This tier-list is terrible, but what really makes me really mad is that there’s no damn explanation, and that the tier-list is self-contradictory. Linux Mint good, Debian bad…but Linux Mint is indirect downstream of Debian, and it is really reliable, so the math ain’t working? Arch good, but Artix and Parabola bad - the only difference being that you get init freedom in the latter distros? And seriously, what is KDE Neon and GNOME OS doing over there - they exist to showcase the latest desktop environment beta? And according to your logic, AlmaLinux bad, but CentOS good - when the former came to substitute the dying CentOS? And Guix at the bottom, while it uses Guile Scheme, which is more wide-spread and accepted than the niche half-Haskell half-something-else Nix DSL - let’s also not forget the NixOS controversy and Eelco vs Nix community drama - and NixOS is somehow on the top-most list? ryantm’s bot is really good and keeps Nix packages upto date, but apart from that, Nix and Guix are the same thing minus their language.
I regret that I have to be the one to inform everyone of this, but I fear MajorHavoc suffered an unfortunate accident caused by a computer glitch in an elevator control system three hours ago. They will be missed.
CentOS good (after they betrayed open source) but Debian bad (even though they remain one of the more independent from corporate influence distros and also serve as the upstream for over half the list)? What even is this nonsense? I agree Ubuntu and its official derivatives maliciously bad and Manjaro completely pointless but that’s about all I agree with.
Looks pretty much opinionated. I like the colors and the whole of the image. I can agree with Gentoo Linux being very interesting, but not sure about CentOS. In that case I’d rather use Rocky or Alma, though for servers Debian fits my bill.
Without going into details on why you rank each distro the way you did, its just useless and baseless… Not helpful to anyone, at all, for any reason. Am I going to consult it for my next project? Absolutely not. I implore folks to do their own research and testing for their use case.
To add to this, another piece of this is: who are you that would make someone consider your picks over some other Joe schmoe ? Not saying your opinion doesn’t matter, but what I’m saying is what would make your opinion hold any weight to anyone reading? Your reasoning may help, but you didnt give that.
Not really sure how archinstall factors in since it wasn’t around yet when I first installed, but I love EndeavourOS. I’ve installed arch before, but I really can’t be bothered if I’m just going to end up installing all of the same packages the GUI could give me in less time anyway. Yeah, EndeavourOS is just arch with some small extra packages and a GUI installer, but that’s exactly why I like it.
Archinstall is not at all newbie friendly, especially compared to calamares and endeavourOS setup. Also, having a usblive is very convenient in case of problems.
If you don’t have advanced knowledge nor want to customize it very thoroughly, I don’t see any reason to use arch over endeavourOS. I mean, other than the fun of experimenting with the innards of linux, testing your frustration tolerance, and ending up being able to say “I use arch BTW”.
Add comment