291–300 of 345 posts
Anything with a GUI now runs Fedora (which can be annoying sometimes because it feels unfinished, but largely works), and I’m using Debian for other things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want to highlight this answer. Ubuntu is completely based upon Debian. Going back to Debian ensure familiarity with tools (like apt). Also, the longer release cycle is perfectly adapted for people using only Ubuntu LTS (which, in itself, is quite awkward as Ubuntu was created to allow short release cycle for desktop users). There’s also multiple companies offering Debian support if needed. And it can safely be assu…
Honest question: how is Debian's hardware compatibility compared to Ubuntu? My impression is that Ubuntu had people testing it on modern hardware, either on the Canonical side, or perhaps on the Dell side (even though I don't own any Dell now) About 10 years ago I installed Debian on a desktop, and I remember having graphics issues that I didn't have with Ubuntu. I guess I needed the proprietary driver that Ubuntu of…
- https://cdimage.debian.org/images/unofficial/non-free/images...
and apt config:
deb https://deb.debian.org/debian stable main contrib non-free
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ubuntu exists because Debian stable releases were inconveniently outdated, and Debian unstable was occasionally broken. Ubuntu also explicitly compromised "software freedom" in favor of utility, particularly by making non-free video and wifi drivers easy to install; in contradiction to Debian's pro-copyleft design. This situation has not changed. I suspect OP is considering a change from Ubuntu because Ubuntu itself…
slightly wrong. Ubuntu succeed in part because of what you mention, plus lots of marketing money. debian have caught up now. and most people seriously wanting up to date is over at gentoo or arch. But back to the "ubuntu exists" premise you started, it is because a rich guy wanted to take over debian and sell an enterprise solution based on it. remember at the time enterprise was all the rave. google was pushing thei…
I don't know if either Nix or Guix will be stable and supported for the next twenty years, but they probably won't be ruined by corporate interests. I've personally quite enjoyed learning about functional package management, where a package is seen as a pure function whose arguments are all its dependencies, the source, and the build tools. The output of the function are the binary artifacts. It's a good idea, and if…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've used exclusively Debian on all my servers and laptops for the last 20ish years. Can confirm, it will continue to keep working, however there might be some things that piss one off in a similar manner as Ubuntu's snaps. I hate systemd for example, but grudgingly accept it.
why the aversion to systemd?
My issues with it are:
- If you setup an atypical configuration, particularly involving luks volumes, it is not hard to break systemd and dracut's assumptions, and then you will have a hell of time trying to boot and survive systemd updates.
- When it breaks, figuring out what the hell is going on involves having to learn a lot of systemd, which has lots of its own unique vocabulary and logic. There are many pieces and moving parts. It feels like someone went "microservice-crazy" with the init system and like there has to be a simpler way. The surface area of systemd is enormous.
- The whole anti-split /usr crusade is excessive. You might want to have /usr as a separate volume so you can mount it with the nodev option, for example. Why should that be forbidden?
If you conform to systemd's expectations about system configuration, I'm sure it works fine regardless of its elegance/inelegance and excessive complexity. If you would like to do things differently in ways that Linux's building blocks otherwise permit, you could be in serious trouble.
PopOS for everyday use
Earlier quoted context omitted.
why the aversion to systemd?
I don't like the design at a fundamental level. It feels brittle, bloated, and not very unixy. I'd rather have my init system be a handful of microscopic executables, using text files or symlinks for configuration and text files for logging. I don't like everything depending on systemd it feels like too much complexity at the wrong part of the stack. It doesn't jive with my sense of architecture, it's not well design…
How is that different from I don't like relativity theory at a fundamental level. It feels abundant, bloated, and not very physical. I'd rather have my Newton's law with a handful of augmentation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My only complaint is that the switch to Wireplumber caused a lot of audio issues on my machine until I reverted back to PulseAudio. I could also see people not wanting Wayland by default, though that has been working fine for me and the software I use. I've only been using Fedora for 2 years, but apart from those two decisions, it's been a lot more stable than my time with Ubuntu.
> I could also see people not wanting Wayland by default It takes a single line change in /etc/gdm/custom.conf to disable it.