only serves to stifle the growth of the Linux desktop, making Linux appear to be this monolith that may only be accessed by the obsessed and the derranged. It is extremely common for random people on the internet to talk about Linux and its users like no-life freaks who spend every second of their day on their computer trying to fix something that broke. That mayhave been an accurate descriptor in 1996, but the year is 2024 at the time of writing, and that simply is not the case anymore. I have installed Linux Mint, Ubuntu, and Debian on family computers for my technologically-illiterate family members, and they are able to use it as effortlessly as they would Windows or MacOS. In 2024, if you just want to use your computer to browse the internet, or play some simple games like Minecraft, Linux is not only fantastic, but better than Windows. In the era of Chromebooks being as big as they are, and people using their laptops just as instagram and YouTube machines, Linux is perfect for that usecase. It allows for a secure, private, and easy to run alternative to the bloated or restrictive OS' that currently dominate the desktop market. I had an aunt who wanted to throw out her computer that she used for banking that was too old to upgrade to Windows 11, but I installed Linux Mint on it, and now she is able to use it even more easily than she could Windows, as Linux mint is far better suited to the mid-2000s hardware than Windows was. We do not live in an era where Linux needs to have the reputation that it still holds onto, and gatekeepers who insist on keeping Linux to themselves are at least partially to blame.
I love Linux. It has allowed me to take ownership of my devices, and has prevented me from dealing with the continual downfall of Windows recently. I've seen a lot of people switching to Linux in response to Windows getting worse, and it gives me hope; hope that the Linux desktop will continue to grow, and one day, might even match the dominance of MacOS, and perhaps even Windows. Although I've used other FOSS operating systems like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Haiku, and KolibriOS, Linux is the one that I always come back to as my daily driver. If you decided to read this despite not already being a Linux user, I hope that you decide to give it a try; you may just find it rewarding, and your new favorite way of using that beige box on your desk.
Back