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in Debian (because Debian was always mentioned as a distro good for servers, or stable machines that are ok with outdated software)
And while I get that Debian does have software that isn’t as up to date, I’ve never felt that the software was that outdated.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?
I guess its cause when people ask for distro recommendations they’re usually new to Linux, thus a more user-friendly distro that’s built on-top of Debian like a flavour of Ubuntu or Mint is a better fit than straight Debian
Outside of security patches there probably won’t be the latest version of apps available, so the software you use can be out of date and you will have to wiat for new features that have been implemented. Flatpak mostly solves this for gui user-level apps, but it’s not set up by default and can require tinkering with permissions to fix some issues.
If you have new hardware it might not work well with the kernel that comes installed, but you can enable backports and get a newer one.
Practically half the linux exo-system is built on top of debian, so you can get a different distro built on debian but with better default experience or custom guis for certain tasks like managing drivers, so people you can save time and not have to dive into terminal commands following how-to guides for various things.
I think it’s a bit boring. It’s fantastic for servers, and as a base for other distros. I did recently try it after using Mint for years (LMDE recently). I even used it with the Cinnamon DE I’m used to, and I just found it lacked some polish or something. Little niceties here and there. That’s it really. Minor drawbacks, and no advantage to me over LMDE, so that’s what I’m back to.
I haven’t read through the other responses in the thread, but I don’t think it’s the slightly old software that’s the problem. I think it has more to do with using older kernels, meaning that the latest hardware won’t always be supported (on the stable branch at least - there’s always testing and unstable too of course which may have better hardware support).
That may have changed with recent releases though - I haven’t used Debian for several years now. But if your hardware is supported then it’s a pretty solid choice.
Some other people sometimes mention that Debian isn’t as beginner friendly as Ubuntu or Mint, but my experiences have been similar to yours - I found Debian to more user-friendly than Ubuntu for example. Assuming that the hardware works of course - if it doesn’t then it obviously is a worse choice.
My FP right now:
The fact the other post was on /selfhosted kind of makes op’s point.
It felt like a “Missed Connections” ad in a newspaper. (If you’re under 40, you might have to look up what that is)
Debian is more like AOSP. It’s a starting point. Super bare. More commonly used in servers and such.
What would be considered “bare” about it? Granted, I’m not gaming on it or anything, but I’ve found it to work pretty well out of the box, just downloading software as I need - but nothing that has caused any sort of headache due to missing drivers or anything like that.
To me it seems like it would be pretty simple for most people to switch over from windows - albiet maybe not for the super beginners that have never seen a command line - but for most semi-tech literate, I would think it would be a decent entry into Linux.
Genuinely curious what is actually stripped down or missing, because maybe it’s just something that I’m not even aware that I’m missing out on, lol
Older drivers won’t support newer hardware. Only includes default apps from gnome and KDE. No DE tweaks to speak of. No performance optimizations. No Gear Lever. No fractional scaling implemented, etc. etc.
I guess it makes sense that I’m comfortable with using Debian then, lol, because I don’t know what most of those things you mentioned are - haha.
Thanks for the explanation though :)
no fractional scaling? thats a DE/WM feature not distro related
old drivers? so is every stable point release distro unless you go out of your way to get an to date kernel,
only includes default apps? you mean following the DE’s developer’s vision? (sure for gnome it is a downside for most, tweaks should 100% be included on all gnome installs)
It is a distro thing. It requires configuration and most good distros have it pre-configured.
no fractional scaling? thats a DE/WM feature not distro related
Lots of distros these days come out of the box with that pre-configured, so no, it’s not.
only includes default apps? you mean following the DE’s developer’s vision?
Yes.
I don’t know the AOSP acronym so I’ll take a guess: Always On Server Platform?
Android open source project. It’s the base behind every android variation, but it has pretty generic software (although sometimes better than the alternatives companies choose to ship instead).
Android Open Source Project, it’s the open base that the actual Android releases are built upon. It’s not really usable as is, since it lacks the required kernel blobs and software that people have come to expect (like Google’s proprietary stuff).
Also things tend to be older on Debian which isn’t the fit for more gaming oriented systems. Due to optimization not being yet available and drivers for the latest hardware
Ah, ok - yeah I can definitely see how for gaming it might not be ideal. I’ve never thought Linux was all that smooth of a transition for gamers though, no matter what OS you’re using - but I guess that heavily depends on the games you’re playing.
I guess that heavily depends on the games you’re playing
I think this is the key thing.
If you’re always buying the newest GPU to play the latest tech- envelope-pushing AAA title that requires the latest greatest driver, then you’re probably not going to have a good time with gaming on Debian.
But some of us don’t care about those types of games, or maybe in some cases we do but are willing to wait a while to play a particular title (hello Patient Gamers). In that case Debian is a nice, rock solid gaming platform.
Anecdotally, I probably do 85+% of my gaming on Debian (the rest being my steam deck). And it works fine for me because of the types of games I play and/or how long I tend to wait before getting new titles (giving Debian time to catch up).
It’s definitely not for every gamer, but I don’t think it’s as unusable for gaming as people often suggest.
Gaming on Linux has been really good for the last several years. The main issue is certain multiplayer games that intentionally block Linux users.
That in community apps, third party hardware and a bunch of other nice cities still don’t have good support unless you’re on Arch.
Things are starting to support Fedora, but it’s unlikely that we’ll ever see a lot of the more niche stuff support something like Debian.
This is mostly VR stuff tho.
It is annoying how often I find that pre-compiled binaries are only available on the aur. And if you want to install a community application for a game, you basically have to compile it from source for anything else.
Super annoying
It’s pretty smooth on bazzite aside from kernel anti-cheat games. Just run em through steam, even pirated games
Even with games that usually use kernal anti-cheat systems like battleeye, some games specifically have enabled proton support and just work as well.
The problem hasn’t been compatibility for a long time, it was developers intentionally blacklisting Linux in their anticheat. Turns out a lot of people hate their customers having freedom in their software
These days, you can install any of the gaming focused distros (Bazzite, CachyOS, Nobara, …). And you didn’t have to do anything. It just works, and works well. Steam is either installed or suggested initially. Really trivial.
Super bare. 🤣🤣🤣
Debian is probably Thee most supported distro with the most packages available.
Debian is also among the absolute best among Linux desktop options, and actually quite popular.
There’s a reason Debian is still the most forked distro.Debian is probably Thee most supported distro with the most packages available.
I’m not talking about availability. I’m talking about comes pre-installed so the user doesn’t have to go out and find them to use basic functionality.
Debian is also among the absolute best among Linux desktop options, and actually quite popular.
I did not say it was not great or popular.
There’s a reason Debian is still the most forked distro.
This is not the dunk you think it is…
While I get what you mean about things being pre-installed for super new people to Linux/terminal. . . If it has a apt package, it’s as easy as “sudo apt install xyz”. Also, I thi k Debian comes with the synaptic package manager which makes it fairly easy to install as well. With that said though, I do see your point, as it’s one more hurdle.
If it has a apt package, it’s as easy as “sudo apt install xyz”
This is the kind of ignorant shit that relegates Linux to nerd circles. What do you do with this information? What is xyz, and exactly xyz because if you get a single letter wrong it does not work. Further the user has to already know what they want, which a new user will not.
I’m talking about comes pre-installed
Apart from Steam not being a standard installed item, it is very feature full.
For 32 bit you also need to enable multi-arch.But apart from gaming it is in no way bare and very very far from “super bare”. Ans Steam is pretty easy to install.
I did not say it was not great or popular.
You wrote it was mostly for servers. Which although it is an excellent server distro, it is most definitely developed at least as much for desktop use.
This is not the dunk you think it is…
I don’t think you really understand the implications.
Apart from Steam not being a standard installed item, it is very feature full.
I’ve just given you several examples of how it’s not.
For 32 bit you also need to enable multi-arch.
Just making my point for me now.
You wrote it was mostly for servers
No I wrote that’s it’s more commonly used in servers.
I don’t think you really understand the implications.
I don’t think you do.
I think you’re treating this like a pit fight.
I dunno what that means. I gave what I felt like a very simple take and this person started to argue with me, not the other way around.
It looks like one of you is treating the other as a person deserving of respectful conversation.
Because linux distribution recommendations are written by people who have nothing better to do than be hypnotized by the jangling keys of whatever’s new or hot for people who have nothing better to do than be hypnotized by the jangling keys of whatever’s new or hot.
It’s the same reason rhel doesn’t get recommended tbh.
the jangling keys
So historically not manjaro.
That’s true a lot of reviews are from people who don’t spend more than a few hours with a distro. But I think out of the box experience matters quite a bit. I don’t like configuring and customizing stuff myself all that much and for people new to Linux it obviously matters even more that things are smooth sailing from the beginning.
What?
well there is more to the lack of RHEL recomendation, no sane person likes corporate lock in and although rhel is fairly open there is always a little bit more than with debian
I tend to think 99 percent of linux users or prospective users would exchange the modicum of what could be considered lock in if you were to really give it the most uncharitable read in the history of computing for the extensive documentation and support.
I have nothing but hate in my heart and vitriol in my guts for red hat but their linux is owed more recommendations than it gets.
I think it’s a reinforcing cycle. (I) Debian gets recommended less often for home use -> (II) less people become proficient in it -> (I)
My laptop and dev box are Debian Trixie along with two home servers that are Debian Bookworm. My gaming computer is Debian Forky. Looking for the latest stable release to play games with, which is what most recommendations are for, will tell you to use Debian stable builds but stay away from Ubuntu LTS because they’re not up to date .
Forky (testing) is a great gaming distro with the latest drivers, but people are afraid it’s unstable (which is Debian Sid), so they choose to compare other distros to the last stable release while pushing Arch and the latest Ubuntu because Debian testing is too bleeding edge for what they think of Debian, which is supposed to be stable.
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.
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.
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
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.
Glad to hear it! My pleasure, always happy to learn.
From my experience as someone who uses Ultramarine Linux currently: The download page is fine, but not great as a new user. That alone kind of pushed me away, since I wasn’t sure if I was downloading the right ISO. I can definitely tell the packages are outdated. I like GNOME desktop (which is what I downloaded), but I definitely know that other distros make customizations to GNOME that I had begun to take for granted (e.g. pre-installed taskbar via GNOME extensions). I could definitely use Debian but I find it just… a bit behind? Like it definitely works, but other distros are slightly more user friendly. Debian can be customized to match those other distros, especially with Flatpak, but any distro that isn’t user friendly out of the box I don’t want to recommend.
The reason I don’t recommend it by default is that there is no updater across releases.
The official upgrade process is to modify apt sources files and run upgrade, then full-upgrade, etc.
That’s fine for me but it makes it hard to recommend to people who may not be as willing to deal with modifying system files and reading some upgrade notes
If your sources track stable/testing or oldstable, you don’t need to change anything, that said I think the offical stance it to track the relase name (trixie bookworm etc)
alright, but you have to do it only once in every 10 years, so…
Debian always has been a stable distro. But earlier it lacked some good DE. And most beginners didn’t know or thought it was daunting to install DE. That’s why it got left out but now in past 4-5 years it has been pretty good.
While it’s true that Debian installation used to make use of a TUI and it did not have a nice GUI “live-CD” installation image for a long time (I think until 2019), Debian installation process included a default DE for way longer than that (2000). And before they did, the installation offered a choice between different window managers (back in the days before well established DE suites were even a thing).
They don’t customize the DE much, but neither does Archlinux which is a very popular distro nowadays (and the installer on that one is arguably even less friendly than Debian used to be).
Personally, I feel it has more to do with how other distros (like Mint, Ubuntu, Knoppix, etc.) have built on the work of Debian to make their own variants that are essentially Debian + extra stuff, making them better recommendations for the average people (if one thinks of those as Debian variants then I wouldn’t say Debian is “left out”). And for the not-so-average people, rolling release style distros (or even things like Nix/Guix) might be more interesting to experiment in.
Debian is generalist, with it’s strongest strength being it’s stability. That said, I’m not sure who I would recommend it to. Zorin or Mint would be better for new linux users, and Debian’s slower updates mean it will fall behind other distros for anyone wanting games. Also the rise of immutable distros means that it’s stability isn’t as much of a selling point as it used to be, if I’m worried about a kid messing up the install an immutable distro would be better than Debian probably.
I have a lot of respect for Debian, but the main people I hear using it these days are more experienced linux users who want to settle down (done distro hopping) and just have a reliable computer for non-gaming stuff.
Mostly, this makes sense to me - but at the end you stated that people who want to settle down and have a reliable computer for non gaming stuff - and I would think that this would be a parallel userbase for non gamers coming from windows. Granted you did say “experienced” Linux users, but I honestly find Debian to be extremely noob friendly after the initial Linux familiarization of how installing apps and such works. And with LLMs these days, troubleshooting any issues is pretty easy, especially on .deb . Idk, maybe I’ve just become a fanboy or something, but I just feel that the distro gets overlooked as an overly stable/outdated option for servers when I’ve had an absolute great experience so far as a daily driver (of course, not playing games)
Also the rise of immutable distros means that it’s stability isn’t as much of a selling point as it used to be
in my experience, most distros have become more stable over the years, closing the gap with debian
for example, i’ve only borked my arch install to the point i had to mess with it for 20 mins before i could get it to boot again once in the ~5 years i’ve used it as my daily and i’m not exactly careful with it
While Debian is my preferred distro, I wouldn’t reccomend it to others unless they are techy and don’t mind fiddling with things. I absolutely wouldn’t reccomend it to my grandma (I would reccomend her Mint though) and probably not to someone who just wants to play games, especially if they have an Nvidia card. I do game on Debian with a 3060, but it was cumbersome getting stuff working properly because of old drivers. I did get it working, but I think most people just want to play their games and not deal with that. I also have a nearly 10 year old laptop with Debian, and since it’s so old, everything does, “just work”, but I imagine most people aren’t also using the same 10 year old laptop.
I’ve been running debian sid on desktop for 4 years, I think. Yes, I don’t care if it breaks. I wanted to try debian and didn’t want to use old packages at that point. These days I don’t really need the latest things. I recently switched to testing - I only needed to replace a few words in a few files in /etc. I didn’t even need wiki or anything for that, because testing is almost like sid. If this doesn’t break on me majorly, I might not switch and just replace “testing” with “forky”. I’m really satisfied with debian.
Others already explained basically everything. I’d like to elaborate and offer a few examples to support them.
-
On potential users:
-
The people who look for distros to try are seen as newbies by linux users, and therefore are recommended newbie-friendly distros. Also, debian is conservative: it rarely offers shiny new things, so its desktop use isn’t high. There isn’t much to be excited about, so there are no hype cycles. The current “shiny new thing” in debian was the recent change in apt’s interface (now it formats its output into tables, for example), compare that to “atomic” distros. People often still use apt-get (it is in the guides for some reason) instead of apt so even this news in nothing to them.
-
Furthermore, software development often happens with the latest libraries around. It’s often a great help that Arch ships the latest software. Debian doesn’t have that. While languages these days have their own package managers, having the latest devtools, editors, etc. to try out is harder to do on debian. Therefore, IT students and software engineers have better time on faster-moving distros. Debian is more for the sysops/sysadmin people ( you can leave it there on auto-update and not care for 2 or more years ). The above further restricts its appeal and userbase.
-
Even further, Debian might be bigger than it seems, as others have pointed it out. Perceived marketshare is often based on desktop use. See EU OS’s FOSDEM presentation on how opensuse has a bigger company behind it than ubuntu.
-
-
On “latest drivers”:
- It used be much harder to configure Debian. Recently ( think it was with Bullseye) I installed it on an old machine, and debian didn’t install the right wifi drivers by default. I think it also lacked the proper firmware. This changed only with Bookworm. Back in 2008, I also tried it on my pentium 3 I had then. Debian didn’t have ath5k at that time, and the ndiswrapper hack was harder to pull off for me than just using mandriva, or later, lubuntu and salix.
- I heard that these days, people expect linux to fully support their hardware on day1. They also expect it to just run on any new hardware they buy. Also, games often need the latest optimizations in drivers: it might just be the thing that pushes the fps count above 30, 60 or 120. They also that they want the driver bugfixes to come ASAP. Early on during a release cycle of a game, driver updates sometimes give big improvements. While using the latest drivers on debian is possible, and not too hard (Compiling a newer stock kernel is easy, even if it complies slowly. Mesa isn’t hard either. Still, these require knowledge of old & basic dev tools, and also new ones.), ubuntu offers new drivers to LTS kernels, they are called HWE. No idea how doable this on debian, I never needed such things.
-
On “stability”:
- What people usually don’t think about it that there are different kinds of stabilities. Debian offers something like API stability, so that user-provided software on the same version of debian rarely - if ever - breaks. It’s not necessarily shipping the most stable software, but it has a guarantee that updates won’t break anything. Even a slight change can disqualify being included. This very slow process resulted in the old and famous xscreensaver vs debian drama. The abovementioned stability also applies to other distros, but to a lesser extent, I believe. Mostly due to the 2-year release cycle.
-
On “ease of use”:
- Debian doesn’t have a user repo like AUR, so it isn’t as easy to install 3rd party stuff (I know, makedeb, flatpak, snap, pkgsrc, nix & guix exist), debian is so big that anybody providing packages will do it (to list a few examples: freetube, discord, librewolf, signal, Trinity DE, and there are bleeding edge emacs packages available).
- Debian has docs, but I often just use arch wiki or the gentoo wiki to figure out stuff. I can only do that because I understand the differences and the similarities. Newbies would have trouble with this. Also, ubuntu automatically configures a few things, like installing something with a systemd service also will enable that service. Debian doesn’t do that.
How bad is the situation with security updates in sid? This page shows a grim picture: https://www.debian.org/releases/sid/
Thanks for the thorough response :)
-
