I realize this is impressionistic but for the sake of the conceit:
“Mac” flavored (PopOS, ZorinOS?)
“Windows” flavored (Mint?)
“Linux” flavored (Fedora?)
Edit: was not aware 1) Distro & 2) Desktop Environment are seperate/distinct. Good to learn
Hi! I’ve been seeing your questions here and I think some basic terminology and background will help you out.
I’m going to try and avoid too much “whell acktully”, but there will probably be some.
A kernel is the core of any operating system, it usually provides basic hardware support for programs to use, and in the case of Linux, hardware drivers, filesystems, low level networking protocols and other very close to the hardware support.
But a kernel can’t really do anything by itself, so we run programs on top of it. Some of these are also very low level and most people don’t deal with them or know they are there, while others are things like web browsers, video games, and whatever else you directly use every day.
For Linux, there are often multiple programs that provide the same or similar functionality, with different features and tradeoffs, at all levels of the system. With Windows or Mac, there is often only one version of the low level programs that they provide and you never know is there.
Because of all the options, different groups have put together different sets of these programs together, along with configuration files, and installer programs. These are called distros, short for distributions. Different distros make different choices for at least as many reasons as there are distros. Also in Linux, a program plus whatever files it needs are often called packages.
Since even a small distro may contain thousands of packages, management of them is very important. Most distros have a package manager program to help deal with that and the package manager is how you will install most packages, though as always there are other options. A package manager is similar in some way to an app store from Mac or windows, only not shitty.
Some distros make a lot of package choices for you, others make you make basically every choice. Most are somewhere in between. So-called beginner distros are usually ones that have made all the choices for you, and aimed those choices at being easy to use for people that have only experienced Windows or Mac.
A desktop environment is an integrated graphical interface that has a bunch of programs that all work together and have a similar look and feel. You may also hear about a window manager, which is like a very minimal desktop environment that doesn’t come with a lot of features by itself.
Different distros provide different desktop environments by default, or maybe none at all! Some make it very easy to switch from one to another, but some don’t.
Most DEs try to look like either Windows or Mac in order to feel friendlier to new users. Window managers generally don’t, as they are assumed to by used by people with a lot of experience who want something very specific and will take the time to make it happen.
Some common DEs and what they sorta look like are:
- Gnome - Looks a lot like Mac, not particularly customizable, good keyboard only support
- KDE - Looks a lot like windows by default, but quite customizable.
- Cinnamon - Also looks like Windows, but forked off of an old version on Gnome a long time ago
- LXDE - Also looks like windows by default, often used on very low end hardware
- Cosmic - Looks like Mac but very customizable
And here are some common distros and their default DEs
- Fedora - KDE
- Mint - Cinnamon
- Debian - Offers a choice, but defaults to Gnome
- Ubuntu - A custom version of Gnome, but also comes in a KDE and LXDE version
- PopOS - Cosmic
I hope this helps!
I was just having a discussion about theming in a different chat where a friend of mine was reminiscing about the win95/98 look and getting xfce to look like it.
I get it and appreciate the nostalgia, but I’m my opinion, I feel the same way I do about when I lost religion. I do have nostalgia for the period when I was learning computers in the beginning, but I don’t want my current computer to resemble Windows at all, much like I don’t decorate my place with crucifixes or pictures of white Jesus.
My hatred of the “before times” is much stronger than a theme preference, but I treat the two visual preferences similarly.
I hate apple just as much as I hate windows, but I do like having the stoplight colored buttons for close/maximize/minimize. But nothing else is precious OS-flavored.
If you want to have a fun “before times” theme, try something BeOS flavored. Or go really obscure and try to find one that matches the Dano leak.
KDE and XFce DEs are the most customizable to look like MacOS (nothing to do with distros, you can use any distro and then use these DEs to make them look like MacOS). Here’s my XFce: https://mastodon.social/@eugenialoli/114653608461737248
I will never get why Mint is regarded as looking similar to Windows, I guess it just became a thing for people to parrot (no offense to you, just complaining about why this is such a widely agreed on thing) when it only shares the layout but visually looks NOTHING like it. Very round, no gradients or transparency, just mono-colored, the design language has no similarity at all. Any vanilla KDE Plasma install looks instantly more recognizable to a Windows user.
No offense taken, I know very little about Linux currently so its all the same fine to me as a jumping off point or analogy to begin from.
Things can be incorrect or “inapt” yet still have value as a stepping stone to the discourse about whatever :)
I personally find it much easier to understand and learn things by being safely/comfortably wrong at many different points (especially at the beginning) and get corrected by a more knowledgable god samaritan. If you’re never or not often enough wrong (like memorizing things by rote or just accepting and memorizing what anybody says) or not hypothesizing you dont develop a connection to the domain
First of, good on you to want to get deeper into it, you won’t regret it! Opinions have to be formed at some point or another, same goes for developing a sense for what sounds accurate or not. I do agree that Mint is easy and intuitive to use for most non-technical folk like idk, your parents maybe, and I do often recommend it myself, but visually? No similarity at all in the design-language in my opinion haha
What are you currently leaning towards?
Thanks for editing to make that new understanding clear. Take my upvote for it.
It was ridiculously difficult for me to get the letter and spirit of it to where it ended up for some reason.
We’re really digging into first principles here :D
Isn’t this more of a DE thing? Like Mac -> Gnome, Windows -> KDE, Linux -> ??? (XFCE maybe?)
I wasnt aware of the distinction prior between desktop environment and distro so its good you guys are bring me up to speed
OP, a term you may find useful is ricing. This is the sub-community of Linux users who focus on customizing their desktops. You can look at the unixporn subreddit to see examples of how much a DE can be customized.
Ex:
This is KDE Plasma
This is also KDE Plasma
This is also a, very customized, KDE Plasma
(video)https://www.reddit.com/r/unixporn/comments/1w2afj0/kde_my_2nd_ever_linux_rice/
Another is dotfiles or dots, ricers will sometimes make their .config files available for other users. (Be careful here, this can include hidden malicious scripts and such uglies. Use your best judgement).
Thanks for linking images, thats fantastic
This is a question about desktop environments not distros. Many distros ship a default desktop environment but you can always change it. Among the desktop environments it’s typically said:
Gnome ~ Mac, KDE ~ Windows
As for a Linux flavored one I think the most distinctly linux desktops are the tiling and scrolling compositors (hyprland, niri etc)
-
So Gnome is the distro?
-
what do you mean by ~ Mac ~ Windows (both? They’re both the desktop environment?)
No Gnome is a desktop environment which is similar to the Mac desktop environment. Ditto KDE and windows.
This distinction is confusing for new Linux users because windows and Mac each only provide one desktop environment so users conflate the desktop and OS. Imagine if you could change your computer from having a windows desktop to a Mac desktop while having all your files and applications stay exactly the same and still work. This is how Linux works. Whether you use Gnome (a Mac like interface) or KDE (a windows like interface) or one of the tiling/scrolling compositors of Linux power users it’s just the UI layer of the OS, it’s a totally independent question from what distro/software you’re running and you can freely mix and match
Like a super theme. Makes the entire interface entirely different, even comes with different default apps, like the default calculator is different too.
If you’ve ever used Android phones, you might’ve seen launcher apps on the play store. Something like that.
I feel like I never grasped or encountered the concept of a launcher, I know Apple things dont really have the same concept AFAIK
What is the interplay between the ~Mac ~ Windows
Well yeah. Just imagine linux being just the command line, then you gotta build a whole graphics layer on top of it. Windows and Mac built them as one combined unit. Linux being Linux, obviously different people have made their own versions for people to download for free.
So everything visually above is mostly down to the choice of DE, while the technical command line stuff underneath like the drivers and stuff are the distro.
People usually just refer to each DE by their main stylistic inspiration. E.g. KDE is more windows inspired with the start button at the bottom, while GNOME is more mac-ish looking. Neither are copies of course, and there are tons of DEs that are uniquely designed by random people with crazy ideas.
Commercial OS tend to unify everything in a single name, Windows is the OS and - for example - the DE may be considered “metrostyle”. The distribution is Linux + selected packages (also DEs)
-
??????
deleted by creator
After your edit, it is slightly clearer what you are asking. But this is still a matter of desktop environment more than distro.
desktop environment
distro
Those arent analagous/synonamous?
Edit: sorry absolutely didnt mean to sound patronizing, this is all new to me so its beginners mind haha
You can install any desktop environment on any distro. For some of the more obscure DEs on some distros, a bit of hoop-jumping may be required, but it’s still possible. And some distros ship without any DE at all.
Technically, you can have a functional desktop without a DE at all, just a bare window manager (in X) or compositor (wayland), but that’s getting into advanced topics.
No, not at all.
Some distributions do however come with a default desktop environment, which may be what OP is thinking in terms of the relationship.
My workstations are Debian, my laptops are a mix of Debian and Arch, same with test hardware.
They all look the same - KDE as my desktop environment, no generic software added at install, just adding what I want. If you were to use any one of them purely from the GUI (KDE), I doubt you’d know which was which without checking version info.
Linux is a kernel. A desktop environment is the GUI. The distro is packaging.
The difference between distributions is predominantly what is packaged up, the tool used to install/update, and an overarching philosophy on those tools.
Debian is about being stable. This means more dated packages, but running into issues from an update is (mostly) not even a question when running the stable branch. Amazing for workstations and older hardware IMO.
Arch updates constantly. Updates can introduce breaking changes, even minor ones, which can interrupt workflow. It also means the latest and greatest features are right there and ready quickly. I like arch for testing and making use of recent hardware that may not have support elsewhere yet.
You could also build entirely from source, use a downstream from Debian like Mint (Debian Edition) or Kubuntu, or downstream of Arch like SteamOS or EndeavourOS. Downstream distributions add more opinion under a more particular approach to their upstream counterparts. For some its to make the system easier to install (EndeavourOS vs Arch), add more recent features (Kubuntu vs Debian), or to make something incredibly specialized (SteamOS, formerly based on Debian and now based in Arch, highly focused on gaming).
The only thing thats “pure” Linux is the kernel. Everything else comes down to purpose and preference.
This is very informative, thanks for taking the time to help me get up to speed :)
Very much no. Your distro provides your package manager and repositories. Many distros ship with a default desktop environment, many let you choose on install. Either way the user can always manually switch very easily
You can also make gnome look like windows or kde look like Mac OSX.
There really isn’t a limit to customization for Linux.
F.e. I use kde but have it look like/close to osx, because I prefer how kde manages multiple displays. I do like gnome, but I cannot stand it’s stubbornes (or maybe my stubbornes?) with multi screen setups.
There’s many ways and you can choose the one you like most, that’s the beauty of Linux :).
I know you’ve already been told, but it really depends on how the DE is currently configured. Linux Mint, regardless of version, normally looks like Windows but you can make it look like MacOS by manually customizing the DE.
Obviously, if you’re not looking to manually customize the look of the DE that the distro uses, then the way your installation will look is based on the distro or version of the distro you use. I haven’t used that many distros but I know that, by default, Linux Mint and Q4OS look like Windows while Ubuntu is very close to MacOS.
I understand your aesthetically question who take care of the history of user interface design: many DE you’ll find on Linux are inspired by Windows and Mac OSs, and so typically Gnome is more near to mac while KDE to windows; keep in mind both are completely customizable. There are also other original Linux interfaces who brings something more exotic (old Ubuntu Unity or window managers like i3-wm) but most of these are used by few since UI’s comfort tend to unify everything.
Addednum: I really liked the old KDE4 with it’s beautiful and peculiar tablet view, now abandoned
The problem with visual similarities is that eventually the user will have to interface with, at least; the file system, download and install protocol, and deeper hardware tools (drivers, etc).
It’s one thing to do it for nostalgia, or “because it’s there”, quite another because you’re looking for a familiar interface.
If it’s the latter; I recommend buckling down, allowing yourself to become a noob again, and get familiar with the new thing. It’s not harder, it’s just different.
If it’s the former; KDE seems to provide the greatest flexibility in changing how the environment looks.
