Top 10 Worst Linux DistrosLinux, in its vast world of distributions, offers options that cater to a variety of users, whether they're hardcore programmers, system administrators, or casual users just dipping their toes into open-source waters. But not every distro serves its purpose well, and some have made users cringe more than cheer. Think of distributions like Apartheid Linux or Red Star OS that stirred up controversy, or novelty ones like Hannah Montana Linux that had us questioning their very existence. Even popular ones like Ubuntu aren't immune from criticism, given their occasional drastic changes.
Blatantly racist. What more is there to say?
I prefer dark mode.
I think it's stupid that it's an actual distribution, but I'm somewhat not surprised since Linux is open source. This means anyone can come and make their own distro, but honestly, this distribution is taking "open source" way too far. I'm highly against Satanism, by the way.
The fact that it exists in the first place is bad enough.
I can't believe this actually exists. Is this licensed?
You must be kidding me.
It has so many privacy violations, it isn't Linux. Sorry, Kim.
Red Star OS blatantly plagiarizes macOS and defies the principles of Linux.
A closed-source Linux distribution.
Also blatantly racist. Makes me wonder why people even make this garbage.
Too unstable for comfort.
I don't want to say that Ubuntu is bad, but it has rather high system requirements and might be hard to customize, depending on the desktop environment.
From the Amazon analytics, the Unity desktop, and heavy encouragement to use snaps, Ubuntu has a history of Canonical trying to force what they think is best on its users.
A lot of useless propaganda. "Ubuntu is awesome! Ubuntu is awesome!" Grow up, you Ubuntu people.
How do you identify an Arch user? They'll tell you before you ask. I've never seen an Arch user who does any serious productive work. It's unstable. Updates will make you stressed.
Arch is far too difficult to install for newcomers, and its fanboys are toxic.
Because its users suck.
They want Jesus and God to use it to keep track of what all the humans are doing so they can know who goes to Heaven.
I won't say it's bad, but it's kind of dead.
Too popular with script kiddies. Besides, who wouldn't want a distro that is root-only, only supports its own software, and is used by hackers?
Hey, you think you're a hacker? Here's Kali Linux. I'm seriously sick of that damn OS.
Fails at being a Windows clone. I have no idea how you could ruin the KDE desktop environment, but the people who made this distro actually figured it out.
The hard drive installations are always slowly breaking themselves.
Running as root sucks.
Pretends to be suitable for beginners only to require advanced knowledge to fix if it breaks down, which it will. They pretend that packages are more stable just because they wait on them for a week for Arch users to report bugs first. Manjaro encourages users to misuse Pacman commands and perform partial upgrades that cause more headaches in the long run.
Does the best job of being stable for a while and then suddenly breaking.
Gentoo takes forever to install packages since it compiles everything from source. Setting "USE" flags is a massive pain, and it can take an entire weekend to get a desktop environment set up.
Kernel headers don't contain all the kernel headers.