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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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?
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 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.
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
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
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.
Addendum: 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.
