169
Why is Debian always left out of the distro recommendations? (lemmy.zip)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/linux@lemmy.ml
114 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I distro hopped for a bit before finally settling in Debian (because Debian was always mentioned as a distro good for servers, or stable machines that are ok with outdated software)

And while I get that Debian does have software that isn't as up to date, I've never felt that the software was that outdated. Before landing on Debian, I always ran into small hiccups that caused me issues as a new Linux user - but when I finally switched over to Debian, everything just worked! Especially now with Debian 13.

So my question is: why does Debian always get dismissed as inferior for everyday drivers, and instead mint, Ubuntu, or even Zorin get recommended? Is there something I am missing, or does it really just come down to people not wanting software that isn't "cutting edge" release?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 9 points 9 months ago (7 children)

Gamers need the newest libraries and the newest drivers or their stuff might not run as well as it possibly could

No they don't. They think they do because they believe they run their precious expensive hardware only at 99% whereas they imagine, I bet due to trying to compete with each others on benchmarks, that with the absolute latest driver they can actually push their GPU at 99.99% and gain .1FPS in the most popular game they might not even like and 2 points in the trendy benchmark.

Source : I'm a gamer playing on Debian, from indie to AAA, from 2D to 3D to VR, and it just works. Sure I'm not at 99% perf on my hardware, I might even be at 80% but I'm definitely spending 0% time tinkering and 100% having fun.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    I've literally had to wait for fixes to hit new mesa versions to play newly released games. Having those packages be up to date is just going to be a better experience for people that care about that kind of stuff

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (4 children)

    Newer packages will in theory always be better, that doesn't really matter which distribution or use case (gaming or not) one has.

    Even if Debian were generating packages the second a pull request was accepted and making it available to everyone and any one it wouldn't change that the next pull request would, in theory (without regression) be more up to date.

    If people have to wait 1s or 1 year, for gaming or not, they can have fun.

    If hardware is not properly supported though it's a different issue. It means people need to buy hardware that is well supported. It's not specific to a distribution.

    I'm playing old and new games on the SteamDeck and it works even if I don't update it. That's how things should be, that's how things already are.

    Anecdotes, even if important personally of course, showing things don't work in a specific context don't make a trend. There are plenty of things that don't work well on Debian but also on Arch, Mint, etc and of course on Windows too. It's very annoying but I don't see how that helps.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (3 children)

    My example applied to all distros, the difference would be the time it takes that code change (which resolved a critical to me bug) takes to actually be available to use.

    There's also very little that's specific to me about that, it's a real use case that comes up repeatedly for new releases that tend to push things graphically. I'm only going to recommend distros that minimize the time to get those fixes because it's a better user experience for the target demographic with little downside.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago* (2 children)

    I'm sorry but I might be totally out of the loop here, do gamers use Mesa? I thought proprietary drives from NVIDIA and AMD, sadly, was what most people actually used nowadays. Again to be clear I'm NOT saying it's a good thing (it's not!) just wondering what's the actual share of users relying on it.

    Edit: oh, looks like Mesa is now the default for AMD "AMD promotes their Mesa drivers Radeon and RadeonSI over the deprecated AMD Catalyst" (via Wikipedia), then yes it's a big deal. Still makes me wonder what's the current share but mostly out of curiosity.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago (1 child)

    Mesa has been the defacto standard for AMD for years. It's always performed better than the official driver. AMD just made it their official recommendation recently.

    I think Intel also uses Mesa, with Nvidia being the odd one out

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 9 months ago*

    Nvidia being the odd one out

    Right, I get that but also :

    top30cards

    (Source Steam Hardware & Software Survey: January 2026 )

    Entire top10, then for marketshare I don't count NVIDIA I count the rest :

    AMD : ~15%

    Intel : ~6%

    I'm too lazy to guesstimate when it's below 0.5% but you get the idea, at least 75% is NVIDIA.

    So "odd" yes but still a big deal in terms of market share for gamers.

    To be clear though I am NOT advocating for NVIDIA (especially with all their AI BS) just showing how dominating they are in that segment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)