Which Linux distro is the least buggy, while also the prettiest as possible?

I'd say Debian testing, although you have to understand that Debian testing is a misnomer, it is rock solid and I have a hard time remembering ever having had a problem with it that I didn't cause, as for pretty, every distro out there can be made to look as any other one, you just need to educate yourself in the art of ricing.

The stable branch of debian typical only gets security and bugfix updates and not feature updates until the next major stable version is released.

Probably kde neon to be honest. Haven't had any issues ever.

Attached: 1523609698377.webm (720x720, 1.5M)

Unironically Solus with Gnome.

ubuntu (after you change the ugly orange colour)

I want to see her getting fucked by that dog

install gentoo,
if you know how to use it, if not then fedora

debian

>debian
you mean devuan right? systemd is one colossal bug

Ubuntu LTS. Only things that come close are SuSE or RedHat.

>devuan
you mean antiX right? devuan is one colossal bloat

I used fedora + KDE plasma on my thinkpad, and lubuntu + xfce on my older sony vaio. Both are great.

fedora is the least buggy out of the box

Attached: Screenshot from 2018-04-14 23-10-17.png (1366x768, 1.03M)

Me too, post links

Ubuntu is most noob friendly and have moved back to GNOME.

Install Gnome Tweaks and then customize and you're good.

If you don't have nvidia and other really fucky proprietary drivers regularly updated, debian. If you do, (in my experience, I know this one is controversial), arch.

>proprietary
and in the case of nvidia, non-proprietary.

why is noone saying linux mint?
it's the better ubuntu
and it was made to look close to mac os

Attached: install-linux-mint-06.jpg (796x601, 64K)

Alot of people on Jow Forums claim their distro is the best and or the most optimal to install. But this is nothing more than just a biased opinion derived from the monkey brain these knuckle dragging retards possess.

I swear to God it feels like I'm talking to a bunch of wild jungle niggers some time. Just so much fucking autism/down syndrome on this board.

Can't you fucking autists give a clear and consistent answer.

Attached: DUmbass.jpg (403x448, 64K)

The one you configure yourself.

Just more fucking autism.

Attached: IQ 68.png (866x900, 95K)

Well, bugs might vary depending on your hardware, so I think almost any Linux distro might perform well.

With that being said, I've been using Deepin OS a lot recently, is pretty and you don't have to tweak it at all. Only worry about installing your stuff. For normies it includes everything they might need right after installation.

My favorite distro is still Linux mint though, but DeepinOS surprised me because the learning curve is pretty small and non-Linux users might get used to it pretty quickly.

Attached: DeepinScreenshot_20180416032404.png (1600x900, 1.61M)

Attached: IQ 50.jpg (989x1000, 76K)

Attached: IQ 49.jpg (874x684, 79K)

>Which one of these things is objectively better, coke or pepsi?
Linux distros are all basically different flavors of the same type of drink. At the end of the day, what works and looks best comes down to the user. Pick any stable distro, and then download a configurable DE like awesome or openbox and design it yourself. Or just google DEs and find the one you like the best if you're too lazy.

Deepin is Chinese botnet. Don't.

That's like saying windows XP is the equivalent of Windows 7. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature understands windows 7 is the superior OS to use when given this limited selection of OS systems. The same principle applies to Linux.

Attached: The return of the retard.png (601x508, 114K)

There has to be a Linux distro which is objectively superior to its counter parts.

Ohh, really? Then I guess I shouldn't use it because whatever I'm doing in my computer might be the cure for cancer, AIDS or even aging and they might steal it as well and blackmail me to get my millions from my bank account.

Windows XP runs on old software with an old kernel. Most distros have incredibly similar software repos and run on the newest or most recent "stable" kernel. It's in no way analogous. What you're asking is for a community to decide on one particular example from hundreds, that is objectively the best in two subjective categories, and then crying when nobody has a concrete answer and they all tell you to make up your own mind. If you weren't baiting you would realize that THAT is the consensus of the thread.

You have to be gay or something. No one could possibly be this autistic.

Attached: Anti fag.png (1506x3976, 443K)

>Deepin

More Chinese backdoors than a Taiwan whorehouse.

>That's like saying windows XP is the equivalent of Windows 7
No, because Linux is not Windows.
Yes, don't use it.

This post is satire, right?

Just more fucking autism. You can't possibly say that there is no objectively superior Linux distro out there on the web when given the selection of hundreds of different Linux distro systems. ZIPF'S law dictates that there has to be a select few Linux distro systems which are used more readily because of their specs and or stability.

>No, because Linux is not Windows.
"Linux is not Windows" doesn't mean that Windows can't be used as an analogue for demonstrative purposes, you simp. Yes it's a retarded analogy, but your reasoning for why is almost MORE retarded.

I run sid on multiple boxes, never had any problems.
Install apt-listbugs and don't blindly upgrade everything, and you get the best rolling-release distro out there.

Attached: 1Q -25.jpg (645x588, 29K)

Maybe if you were judging by one criteria you could say that there has to be one that is objectively the best. But you're asking for two unrelated criteria. So which is more important? What if the most stable one is god-killingly ugly? Do you settle for the middle ground of both criteria? What if the middle ground of both means neither are very good? And then to try and get this information from a group of autists on Jow Forums and expecting any one unanimous, definite answer... It's just pointless. You know you won't get one.

If course it is. Windows is a huge blob of fuckall that breaks if one of its parts break. Linux is standalone software that can be bundled with other software to make an OS.

You settle for the one which is the most optimal to use. You absolute fucking retard.

Attached: Yeah nigger IQ.jpg (484x580, 91K)

So then say that. My point is saying "Linux is not Windows" is like saying "Cars are not trucks" Yes, there are many things that could make analogies between them inaccurate (Drivetrain, fuel type, engine displacement, weight), but they are both similar enough platform that some analogies could easily be accurate. You have to point out what part of the analogy isn't comparable, because the point of an analogy is comparing two disparate things, one of which is more familiar to the reader, in order to make a premise clear.

Like I said, is that the one which is the absolute middle ground? Or do you favor one criteria more? Or does "optimal" rely on some other criteria like usability? So then why not ask what's the most usable distro? Because "optimal" depends on the use case, and use case depends on the user. So the user is responsible for deciding what is optimal.

Which brings me back to my original point: The optimal distro is the one that you MAKE the most optimal. Unless you're a brainlet, you will make a your workspace far more optimized than any distro OOTB.

You sound distressed.

I quite honestly don't know what to say, optimal is a term synonymous for best. When I say "optimal", I'm merely stating which Linux Distro is the best (in any criteria) to use.

Nothing can be 100% optimal. There will always be one area of something that is lacking in order for a different area to strive. Which area is more important is up to the usecase. There is no one optimal. So my point remains, the choice of optimal is up to the user. And the way the user gets the most optimal linux system is by deciding on one system and modifying it to fit his needs.

Attached: Somalian IQ.png (621x702, 56K)

Again with the autism.

I'm a NEET who's out of the house trying to kill time. Bullshitting on Jow Forums is just as good a way as any.

>Which Linux distro is the least buggy, while also the prettiest as possible?

Bugs usually are not so much about the distro but rather about the DE and release policy. Avoid rolling releases and buggy DE's, such as Pantheon or KDE. Debian + Xfce is solid as fuck and will give you a very stable experience and is also extremely riceable.

Excellent point. I hadn't considered that you might think I have autism from all of the other times you said it and posted a derisive picture. I'lll take that into consideration in my next response, once you actually attempt to refute my point.

>Le Dunning Kruger effect at its finest.

Attached: E49DA4FB-534C-4212-A004-9A82BBF43C0C.png (645x729, 105K)

I was having fun discussing the topic at hand, but if you would prefer to just repeat the same insult without expanding on the topic there's really no point to reply to you since you're not bringing anything new to the conversation. If you want to bait me you have to actually pretend that you have a stance other than just "no u" otherwise it's boring.

What argument are we having stupid? I'm merely suggesting that their must be a Linux Distro out there which is (in terms of user usability) the most optimal to use. Yes I understand the subjectivity involved when discussing the most objectively superior Linux Distro OS. But that doesn't negate the fact that specific Linux Distros out preform others in any given task.

Just more fucking autism.

*perform* my bad.

That's more like it. I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm simply stating that "out preform"ing something is a dependent statement. Performance requires a task, and there is no distro that will outperform every other distro at every single task. Which means for there to be a "best", you have to weigh the importance of a task, and the only person to whom that weight actually matters is the person performing the tasks. That person is the user. So the user decides which distro is best for his tasks. The easiest way to do that is to build his own, by picking a distro and modifying it until it suits his usecases optimally. To re-iterate. I am not saying that the optimal distro cannot exist, I am saying that it only exists in the context of its use, and that in that context, the optimal distro is the one that the user configures to run optimally.

desu manjaro's pretty >a e s t h e t i c out of the box

calculate linux

>prettiest
I think he meant out of the box, in which case they all suck

Just because you modify and configure Windows XP to perform video editing at its upmost efficiency (the criteria used in this case). Doesn't mean windows XP is superior to an unconfigured Windows 7 in terms of video editing.

use linux os

Windows 7 is simply the better operating system to use in any criteria and or task.

By the way, I'm pretty bored of talking about this. It was fun autisming with you user, I'm gonna go jerk off. Good luck with your thread, I hope you get the answer you're looking for.

The same principle applies to Linux.

>awesome or openbox
those are WM

>Recommends Gnome
>Best Budgie distro, use something else

Attached: images.duckduckgo.com.jpg (1200x900, 65K)

it's not, it's super user friendly because it installs all the things ubuntu doesn't come with
everything works out of the box
+
it looks very nice

this is what OP wants, right?