Tech
Why distrohopping is truly a waste of time
Are you a distro hopper? Then perhaps you can help me see the appeal. To me, the fundamental properties of a system are what make it special, not the superficial changes made every few months. Perhaps I’m wrong? But here’s why I think it’s a waste of time.
Distro hopping has been around for as long as I’ve used Linux, and I’ve never understood it. I see it as digital feng shui, where people obsessively move the furniture around because they’re bored. I sometimes wonder: am I so out of touch? No, it’s the children who are wrong. For me, choosing a distro is about the fundamental aspects I cannot configure. It’s about architecture, not about the shiny new toys, because you can install those toys on any distro. Even now as I write this, I’m dragging my palm down across my face.
New to Linux? Focus on the Desktop Environment, Not the Distro
Why choosing your Linux desktop environment matters far more than picking the perfect distro.
On the face of it, most distros are the same
The heading is likely to ruffle a few feathers, but hear me out. I’m not referring to the unique features or architecture (covered next) of a distro, but the common thread that runs through most—the file system, POSIX compliance, the standard utilities, configuration directories, XDG standards, and usually systemd. Distros usually look and feel the same. When you interact with services, it’s normally through systemd. Configuration files often share a similar format and location. The commands and the init system—they all look and feel the same.
Installed packages, package formats, package managers, and distro-specific configurations make up the superficial distinctions. It’s the same operating system in different clothes.
Choose a distro for its architecture
What I mean by architecture is the underlying construct that supports the superficial differences. For example:
- Gentoo: A source distribution with extensive source configuration files.
- Fedora: Competent SELinux policies and even atomic changes with Silverblue.
- Qubes: Isolation through virtual machines.
- Software repositories: These are a core part of the distribution, so I consider them part of the architecture.
These aspects truly distinguish distributions and are the fundamental reasons to choose one.
Shopping around for the perfect product is never easy. There are always trade-offs. When you choose a distro for its superficial qualities, you may need to make architectural compromises. Choosing a distro for its window manager configuration makes little sense to me when you can easily implement or use a published one. The fundamental qualities of a system make it useful; the configuration is how you dress it up.
Using Linux is about configuration, not fashion
Shutterstock/Roman Samborskyi
Every few years a hot new distro hits the Linux scene, and it has everyone talking. People jump on the bandwagon until the next popular thing comes along. Those who find their perfect distro, I’m happy for you, but those who jump ship onto the next and the next, what are you doing? Linux is extremely configurable: define your requirements, choose a suitable long-term distro, and spend that time building out a highly tailored system.
My fundamental requirements are non-negotiable. Every distro decision I make is Qubes. For the 15+ years I’ve used Linux, I’ve stuck with two distros for 95% of the time because they’ve architecturally met my fundamental needs. I can configure my system precisely as I need, so why distro hop? Linux is all about configuration, and using fashionable, prepackaged solutions means you’re stuck with whatever mediocre architecture it’s based on.
Find a base system that resonates with you, and build upon it.
Choosing a distro is like choosing a house, not an outfit. You will live in your distro for the long haul, and so you want it to align with your core values. Whether it’s entirely FOSS, secure, has an active community, software repositories, or something else—it should be a long-term decision. Those who distro hop possibly don’t grasp that most distros are the same underneath—perhaps they haven’t explored Linux in depth yet? Going from one GNU/Linux system to the next, because the configuration files differ, makes zero sense to me. The aspects that you cannot change are what should drive your decisions.
Installing a distro is a mundane task, and it takes weeks to complete the setup, unless you track your configuration in a repository (and you should).
Perhaps I see it as pointless because I live in the terminal. I see the file system and the standard tools most often. Perhaps it’s the graphical bling that obscures the true nature of a Linux distro. A very Windows-like frame of mind, if you ask me.
I Tried CachyOS, and Now It Might Be My New Main Distro
At first glance, CachyOS looks like another “Arch Linux but Easy” distro, but here’s why I’m such a fan of it.
