There are some head scratching placements to me. I understand this is your opinion (which is the point of a tier list), but I don’t understand why some of the placements are given. BTW I use EndeavourOS and feel like is the best distro ever and feel hurt by you personally. :D (just joking) How many of them did you actually use? I personally don’t like your list, like most people you would hurt with it. I have a lot of to say (just woke up and saw this list, you triggered me immediately).
Note: I only used a few handful of distributions and don’t know most of them by first hand.
The description for your Rankings are not unique to me. In example Mediocre, Bad and Completely Pointless seem to me all the same. And listing No Opinion at the end of a tier list makes no sense to me, because the reason for a tier list is an opinion.
CentOS, Amazing Ranking: I’m not sure if CentOS can be called amazing after all the betrayal to Open Source by Red Hat. Unless something changed here to the better. I don’t have an opinion on the base itself, as I never used this.
EndeavourOS, Completely Pointless Ranking: I think this is an excellent distribution and handles Archlinux very well. Compared to Manjaro (which I used prior) it is still very much Arch itself. To me this at least, even if you don’t like it, should be at least in Mediocre Ranking from you, which means there is not much reason to use over original Arch in your opinion.
Manjaro, Completely Pointless Ranking: I would put Manjaro besides Ubuntu, because I had my fair share of problems with Manjaro and their buggy tools and handling of the AUR. Also the developers or forum managers don’t handle things well too. It’s nowhere at the same level of EndevaourOS.
Fedora, Mediocre Ranking: I don’t understand this. Why is it ranked as very few reasons to use over counterparts? What is the distribution one should use over Fedora? It’s also leading edge, so there is a lot of reasons to use it.
Debian, Bad Ranking: Same reasons for Fedora, but in opposite direction. Why is a very stable and not changing much distribution bad to you? What would be the equivalent alternative to Debian, but a much better distro to you?
Have in mind, Debian and Fedora has a lot of spins too, but I think you mean the mainline versions only. But you listed all the variants for Ubuntu too, so a bit of inconsistent.
Pop!_OS, Zorin, Garuda, Completely Pointless Ranking: I really don’t understand these placements by you by any stretch of imagination. They have lot of work involved, styling, defaults and features that they either save time by providing a working out of the box experience for a certain kind of user (like Garuda) in example. PopOS is also a better Ubuntu basically, as it is based on Ubuntu like Linux Mint is. Why is Linux Mint Good, but not many of the other distros that have a similar reason to exist like Mint? I don’t get this.
Ubuntu, Maliciously Bad: I know all of the stuff here, you don’t need to tell me. I used Ubuntu for 13 years exclusively. But it’s not a bad distribution, it just does not what you want to do. I wouldn’t call it Malicious. But okay, I give you a pass here, because of all the controversy, history and what they did. So it’s understandable placement, but its not a bad distro in my opinion, just upsetting.
ElementaryOS, Deepin, Maliciously Bad: Can you explain to me what is malicious about these distributions?
You see, with Effective Altruism, we’ll destroy the world around us to serve a small cadre of ubermensch tech bros, who will then somehow in the next few centuries go into space and put supercomputers on other planets that run simulations of people. You might actually be in one of those simulations right now, so be grateful.
We are very smart and not just reckless, over-indulged douchebags who jerk off to the smell of our own farts.
Do you think that your assertion, that they want to destroy the world around us in order to provide “value” to a small group of tech bros is at odds with the underlying philosophy of effective altruism? It seems like anyone who wanted to create the most good for the most people would be opposed to a future like that.
Sure, some probably do. And you can be sceptical and discuss why that’s a dangerous and undemocratic direction. Effective Altruism is a question, not an answer. In thr community, asking for and being open to critical feedback is encouraged as the main tenet of good culture.
But if you look at the amounts, most EAs donate most to helping the poorest people alive today. Because it is so obviously good, and proven to work with high certainty.
Without going into details on why you rank each distro the way you did, its just useless and baseless… Not helpful to anyone, at all, for any reason. Am I going to consult it for my next project? Absolutely not. I implore folks to do their own research and testing for their use case.
To add to this, another piece of this is: who are you that would make someone consider your picks over some other Joe schmoe ? Not saying your opinion doesn’t matter, but what I’m saying is what would make your opinion hold any weight to anyone reading? Your reasoning may help, but you didnt give that.
Slightly OT but hasn’t Fedora gone all in on Wayland? Maybe it’s an attempt drive critical mass of adoption and concentrate developers’ minds to closing the gap between now and fully production ready. As such, maybe moving to Fedora will net you the best support and smoothest Wayland implantation.
It has not and it will not in the immediate future (~1 year).
None of the large, general-use distros will go further than to offer Wayland by default, for now.
It does not cover anywhere near 100% of use cases and, until it does, removing the only other option would be a show-stopper for a sizable part of their userbase.
lemmy.ml
Active