There are some head scratching placements to me. I understand this is your opinion (which is the point of a tier list), but I don’t understand why some of the placements are given. BTW I use EndeavourOS and feel like is the best distro ever and feel hurt by you personally. :D (just joking) How many of them did you actually use? I personally don’t like your list, like most people you would hurt with it. I have a lot of to say (just woke up and saw this list, you triggered me immediately).
Note: I only used a few handful of distributions and don’t know most of them by first hand.
The description for your Rankings are not unique to me. In example Mediocre, Bad and Completely Pointless seem to me all the same. And listing No Opinion at the end of a tier list makes no sense to me, because the reason for a tier list is an opinion.
CentOS, Amazing Ranking: I’m not sure if CentOS can be called amazing after all the betrayal to Open Source by Red Hat. Unless something changed here to the better. I don’t have an opinion on the base itself, as I never used this.
EndeavourOS, Completely Pointless Ranking: I think this is an excellent distribution and handles Archlinux very well. Compared to Manjaro (which I used prior) it is still very much Arch itself. To me this at least, even if you don’t like it, should be at least in Mediocre Ranking from you, which means there is not much reason to use over original Arch in your opinion.
Manjaro, Completely Pointless Ranking: I would put Manjaro besides Ubuntu, because I had my fair share of problems with Manjaro and their buggy tools and handling of the AUR. Also the developers or forum managers don’t handle things well too. It’s nowhere at the same level of EndevaourOS.
Fedora, Mediocre Ranking: I don’t understand this. Why is it ranked as very few reasons to use over counterparts? What is the distribution one should use over Fedora? It’s also leading edge, so there is a lot of reasons to use it.
Debian, Bad Ranking: Same reasons for Fedora, but in opposite direction. Why is a very stable and not changing much distribution bad to you? What would be the equivalent alternative to Debian, but a much better distro to you?
Have in mind, Debian and Fedora has a lot of spins too, but I think you mean the mainline versions only. But you listed all the variants for Ubuntu too, so a bit of inconsistent.
Pop!_OS, Zorin, Garuda, Completely Pointless Ranking: I really don’t understand these placements by you by any stretch of imagination. They have lot of work involved, styling, defaults and features that they either save time by providing a working out of the box experience for a certain kind of user (like Garuda) in example. PopOS is also a better Ubuntu basically, as it is based on Ubuntu like Linux Mint is. Why is Linux Mint Good, but not many of the other distros that have a similar reason to exist like Mint? I don’t get this.
Ubuntu, Maliciously Bad: I know all of the stuff here, you don’t need to tell me. I used Ubuntu for 13 years exclusively. But it’s not a bad distribution, it just does not what you want to do. I wouldn’t call it Malicious. But okay, I give you a pass here, because of all the controversy, history and what they did. So it’s understandable placement, but its not a bad distro in my opinion, just upsetting.
ElementaryOS, Deepin, Maliciously Bad: Can you explain to me what is malicious about these distributions?
Eh. Not quite. Yes, the main editions use Ubuntu as a starting point, but they remove a load of Canonical's cruft, like Snaps. They have their own suite of applications, the XApps, that are forks of other tools, as well as a number of other improvements and changes.
I couldn't say whether it's as far from Ubuntu as Ubuntu is from the original Debian, but it's some distance removed for sure.
And LMDE is based on Debian, skipping Ubuntu entirely.
Add comment