Unless its NixOS or something like silver blue or QubesOS they're all basically the same. If you want to mess about try some different ones in a VM or on a live CD or USB. That way you still have your daily driver working when you need it

Distro hopping is what you do when you don't mind spending a week trying to get things "back the way they were".

You're not missing out.

Linux can be a hobby, not just a tool. If you want to have fun with a new hobby, distro hopping will have plenty to keep you busy. But if you just want something to run your computer and your current distro does it for you just fine, then you're not missing out on anything but a headache.

It's funny, I'm in an opposite situation. I don't want to distro hop, but my current one has some issues that I'm getting a little fed up with (issues that are a result of my hardware and use case) so I am working up to swapping distros to find something with fewer issues. For me, I just want my OS to be transparent. I don't want a hobby. That's why it took me so long to swap to linux in the first place.

Anyways, IMHO, unless you're really into the idea of playing with your OS as a hobby, don't let FOMO trick you into making the mistake of throwing out what works in the hopes of greener grass.

If it works for you, stick with it.

Works is a feature, not a bug.

_ /\ _

If you don't have any issue with mint, don't bother changing distros. Distro hopping is not necessary to enjoy linux.

"move on to something else" once I got comfortable with the OS.

I would suggest moving on to another distro if you're not comfortable with Mint. The whole purpose of distro hopping is to find which distro is comfortable for you.

Pros: you might find something you like more.

Cons: You've spent a bunch of time installing OSes you might not like, and you have to set everything back up again. Also if you didn't back up your data you're probably going to delete it.

Do you value time fucking around with your computer, or are you happy with how it works currently?

Also distro hop in a VM first, you're probably not going to like most other things, or it might not be worth the time to migrate all your shit over to it if you find something you like more.

You're not missing anything really. For some reason some people like to say that Mint is a good distro for beginners and imply that you should change away from it when you're more "advanced". This is really nonsense. Mint is a good distro. I switched to Tumbleweed because I found one or two things I couldn't do so easily in Mint, but if you're not having trouble there's really no reason to switch. And with tools like Flatpak and Distrobox available these days there's even less reason to distro hop.

Let's start simple: You should consider hoping from Linux Mint to LMDE if you haven't already.

As a user, you have no obligation to participate in the politics between the Ubuntu and the Mint Development team, but if you've followed the controversy and agree that Ubuntu is being a bully, this would be a small yet material way to show support.

what am I missing?

Every Linux distribution has a purpose - a reason its author thought it was worth the effort of creating it. Some are grand, others are silly, etc. When you explore distros, you're telling the community which ideas resonate with you. Popular ideas will replicate, unpopular ideas will be abandoned.

Also, switching distributions makes it harder for business to 'capture' the Linux demographic. The mere act of switching occasionally means that tools to import/export/manage your data stay relevant. This literally fights enshitification.

Finally, and this is a matter of personal taste, but I like trying different versions of Linux for the same reason I try different flavors of ice cream: It's fun; and even if now and then I get a bad flavor, I feel enriched by the experience.

(Edit: it's to its)

If your use cases (a.k.a. requirements) are met by your current distro, never switch.

If you are satisfied with stability, availability of support, quick availability of security patches, never switch.

This is particularly important when you are using your Linux desktop as your daily driver.

Most you can do is to check what additional features other distros are offering (rolling release, hardened/zen kernel, x86-64-v2/3 support, file system type, user base, availability of packages, package formats, overall documentation etc.), validate if you really need those features.

If you are interested or just curious to test those features, install that distro on a VM (QEMU/KVM) to try it out first safely. Use it on VM for a while, make yourself comfortable with it. Once you are satisfied with it, only then switch.

I was surviving with Ubuntu, I had my complaints but I figured 'that's just how it is' on Linux, that it was the same everywhere. I didn't even realise what I was missing until I switched.

I got a hardware upgrade at one point, so in order to get those new drivers ASAP I tried an Arch-based distro, with plans to switch back once drivers became available. I never moved back.

The two big reasons I stayed was ironically enough the lack of good Ubuntu documentation, and the PPA system. Ubuntu is used a lot, but there's not really formal documentation anywhere, only random tutorials online (most likely out of date and never updated) and people on forums talking about their problems. By contrast the Arch wiki is the gold standard of Linux documentation, there's just no comparison. Even on Ubuntu I found myself using it as a reference from time to time.

Regarding PPAs, the official Ubuntu package list is strangely small so if you're like me and find yourself needing other software, even mainstream software like Docker, you'll be faffing about with PPAs. So if you want to install Docker, instead of typing sudo apt install docker You instead have to type:

# Add Docker's official GPG key: 
sudo apt-get update 
sudo apt-get install ca-certificates curl gnupg 
sudo install -m 0755 -d /etc/apt/keyrings 
curl -fsSL https://download.docker.com/linux/ubuntu/gpg | sudo gpg --dearmor -o /etc/apt/keyrings/docker.gpg 
sudo chmod a+r /etc/apt/keyrings/docker.gpg 
# Add the repository to Apt sources: 
echo \ "deb [arch=$(dpkg --print-architecture) signed-by=/etc/apt/keyrings/docker.gpg] https://download.docker.com/linux/ubuntu \ $(. /etc/os-release && echo "$VERSION_CODENAME") stable" | \ sudo tee /etc/apt/sources.list.d/docker.list > /dev/null sudo apt-get update

These are the official install instructions, by the way. This is intended behaviour. The end user shouldn't have to deal with all this. This feels right out of the 90's to me.

Instead of PPAs, Arch has the Arch User Repository (AUR). Holy moly is the AUR way nicer to work with. Granted, we're not quite comparing apples to apples here since the AUR (typically) builds packages from source, but bear with me. You install an AUR package manager like yay (which comes preinstalled on my flavour of Arch, EndeavourOS). yay can manage both your system and AUR packages. Installing a package (either official or AUR) looks like yay packageNameHere. That's it. A full system upgrade like sudo apt update; sudo apt upgrade is a single command: yay -Syu, a bit cryptic but much shorter. The AUR is fantastic not just for the ease of use, but for sheer breadth of packages. If you find some random project on github there's probably an AUR package for it too. Because it builds from source an AUR package is essentially just a fancy build script based on the project's own build instructions, so they're super easy to make, which means there's a lot of them.

You might argue 'but building from source might fail! Packages are more reliable!', which is somewhat true. Sometimes AUR builds can fail (very rarely in my experience), but so can PPAs. Because PPAs are often made to share one random package they can become out of date easily if their maintainer forgets or simply stops updating it. By contrast AUR packages can be marked out of date by users to notify the maintainer, and/or the maintainer role can be moved to someone else if they go silent. If a PPA goes silent there's nothing you can do. Also, since an AUR package is just a fancy build script you can edit the build script yourself and get it working until the package gets an update, too. PPAs by comparison are just a black box - it's broken until it gets updated.

Moral of the story? Don't be afraid to just give something a go. Mint will always be waiting for you if you don't like it.

Distro hoping is done yo find a ditro that you are comfortsble with if mint already works well for you, you should probably just stay on mint

The goal is for it to work. If it works, you're doing it right. For some people, Mint isn't enough. For many, it absolutely is.

Distro Hopping seems to be such a big part of the “Linux experience.”

It's not, it's just a way to find the distro that suits you best.

If you're already satisfied with what you have, there's no reason to change and you're not missing out on anything. If you're ever curious about other distros, install Virtualbox and try them in a VM.

I stopped distro hopping years ago when I started using Linux MX (Debian based), I'm so happy with it that I have no intention to change ever again.

The only other distro I really like is LMDE (Mint based on Debian instead of Ubuntu), so I put that one on my laptop (MX on my gaming desktop).

You’re missing out on watching a lot of progress bars while you reinstall all the time. If you like what you have, keep using it. All you get from switching is a different package manager, a few slightly different package names, maybe faster updates and a new default desktop background. You’ll still be using all the same apps, probably similar versions, probably systemd. It’s a bigger difference logging into a new desktop environment than a new distro.

Honestly. I don't think you're missing much. It's not like if you go to a different distro suddenly you're going to have all these new applications you can't get on mint or anything.

I started with mint and played around with other distros (mostly Debian/Ubuntu & Arch based ones) and I ended up settling on an Ubuntu based distro with kde desktop.

Using something like Arch might make sense if your PC is super new as they tend to have support for the newest hardware.

At most you might want to try a different desktop environment but if you have no reason to hop I would say don't waste your time unless you're bored and want to experiment just for the hell of it.

there's a site that will let you play around with different distros/desktop environments over the Web (it's going to be slow and you can't use a VPN when connecting) but that might be a good choice before going through the trouble of downloading a distro, flashing to USB and possibly installing it on your PC/laptop just to find out you hate it.

You're not missing out on anything. Mint lets you install various desktop environments, they are all very well-configured and stable by default. You can just install the appropriate desktop environment meta-package using Apt:

• apt install 'task-gnome-desktop'
• apt install 'kde-plasma-desktop'
• apt install 'cinnamon-desktop-environment'
• apt install 'task-xfce-desktop'

Then you can "hop" from one GUI experience to another by just logging out and logging in with a different session. You might have to add some additional Ubuntu repositories to your Apt config to get all of these meta-packages though.

Besides the desktop environment, the only other big difference between distros is how you use their package managers, which all do the same thing anyways, just with different CLI commands.

Probably the most important thing to consider in a distro is which versions of the latest stable releases of the big Linux apps are available in their distros. Arch-based distros (Garuda, Manjaro, ArcoLinux, EndeavorOS) are the most bleeding-edge but these operating systems tend to break after a software update if you fail to update often enough. Ubuntu and Fedora are the most bleeding-edge non-rolling release distros that I know of, and in my experience they never break after a software update.

Distro-hopping might be a sign of perfectionism tbh. I think I'm a perfectionist, and I find that Arch doesn't feel right. But when I try other distros, they have weird and odd issues that Arch just doesn't have.

If you do have that itch, give whatever distro you're looking at a try in a virtual machine. Linux has virt-manager which generally works well with Linux guests, but if you use VMware for a Windows VM, that's also a good option too.

What am I missing?

Nothing. If you are content with your current setup, you are missing absolutely nothing.

When I started using Linux I distro hopped a few times before finding mint, now I have been stuck on mint for a few years, but I still dream of hopping again.

When I was hopping I was in high school, so I had time, now I got to work and hopping takes too much time and effort to set everything up again. If I had a second pc or a laptop I would do it.

Well if you are doing work on you computer you find rewarding and it functions I would quit while you are ahead. Getting into distro hopping and caring about Linux internals is a bit like being a car enthusiast. You can either have a car to drive it or have a car that you fart around all the time tweaking bits, replacing it, breaking it, developing strong opionons about things almost no one cares about.

So to you want to be a driver or an enthusiast? By using Linux at all you can essentially consider yourself part of the "car club", but there is a whole heck of a lot else to learn.

If you want to enjoy distro hopping, go find a cheap thinkpad as a secondary device, and have fun. Otherwise, you try out live discs/drives to see if you get full compatibility with your main device.

Truth is that you'll have more difference in user experience DE hopping than distro hopping.

You only distro hop until you find what works right with an your hardware and preferred software, unless you're doing it as a hobby. Now, the desktop environments? That's where you'll see the big difference.

You should only hop if you know what you're missing out on, if you don't and don't have any distro-specific problems, it's just unnecessary. But if you really feel like it and have enough disk space, you can try dual-booting another distro and see which you like better.

I hopped because I wanted immediate updates and easy compiling (AUR) so I picked an Arch-based OS.

Distro hopping is pretty similar to changing instances on Lemmy. If you don't have a reason, just keep using your current account.

The time I spent "distro hopping" back in high school was because I didn't have the balls to commit to a single distro. Even then the only time I actually switched was when I made a config change that blew up in my face so badly I needed to reinstall anyway.

If you've found a setup you're happy with, by all means, stick with it. You're not missing out on much by not voluntarily erasing your boot drive and installing an entirely new OS every week or so for no reason other than it looked cool.

(If you're about to suggest dual booting multiple Linux distros, no. Just stop. I tried that once. You would not believe how many issues are caused by sharing a ~/.config between two systems with slightly different versions of the same software.)

I've been using Gentoo since 2004, every now and then I pop a distro DVD ISO into a VM to see what all the hubbub is about, but I doubt I'll ever switch to another distro unless Gentoo dies.

My point is, sans diatribe, pop a distro ISO into a VM and see if it even seems like something you'd like.

You don't have to do any more than that, keep using what makes you happy.

It's good to get familiar with a wide variety of softwares. Often, being exposed to the strengths and weaknesses of something new is a good way to broaden your experience level.

But that said, there's not a lot of point in changing things just for the sake of change. I've been running Debian since around 1998. It's fine. I like it and I'm happy with it. I tried a bunch of things over the years but haven't found anything that suits me as well, so I keep running it. The only distro that really has caught my attention as something with enough of a new thing that might be checking out was NixOS. But, if you're happy with what you're doing I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with being happy with what you're doing.

If it aint broke, don't fix it.

I have used arch on this same install since 2019, before that, 2016. (Just because I wanted to get my old system back ASAP and was comfortable with the process)

If I had to do it over, I would test out openSUSE tumbleweeb or endeavor, but if you have your system that works and you like it, there is absolutely nothing to gain by switching.

If you just want to explore or do it as a hobby, use an old SSD and test out different configs on a seperate drive (you can pick up a 128 or 240GB SSD for like $25) but the only differences are package managers and DE.

If you're comfortable with Mint and don't see a reason to switch, I don't see anything wrong with staying with Mint. If you do want to try new distros, just use a VM.

not really unless you're trying something relatively unique like nixos or void etc. you can do most things on any distro

nah mint is a good distro, dintro hooping is to find what suit you, you found it, congrats, mayme a dual boot to tosh other distros out of curiosity

I’ve been daily driving boring Debian since RedHat Linux 8 came out 20 years ago now. I tried switching to openSUSE and just didn’t see the point after a bit, so I switched back. The only time I’m not on Debian is when I’m playing with FreeBSD or NetBSD.

Same for DE, I’ve been using XFCE for so long that I don’t get the fuss about pretty environments.

Not hopping does not mean you’re missing out, boring can be good. Things are stable and stay out of the way of you doing actual work.

There is a quote out there somewhere about how customizing FVWM can become an obsession.

There is nothing wrong about hopping, as long as you are doing it for hobbyist reasons, at the end of day the only difference is the package manager and the DE.

Good luck

Your operating system is a tool. If the tool is doing what you need and well then you aren’t missing out on anything. If you want to try another distro, then have a project in mind that it’s is a better suited for. Otherwise, you’re just changing it up to change it up. Which is fine, but it’s better to be realistic/honest with yourself with what you’re doing. Otherwise you’ll just be chasing some nebulous concept.

Can somebody ELI5 what the difference between Linux distros is? I’m ashamed to admit I don’t truly understand, aside from different package managers and DEs but even then there are only a handful of those.

I used to be in a similar position as you. I ditched Windows about 1.5 years ago, and I hopped around several distros for a while before settling on Linux Mint. About 2 months ago, i decided that I wanted to try out something new, not because Linux Mint wasn't working for me, but just to see if there was something else that would be fun to learn about Linux. Today, I use Arch, and my DE is basically the Linux Mint Cinnamon DE.

Don't. Arch, Ubuntu, Debian, OpenSUSE, and Fedora are used in the exact same way. Pick one of them and then trf different desktop environments, if you want you can download the configurations for distro from their source code

If you are happy with the way things are no need to change, want to try something out ? Live CD or VM. Dual boot if you want to keep 2 systems. Mint is pretty good. I like peppermint myself. A halfway stop between mint and arch. Shit works out of the box but runs on 1 GB ram. Worth checking out if you want to get some extra out of you computer

What would the benefits be of jumping to something else?

None if you want to do it just because

What am I missing?

Again, nothing if you are not needing some very specific feature that only other distro offer or something that is easier on another distro.

No harm enjoying a distro and being stable.

I’m a fan of Arch and derivatives but I need better odds of shit just working. Been running Mankato on desktop for some time to get both stable ish packages and also AUR as/where needed.

For servers, it’s Debian all the way for me. Ubuntu does some things I don’t personally love - no offense to the distro, it’s well constructed - and the recent ish changes in the RPM world didn’t sit well with me - strictly personal opinion.

Anything in a container generally runs on whatever the image was built with. It’s only a minimal pain to port simple dockerfiles, but when you get into multiple linked containers, that risks edge case bugs down the road.

Honestly, between the lot of it, I use a pretty representative sample - I think alpine on desktop would be kind of pointless to say the least, doesn’t mean I’m going to forego any container built on it.

Use case is a huge factor here, as is ability to grok multiple distros concurrently. I find that easy, but plenty of people don’t. For them, maybe rebuilding that image makes more sense.

Linux is all about doing what works for you and your use case.

FWIW, pacman doesn’t resonate nearly as well as pamac does with me. Probably because I haven’t had to dive deep into it. All about what works for an individual. If that’s stability on an Ubuntu derivative, great - Linux is Linux, in that context.

Fire up a VM to scratch that itch or change up your desktop environment if you feel like it.

Unless you have a specific need that can't be met on your distro you're probably not missing much other than "ooh shiny" and some fun tinkering with something new.

It sounds like you need distrobox and KVM.

Hopping isn't a had thing. Find what fits ur needs. Dual boot other distros. Each offer something. Hopping only leads to having to learn other systems. If it fits, u have what u need. Everything else is noise.

Nothing, unless you're not using nixos, then everything 😹

If you're happy you're not missing anything. If you're using your computer and the computer itself isn't the hobby, you're also not missing anything. If you're an enthusiast, or super curious, you're missing out.

I've been doing this nearly three decades at this point and have at least tried most things, often for years at a time. I use Mint today because I have other things to do now than play computer (rather I'm paid to play computer for someone else). Before that was Fedora, but the release cycle is too short for me and there was a risk of messing up my system in a big upgrade every six months (rare as it is). I like Cinnamon because it has sane defaults, just enough customization without being ridiculous, and very little distracting swooshy effects that look janky on older computers, and Cinnamon runs best on Mint imo.

Trying new things has been very beneficial in that I'm familiar with most things and can use anything, but if I worked in marketing or something that wouldn't matter much.

Like some have mentioned, if you want to try different distros setup a VM (I would recommend KVM for better performance, but virtualbox is easier for beginners in VMing) with the iso of the distro you want to test out.

Like this you can keep a functional system without the hassle of having to setup on baremetal just for testing and having to go back again if doesn't pay-out.

Also would suggest messing around with more tech-savy setups like debian and fedora (specially minimal ones) if you want to delve deeper into the Linux nerdiness.