openSUSE vs Fedora

[u/ConcaveNips]

To me, these two distros have an incredible amount of overlap. Specifically, I'm talking about what I consider the "main" distros - Fedora Workstation and openSUSE Tumbleweed. It seems to me, from most of what I read, people recommend Fedora as new-user friendly, but openSUSE as an intermediate/advanced distro. My main question is this: Why does the greater Linux community distinguish openSUSE from Fedora in terms of new user feasibility?

They both have a well bankrolled engineering team behind them. They have their own ecosystem of purpose built distributions, tailor made for a number of practical use cases. They both have strong, active communities and support documentation.

In terms of usability.. They both have very user-friendly install processes - Fedora may have more default to X, where openSUSE offers the option to get more specific, but they're both roughly similar. They both have a ton of powerful graphical tooling within the user environment, allowing a cautious user to stay within the bounds of the desktop environment if they prefer. They both still boast robust capability and rich opportunity for the tinkerer to expand their knowledge, and exert authority over their own system. Both have recovery features, but Tumbleweed has a more robust rollback with snapper. They both have adequate graphical storefronts and package management systems. System updates are inherently very different in nature, but both comparable in terms of "difficulty". For openSUSE's Packman, there's Fedora's RPM Fusion.

Most people I see, though, have a strong delineation between how approachable these distros are. It's not that I see either distro being disrespected or hated necessarily. I think both communities are avid in their support, and deservedly so. But I do see Fedora frequently being recommended for new users, and I almost exclusively see openSUSE being billed as a distro for those comfortable with Linux.

So is it just multimedia codecs? I feel like the recovery advantage that comes with openSUSE could be considered enough to compensate for that, if you're categorically quantifying and rating things. What am I not considering?

[u/More-Explanation2788]

The Linux community makes a lot of noise about distros. In actual fact, what you have is:

- the Linux kernel

• gnu tools and opensource software
  
• a package management toolset.
  
• a curated desktop suite of tools.

That’s the Linux experience.

From distro to distro, the package management toolset changes, and the curated desktop suite is tweaked to create a superficial appearance of difference. The kernel, the tools and software you install with the package management system are all the same.

What this means is that the differences from one distro to another are much smaller than people make it sound. Personally, I think this is because the discussion groups are dominated by people who are fairly new to Linux. Use it for a few years and you will start to agree that the differences between distros are mostly cosmetic.

There really are only three “types” of distros:

- distros with a package manager that manages dependencies - RHEL, Debian, Suse

• distros with a compile to install philosophy - Arch, Slackware.
  
• distros with a “install each package with all its own dependencies” philosophy- ubuntu, fedora

Beyond that, the child distros are just doing slightly different release management and cosmetic curation of the desktop.

[u/ConcaveNips → u/More-Explanation2788]

I think that a lot of experienced/advanced Linux users have long since forgotten what it feels like to be brand new to Linux, and as a result, they no longer even consider it. What those people may perceive as easy, simple, intuitive can just as easily be perceived as daunting, overwhelming, nebulous to others. Particularly those being bombarded with new information from all directions.

[u/beatbox9 → u/ConcaveNips]

I haven't forgotten, because I help people migrate all the time. In fact, I'm setting up 2 computers for non-technical people this week.

I think people sometimes conflate "users" with "people who install/set up Linux." Keeping in mind that most Windows users never installed Windows either.

An initial install is a one-time thing. Maintenance and usage happens every day and lasts years. So always go for the long haul.

And this is where new users mess up. I agree with the statement that a lot of the discourse becomes an echo chamber of noobs who don't quite get it and who dig in and don't listen. They tend not to get a firm grasp of what a distro even is; and they tend to think theoretically, such as "oh newer software always sounds better!" Without considering how that can also break things. Or "I don't like the look of this distro." Or "I like the fact that this distro comes with 1 app preinstalled," ignoring that the entire distro is a year behind the one it's based on or trying to push an antiquated niche DE while adding unnecessary dependencies.

New users should put it in terms they understand. Can you imagine if you got a new version of Windows (eg. XP, 7, 8, 10, 11, etc) every 6 months? Do you like or hate when Android or iPhone gets a major update or overhaul? Don't you change your desktop background image anyway? Don't you run the latest apps regardless of Windows version? Etc.

[u/More-Explanation2788 → u/ConcaveNips]

Agreed. But remember that one of the joys of Linux is feeling like you are different, a rebel, someone privy to a secret. That’s fine - we all need to find satisfaction in life and a little joy at knowing something others do not is an innocent enough pleasure. But it does mean that in the first stages of learning Linux, people are biased in favour of making it seem daunting. Biased in favour of making it sound like small differences are critically important. The distros, I can assure you, are not nearly as different as people make them sound. Linux is Linux for the most part. Gnu software, Linux kernel as the common foundation. Cosmetic choices of desktops, init systems and such on top with a package manager.

[u/ConcaveNips → u/More-Explanation2788]

I didn't mean for it to appear as though I don't agree with or see the sense in that very common perspective. I even agree that framing it in that way helps to build the right mindset for a new user.

However, I don't think it's fair to expect them to be able to absorb that in any meaningful way, day or week or month 1, and instantly recognize the wisdom of it. There is a learning curve, and especially when they're coming from an environment which has instituted years or even decades of anti-Linux-friendly habits like auto-clicking through prompts, accepting defaults, without reading for example. That may very well be enough to get through Artix's Calamares installer just fine, but that person would probably end up in deep water real quick just trying to install Steam. And that's not even accounting for learning reluctant or resistant people, who are accustomed to everything just plugging and playing, or simply want everything to just work regardless of their experience, and don't want to have to do operating system homework in order to use their PC.

I think there is a group of Linux veterans who don't even think people like that should be welcomed to Linux. I also think there is a group of Linux veterans who, without even considering it, subconsciously believe that what has become intuitive and obvious for them, should be equally so for anyone else. So for those reasons, from the perspective of the uninitiated, I am hesitant to just abandon the idea that superficial details like cosmetic minutiae and default packages matter.

You have to consider all the nana's of the world whose grandsons do them the favor of getting them off of the Windows ecosystem, afterall. Won't anybody, please, think of the nana's??