Hey! Ich habe ja folgenden Post hier gemacht: https://feddit.de/post/10500853

Jetzt bin ich ein wenig unschlüssig, was ich will und bräuchte euren Input.

Hintergründe und Gedanken:

• Ich muss täglich 10-15 km einfach zur Arbeit hin zurücklegen, und möchte das mit dem Fahrrad tun
• Die Strecke ist zu einem großen Teil kurvenfrei und ohne Gefälle und ein ausgebauter, guter Radweg. Leider auf einer flachen Ebene, heißt, ich könnte Probleme mit Gegenwind kriegen.
• Ich will das Rad nicht unbedingt als Sportgerät verwenden, aber meine Fitness schon gerne verbessern. Ich will mich aber nicht jedes Mal in aerodynamische Fahrradleggins quetschen. Da ich aber kein Rennen fahre, wo ein paar Sekunden hier und da einen riesen Unterschied machen, sollte es egal sein, ob meine Jacke bisschen schlabbert.
• Mir ist die Geschwindigkeit schon relativ wichtig. Ein E-Bike schaltet (und bremst) sich nsch 25 km/h selbst, aber auf der geraden Strecke würde ich mit dem Rennrad vermutlich deutlich höhere Geschwindigkeiten hinkriegen (?)
• Vorteil vom E-Bike wäre, dass ich es in ein Lastenrad unwandeln und damit auch mal ohne Auto nen Kasten Bier von A nach B transportieren kann.
• Das Rennrad verschleist nicht so. Keine Technik (Akku, Motor, Elekronik, etc.) dahinter, nur bisschen normaler Wartungsaufwand.
• Preis: ein gutes Rennrad krieg ich auf Kleinanzeigen schon ab 250€, ein E-Bike fängt erst bei 400-600€ an. Da ich aber täglich damit fahren werde, ist der Preis eher nebensächlicher.

---

Ich glaube, ich tendiere zu einem E-Bike. Alleine schon die Tatsache, dass der Begriff in dem anderen Post ein paar Mals erwähnt wurde, sagt schon viel.

Aber was würdet ihr mir empfehlen? Was sind eure Erfahrungen?

Fahrradanfänger hier.

Ich wohne eher ländlich und die Öffi-Infrastruktur hier ist hundsmieserabel. Meine neue Arbeit ist ~10-15 km einfach entfernt, wobei ein Großteil davon ein perfekt geteerter Fahrradweg ohne Steigung ist.

Beim größten Teil der Strecke herrscht zudem eine Geschwindigkeitsbegrenzung von 60-80 km/h für Autos, daher wäre ich mitm Fahrrad auch nicht unbedingt viel langsamer.

Jetzt möchte ich mir ein Rennrad auf Kleinanzeigen kaufen, weiß aber überhaupt nicht, wo ich anfangen soll. Preislich ist absolut alles dabei, von 200-4000€. Ich tendiere zu einem Mittelfeld-Rad zwischen 250-500€.

Was soll ich beim Kauf beachten?

• Wie wichtig ist das Baujahr? Sind moderne Räder besser?

• Wie hoch sind die Geschwindigkeitsunterschiede?

• Was sollte das Rad haben, was ist nur Nice-to-have?

• Wie kann ich ein funktionales Alltagsfahrrad (mit Rucksack, Jacke, etc.) haben, das trotzdem schnell ist? Wie wichtig ist die Aerodynamik wirklich, wenn mir paar Minuten hin oder her egal sind?

• Wie mache ich das Rad verkehrssicher, ohne Einbußen?

• Und was habt ihr für generelle Tipps?

geteilt von: https://feddit.de/post/10086864

> # Configuration: > OS: Android (GrapheneOS); > Launcher: Kvaesitso (Available on F-Droid Izzy-repo); > Theme: Light theme prefered; > Wallpaper: Shot by myself, but I can share it if anyone wants it; > Icons: Arcticons Material You > > --- > > # Images: > > Landing page: > ! > > Widget bar (when scrolled down): > ! > > App menu: > ! > ! > > Dark mode: > !

Configuration:

OS: Android (GrapheneOS); Launcher: Kvaesitso (Available on F-Droid Izzy-repo); Theme: Light theme prefered; Wallpaper: Shot by myself, but I can share it if anyone wants it; Icons: Arcticons Material You

---

Images:

Landing page: !

Widget bar (when scrolled down): !

App menu: ! !

Dark mode: !

I made this post mainly as discussion and suggestion for mods and posting people.

---

Browsing through this community (and before that, r/unixporn or r/usabilityporn on Reddit) feels a bit like wandering through a shopping catalogue. Sadly, a bad organised one.

Sometimes, I just enjoy looking at the awesome configs of other users and see what some WMs or DEs (or, to be more precise, their users!) are capable of, without any intentions to replicate it. It's more of a "Oh, that looks neat, take my upvote!", but not much more. Similar to an art gallery.

---

And sometimes, I use it to find some inspiration and to recreate/ apply it on my setup. In that regard, I always have a hard time sorting out or finding the right stuff.

Say, for example, if I want a good looking KDE setup, and I search for "Light mode", "Minimalist", "Elegant", or some other term, individually, I get random stuff like an anime hyprland configuration or someone posting their Cinnamon setup, because it had above keyword in the title. Meanwhile, the exact thing I searched for is named "Here's my comfy KDE style" and isn't listed in my results. On Reddit, it was just as bad. And it's not because of the search capability, it's because of missing information.

If I search for all keywords together, I of course don't find anything because it's too restricted.

A question mainly for the mods: For future search accessibility, what do you think about making a rule (or, at least suggestion) to include category key words (for example "Hyprland, neon, anime, modern, dark mode, minimalist") aswell as the exact things used (icon theme, dotfiles, etc.) in the description?

In that way, we maybe could make an automated website/ category catalogue where we can filter and search better, where we can search hierarchically, e.g. "Desktop Environments > Plasma > Light mode > Modern" and see all posts linked there.

Another idea would be to link them in the sidebar, e.g. "List of Light KDE themes" or "Captppucin window managers".

---

What do you think of that?

Ich möchte auf c/Pilzzucht ein paar Tutorials veröffentlichen. Dabei handelt es sich um Videos mit einer Länge von 1-3 Minuten.

So weit ich das richtig verstanden habe, kann man auf Lemmy generell keine Videos hochladen, nur Fotos. Man soll/ kann sie aber auf Pixelfed veröffentlichen, da gibt's aber ein Größenlimit von 15 MB. Sollte ich stattdessen Peertube verwenden? Kann ich das irgendwie mit meinem Lemmy-Account verknüpfen?

Oder soll ich das lieber auf einer anderen Plattform uploaden und dann verlinken?

Aus ideologischen Gründen würde ich bevorzugt im Fediverse bleiben, oder zumindest nichts auf YouTube und co. veröffentlichen. Was würdet ihr da empfehlen?

Was bevorzugt ihr - Dark Mode oder Light Mode?

Ich bin eher Team Hellmodus.

Ein Argument für den Dunkelmodus ist ja, dass er besser für die Augen ist. Ich (und viele Augenärzte und Forscher) sehe das aber bisschen anders. Ich finde schwarzen Text auf hellem Hintergrund, wie es bei Papier ist, deutlich angenehmer zu lesen und alle Icons/ Buchstaben schärfer und kontrastreicher. Immer, wenn ich vom dunklen Modus auf den hellen umschalte, ist es so, als würde ich von HD zu Full-HD wechseln. Im Dunkelmodus ist alles leicht unscharf und ich muss meine Augen mehr anstrengen.

Außerdem finde ich den hellen etwas stylischer und eleganter.

Abends aktiviere ich den Blaufilter, dann wirds nochmal angenehmer und augenfreundlicher. Blaufilter + Darkmode = man sieht gar nichts mehr

Die Energieersparnis ist bei den meisten Bildschirmen ohnehin egal, weil sie beim LCD sowieso fast immer weiß leuchten, selbst wenn man etwas dunkles sieht. So wirklich stark fällt das nur auf AMOLED Screens auf, z.B. am Handy. Da hält der Bildschirm ca. 10% länger bei mir.

Die häufigste Aussage für Dark Mode ist "Mir brennts sonst die Netzhaut weg.". Schon mal dran gedacht, den Bildschirm dunkler zu machen? Wenn man drin ist, sollte er eh nicht heller als 50% sein imo.

Es gibt zwar Darkmode-Zwang-Addons, aber bei denen ist die Leserlichkeit meistens fürn Arsch. Darkmode kann sehr gut aussehen und leserlich sein, aber das erfordert viel UI-Umstrukturierung. Wenn man dann 90% der Websites im Darkmode nativ hat, und aus Versehen eine der 10% hellen Seiten öffnet, ist das scheiße.

Was ich tatsächlich auch gut finde ist der Graumodus, insbesondere bei Bildbearbeitung (z.B. RawTherapee und Darktable). Der sieht zwar kacke aus, aber ist recht angenehm und kontrastreich.

Was bevorzugt ihr so? Wieso findet ihr Dark Mode besser? Wieso ist er, besonders bei Programmierern, der Standard?

I've always been a Gnome fanboy and couldn't imagine using something else.

I've dabbled into KDE every few months (by rebasing from Silverblue to Kinoite for example) and I've always switched back after a few weeks.

I always wished I liked KDE, because it's more powerful, but there always were show stoppers. Inconsistencies, bugs and crashes, too many options, cluttered UI, and more. My main argument to dislike it was that KDE tried to do everything all at once, but fails everywhere because nothing is polished and only 90% there.

Gnome on the other hand was simple and just worked, because every feature has been worked on thoroughly and integrated perfectly. Still, there are just a few things I dislike on Gnome, especially the core problem of "sleeping" devs who decide against implementing stuff like fractional scaling or a good app tray. The lack of modularity in Nautilus is also hugely annoying, especially when working with RAW pictures, where you don't see a picture. I had to install a photo viewer that is basically a second file manager just because of that. Dolphin does that out of the box.

Still, Gnome felt like the lesser evil for me.

---

This has changed now!

I rebased to the newest F40 beta (including KDE 6) and WOW!

Everything feels so polished and reworked. I have the feeling, on Plasma 5 were a lot of innovations and new features, but they were just thrown into the room incoherently. Now, those have been reorganized and finished.

• The design language is almost the same, but cleaned up and less cluttered,
• I don't feel the need to change my themes, only the accent colour and the GTK theme. Breeze looks very mature and good now.
• The gestures are pretty much on par with Gnome, which means A LOT.
• It works pretty reliable, even though it's a beta and I will report bugs if I can.
• Future stability should also be better now, due to the bundles release schedule like on Gnome. Devs had a hard time with that in the past, and I think many bugs were caused by that. Now, Plasma might ship as the default DE for some distros.
• The settings are way more legible now and everything is easier to find.
• I also liked KRunner more than Gnome's search and Dolphin is way better/ capable anyway.
• And much more!

---

To the developers, you did a fucking great job! Keep going! KDE feels SO professional now and finally reached its potential in my eyes. The last days have been very pleasant and I can't wait to rebase my devices to the stable release in 1-2 months!

Ich komme von c/Renaturierung und wollte fragen, welche Pflanzen denn für unsere Natur am nützlichsten sind. Insbesondere diese, die von Insekten und Vögeln als Futter verwendet werden können, als Unterschlupf dienen oder Schadstoffe aus dem Boden ziehen bzw. diesen mit Nährstoffen anreichern können.

Pluspunkt wäre auf jeden Fall, wenn sie entweder hübsch sind (z.B. Blumenwiese) oder auch für uns Menschen essbar sind (z.B. Beeren, Fallobst, etc.).

Sie sollen dem Hauptzweck der Renaturierung bzw. Stärkung und Erhöhung der Artenvielfalt dienen und sollen hauptsächlich durch Samenbomben (Bäume ggfs. durch Sätzlinge) ausgebreitet werden.

---

Ich hätte folgende Beispiele bzw. Ideen:

• Blumenwiesen-Mix: da weiß ich leider nicht genau, was da drin ist, und der Freund von mir möchte nur ungerne nicht-heimische Arten verbreiten. Ich weiß auch nicht, wie wertvoll die tatsächlich für Insekten sind, oder ob die nur hübsch aussehen.
• Sonnenblumenkerne: ideal für Vögel, sehen auch noch toll aus.
• Vogelsamenmix: Hirse, Sonnenblumenkerne, Hanfsamen, etc.
• Nutzhanf: erzeugt tiefe Wurzeln, die Kohlenstoff speichern und den Boden auflockern.
• Versch. Bäume, z.B. Edelkastanie. Gut für Wildschweine und co., können auch wir sehr gut essen
• ...?

Was würde euch noch einfallen?

ZL;NG: Potential vom Fediverse bezüglich Filterbubbles und Echokammern.

---

Ich habe letztens jemandem erklärt, wie das Fediverse (insbesondere Lemmy als Beispiel) funktioniert.

Auch, wenn ich extra betont habe, wie cool (oder blöd, je nach dem...) ich es finde, dass ich alle möglichen Leute (z.B. Furries, Kommunisten, Sozialisten, alte Leute, junge Leute, Hundemenschen, Nazis, Katzenmenschen, Veganer, Linuxuser, etc.) dort antreffe, kam die Aussage, dass dieses ganze Prinzip von Föderieren und Deföderieren, aber auch das Ausblenden ganzer Communities und die "Macht" der Moderatoren, ja die Definition einer Filterblase zu sein scheint.

---

Heute hab ich mal in die Blockliste von Feddit.de reingeschaut. Eigentlich alles, was ich dort gesehen habe, war Scheiße, die ich echt nicht (besonders auf täglicher Basis) sehen will, z.B. Faschistenmüll (lemmygrad), Pornografie, usw. Da bin ich den Seitenadmins auf jeden Fall schon mal für die Vorauswahl dankbar und finde, dass es eine recht vernünftige Aussortierung ist, die einen Grundpfeiler einer halbwegs zivilisierten Diskussion und Kultur darstellt.

Wenn ich mir jetzt aber beispielsweise die Blockliste (und Mentalität) von Lemmygrad ansehe, sind die aber schon deutlich heftiger unterwegs, mit ganz klaren Regeln, wer mit wem wie reden darf und für welchen Mist man gebannt werden kann. Faschos, die halt Faschodinge machen, wen wundert's...

Aber selbst da: wenn ich mir dort einen Account erstellen würde, wie sehr werde ich dann weiter radikalisiert und versumpfe weiter in meiner Bubble, wenn ich empfänglich dafür bin?

Und auch anders herum: hier auf Feddit und ähnlichen Seiten ist auch nicht das ganze Spektrum der Bevölkerung (oder Instanzen) abgebildet, und ich bin mir auch bewusst, dass wir hier ebenfalls eine kleine Bubble aus (übertrieben gesagt) links-grünen ITlern haben, während das rechte Stammtischgelabere unserer Eltern eher auf Facebook stattfindet.

Selbe Frage: Wie sehr würde ich, wenn theoretisch alle möglichen Bevölkerungsschichten hier vorzufinden wären, in einer Bubble landen?

• Gar nicht, weil es keinen Algorithmus gibt?
• Oder würden wir uns alle trotzdem radikalisieren/ isolieren, weil jede rechte Aussage auf einer linken Instanz beispielsweise gedownvotet wird und die dementsprechenden Leute auf eine andere Instanz abwandern?
• Wie sehr begrüßt ihr es, dass gewisse "Idioten" (ich weiß nicht, wie ich die sonst bezeichnen soll), mit denen man ohnehin nicht mehr vernünftig reden kann, aus dem Gespräch ausgeschlossen werden?
• Wie unterscheidet es sich von anderen Plattformen, wie YouTube, Instagram, und co.? Wenn ich auf YT z.B. ein Schwurbelvideo anklicke, wird einem direkt die ganze Startseite damit vollgemüllt. Trifft man hier auf mehr und diversere Meinungen, selbst, wenn man es aktiv nicht möchte?

That's a question I always asked myself. Currently, I'm running Debian on both my servers, but I consider switching to Fedora Atomic Core (CoreOS), since I already use Fedora Atomic on my desktop and feel very comfortable with it.

There's always the mentality of using a "stable" host OS bein better due to following reasons:

• Things not changing means less maintenance, and nothing will break compatibility all of the sudden.
• Less chance to break.
• Services are up to date anyway, since they are usually containerized (e.g. Docker).
• And, for Debian especially, there's one of the biggest availability of services and documentation, since it's THE server OS.

My question is, how much of these pro-arguments will I loose when I switch to something less stable (more regular updates), in my case, Fedora Atomic?

---

My pro-arguments in general for it would be:

• The host OS image is very minimal, and I think most core packages should be running very reliably. And, in the worst case, if something breaks, I can always roll back. Even the, in comparison to the server image, "bloated" desktop OS (Silverblue) had been running extremely reliably and pretty much bug free in the past.
• I can always use Podman/ Toolbx for example for running services that were made for Debian, and for everything else there's Docker and more. So, the software availability shouldn't be an issue.
• I feel relatively comfortable using containers, and think especially the security benefits sound promising.

Cons:

• I don't have much experience. Everything I do related to my servers, e.g. getting a new service running, troubleshooting, etc., is hard for me.
• Because of that, I often don't have "workarounds" (e.g. using Toolbx instead of installing something on the host directly) in my mind, due to the lack of experience.
• Distros other than Debian and some others aren't the standard, and therefore, documentation and availability isn't as good.
• Containerization adds another layer of abstraction. For example, if my webcam doesn't work, is it because of a missing driver, Docker, the service, the cable not being plugged in, or something entirely different? Troubleshooting would get harder that way.

---

On my "proper" server I mainly use Nextcloud, installed as Docker image. My Raspberry Pi on the other hand is only used as print server, running Octoprint for my 3D-printer. I have installed Octoprint there in the form of Octopi, which is a Raspian fork distro where Octoprint is pre-installed, which is the recommended way.

With my "proper" server, I'm not really unhappy with Debian. It works and the server is running 24/7. I don't plan to change it for the time being.

Regarding the Raspi especially, it looks quite a bit different. I think I will just try it and see if I like it.

Why?

• It is running only rarely. Most of the time, the device is powered off. I only power it on a few times per month when I want to print something. This is actually pretty good, since the OS needs to reboot to apply updates, and it updates itself automatically, so I don't have to SSH into it from time to time, reducing maintenence.
• And, last but not least, I've lost my password. I can't log in anymore and am not able to update anymore, so I have to reinstall anyway.

---

What is your opinion about that?

Probably a dumb question, but I have to report pretty much the same post (some website-link + some mentioned usernames, but always sent from different instances) multiple times a day.

The weird thing is, that this happens only here in this community, and not in any else I have subscribed to.

Is this some targeted attack, because due to the self hosting, we're a more valuable victims, or is it just due to time shift because the mods are in a different time zone and asleep when we report the posts?

I think the latter one isn't the case, since there are many active moderators here :)

Is there something we can do about it?

Hey all! I just made following post: My current learning experience as a noob in astrophotography, with very shitty/ minimal equipment (includes pictures too!)

I'm a total beginner, and even my currently best work looks really sad compared to the stunning pictures you share here as real and experienced pros. I have to say, the further I progressed in my journey in the last months, the more I began to appreciate your work. Great job on that! <3

I wanted to encurage you all to make a similar post or comment in this thread and share your past about this special and lovely kind of photography.

I think nobody here has started with equipment more expensive than my annual income and more knowledge about the night sky than any astrologist (Edit: astronomer, I don't think anyone here believes in horoscopes :D) here on earth. What were your first results, with what equipment? What did you learn over time, and what stuff or trick has improved your results the most?

I'm particularly interested in the stage of you back then, where I am currently am - of just owning a damn (simple + universal) camera and learning the basic stuff. One of the reasons for that is I want to see what "best result" I can get with this stuff, and what my limits could be.

Hey! I wanted to share my "experience" as a newcomer, starting not only with astrophotography, but also with photography in general recently. Just a few months ago, I didn't even know what an aperture, stacking or other basic stuff is, and now, I feel a bit proud and think I'm getting there.

I know, it really is not much, but I'm trying to not compare myself with other photographers here who have 30 years of experience and equipment worth more than my yearly income. I just wanted to share my learning experience with you all, aswell as all issues and stepping stones I've had and (hopefully) grown out of.

As a camera, I use a Sony RX100 III compact camera, which is probably the least thing any of us here think about when talking about astrophotography.

Don't take this post too seriously :) It's only a small anecdote and hopefully a bit entertaining for you all 😊

---

Btw, I also tried to include a few pictures (stacked + edited, aswell as one light frame to compare) in each paragraph for visualization. They're "hidden" behind a spoiler-tag for better readability.

First pictures

They were literally just taken as-is out of the window of my apartment, without any mount, and with 30s shutter speed. No stacking or whatever.

Pics

! ! !

First stacking tests

Without DBF, usually shitty.

Pics

! !

Using DBFs + better camera settings

In the beginning, I only used the -withoutDBF script. I started using the display of my E-reader (white, diffuse light) to capture my flats, reduced the shutter speed from ~20-30s to 10s (no more trails) and increased the aperture by one F-stop (2 or 2.2 instead of 1.8, the lowest), which resulted in sharper images with less noise. Also, I got a cheap camera mount :D

Comparison

Without DBF: ! Same picture, with DBF added later: !

Better software skills

I began to learn better how Siril works and developed my workflow. It's fascinating how much I was able to "rescue".

Learning curve

Edit, just two months prior: ! Exact same photo/ .fit-file, opened today and edited with my current skills: !

Better spot and conditions - Today

Many of the pictures were taken in or near a city, and now, I only have to go a few minutes by foot to get my perfect spot with barely any light pollution.

I also learned to hate our fucking moon - as soon as I notice that we have more than crescent moon, I don't even leave my house, except if I want to make a few pics of the landscape.

Final pics

! !

Additional ones, just because I can

They're single takes or star trails, but still taken at night. I found them neat too, so I just included them :D

Pics

! ! !

Future path

I really don't know what this will lead to.

• First, I definitely want to learn my stacking software better, because I think I didn't unreavel all of its' potential yet.
• Also, I want to get a better camera some time, when I have the money for it
• Fight some more issues, namely those from my last post here (lens condensation + tracker)
• and probably much more!

Thank you for reading! :)

For the pros here, who have equipment worth tens of thousands of moneys, this may sound like a troll post, but trust me, it isn't :D

As a beginner, I had a lot of fun photographing the night sky and learning all the post-processing the results of my work for the last months.

A lot of my work went straight to the trash, either because of a bad moon phase, light pollution, condensation, or super stupid mistakes, like forgetting to tick a checkmark in my time lapse mode and then coming home after 2 hours of freezing cold temperatures and seeing that your shutter speed has been 0.2 seconds all along... 😵‍💫 I still learnt a lot from my mistakes and improved rapidly. It was a lot of trial by error, but rewarding.

---

One thing I still fight with is said condensation. I'm both broke ^(or, even if I had the money, I still wouldn't buy a heating mantle for 250€ just for my amateur photos tbh)^ , and my camera is probably a joke compared to yours.

My workaround has been to use small hand warmers.

(If you don't know what I mean)

(the ones you have to boil first, then click the metal clip, and then they "freeze", becoming warm for 30 minutes)

I activate and then press them against the front of the lens for one minute each 5 minutes or so, which of course sometimes results in

• camera shake,
• missing photos,
• and in the worst case, smears on the photo, which won't even be recoverable with my flats.

The reason for doing that is that I have a Sony RX100 III compact camera, which has a super small lens, so no heating mantle can fit on that.

A friend of mine is already more advanced than me and owns one, but his heating mantle is like 20 cm wide, while my lens is 5 cm max when fully drawn out :D

Do you have any cheap alternatives or DIY solutions for my problem?

---

Also, does anyone have an idea or suggestion on what I can use as star tracker

(?)

(the mount-thing that moves my camera with the rotation of the earth)

when I don't want to spend $$$ on a professional one?

I don't need a super expensive or accurate one, just one that allows me to increase the width of my photo, so I don't have to crop >1/3 of it in the end. I don't need it to keep my shutter speed at 1 minute+, just to keep it below 15s, like I currently do.

Are there any workarounds, like using an Arduino or so?

Right now, I'm a bit restricted to about ~30 photos @ 10s, because elseway, the crop zone is too small or there are small trails forming.

I had to warm up my lens from time to time to prevent condensation build up, and therefore, every 5th image or so is missing. Is there a way to artificially fill the gaps in the trails?

Hey all! Yesterday, I've made following post: How to choose your first distro - A guide for beginners (flowchart + text post) and need some input and critique from you.

One thing I got asked a hell lot is why I didn't recommend Debian (and by some extend, Ubuntu) all that much. While I included Debian in the list too, I had my reasons to recommend Mint, Zorin, and some other Debian-/ Ubuntu based distros above the OG Debian.

Ubuntu

My decision to exclude Ubuntu didn't meet that much of a big resistance, probably because said decision wasn't as controverse.

Reasons, copied from the post:

> It used to be good and paved the way of today’s Linux desktop world, but nowadays, the Corporation behind it, Canonical, decided to shit on its user base. > * Once, they decided to make advertisements for Amazon a few years ago, which they’ve reverted > * They now make ads in the terminal for “Ubuntu Pro” > * And, mostly, they force their own and highly controversial package format (Snaps) onto users. You almost can’t get around them, even if you actively decide for it. > While Snaps became better in the last years, they still bring a lot of trouble. Just, for example, think of Valve when they officially recommended everyone to not use the fricking Snap package because it’s broken all the time? Good luck doing that with Ubuntu, when they shove Snaps down everyones’ throat, without even notifying the user. While we more experienced users just change the package format, newcomers aren’t aware of that and blame a malfunctioning app to Linux, not the Snap.

> I just don’t see any reasons to recommend Ubuntu over something like Mint or even Debian. Both are pretty much the same (same command compatibility with apt, documentation also applies to them, etc.), but just better in any aspect.

Also, > Fedora is often considered “the new Ubuntu” [...]

if you want something similar in terms of release schedule and more, but more sane.

Debian

For Debian, I think I might edit the post and include it more prominent too.

With the newest release, it got some very well thought out defaults, like Flatpak support, a more polished DE (Gnome, KDE, etc.) experience and more. It used to be a "server only"-distro in my eyes, but now, it is actually viable for desktop use, if you like stability (in terms of staleness/ changes).

My reasons to not include it originally were following:

• The installer sucks: It looks outdated/ ugly, and has bad/ unintuitive defaults, making the installation process way more complicated than it needs to be -> I gladly got corrected, and I think I'm just too dumb for that one. It seems to be more straight forward than I had it in my mind.
• Too lean: For more experienced users, who already know what they want, the relatively minimalist base without any "bloat" (office software, etc.) is great, but I think including said stuff in beginner distros (e.g. by a checklist post-install, or just straight ootb) is a good thing.
• Missing first steps: Zorin or Mint have a welcome wizard that guides new users through the OS, showing them how to install new apps, change settings, and more. TuxedoOS for example was specifically designed by a hardware company that wants every user, who never installed Linux themself, get a good first impression and being capable to use the laptop out-of-the-box. Debian misses that imo.
• Flatpaks not being the default app installation method, resulting in very old software.
• Too old OS in general: I think most DEs in particular have already found their direction, and won't change radically in the future (e.g. Gnome 2 to Gnome 3), they only get polished and improved. By using 3 year old DE variants, you'll miss a hell lot of performance and usability improvements in my opinion, and something like Fedora is better suited for desktop use, as it's still reliable, but more modern.
• Does everything too well: Debian has every DE and a hell lot of good arguments to use. When I put "use Debian" on every arrow, it gets recommended proportionally too often, and overshadows something like Mint.
• Stability is NOT reliability!: While Debian is one of the most stable distros out there, in terms of release cycle, it isn't more reliable because of that. If you mess up your system, there are no recommended-by-default safety measures, like there are on Mint (Timeshift backup) or Suse (Snapper rollback). For me, it is in some regards very comparable to Arch, just that's frozen in time for 3 years.

Now, I would like to hear your opinion and reasons why I might be wrong. Do you think Debian should be put more into focus, and if yes, why? How has your experience been, especially if you started using Linux just recently?

Hallo meine Computernerds! :)

Ich arbeite momentan im Labor-/ Chemiebereich und habe dort auch meine Ausbildung gemacht. An und für sich gibt es genug Jobs und auch eine vernünftige Bezahlung, aber irgendwie hätte ich Bock, mich umzuorientieren. Einfach nur so, weil ich's halt kann.

Ich hatte in den letzten Jahren echt viel Spaß mit IT-Kram, insbesondere allem, was mit Linux zu tun hat. Ich habe, wie gerade erwähnt, leider bisher keine professionellen Erfahrungen oder offiziellen Qualifikationen vorzuweisen, aber habe ein ziemlich gutes Verständnis von allem möglichen und richtig Bock, mich in neue Themen reinzufuchsen. Ich finde bestimmt Wege, mich irgendwo reinzumogeln und die Personaler zu überzeugen ;)

Da ein großer Teil hier in dieser Community (teils schon seit Ewigkeiten) im IT-Bereich arbeitet oder vielleicht sogar dafür studiert hat, denke ich, dass ich hier ein paar Erfahrungen und Meinungen von euch kriegen könnte.

• Haltet ihr das für eine (total) bescheuerte Idee?
• Wie ist die Bezahlung, wenn man sich nicht auf irgendwas spezialisiert hat, langjährige Berufserfahrung in diesem Bereich oder Qualitifkationen vorzuweisen hat?
• Würdet ihr mir raten, zuvor ein paar Qualitifkationen anzuschaffen? Wie viel kosten die und wie schwer sind die zu kriegen?
• Oder würdet ihr sagen, dass ich lieber in meinem jetzigen Bereich bleiben soll?
• Macht euch die Arbeit "Spaß"?
• Welche Vorteile habt ihr im Vergleich zu anderen Sparten?

Ich bin noch sehr jung und mir würden viele Wege offen stehen. Nur ein Studium kommt für mich eher nicht in Frage, dazu müsste ich erstmal ein Abi nachholen, was in Bayern echt nicht einfach ist, besonders, wenn man berufstätig ist.

geteilt von: https://feddit.de/post/9087676

> So, you're new to Linux? Welcome to our community! > > You probably ask yourself > > "Where should I start?" > > and feel a bit overwhelmed right now. > > In this guide, I will show you how to choose your first Linux distro. > > This is part of my "New to Linux?"-series, where I will guide you through your first weeks. > > --- > > TL;DR: If you don't care about this at all, just go for Linux Mint. > > --- > > As you've probably already heard, "Linux" isn't just an operating system by itself, it's just the engine of it. > You need stuff built around that to get a working desktop. That "stuff" is packaged and distributed, hence the name "distro" (distribution). > Everyone can package this stuff themselfes and make their own operating system. > There are literally hundreds or thousands of different Linux-based OSs out there, and as a newcomer, this choice can be very overwhelming. > > This is why you've already came here and asked for advice. > Don't worry, we've all been there! > > You can find the "right" one for you if you follow the flow chart. > The flow chart is complementary to the text here. The diagram is for the choice, while the text is more for general information about each distro. > > Every distro of the following recommended ones meets all of these criteria: > * Easy to understand and intuitive to use > * You don't have to use the command line > * Works reliable > * Supports Nvidia-GPUs > > --- > > # Choosing the DE > > Before you choose your distro, you should choose your prefered desktop environment (DE). > The DE is what defines the user interface and some core apps, so, basically, what you interact with. > Don't mainly choose the distro because of its' DE, you can change that later too if you really want. > > The two main DEs (Gnome and KDE) are listed in the flow chart. > ### KDE > * is very modular and configurable, you can turn it into whatever you want. > * has pretty much everything you can imagine already built in > ### Gnome > * Is more opinionated, but if you don't like its' unique workflow, you can turn it into a "classic" desktop with minimize/ maximize buttons, task bar, and more, too. > * You can use the Extension manager/ Gnome Tweaks for doing that or getting other functionalities like smartphone integration for example. > > If you like certain aspects of one, but others from the "competitor", you can more or less turn one into the other. You have maximum freedom! > > > #Differences between distros > > **Choose your distro based on the following key points: ** > * Release schedule: Some get new features very often, some only once a few years. We refer this as stagnation as "stability" (not to conflict with reliability!) > * Philosophy: What are key values of the distro? (e.g. just providing a well functioning set of software, no matter if it's proprietary; conservative vs. innovative; etc.) > * Base: Many distros are based on other ones. A very common base is Debian or Ubuntu, where many newcomer-guides are based on. It mainly determines what package manager you use in the command line. I personally think that's not as important, since you will use the Software Center anyway most of the time to download apps and updates. > * All other things, like big community, good track record, hardware support, etc., were already taken care of by me. > > > --- > --- > > ### So, here's the list of every distro shown in the flow chart, with a short description on why it is included. > > # Linux Mint > > It's THE recommendation for every newcomer, no matter where you look. Not without reason: > * Very sane defaults > * Works, just out-of-the-box > * Not too many, but just the right amount of pre-installed apps to get in touch with the Linux app ecosystem > * Simple, yet highly functional > * Hides all "advanced" features in a reasonable way > * Huge userbase, especially for beginners. More experienced users still use Mint, and are always there to help newcomers. > * Doesn't change much, only gets more polished. New features arrive occasionally, but they usually don't change your workflow radically. > * Feels very familiar when you came from Windows, which most people do. > > Website: https://www.linuxmint.com/ > > > # ZorinOS > > It is the main "competitor" of Mint right now. > The big difference between Mint and it is how the desktop looks. While Mint is more old-fashioned in how it looks, Zorin wants to be an eye pleaser by looking more modern. With it, you can choose between different "styles", that mimic the looks of Windows 7, Windows 11, MacOS, and more, depending on what you feel the most comfortable with. > It has a slow release schedule of ~3 years, with some minor polishes in between, which is great if you don't like change. > > Don't worry about the "Pro" and "Light" versions. This is not like a freeware app with ads and stuff. > * "Pro" refers to the paid version, that only differs in some extra styles you can choose from. With the payment you get some extra tech assistance and support the developers. > * "Light" is a lightweight version, that is made for old devices to give them a second life and make them perform better than before, while still looking good. > > Website: https://zorin.com/os/ > > > # VanillaOS > > This one is also very promising. It has the same philosophy as Mint, but implements it differently. > It works a bit different under the hood and ensures an always working system you can't brick. If you still fucked up something, or got a bad update somehow, you can just roll back in seconds. > It also updates itself in the background and applies the updates without the user noticing on the next reboot, without any waiting time (unlike the forced Windows updates). > > If you become more advanced and experienced over time, you can turn to the terminal and have access to literally any app that was ever made for Linux. Especially if you start using Linux as developer, this is very handy. > Even if you aren't a developer, no, even if you aren't techy at all, VanillaOS is a very good choice if you prefer the simplicity and ease of use of Mint, but want something more modern! > > Website: https://vanillaos.org/ > > [Disclaimer: The new release, VanillaOS 2 Orchid, is currently under very high developement and still in beta. Consider waiting until the new version is officially released for a garanteed smooth experience.] > > > # Fedora > > This one is not exactly (but comparably) as beginner oriented as the above are, but still, a very good choice for new users. Fedora is often considered "the new Ubuntu", and is one of the most used distros out there with a gigantic community. > It is community-owned, but supported by the money and development power of the biggest player in the commercial Linux world. > > Features: > * Comes with any major DE you want + huge software availability > * Balanced desktop release schedule of 6 months. This ensures both a modern and reliable desktop system > * Everything is pretty vanilla (no theming, etc.) and has very sane defaults > * No big collection of pre-installed software (e.g. Office), bit it is installable with one click in the software center. > * Future-oriented: as soon as a new promising technology is reliable enough, it will adopt it. > > Website: > https://fedoraproject.org/ > https://fedoraproject.org/workstation/ > https://fedoraproject.org/spins/kde/ > > > # Fedora Atomic > > Fedora Atomic is a variant of Fedora that works different under the hood, while behaving the same on the surface as the regular Fedora does. I don't want to get too technical here, but the pros are the same as the ones from VanillaOS (unbrickable, better security, no half applied updates, etc.). > > I'm not sure if I would recommend it over the normal Fedora right now, as due to the other inner workings, you might have the chance to encounter issues when trying to get things working, e.g. an install script you found online. > If you are leaning bit more towards a tech-savy-person and have no problem searching a small thing here and there (only when you need non-ordinary stuff), then definitely check it out. Especially if you already came from another distro and feel dissatisfied. > > BUT, keep following in mind: > * If you are just a casual user, you don't need the terminal for this distro. If you want to really make full use of it tho, you might have to use it from time to time. > * On the surface, it looks and behaves exactly like the normal Fedora. > * Compatibility is not fully given, due to the double edged nature of the said new technology. > * Those potential issues or cons sound more dramatic than they are. If you are a normal user, you won't encounter these. Even I never had any compatibility-issues and always got everything working. > > One of the coolest things about it, apart from the pros mentioned above, are: > * Most "hidden" parts of the OS are irrelevant now to you if you want to change something -> simpler structure > * You can "swap out" the OS with something different any time you want, while also keeping your data (pictures, games, etc.). If you want to switch your DE for example later on, you can do that very easily by just changing the selected spin. This even works in the extend of rebasing to almost another distro! > > ## uBlue > If you are interested now, then check out UniversalBlue instead of the "official" Silverblue or Kinoite. uBlue offers: > * Many different variants of this distro, but with some quality-of-life changes included. > * Custom builds for special hardware, e.g. Microsoft Surface devices, ASUS ROG, etc., which come working OOTB, are very reliable and don't require tinkering. > * And also special variants for different tastes and use cases, e.g. a security-enhanced variant, as well as > ### Bazzite > which is one of the biggest and "best" example in how awesome uBlue can be. > It's derived from it and is a gaming-focused distro. With it, you get many optimization tweaks and tools for gaming included out of the box, like some performance enhancements for example. > > You don't need a gaming distro to play games at all, but if that's what you mostly do with your PC, then maybe consider that. > > Links: > https://fedoraproject.org/atomic-desktops/silverblue/ > https://universal-blue.org/installation/ > https://bazzite.gg > > > # Arch and NixOS > > Those two are in the "pain" category. I would never recommend them to anyone starting with Linux, for example because they're fed up with Windows. > Both Arch and NixOS are known to be "for experts only", meaning, they're > * high demanding > * hard to set up and use > * requiring the user to be skilled and to know what he's doing > * don't hold the users' hand > * and don't tolerate user error well. > > Why did I still decide to include them in my noob-recommended list anyway? > Well, because not everyone wants to start Linux expecting an easy road. There are some people who want to tinker and challenge themselfes, and some birds learn flying the best when kicked out of the nest. > > Don't get me wrong! Both Arch and NixOS are fantastic choices and very powerful. They can be fun to use and very rewarding. > > What makes them great? > * Minimalism: they come with basically nothing out of the box and require the user to set up everything themselfes. If you've done that, you have an OS that's truly yours! > * Skilled community and great wiki. Especially the Arch-wiki is the number-one-ressource for any Linux thing, and by the point you installed Arch or NixOS the hard way, you got a good understanding in the inner workings of Linux. > * Rolling release: as soon as packages are released, you get them, no big release versions > * Biggest package repositories ever, with many inofficial ones too, created by the user base > * Great package manager > > ## Alternatives > If those pro-points of Arch and NixOS are appealing to you, but sound too hard to get for your taste, here are some alternatives you may consider instead. They aren't my top pick, but still very popular in the community. > * Debian: One of the oldest distros ever out there. It's what a lot of other distros, including Mint, Ubuntu, Zorin, and more, are based on. It's stable (the normal version at least), very flexible (supports many CPU architectures) and minimalist (if you want). > * OpenSuse Tumbleweed/ Slowroll: Rolling release like Arch, but with a bigger safety net behind > * EndeavourOS: Very sane Arch-distro that's already set up for you > > > # Other honorable mentions > > ### Pop!_OS > > Also gets recommended often. A popular distro for everyone who likes the coherence of Gnome, but doesn't like the opinionated workflow and more features like tiling. Good Ubuntu alternative, especially for gaming. > * Made by a hardware manufacturer. > * Based on Ubuntu/ Debian. > * Currently a bit outdated. The devs are focusing on their self-developed new DE that's coming soon. I would go for Fedora (general use) or Bazzite (gaming) and add the tweaks myself via extensions when needed. > Still a viable option. > > ### MX Linux > > * Great for older devices with non-optimal performance. > > ### TuxedoOS > > * Best Debian/ Ubuntu-based distro with KDE. > * Also made by a hardware manufacturer. >

So, you're new to Linux? Welcome to our community!

You probably ask yourself > "Where should I start?"

and feel a bit overwhelmed right now.

In this guide, I will show you how to choose your first Linux distro.

This is part of my "New to Linux?"-series, where I will guide you through your first weeks.

---

TL;DR: If you don't care about this at all, just go for Linux Mint.

---

As you've probably already heard, "Linux" isn't just an operating system by itself, it's just the engine of it. You need stuff built around that to get a working desktop. That "stuff" is packaged and distributed, hence the name "distro" (distribution). Everyone can package this stuff themselfes and make their own operating system. There are literally hundreds or thousands of different Linux-based OSs out there, and as a newcomer, this choice can be very overwhelming.

This is why you've already came here and asked for advice. Don't worry, we've all been there!

You can find the "right" one for you if you follow the flow chart. The flow chart is complementary to the text here. The diagram is for the choice, while the text is more for general information about each distro.

Every distro of the following recommended ones meets all of these criteria:

• Easy to understand and intuitive to use
• You don't have to use the command line
• Works reliable
• Supports Nvidia-GPUs

---

Choosing the DE

Before you choose your distro, you should choose your prefered desktop environment (DE). The DE is what defines the user interface and some core apps, so, basically, what you interact with. Don't mainly choose the distro because of its' DE, you can change that later too if you really want.

The two main DEs (Gnome and KDE) are listed in the flow chart.

KDE

• is very modular and configurable, you can turn it into whatever you want.
• has pretty much everything you can imagine already built in

Gnome

• Is more opinionated, but if you don't like its' unique workflow, you can turn it into a "classic" desktop with minimize/ maximize buttons, task bar, and more, too.
• You can use the Extension manager/ Gnome Tweaks for doing that or getting other functionalities like smartphone integration for example.

If you like certain aspects of one, but others from the "competitor", you can more or less turn one into the other. You have maximum freedom!

#Differences between distros

**Choose your distro based on the following key points: **

• Release schedule: Some get new features very often, some only once a few years. We refer this as stagnation as "stability" (not to conflict with reliability!)
• Philosophy: What are key values of the distro? (e.g. just providing a well functioning set of software, no matter if it's proprietary; conservative vs. innovative; etc.)
• Base: Many distros are based on other ones. A very common base is Debian or Ubuntu, where many newcomer-guides are based on. It mainly determines what package manager you use in the command line. I personally think that's not as important, since you will use the Software Center anyway most of the time to download apps and updates.
• All other things, like big community, good track record, hardware support, etc., were already taken care of by me.

--- ---

So, here's the list of every distro shown in the flow chart, with a short description on why it is included.

Linux Mint

It's THE recommendation for every newcomer, no matter where you look. Not without reason:

• Very sane defaults
• Works, just out-of-the-box
• Not too many, but just the right amount of pre-installed apps to get in touch with the Linux app ecosystem
• Simple, yet highly functional
• Hides all "advanced" features in a reasonable way
• Huge userbase, especially for beginners. More experienced users still use Mint, and are always there to help newcomers.
• Doesn't change much, only gets more polished. New features arrive occasionally, but they usually don't change your workflow radically.
• Feels very familiar when you came from Windows, which most people do.

Website: https://www.linuxmint.com/

ZorinOS

It is the main "competitor" of Mint right now. The big difference between Mint and it is how the desktop looks. While Mint is more old-fashioned in how it looks, Zorin wants to be an eye pleaser by looking more modern. With it, you can choose between different "styles", that mimic the looks of Windows 7, Windows 11, MacOS, and more, depending on what you feel the most comfortable with. It has a slow release schedule of ~3 years, with some minor polishes in between, which is great if you don't like change.

Don't worry about the "Pro" and "Light" versions. This is not like a freeware app with ads and stuff.

• "Pro" refers to the paid version, that only differs in some extra styles you can choose from. With the payment you get some extra tech assistance and support the developers.
• "Light" is a lightweight version, that is made for old devices to give them a second life and make them perform better than before, while still looking good.

Website: https://zorin.com/os/

VanillaOS

This one is also very promising. It has the same philosophy as Mint, but implements it differently. It works a bit different under the hood and ensures an always working system you can't brick. If you still fucked up something, or got a bad update somehow, you can just roll back in seconds. It also updates itself in the background and applies the updates without the user noticing on the next reboot, without any waiting time (unlike the forced Windows updates).

If you become more advanced and experienced over time, you can turn to the terminal and have access to literally any app that was ever made for Linux. Especially if you start using Linux as developer, this is very handy. Even if you aren't a developer, no, even if you aren't techy at all, VanillaOS is a very good choice if you prefer the simplicity and ease of use of Mint, but want something more modern!

Website: https://vanillaos.org/

[Disclaimer: The new release, VanillaOS 2 Orchid, is currently under very high developement and still in beta. Consider waiting until the new version is officially released for a garanteed smooth experience.]

Fedora

This one is not exactly (but comparably) as beginner oriented as the above are, but still, a very good choice for new users. Fedora is often considered "the new Ubuntu", and is one of the most used distros out there with a gigantic community. It is community-owned, but supported by the money and development power of the biggest player in the commercial Linux world.

Features:

• Comes with any major DE you want + huge software availability
• Balanced desktop release schedule of 6 months. This ensures both a modern and reliable desktop system
• Everything is pretty vanilla (no theming, etc.) and has very sane defaults
• No big collection of pre-installed software (e.g. Office), bit it is installable with one click in the software center.
• Future-oriented: as soon as a new promising technology is reliable enough, it will adopt it.

Website: https://fedoraproject.org/ https://fedoraproject.org/workstation/ https://fedoraproject.org/spins/kde/

Fedora Atomic

Fedora Atomic is a variant of Fedora that works different under the hood, while behaving the same on the surface as the regular Fedora does. I don't want to get too technical here, but the pros are the same as the ones from VanillaOS (unbrickable, better security, no half applied updates, etc.).

I'm not sure if I would recommend it over the normal Fedora right now, as due to the other inner workings, you might have the chance to encounter issues when trying to get things working, e.g. an install script you found online. If you are leaning bit more towards a tech-savy-person and have no problem searching a small thing here and there (only when you need non-ordinary stuff), then definitely check it out. Especially if you already came from another distro and feel dissatisfied.

BUT, keep following in mind:

• If you are just a casual user, you don't need the terminal for this distro. If you want to really make full use of it tho, you might have to use it from time to time.
• On the surface, it looks and behaves exactly like the normal Fedora.
• Compatibility is not fully given, due to the double edged nature of the said new technology.
• Those potential issues or cons sound more dramatic than they are. If you are a normal user, you won't encounter these. Even I never had any compatibility-issues and always got everything working.

One of the coolest things about it, apart from the pros mentioned above, are:

• Most "hidden" parts of the OS are irrelevant now to you if you want to change something -> simpler structure
• You can "swap out" the OS with something different any time you want, while also keeping your data (pictures, games, etc.). If you want to switch your DE for example later on, you can do that very easily by just changing the selected spin. This even works in the extend of rebasing to almost another distro!

uBlue

If you are interested now, then check out UniversalBlue instead of the "official" Silverblue or Kinoite. uBlue offers:

• Many different variants of this distro, but with some quality-of-life changes included.
• Custom builds for special hardware, e.g. Microsoft Surface devices, ASUS ROG, etc., which come working OOTB, are very reliable and don't require tinkering.
• And also special variants for different tastes and use cases, e.g. a security-enhanced variant, as well as

Bazzite

which is one of the biggest and "best" example in how awesome uBlue can be. It's derived from it and is a gaming-focused distro. With it, you get many optimization tweaks and tools for gaming included out of the box, like some performance enhancements for example.

You don't need a gaming distro to play games at all, but if that's what you mostly do with your PC, then maybe consider that.

Links: https://fedoraproject.org/atomic-desktops/silverblue/ https://universal-blue.org/installation/ https://bazzite.gg

Arch and NixOS

Those two are in the "pain" category. I would never recommend them to anyone starting with Linux, for example because they're fed up with Windows. Both Arch and NixOS are known to be "for experts only", meaning, they're

• high demanding
• hard to set up and use
• requiring the user to be skilled and to know what he's doing
• don't hold the users' hand
• and don't tolerate user error well.

Why did I still decide to include them in my noob-recommended list anyway? Well, because not everyone wants to start Linux expecting an easy road. There are some people who want to tinker and challenge themselfes, and some birds learn flying the best when kicked out of the nest.

Don't get me wrong! Both Arch and NixOS are fantastic choices and very powerful. They can be fun to use and very rewarding.

What makes them great?

• Minimalism: they come with basically nothing out of the box and require the user to set up everything themselfes. If you've done that, you have an OS that's truly yours!
• Skilled community and great wiki. Especially the Arch-wiki is the number-one-ressource for any Linux thing, and by the point you installed Arch or NixOS the hard way, you got a good understanding in the inner workings of Linux.
• Rolling release: as soon as packages are released, you get them, no big release versions
• Biggest package repositories ever, with many inofficial ones too, created by the user base
• Great package manager

Alternatives

If those pro-points of Arch and NixOS are appealing to you, but sound too hard to get for your taste, here are some alternatives you may consider instead. They aren't my top pick, but still very popular in the community.

• Debian: One of the oldest distros ever out there. It's what a lot of other distros, including Mint, Ubuntu, Zorin, and more, are based on. It's stable (the normal version at least), very flexible (supports many CPU architectures) and minimalist (if you want).
• OpenSuse Tumbleweed/ Slowroll: Rolling release like Arch, but with a bigger safety net behind
• EndeavourOS: Very sane Arch-distro that's already set up for you

Other honorable mentions

Pop!_OS

Also gets recommended often. A popular distro for everyone who likes the coherence of Gnome, but doesn't like the opinionated workflow and more features like tiling. Good Ubuntu alternative, especially for gaming.

• Made by a hardware manufacturer.
• Based on Ubuntu/ Debian.
• Currently a bit outdated. The devs are focusing on their self-developed new DE that's coming soon. I would go for Fedora (general use) or Bazzite (gaming) and add the tweaks myself via extensions when needed. Still a viable option.

MX Linux

• Great for older devices with non-optimal performance.

TuxedoOS

• Best Debian/ Ubuntu-based distro with KDE.
• Also made by a hardware manufacturer.