51–60 of 345 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, if there's one thing open source projects are known for, it's dated websites
Could you be more specific? What exactly should Debian's website offer that it currently isn't?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people view Ubuntu as a bit dirty Look even further at Devuan, made by people who conder Debian as a bit dirty. (I use both as needed, I'm just riffing on your comment)
Where Debian is a reputable distribution with a clear goal, the Devuan crew is solving a non-issue by means of almost religious levels of resistance toward systemd. If you want technological merit, chose Debian. If you want to join the conservatives of Linux, you should go for Devuan.
I think Debian/Fedora(or RedHat if you're willing to pay) are fine on the enterprise side. For personal use... I fell in love with Arch. Between the Arch User Repository (AUR) and the quick upgrades, I really struggle to use anything else these days. Arch takes a bit more work to get online than some of the other distros, but I've been amazingly happy running it across all my personal machines (from desktops to lapto…
Something that is hard to quantify - arch uses vanilla software, almost entirely. Very very few patches/configurations are deployed. This means you're actually learning about the upstream software, not the distro.
What you learn on Arch, generally applies to other distros as you know something about the upstream software. I don't know a thing about debian, but I can generally figure things out.
Why do people say it’s not pure? How does it affect me? So far everything seems nicely enough documented and works mostly conveniently out of the box.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where Debian is a reputable distribution with a clear goal, the Devuan crew is solving a non-issue by means of almost religious levels of resistance toward systemd. If you want technological merit, chose Debian. If you want to join the conservatives of Linux, you should go for Devuan.
Even during Debian's systemd adoption wars I'd never seen any argument calling into question Devuan as ''disreputable''. After all, it was a group of experienced Debian folks that made a systemd-less version of Debian that compares almost exactly with Debian's status and capabilities. I hope in your case you have not been forced to use Devuan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> people view Ubuntu as a bit dirty Look even further at Devuan, made by people who conder Debian as a bit dirty. (I use both as needed, I'm just riffing on your comment)
> I use both as needed In what case do you need to opt for a different init system than systemd? Genuinely curious, as I've been using debian with systemd for almost a decade now and haven't run into any issues regarding it.
Look no further than Debian. After switching from Ubuntu I started to understand why people view Ubuntu as a bit dirty.
Ok, but which release channel? And can I convert an Ubuntu into a Debian by reinstalling it while keeping my home directory?
For home use, Debian testing is usually a good balance between things not breaking and things not being ancient.
For servers, Debian stable is probably a better choice.
Up until recently I had a server running Debian Jessie with 1,802 days of uptime. It served a decent amount of traffic. Services on there ran unattended for literally years and it was rock solid. I ended up decommissioning the server because for the same price I could get better hardware specs so I made a new server and put on Debian Bullseye (the latest stable release as of mid-2021).
With Docker being a thing now, Debian's older but more stable package versions for app level things (programming runtimes, databases, etc.) is less of an issue because you can run them in Docker. However you can get stable core system packages with Debian's impeccable track record. IMO I wouldn't run anything other than Debian on a server (including base Docker images).
For a personal distro, I think it gets more complicated. It's personal preference based on what you value. Using Debian's unstable channel could be an option for having the latest releases on things while still being stable even though it's labelled "unstable". Arch is another choice. There's many others.
Stable? Debian or Fedora. For an end-user machine, I've found that rolling release is much better than point release (much newer, less buggy/crashy -- paradoxically -- versions of software and GPU drivers). (Although, surprisingly, Fedora seems to have very fast package updates despite being a point release.) For rolling, Manjaro is my top pick. Arch is a close second, assuming you've mastered the arcane art of its i…
Archinstall [1] exists, so there isn't much reason to use Manjaro anymore (which has a lot of its own issues anyways [2])