Help me rank distros in difficulty level

[MadmanRB]

Here is how I see it:

Beginners:
Linux Mint
ZorinOS
SolydXK
Netrunner

Intermediate:
Ubuntu
openSUSE
Mageia
Manjaro (mainly due to its arch base and occasionally having to compile)
Sabayon
Debian
Fedora

Advanced:
Arch
Gentoo
Slackware

Holy crap this is hardcore advanced:
Linux from scratch

[Welly Wu]

I would agree with that list. Ubuntu is for intermediate GNU/Linux users. I don't think of it as for beginners compared to Linux Mint or Zorin OS.

[MadmanRB]

I would agree with that list. Ubuntu is for intermediate GNU/Linux users. I don't think of it as for beginners compared to Linux Mint or Zorin OS.

Well to be fair I do think most of the intermediate distros any user can pick up, even Ubuntu is very easy on its own and decent for beginners.
The big stumbler is there not being any codecs being pre installed.

[buzzingrobot]

Not to be contrary, but all Linux distributions get you to the same place. There's nothing one does that can't be done in the others.

These days, I take the shortest and easiest road. I've taken the long way around, hacking my way through the forest without a map. The process is a pain, so just give me something I can use with as little fuss as possible.

[MadmanRB]

Not to be contrary, but all Linux distributions get you to the same place. There's nothing one does that can't be done in the others

well it matters if you are a newcommer to Linux, after all you would not want to drop a long time windows user a copy of Gentoo or linux from scratch.

[buzzingrobot]

well it matters if you are a newcommer to Linux, after all you would not want to drop a long time windows user a copy of Gentoo or linux from scratch.

Absolutely. Once you know what you are doing, though, the process of "getting there" can be much less than enjoyable. I see Arch, Gentoo, etc., as ideal for folks who enjoy the process of building and nursemaiding a system at least as much as they do using it. I did Slackware for several years. I've done Arch and Gentoo. Nowadays, tho, I see them as a lot of uninteresting work without a commensurate payoff. Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, etc. get me to the same place in 15 minutes.

[RichardET]

I'm currently developing a forum ranking system for my forum (I won't list it here since doing so would be spamming) in which you slowly install more operating systems the more you post. You start of setting up the computer, going through a massive phase of DOS, then Windows then Mac Classic then Mac OSX and finally I'm gunna do some linux phases followed by less known operating systems.

For the 15 Linux phases I want to have 15 popular/well known Distros included. 5 will be in the easy/beginner phases, 5 in the Intermediate phases and 5 in the advanced phases. So I'm thinking:

Beginner:
- Ubuntu
- Linux Mint
- PinguyOS

Intermediate:
- Debian
- Fedora
- TinyCore Linux
- Arch Linux

Advanced:
- Gentoo
- Linux From Scratch

I'm still not sure what others to add and whether Debian and fedora should be in the intermediate phase... What do you think and remember that I'd like to also list them from easiest/beginner to hardest/advanced within their own categories too.

Thanks in advance for your help

I don't understand what you mean by beginner, intermediate, advanced. But if you really admire an OS which requires 100% user initiative to install packages, and is initially loaded with only a command line interface, then you should rank FreeBSD at the very top of the food chain. BSD experts eat Linux experts for lunch.

[bootedguy]

ElementalOS at the top of the beginners list.

[buzzingrobot]

I don't understand what you mean by beginner, intermediate, advanced. But if you really admire an OS which requires 100% user initiative to install packages, and is initially loaded with only a command line interface, then you should rank FreeBSD at the very top of the food chain. BSD experts eat Linux experts for lunch.

There's a difference between learning how to install and use Linux/FreeBSD and learning how operating systems work. All Unix and Unix-based systems are much more alike than they are different, so learning fundamentals gives you a basis that applies to all.

Too much emphasis is placed on something like using the command line versus a GUI. Both do the same thing: They are layers of software that capture user input, interpret it, and launch and control other software in response. So, you can run "ls" or open a file manager, but both call the same routines to generate the listing they display. I'd argue it's more interesting to understand how those routines work, and why they work one way and not another, than worrying about command line versus GUI. (GUI's are easier because they can show options rather than assuming users know them or will look them up. Command line tools can offer a wider range of options because they don't need to worry about cramming all the options into a visual display.) When you understand that BASH and the GUI you happen to be using are both solving the same problem, you've learned something important.


For fundamentals, most of the creators of Unix wrote about it and those books are enlightening. So is Andrew Tannenbaum's 'Modern Operating Systems', where you'll find Minix, the OS that inspired Torvalds.

[MadmanRB]

Absolutely. Once you know what you are doing, though, the process of "getting there" can be much less than enjoyable. I see Arch, Gentoo, etc., as ideal for folks who enjoy the process of building and nursemaiding a system at least as much as they do using it. I did Slackware for several years. I've done Arch and Gentoo. Nowadays, tho, I see them as a lot of uninteresting work without a commensurate payoff. Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, etc. get me to the same place in 15 minutes.

Well pre installed codecs and all that are a factor as well, Mint for example has flash playback out of the box (for now) and some people dont know you need codecs and stuff in Ubuntu/Fedora.
But when you reveal that some people may freak, after all when they bought their computer it came with pre packaged codecs with no need to install outside stuff.
If you are used to codecs being there since your first boot up then you may be intimidated by Ubuntu or other intermediate distros.

I don't understand what you mean by beginner, intermediate, advanced. But if you really admire an OS which requires 100% user initiative to install packages, and is initially loaded with only a command line interface, then you should rank FreeBSD at the very top of the food chain. BSD experts eat Linux experts for lunch.

BSD is not even a factor here as I am focusing on linux.
But since you dont know what I mean by beginner, intermediate and advanced distros let me break it down:

Beginner distros are distros that any long time windows/mac user can jump into and not be intimidated by having to install codecs, or learning commandline, or compiling.
But distros like this are not limited to beginners, if you are a long time linux user something like Mint for example may appeal to you.

Intermediate distros are for people who are a little more used to linux, they are offered no codecs, may or may not have to use command line and compiling software.
Ubuntu is intermediate due to its lack of codecs, like I mentioned before a lot of people buy computers with windows on them and often they come with multimedia by default.
Ubuntu doesnt have that so the average long time windows user may be confused by that.

Advanced are mainly for hardcore linux users, who like getting their hands dirty in compiling and are used to commandline and compiling.
The average windows user would be in total confusion here, I would never drop a copy of arch linux in front of a windows user and say "here use this!"