Linux is, IMO, the best platform for developing applications. Choosing a distribution is a tricky task these days. Ubuntu (Kubuntu) was my default choice for a long time, but I'm not happy with the latest releases. So I tried a number of other distributions and I'm appalled at the state of some of them. Here are my experiences trying distros on my off-time.
NOTE: I'm using Ventoy, which enables me to put several distro ISOs on a single thumb drive and boot from it. In some cases, I created a dedicated boot thumb drive to see if it fixed the problems I had, but it never made a difference.
NOTE2: My favorite desktop environment is KDE. Gnome was started at Red Hat, I believe, and it originally stood for Gnu Network Object Model Environment. The first few iterations of Gnome actually employed network objects, but the performance was so horrible they abandoned that approach. Gnome is an entirely different beast these days, and I can see why people love it. But KDE still remains my favorite. I install the Latte Dock for KDE and move the task bar to the top. This resembles in some ways a Mac desktop, and I like it.
NOTE3: I'm puzzled by the kernel panics I get with some installers. I've done diagnostics and there's nothing wrong with my system. And, for example, I can upgrade from Fedora 38 to 39 and it runs fine, but I can't install Fedora 39 directly. So the problem is with the installer, not my system, and not the distro.
Linux Distributions I Tried
Installing Fedora 39 KDE: Installer boots up, but freezes on a black screen. This is true for me even if I install the "Workstation" version. The only way I could get Fedora KDE 39 to work was to install Fedora KDE 38 and upgrade to 39. Now it works fine, but I don't trust it enough to use it as my main development platform. The Fedora installer is one of the worst unless you plan to let it use the whole disk and create default partitions. If you're installing it on a your own defined partition and dual boot Windows/Fedora, it's a royal PITA. You have to either create a new "/boot/efi" partition or tell it where to find the default Windows "/boot/efi". Yeah, I can do that, but many other distros will find the Windows "/boot/efi" for you. And I had to create a new partition for the system (better to create multiple partitions but I'm lazy). Many other distributions will give you the option of replacing an existing partition. Ten thumbs down out of five. Red Hat/Fedora, you need to get your installer act together.
Installing LMDE 6 (Linux Mint Debian Edition): Kernel panic every time the boot ISO starts up. Googled my heart out with no solutions found.
Kubuntu 23.10: Installs and works great, but I can't install Webex because it requires a library that Kubuntu no longer supports. Kubuntu 23.04 still works and lets me install Webex.
Debian 12.2 Sid (unstable): Hard to find fault here since it's meant to be unstable, but when I did a "apt dist-upgrade", the Nvidia drivers crashed the system and made it unusable. I re-installed the stable version over the same partition.
NixOS: Are you freaking kidding me? It would take a novel-length post to explain how odd this distro is, so if you want to know what it's like, check out a Youtube video on it or try it, yourself. The biggest oddity is that it doesn't use the standard file hierarchy for apps (you know, like /usr/bin or /usr/local/bin, etc.). It triggers my OCD. 'Nuff said.
Linux Mint: Installs like a dream. I love Linux Mint, but I'm just not a fan of Cinnamon, Mate, or XFCE desktop environments.
All Arch-Based Distros: I see potential in some of them. Arch itself installs like old Slackware distros. When I say "like", I don't mean the steps are the same, but it has at least as many steps as I recall Slackware did. Too many for me. There are distros based on Arch with easy installers, but the package management in Arch requires more learning time than I want to spend on it. If you haven't been using Linux since the '90s like I have, give an Arch-based distro a try. You're not already used to "apt" or "yum/dnf" so it won't be as big a learning curve. EndeavorOS and Manjaro are two Arch-based distros with easy installers. I've been hearing complaints about Manjaro, but I didn't experience any problems in the few days I used it.
Garuda Linux: I've heard good things about this Arch-based distribution, but the installer kernel-panics, so I may never know.
Deepin: This is not a serious development platform, and the fact that it's from China gives me the privacy shivers, but I just had to install it (this time in a virtual machine because the installer kernel-panics if I install it on a partition) just because the desktop environment is so cool. It is seriously cool. The Deepin desktop is available in other distributions, so you don't necessarily need to install the Deepin distro to get it.
MX Linux: It's a Debian distro, so what's the point? Just install Debian.
Immutable Distros: There are now several immutable distributions. The idea is that all the system files are untouchable, so malware can't do any harm to the system. Great idea, but I don't find it necessary for my work.
Container Distros: There are a number of distributions that let you install other distributions within containers so that you have access to any distribution's packages that you want. Great idea, but again, not necessary for my work.
Reproducible Distros: There are a number of distributions that make it possible to enumerate everything you've installed and configured such that you can reproduce the entire system on multiple PCs. This is ideal for situations where you need to get everyone in your company on Linux and the default packages for it. Again, not necessary for my work.
Debian 12.2 Stable: This is my default distro now. Install is easy. Everything works fine, including the proprietary Nvidia drivers.
Package Managers
I'm just so accustomed to apt that I'm most comfortable with Debian. Ubuntu/Kubuntu also uses apt, which is why Kubuntu was my favorite distribution until recently. I might still be using it if it weren't for the fact that Webex can't work with version 23.10.
But what's up with the new package managers SNAP and FLATPACK? FLATPACK is the more interesting of the two. The basic idea is that it doesn't need to care about the shared libraries on your distro. It installs whatever it needs. Therefore FLATPACK applications should be able to run on many distributions, since it doesn't depend on what the distribution provides. I had proposed a similar approach back in the late '90s, I believe, so I'm happy to see it happening today. The only difference is that I proposed that installers inspect the libraries major and minor versions and use the ones with the distribution if they match what's needed, but install the needed libraries locally if not. Naturally, FLATPACK applications may take up more disk space than apps you get from the distro's default repository. But disk space is cheap.
SNAP is similar, but I haven't had much success with it. Some of the SNAP installed applications simply don't work for me.
And that about wraps this up. Let us know which Linux distro you are using as your development platform, and why. And say a word about whether or not you use or like/dislike your distro's package manager, SNAP or FLATPACK.
