Did you know, that Debian is considered the most stable Linux distro. It's so stable that ISS switched from windows xp to Debian on all the computers onboard the ISS. (:
That was a long time ago. While most of their computers that run systems do still run Debian, most of their client laptops that they interact with use Windows 10. As for all the ground stations (ie mission control), they now use RedHat and have for a while now.
This is why I never bothered with Arch. I want to solve problems in software I write, not resolve conflicts in some other software that should just work.
That's interesting. I use Arch for the same reason. Debian always lets me down, never has correct dependencies and is a general pain to interact with on my server. Arch on my laptop though, I think I've had to mess with stuff 3 times in 4 or 5 years of using it.
Daily usage of arch for a year now. Games, kernel and driver developement, and just generic office work, and never ever had any problems wih updates or stability. So I really wonder what kind of problems people encounter
@@MaderHaker wow this clownie is a PREMIUM archie DEVELOPER! games! kernel! and drivers! all fascinating programs people can imagine! no wonder you dont have any (admitted) problems with updates, on Arch it is :)
When I‘m in the Linux world, I always run something from the Debian family, be it Grandfather Debian, Mama Ubuntu, Hip kid Pop_OS! or Cousin Raspbian/Raspberry OS. And I can always be sure that I know where to go, what to do and that updates work well.
I was in a love hate relationship with Arch for years. When I first got into Linux 10 years ago I switched from Ubuntu to Arch after a few months. While it was a pain to set everything up it felt awesome when everything finally worked in the end. But after 3 months my system broke which eventually brought me back to using Windows. I was switching back and forth from various distros back to Arch only to return to Windows when something broke again. Over a year ago I tried Fedora for the first time and fell in love. It's like you said - just turn on your computer and get work done. No need to worry about stuff breaking or troubleshooting things for hours and hours. I'm still using Fedora on my main machine and never looked back. No more distro hopping and finally no more switching back to Windows. Btw I discovered your channel yesterday and I must say that I really enjoy your content!
I had the same problem but, ironically, learing to install arch cured it. I was in a love hate relationship with ubuntu and other debian based distros for a long time. Usually it would end with trying to set something up and failing, then switching back to windows because it could do the thing anyway with less fuss. So far arch has not failed me where a lot of distros have before. The last check on my list is to get qemu/KVM working with vga passthrough and then the windows drive will no longer be needed. Can't shake Ubuntu when it comes to servers though.
@@GoldenGrenadier My comment didn't age that well tbh. I'm still not distro hopping or switching back to windows every now and then though. I switched back to Arch roughly a year after commenting and Arch is what I'm using to this very day. Yeah, stuff breaks from time to time but can usually get fixed within minutes if you know what you're doing. And I think this was the issue back then - I didn't know what I was doing which not only meant that I wasn't able to fix many issues but also meant that I caused some of them myself due to bad configurations or something similar. I'd still reccomend Fedora to most people though 🙃
Debian, I tested it out 8 years ago and stayed with it, not much reason to change once you're somewhere nice. The 'cool linuxing' part is now when installing the latest stuff, but that's more exciting than package dependency fixes. Happy you're back, really good videos.
@@Doriandotslash the thing with Debian is: even if you don't update it in a LONG time, it's possible that you just dedicate a couple hours and a simple 'apt upgrade', 'reboot', 'apt dist-upgrade' and you're done, you're in the last point release without issues. APT is a beast of a dependency resolver and provides reliable upgrades. Ahem, I'm looking at you yum/dnf 😒 And if you get tired of old software, get your repos set to Debian testing. Same feel, more frequent updates, pretty much the same rock solid stability and smooth upgrades. What I do is: Debian stable on all my 50+ servers, and Debian testing on my desktoo. Once you get the hang of apt, you don't want to touch any other package manager. I was distro hopping for some years, tried from Ubuntu to Gentoo, and I'm happy to say Debian has everything I have ever needed for the las 15 years, both at work and my personal PC/Laptop. PS. I know I sound like a fanboy, but I wanted to share the experience for you to have some more reference. Good luck with your new distro!
I run Debian on my "backup storage machine" in part for the reasons you mention. It's stable and I can log onto it a few times a year to run updates without the worry of a glitch. Debian is simply stable and reliable.
I use Debian (or Debian derivatives like Raspberry Pi OS) on all my machines. Having a uniform set of administrative tools across all installations makes sense, and Debian is utterly reliable.
Honestly I use Debian on all my work machines (I have 6 of them now, 1 desktop-server, 1 desktop, 2 test beds, 1 laptop and Dell PowerEdge R715) I run CentOS 8 Stream as bare metal on server and Debian on VM. I cannot even imagine running arch on anything serious. I am part this stage. My OS must work no matter what. Stability is my first order of business (I run ECC RAM in all Desktops and Registered ECC in server). I even would sacrifice a lot of speed for stability.
Debian is actually comparable to Arch and even Gentoo on speed. Long ago, Phoronix did some benchmarks and Debian was equal and even beat the others couple of times. :)
Thanks to your neofetch I finally decided to install debian on my desktop, I had only used it on my servers (with absolute great success, but no GUI). Thanks so much, I will never use another distro again.
Sad to see you you have not been producing the past 2 years or so, I like your presentation style and material selection. I appreciate your life situation may have changed. Hopefully you are still in good health! I went from Ubuntu, that I had been using about 7 years to Manjaro about 4 years ago. I never really felt comfortable with Manjaro for many of the reasons you indicated in this presentation. I was working away from home often for 2 - 3 weeks at a time and upon return there would be 1 - 2 GB updates waiting for me on Manjaro. Once or twice it needed more work than a simple update to get working. Ultimately I suppose I was use to and comfortable with the Ubuntu/Debian environment. I made the switch to Debian desktop about 1 years ago, perhaps with this video in the back of my mind. My main desk machine to is setup with Debian testing, which gives me more up to date software than stable. I have never had a problem yet with Debian testing to date, although the updates are bigger than I like, I suppose that's the compromise. I run a VM with Debian stable primarily to run Docker instances. On my Linux router (NFTables, bare metal), main and backup servers I run Debian stable. Again I use QEMU/KVM VM to run VMs with Docker. The benefit of Docker in a VM is that it does not muck up my firewall rule on bare metal, just the VM. I want to move and update my ISC DNS/DHCP from bare metal to Docker instances on the router, but have not got around to it yet. I have been very happy with XFCE for GUI on all my machines, most only available headless via VNC. I digressed......
@kenzøu No, troubleshooting package installs eats into your time with friends and family especially if this is your main box and you need it working to do your job.
@kenzøu I was talking about manual intervention during package upgrades as Dorian said in the video and attempting to add some humor to the comment I was replying to. It was a joke. Lighten up a bit.
Love Debian. Haven't tried Arch yet but I'm still pretty new. Made the switch from windows a few months ago. Have a server I'm still tooling around with on debian and a couple laptops on mint debian. It's fast and solid even on older hardware.
Debian stable with backports kernel is where it's at. Plus, like you said, there's so many options between flatpaks, snaps, virtual machines, containers to run particular things you need, it's great. The whole point of stable is not necessarily fewer bugs, but rather the things that you already know work a particular way will continue to do so, so that you can focus on the thing you actually wanted to work on, rather than riding the bleeding edge and updating multiple times a day.
A little PSA: The Debian live iso with GNOME currently has the Calamares installer configured improperly, leading to installation failures due to something about the "displaymanager" module. This should be fixed in Debian 10.6, which should become available by this weekend. Other live iso flavors install properly.
For anyone having issues with this on 10.5, you can use the 10.4 and just run the updates. Works fine. Get it from here: cdimage.debian.org/mirror/cdimage/archive/10.4.0-live/
Long time Debian user here. Love it. Use it on multiple desktops, servers, in production, etc. So stable that I've use auto-updating on production webservers for years without issue. As for desktop, I'm oldschool, so Mate desktop for me.
And these reasons listed are why most go with Debian and Debian based distros vs Arch. Every time I've tried to go Arch things run fine till I update, then stuff breaks and I gotta spend a ton of time doing manual fixes. I need more stability than that. That is why every machine I have now runs something either Debian or Red Hat based.
i also used archlinux two years ago. but i soon got frustrated of its frequent updates and system break. i sometimes searched hours to fix for the update break. Finally i moved to debian and i can say i m very happy. No unwanted updates or system break. Now using system more than fixing it. 😊
I understand how it feels when you arrive to the one system that is stable, and works fine according to your needs and your schedule. In my case, I tried to use Debian but never worked out for me. Instead remain with Gentoo for a long time and later moved to Arch. But there is not like dealing with a system you know how it behaves and simply works for you. ☺ The good thing is that there are so many options in Linux/BSD that some work for some users and others work for other users... unlike Windows 10 and OSX which has only 1 flavor.
Now wait a sec... In this case it's overindulging in unfounded fears because the user gets phobic about missing updates, not getting more productive or more efficient. "Works for you" can become "babies you by appealing to your irrational impulses". That's what keeps people chained to Windows. That in particular bothers me. "Caters to your insecurities" is not how to pick an OS.
Good explanation as to reason for switching, we do take good connections for granted in some areas and I never really thought about the update issue with rolling releases.
I used Gentoo on and off for about 15 years . Two years ago I switched to Debian because like you it just worked. Trying to fix broken packages and circular dependencies ate up a lot of my time. When I finally fixed the issue I didn't want to work any more. Debian is great, it's one of the oldest distros, and it's stable AF. I am fine with older software as long as it's not obscenely old because I value stability over fancy features and eye candy.
Arch is definitely recommended to all linux users, because it teaches alot of working of linux. Prior to arch i had used ubuntu for a couple of years but barely learnt anything. And i would agree that one should shift to other stable lts distros after they have learned.
Skip learning about computers. It is not a topic I am terribly interested in. But if you are there are guides available online. They're better to view on a PC that works rather one that is experiencing issues. I ran Arch once. I'll never get that 15 minutes back ever either.
I learned so much about Linux in the past 11 months without having to use Arch. Arch forces you to learn about things a computer should take care of......Let me repeat...*a computer should take care of*, NOT a human being. You can look and research on what dependencies do what, but it should never be touched and fiddled with most of the time, especially rolling release distros that are very prone to breaking. Arch is NOT a desktop distro, let alone a reliable one you can trust with your documents and photos. It gives you silly bragging rights nobody cares about, and that's as far as Arch goes. It's a distro that prevents your computer from doing its own job. Arch doesn't do "OS" very well. Even Windows isn't as bad with updates and Windows is more stable. I use MX Linux BTW.
I've used Ubuntu since around 2006, never had a major problem with it. The only time I had to fully reinstall it was when upgrading from 32bit to 64bit in about 2012. I used it as a file server and firewall machine and a few other things. I've moved the same install between computers and drives without reinstalling, I have even converted the filesystem from ext2 -> ext3 -> ext4 -> GPT -> BTRFS, although the BTRFS conversion did fail, ended up having to make a new partition and copying the files manually and fixing the boot loader afterwards. Also one time I was updating the OS to a new release and the power went out, (the timing lol) I was able to complete the install in recovery mode (although it was so broken I did not have any text in the console, had to type in commands blind and it completed and booted. My previous experience prior to that was with madrake, and that broke on every update. The debian package manager really is great. And before that I used slackware where you had to compile the OS yourself, well I was using it on super old hardware no other distro supported (386), the days before package managers was terrible.
thank you for this video, as a linux noob this sort of perspective is invaluable for someone deciding where to tip their toes, for my older hardware setups it will be debian stable all day. Still trying to figure out what's appropriate for my modern systems.. leaning towards OpenSUSE more than anything.
Debian was my first linux distro back in 05. I have tried dozens of distros since, arch, gentoo, slackware, various distros based on these- and I always come back to Debian. I Am using Debian as we speak.
If only more kids would realize how true your story is the Linux world might be better off (imho). I started learning Linux with a copy rebranded version of Redhat back in 1998. Didn't know a thing about it other than it was supposed to be similar to Unix. I bought it from CompUSA! Those were the days. So I spent all my time reading the installation "book" that came with it. I had a laptop I needed for school so it was important that I understood how to dual boot with Windows. All that is trivial now but back then not really. So that's how I started. After a couple years of rpm hell I had been reading about Debian and how "apt-get" was so much better then installing rpms. I also liked how they named all their releases after Toy Story characters. Something I always read was how stable (and free) Debian was because of their process of updating to a major release, using the same packages and kernel until the newer kernel was put through a rigorous testing process before being certified. This is why it's not as heavily used by the masses in the Linux community who want the latest greatest. Debian used the older more reliable kernel and apps that didn't and doesn't fit the "I want it now" world we live in. Your story is exactly why you can use Debian when you want something that is stable and works without having to fix anything. When you don't have to stop to fix a broken system you have more time to get things done that are more important. Thanks for the vid and your story.
if you enjoyed Debian but miss the newer packages of Arch, I find that Debian testing is a nice sweetspot. I would recommend the netinst for the base install and build from there.
Totally agree. When I sit on my workstation, I want to get work done. But I always falling back to Arch-based. Manjaro is pretty good with holding packages back so its not absolutely bleeding edge. I really like debians mindset, but I dislike using apt. While testing Debian 11 I had many problems with flatpaks, I never had problems on my arch system. I need to use some up to date apps (just because they do not connect with debians old versions, like discord). Did I mention I'm using (some kind of) arch?
I thought I was the only one who had switched back! After ~6 years with Gentoo and Arch i went back to Fedora...i can't spend anymore hours trying to get my system working :D
Debian is a very cool (and reliable) distro. Something similar happened to me, but I went to Void Linux instead of Debian (part of my dabbling into Void was in part thanks to your videos btw). I have to say that it has been rock solid stable for me. Also, the packages on their repos, although not as big as Debian's, are very well selected; every package that I used on Debian or Arch is in there, but that's just my personal case though. For fixed releases, Debian is my go to, and for rolling releases, Void has become my indisputable choice.
There is also Debian Sid ~ which is basically Debian testing version, which does get a lot of updates, (and a few bugs), and is much newer more bleeding edge software. If you're used to any Arch install, Sid is a whole lot nearer to what you're used to. And there is (I guess) a long term support release of Debian, which is even more conservative. Personally, I run with Mint + Mate as my daily driver, and I have about a dozen guests in Virtualbox, including Sid and several Arch installers. Oh, and 2 versions of Win-10, because ... it's prone to break, and there's still one or two things I can only do in Windows... With limited internet, speed or data-cap or both, vanilla Debian is a good choice.
Nice! Arch is indeed fun to play with, and it can be stable too. I just didn’t have time to mess with fixing it anymore when I had things I needed to do
Just curious. Manjaro, based on Arch, doesn't it inherit some of Arch issues? At least the rolling release related ones. I will read anyways but I could use an opinion :) I've been using Arch (btw) for like 2 years and it's been great, but I might want to switch to something that "just works" out of the box and doesn't get in the way.
@@ahidalgo94 I have been using Manjaro for over a year now, and IMO it bring the same peace of mind like Debian or Mint. It just works. You still get the updates, but it is up to you if you want to run them or not. It also plays nice with the AUR, so I believe it is kind of the best of both worlds. Granted, I downloaded and installed the XFCE version of Manjaro, I did not install the desktop environment after the initial setup
Debian is a bit like a understanding partner. Many are the times that have I wandered, looking for something flashier, craftier, more nouvelle. Many are the times that that farmiliar old text-based installer comforted me in the knowledge that the stability and functionality that I yearn is just a download away, and that my insatiable infidelity is unconditionally forgiven.
Thank you so much for your video. It helped me make up my mind on what replacement operating system I need to switch to. I had been running CentOS 6( i386 32bit ) since 2014 on a desktop. It met my needs wonderfully but is no longer supported since last month. Anyways, Debian sounds good. Stable. No gimicks or bloat like Ubuntu. Thank you for the advice. You have a new subscriber. 😊
Thank you and I'm glad to hear it! For what it's worth, RedHat is dropping CentOS entirely at the end of 2021 so it would be time to switch regardless. I think you'll like Debian for it's simplicity and stability. Cheers!
I'm always trying different distros but I always return to debian, there's nowhere I feel at home as in Debian, on computer I want to have all the new stuff I use the testing, and when I need it to be reliable stable it is. It never let me down.
you can always customize anything so distro means very little (if you know what you doin). The real reason why we stick to arch is that sooner or later you find that one program that is insanely hard to install, the one where you need to get all dependencies (which might be also hard to install), you will build it all from source, then you will update it yourself watching its repository releases etc only to realize there is package on AUR where you would **paru ** and forget about it. If there was AUR on other distros, arch would be equal to any minimal release of other distros. Last time i had to use ubuntu I was reminded why i love arch-based distros.
Debian is my way to go for anything production wise. Quite, nice and safe. But there is always that side machine were I use for trying new things and fell the adrenaline rush, that always had arch and some other new distro now and then. 😃
Please review/update your journey with Debian 11 usage and upgrading to 11, your insights may help others. Just like how Debian releases when its ready, a user is free to upgrade when he/she is ready. :)
I switched from Ubuntu to Debian around 10 years ago. After that I was hopping a bit from one distro to another. I was using Arch for a while back when it had installer. But I was always returning to Debian, mostly because how few problems I had with it in compare to other distributions. Finally I decided to just stay with Debian and I'm using it since. I like simplicity of it. Just install package you need from official repo. It's pre-configured so no need to worry about editing some config files before you can use it. It's stable so it won't crash. Just install what you need and use it.
Long term debian testing user here. In testing world you got newer packages, rolling release and although its called testing, its still solid AF. Also I even installed firefox from the unstable branch, which is easily possible using apt pinning (without using flatpaks or similar).
I personally use a lightweight Debian spin called AntiX. The install is quick and intuitive (especially compared with Debian's install!), and you can install and run a persistent version off of a USB stick. It comes with several lightweight desktop environments, chief among them (for me, at least) being IceWM, for which the distribution maintainers provide some moderately spiffed-up themes. But, at its core, AntiX is Debian - and it's a pleasant experience!
One word: stability I use Ubuntu because I like stability and I do Web Dev work so I need a supported system, and Ubuntu is still the closest to mainstream Linux system. Anything outside of a Debian based system is for people who want to feel special for using Linux. Also, before some nerd @s me. If you think Ubuntu is spyware but have a Google account, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft account, or use a smart phone then you are LARPing as hackerman and are a hypocrite. Ubuntu needs to know the hardware setup of some sample of users so theu can optimize their operating system for their actual users. It is a good thing and I am happy to tell them I am using a ThinkPad from 2012 with an upgraded processor, RAM, and two SSDs. (gotta love that old thinkpad style, i don’t need a dvd drive in 2020, so i swapped the disk drive out for a second SSD) I am probably not the only one using older hardware and Canonical having that info tells them ”hey, we need to make sure this will run on older hardware”
"Anything outside of a Debian based system is for people who want to feel special for using Linux. " Yes I didn't know IBM wanted to feel special for using Linux. "If you think Ubuntu is spyware but have a Google account, Facebook, Twitter, Microsoft account, or use a smart phone then you are LARPing as hackerman and are a hypocrite." That's about code running on the browser, not the machine. Ubuntu isn't spyware since some years ago but I don't get your point of "Don't use non-spyware OS if you have a Google, Facebook, etcetera account.". "Ubuntu needs to know the hardware setup of some sample of users so theu can optimize their operating system for their actual users." Well, that's okay and as far as I know you can even choose to tell them or not so there's nothing wrong with it. I am probably not the only one using older hardware and Canonical having that info tells them ”hey, we need to make sure this will run on older hardware” I don't know if you tried but even *BSD are supported for old thinkpads and I don't think Ubuntu can "optimize" things on a such supported hw like that since that is a kernel job. So haven't you noticed how good I was when answering your point? Let's get to the harsh part: You are just a foolish and hypocritical Ubuntu-fan boy that likes to tell other linux-distro fan boys what to do "Anything outside of a Debian based system is for people who want to feel special for using Linux. ". Grow up and learn to make a decent argument, since all you said was basically non-sense shit.
@Why, hello there! Yes it did, but when I'm not running websites like that I'd like to not be spied by my OS since the search bar was telling Amazon what I've searched for and that search was for file inside my harddisk and not an online search. Ok I'm using a Google Account and it annoys me that I'm sending tons of data to Google, but I don't use Amazon and I don't want my DE searchbar to send Amazon stuff, you know the less is better... And all that for what? For Debian with Gnome and some preinstalled programs... (Yes I know that was a little bit defiant 'cause Ubuntu has more hardware support an updated software than Debian and I know by experience)
And I used Arch (along with Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, Centos and OpenBSD) since 2014 and I can tell that "Arch is not stable" is something that was somewhat true in the past but it is no more. I've seen lots of Manjaros breaking but that was Manjaro's developer fault
I was a Debian user for a while already, a few years ago, when I decided to try Arch a bit, as there was all this hype of being so fast and whatnot. At the same time it was rumored to be very difficult to install and manage. But to my surprise and some disappointment, I didn't find it tremendously harder than Debian to manage, the only thing was really having to remember other commands and syntaxes than "apt-get this or that," but bash history handles most of it. There was even a graphical synaptic-like package manager for Arch. I got it to the point that it was virtually a clone of my Debian set-up, but it didn't feel significantly faster in any way, so I ended up getting back to Debian as it was just twice the work to keep everything up to date, with no real gain. One thing I liked a bit more in Arch was the whole boot process scheme it had, instead of SysV, which is more of a complicated network of scripts. Instead it was just one big script that you'd just add or tweak stuff as if it were a more normal script. On Debian/SysV you'd need to edit "scriptlets" in he proper place and then issue some command that would "install" them in the proper place, and they would have to have some kind of comments regarding their dependencies, whether they should start before or after this or that. It was actually more complicated, ironically. I didn't use Arch for long enough to have some situation that required a lot of manual fixing of things to have the OS working, I guess it was less than six months somewhat dual-booting, even though I'd rarely boot on Debian, instead there is this "chroot" thing that allows you to manage the Debian install from the Arch (or vice-versa), which is kind of funny, sort of feels like "cheating" in a way, not really doing all the work. "I'll update Debian... but I won't even boot on it!" But it's nevertheless more work and not much to gain from it, at least from the perspective of someone who's not a professional sys admin or something like it.
I've been a Debian user for over 20 years. I think that says something about how I like it. :-) Both for work and at home. Anything else is KVM/LXC (KVM for virtualization of Windows and Linux and some BSD-based firewall appliances, you need the last one you can't connect Windows directly to the Internet). LXC for server production Linux workloads. So production environments can be independently upgraded/managed and their is literally 0 overhead compared to virtualization. I've recently tested I can run Debian 2 as an LXC-container. Tested it for laughs because of an online discussion. So clearly LXC works very well.
@@mzs114 How would it not ? You have to remember the main developers of LXD (and do most of the maintenance of LXC) are Ubuntu developers. And it uses the same kernel infrastructure used by Kubernetes, Docker, parts of systemd, etc.
I'm currently evaluating Debian Stable. So far, so good. I don't find the software too stale. Do we really need the latest and greatest Firefox, for instance?
Nice to hear! Well, it comes with Firefox ESR, which still receives updates when needed. I personally am leaning more towards Chromium lately. I had switched from Chromium to Firefox a while back but I'm coming back to Chromium again.
This is a question only you can answer. I've been using Linux for over 20 years and most of the time I prefer rolling release on more recent hardwares and prefer really slow release on older hardwares. I did run Arch for a long time and rarely had to fix things I wouldn't need to fix on another distro... unless you start mixing a lot of packages from different places that is. I never had more problems than on Ubuntu when they started to push Unity. This was a real pain and never returned to Ubuntu after that. I think Debian, Fedora, OpenSuse, Manjaro, Arch, Mx Linux, Antix and probably Linux Mint that I didn't use much are good distros that just mostly works. They all have strongs and bad points, but should be quite easy to get going and find support when something doesn't works as expected which should be that often.
That usually means that if you are stuck with a version which lacks functionality or has a bug you have to go very difficult paths to update it: it's not only the package, but libraries, etc you need to track. and those dependencies can have sub dependencies, and so on.
The overall message about this video is the exact reason I've stuck with Linux Mint 20 cinnamon. Reasonably fast, rock solid reliable, EASY to troubleshoot and repair when needed ( which ISN'T often) , works with MUCH more hardware of all kinds out there than most distros, and for the less tech savvy out there seeking to gtf away from winblows..it's the easiest transition I have yet to see ( yes..easier than zorin os). EVERY ..single thing I used in Windows from the xp days all the way to and INCLUDING 10..just works ( I"m even playing some games from 2002 through 2004 that refuse to even install let alone work in win 7 and onward...EA sports 2002 and 2003 games as well as Prince of Persia SOT Trilogy to name a few...love it) and as a result I'm actually able to play MORE games than I ever could than with Windows. I NEVER thought I'd live to see this day happen when for my games library, I can do MORE in Linux..that in Windows..fucking unbelievable. Now I do look forward to the day where everything I need works in LMDE, but it's not quite there yet.
Linux has really picked up speed with it's capabilities over the past couple of years. And I can only imagine how much better it will be in the next couple years to come!
@@GigaPlaya Wine managed by Lutris ( and the version of wine depends on the individual game. for most games the newest stable version works..some require staging ..both are at 5.16 as of the time of this comment, but few need older versions) Sincerely, whoever created Lutris is a godsend to the Linux community who have prayed for a more SANE way of getting all or at least enough of their windows-only titles to work and KNOW how and why they work. I thank Chris Titus Tech for introducing me to Lutris a good year ago or more.
I sort of switched to Debian. I use MX Linux. It's easy to install and has both x64 AND x32 versions. That means I can install it on my i7 laptop and my old Intel Atom laptop. It works great on both.
I had a similar experience with Manjaro Arch Linux. Ran it for a year fine and then the updates started breaking things. It eventually updated to a kernel my machine couldn't handle and it broke. I can boot it up in recovery mode using one of the older kernels but I've been using PopOs for a few months and no breaking issues.
I made the same decision a couple of weeks ago to based the same reasons. And I switched from Arch to Debian stable branch on my work machine, because i tired to get the oceans of updates permanently. By the way, sometimes in Arch after updates I get some problems with any packages and utilities. Yes, it is rarely problems and when you already have some experience in Linux it doesn't need much time for fix and resolve their. But often, it is happening when you need just work right now. It irritate and distraction of work. So, Debian not ideal too and have own pitfalls , but it the best choice for me in this moment.
In my opinion, the stability you get with a fixed release distribution is more important on a work computer than having the latest version of an App. Specially now that we have universal package formats available.
Click here : images-wixmp-ed30a86b8c4ca887773594c2.wixmp.com/f/b0c18895-4493-4db4-9964-5918a270b246/d7jtiii-efe64623-7533-492c-bff8-171f9c522288.png?token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJpc3MiOiJ1cm46YXBwOjdlMGQxODg5ODIyNjQzNzNhNWYwZDQxNWVhMGQyNmUwIiwic3ViIjoidXJuOmFwcDo3ZTBkMTg4OTgyMjY0MzczYTVmMGQ0MTVlYTBkMjZlMCIsImF1ZCI6WyJ1cm46c2VydmljZTpmaWxlLmRvd25sb2FkIl0sIm9iaiI6W1t7InBhdGgiOiIvZi9iMGMxODg5NS00NDkzLTRkYjQtOTk2NC01OTE4YTI3MGIyNDYvZDdqdGlpaS1lZmU2NDYyMy03NTMzLTQ5MmMtYmZmOC0xNzFmOWM1MjIyODgucG5nIn1dXX0.phSuHSpQkS3iWdF6WZhnfW61LIzjAcIHGlxEuw_l2D4
@Rep 101 Android uses Linux as it's kernel, Ubuntu is based off of Debian, it uses APT and many other things that are part of Debian. Another example is MX Linux which is based directly off of Debian like Ubuntu is.
@Rep 101 I know what you mean, Android's Linux kernel is a lot different to the desktop linux kernel, Ubuntu is a lot different than Debian although the base of Ubuntu is Debian. Obviously being two different operating system's they are definitely different, it's like Linux Mint, they have an Ubuntu based version and a Debian based version which are very different.
@Rep 101 Debian stable uses old packages I think, Debian SID/Unstable is more like Arch Linux in the way that it's updated a lot more often. I use Arch Linux so I don't need to worry about snap since I can use the official repositories for most things and then the AUR for everything else.
For a middle ground of "stable but old" and "bleeding edge" you can use "testing" instead of buster and you will have a somewhat rolling distro without huge updates.
valije Yes, or go one step further and use Sid. But for me I decided to use Backports in Stable and it works great. This gives you newer software running on the Stable branch.
I installed Debian Stretch on a 72 year old woman's laptop. She spent an entire year without using apt update and apt upgrade. After a year she made the updates and changed the repository to the Buster version, and continues to use it well.
Haha that's awesome! Stability at it's finest. I do hope that you at least enabled the automatic upgrades (unattended-upgrades)for security patches yes? :D
Even I had to take the same decision. Manjaro update screwed the boot and it was bit tough to repair with my education going on. Since I use Nvidia, I jumped to PopOS for the stable Nvidia drives.
Yeah. People who are new to Linux tend to dislike it. Especially nowadays with such nicer installers. Coming from Arch, it can be nice to just have an installer period lol
I too have issues with Debian installer, esp the partitioning part. It doesn't recognise previous encrypted partition (not without some circus) to point one. But I didn't know Debian Live comes with Calamares installer. There's always something to learn from your videos Dorian. Thank you. I came to similar conclusion, that it is better to run Debian stable with flatpaks for needed packages. Best of both worlds so to speak...
Just before the 6:00 point you suggest the PRO idea of using the live distro debian ISO...yet I would like to add ONE THING to that pro advice, make sure you take the LIVE WITH NON-FREE EXTRAS version of that. This one is SUPERIOR (for most people) to the standard one for pretty obvious reasons. Just thought I would add that important point as I have JUST LIKE U only 2 distros that I have as favs...Debian & Arch.
3:09 "Oh yeah he's totally going to say it didn't boot anymore" "And theennnn, it wouldn't boot into Arch anymore" This is the most relatable thing in the universe hahahaha.
A toy is a toy. I've managed to make lawyers adopt linux. As a 20 year networking and Unix pro I do serious work with linux.... Don't have time to rice or toy around.
Debian is amazing and with Flatpak or snap (if you want) you really can have certain programs be the latest if you need them to be and then keep as many as possible from the Debian repo's for stability. Visually, you would not be able to tell the difference between my Arch machine and my Debian one, both run KDE with sweet theme and look identical. They both perform extremely well. The only difference is one of them needs hand holding and the other will be fine in 15 years.
I hate how unstable linux is. I have been with it for 3 years and i have managed to break every distro. From ubuntu to Arch.... I had no idea debian was so stable. I have been using it for 3 days now since bullseye released. And i haven't had any issues :'D i am truely inlove with debian 11. I dont mind using older software aslong as it works! Which is all that matters to me.
Been on Debian full time for over a year now and have no reason move, also if your on the testing branch your getting pretty up to date software anyway, sure your behind arch that can be a good thing sometimes. Debian is great.
This is why Debian runs the computers of the International Space Station. I love Debian, but too many manual things to do after installation. This is why I go with MX. LMDE is a great option too.
Arch was fun when I had a lot of extra time on my hands to eek out every RAM/background service savings on my crap laptop I used through college. Now I just install whatever is the easiest and quickest to get up and running and get some work done. Good times :)
Arch doesn't take up much time. Well, not much of mine anyway. If you are continually tinkering with Arch, you're doing it wrong. I run Arch with Openbox and it's an absolute pleasure to use. A whole year since I installed it and not so much as a hiccup yet.
@@johnc3403 it is a lot of time if you don't know what you want yet. Back in college I was jumping between different window managers and DEs to get that perfect mix of low RAM/CPU use and accessibiliy. It was more of a need for me rather than a desire to customize, really, given my laptop had a gig of RAM and a pre-2010s Celeron processor. Now I just use whatever the distro preps for me. Even cheap laptops today have decent processing power for something like Cinnamon. I still don't touch Unity and KDE though haha
