If you start watching distro review videos, you'll get the itch to hop. Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

As you use your first distro, you may begin to realize that you need something else. Maybe you end up programming more than you thought. Maybe you prefer to have a newer version on Python. Try Fedora.

Maybe you end up gaming all the time and you don't use your computer for much else. Maybe there are some strange issues you can't be bothered to investigate and fix. Consider Bazzite.

Maybe all you do is watch a few videos and browse the net once a week. Maybe you're tired of the frequent updates Ubuntu gives you every time you open your computer. How about Debian?

Maybe you're really curious about your system. The more you know, the more you realize that the one you currently have is filled with stuff you don't really need. You hopped to Debian bare bones edition and built your own system from the ground up. It has just the packages you need, but nothing else. Maybe you realized that having newer versions of everything solves some obscure problems you've encountered, so you built one on Sid. Maybe you love the idea of a rolling release distribution. Maybe you like to say BTW...

Maybe a friend gave you a 48 port network switch and a stack of old Dell laptops from 2010s. What would it feel like to operate a small cluster?

In any case, you don't need to distrohop unless you have a reason. If there is one, go ahead. If not, keep the distro you already have.

Solaris

You just made me shudder. I learned to program na room full of Sun-3 machines (I think they were 3, not 4) running Solaris. They were ancient by the time I took the classes on them. "It's compiling" was an actual problem and took way too long.

I actually got to help replace them with shiny new Dell machines the next year while working as a student in the IT department at the college.

I felt going from 21 to 22 wasn't that bad, just a few console commands. You've got me wondering if I missed something now

Even if the distro has a bunch you don't want, uninstalling is pretty easy now with the package managers I've used. Just strip some things away and see if that's good first.

It's kind of confusing because back ten or twenty years ago that wasn't really the case. They were way more different, architected entire processes different, and were more disjointed messes with way more pros and cons different between them. That's where a lot of the distro hopping and distro wars you might hear about stem from. It was harder to change them to mimic each other.

There's some more subtle differences like some distros choose to hold back updates until they've been tested and some push them out ASAP, immutable vs not immutable. But for the most part, problems you might come across from the distro itself causing you to need to move instead of just pulling in a package are much less now.

Thats fair.

the other thing is the release cycle, if you're constantly fighting that then maybe switch distros

damn really? I'd never would have guessed that

my only issue with mint is that full version upgrades are still a hassle. if that's something that bothers you, you could switch to something else. otherwise, just keep on keeping on.

I enjoy Mint. It's my daily driver, and has been for years. I cut my teeth installing Slackware from floppy disks back in the day, and have been a *nix user/admin for 30+ years (IRIX, Solaris, AIX, HP/UX) and I'm a developer, so I think I qualify as a gray beard rather than a newbie.

It just works. Distro wars are silly, as the other commenter said.

I literally don't know the differences between distros

Its just what they come packaged with. Its all the same kernel. Do you like the software Mint comes with? Have you felt a need to replace a bunch? Does your computer do what you want it to?

Thats really about it. Debian is "good for servers" because it comes with software for running servers. Kali is "good for hackers" because it comes with software for hacking. Mint is "good for newbies" because it comes with software newbies expect.

Thats really pretty much it. Theres nothing stopping you from installing the software you want. If you start to feel like your distro has a bunch of stuff you dont need, then maybe you can look to other distros that dont come with that stuff.

It's a "newbie" distro in that it's interface is very friendly. As far as it's capability, it's as good as any other distro. If you have no issues then you're already living the dream, stay there.

For the most part the distros are all the same, they just configure things differently from the start or come with different packages installed. Think of it like doughnut shops, you can go to two doughnut shops and they might look a little different, be laid out a little different, ring you up a tiny bit different, but under the hood it's still a doughnut shop, a place selling fried dough rings.

The fried dough rings are the Linux kennel, the core of every distro, the color of the glaze is the distro, the "fluff" on top. You can scrape the glaze off the doughnut at one shop and put new glaze on at the other so it's a bit different, but still a doughnut.

I feel like that analogy got away from me.

So yeah, you're not really missing anything. Some people like Arch because it comes with way less preconfigured/installed so it's easier to make it exactly what you want. Newbies (I use this lovingly here) don't really care if they're using X11 or Wayland (the libraries that power how the desktop actually displays programs, sort of, massively simplifying), so they don't need Arch, they can just install a "newbie" distro and be happy. You could strip your Linux mint down to the bare bones and basically make it Arch by using a different package manager and stuff.

Mint is not a newbie distro. I use it every day and it's fine for most needs. Distro wars have been stupid for more than 20 years.

I like Mint because it just works. I see no reason to change.

yea I don't wanna change just to be hip, I literally don't know the differences between distros, I'm just wondering if I'm missing out on something, not in like the way gui and animations works, but the other stuff

In the past, yes. There used to be a need to distro hop and find distros that package the applications that you wanted. Unless you were ready to compile them all yourself. Today, the biggest reason to switch would be trying immutable versus stable versus rolling distributions. Which all have their own advantages and disadvantages.

If you are happy with what you are running then there is no reason to change.

I've used desktop Linux as my primary operating system since the early 90s. I currently use Mint.

No, you don't need to make a switch if it does what you need.

Does it serve your needs? If yes, who cares what people think. The OS has 3 functions: keep your data secure, support and run the apps you need and get the hell out of your way.

Does it work for you? Yes? Then you have no need to swap distros. When people say a 'newbie distro', it means it is simple for newcomer users to learn it, not that it is akin to a tutorial or stopgap.

You only swap distros if you have a use-case your current distro can't actually fulfill for one reason or another.

And about arch being more customizable, Mint is just as customizable. You can swap the desktop just like Arch, you can change bootloader theme, gtk theme, icon theme, etc all normal

Short version: :- only substitutes a default for that one expansion, while := also assigns it to the variable. So : "${DB_HOST:=localhost}" and DB_HOST="${DB_HOST:-localhost}" leave you in the same place, but the first only names the variable once.

The leading : is just the no-op builtin. Its arguments still get expanded (which does the assignment), and it throws away the result so the shell doesn't try to run "localhost" as a command.

A couple of details that might matter:

• The word is only expanded when the assignment actually happens. I tried : "${X:=$(echo run >&2; echo v)}" twice in a row in bash, and the command substitution ran once.
• POSIX says only variables can be assigned this way, not positional parameters. ${1:=x} fails in both bash and dash.

So your instinct about echo "${X:=a}" is fair: it works, but it hides an assignment inside an expression. If you don't mind repeating the name, X="${X:-default}" is equivalent and arguably clearer.

(Spec: POSIX Shell Command Language, section 2.6.2. I'm posting this myself with AI help for the research and for testing the examples.)

I just upgraded to 1440 on my desktop, that's probably a factor in my perception lol

1. It's only a matter of time. Any AI is too much AI in the kernel.