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in Debian (because Debian was always mentioned as a distro good for servers, or stable machines that are ok with outdated software)

And while I get that Debian does have software that isn't as up to date, I've never felt that the software was that outdated.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
[–] 3 points 9 months ago (4 children)

I disagree, the strong points of debian are the stability (long periods of testing, without new changes) and security (by applying security updates quickly).

Using testing or sid means to forego the strong points. At that point you are better served by other distros which focus on having newer packages.

Also i would be cautious about using Debian testing (forky).As far as i know its the worst in terms of security. Stable has security update priority over testing. And some people say even sid it's better on that front by having even newer packages.

Disclaimer: I daily drive debian stable and game on it without hiccups. Rock solid. BUT i have 7 year old amd rig and the games are not demanding.

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

    I understand and respect your opinion. I have new hardware though, a Ryzen 7 9800X3D and 9070XT GPU. I bought them a couple of weeks after release and needed drivers for them to "get my money's worth" out of them. (CP2077 at 4k with 144hz was a must!) I needed the newer mesa drivers at the time, and this was pre-trixie, so I opted to use forky instead. I opted to not reinstall after trixie was released as I already had all of my stuff set up and configured. As far as security, package releases in deb go into sid for 10, 5, or 2 days for stability testing (depending on the urgency) before being pushed into forky, but the Debian security team does not work with either sid or forky. So, neither are really more or less secure than the other. Forky is just a teeny bit more "stable" than unstable.

    I personally take a calculated risk, I understand the security implications and rely on other external network-based security measures, so probably feel a bit more confident than most users and am willing to take the risk more than others may. I also have submitted bugs and provide feedback to packages fairly often for both Debian and KDE while using both trixie and forky, which I feel is important for end-user usability. I've been using Debian for a long time and have tried to contribute back where I can.

    I've been on Debian for over 20 years now, after a major issue with a LAMP server using Ubuntu Warthog and going to "the source" of Ubuntu to work out a few issues. I ended up converting all of my servers (Former SysAdmin) to Debian within a few weeks. After that, I moved from Slackware at home and Ubuntu at work to Debian everywhere and never looked back.

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

    Fair enough, now i feel a bit ashamed since you are way way more knowledgeable than me. I have only been a Debian user for a year and half.

    I made the reply because i remember that when i was looking to enter into Linux, Debian testing was recommended as a great compromise between stable and unstable.

    My surprise when i went to the Debian wiki and said, pretty ambiguously at that, that i shouldn't use it! Reason being that it wasn't as updated in security patches as stable. No one told me that bit when i was asking. Since i didn't know the risks involved, i took the safe option and went with stable, in the end loved it.

    I have to admit that for your case it makes sense to use it. You know the risks, know where to patch it up, and it helps to contribute to it by testing it and submitting bugs. Thank you!

    I do still think that testing shouldn't be recommended, but i see and agree that it has it's niche where it works and can be great for some people.

    Anyways, i hope i didn't came too hostile in my first reply! Cheers

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

    Absolutely not, and please don't be ashamed. I didn't take anything you said as hostile at all. I always appreciate a great discussion. Asserting opinions combined with asking questions is a great way to learn. I'm glad to be able to help open your understanding about why some people use different releases and how they can be useful outside of just the current release. Thank you for being open for an exchange of ideas.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •