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in Debian (because Debian was always mentioned as a distro good for servers, or stable machines that are ok with outdated software)
And while I get that Debian does have software that isn’t as up to date, I’ve never felt that the software was that outdated.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?
In my opinion, Debian is best for small, specific purposes that don’t change much over time. I used Debian for a bit as a home PC, mostly for making music with bitwig and gaming on steam as well as freetube/media consumption.
I had trouble with apps having conflicts, and combined with an nvidia card, the experience got worse over time and I had to separate my system into different bootable linux systems on the same drive, one distro for gaming and one for music. Some apps were deb files, some were apt, some were direct from websites and others immutable type apps, a mess.
Eventually I tried Arch based systems and liked how unified pacman is and how there are meta-packages full of music and RT. Then moved to Cachyos because it is just so much less annoying that vanilla Arch maintenance for me. I also used endeavorOS for a while, but at one point started having endless crashes from that distro across 2 different PCs (some black screen video issue with nvidia GPU).
As to how that applies to what I would recommend:
I think Debian is good at specific use-cases, but poor as an everyday home PC imo. Also, Debian is so barebones that things like a firewall aren’t pre-configured, which makes it more of an intermediate distro that seems easy on first glance.
I wouldn’t recommend Ubuntu personally, because the last few times I have tried it I found it buggy and I don’t like snaps. But there are so many Debian derivative distros that in some cases Ubuntu is the best option, for example, Ubuntu Studio is actually pretty nice for quickly making creative content. There also Ubuntu distros pre-configured for other purposes.
Linux Mint seems to have outdated packages, but overall decent for beginners because it is a debian/ubuntu sub-distro that has a lot of polish and is really good at hardware detection on installation. I also think the linux mint DE is pretty good for new users.
I like using Debian stable because I don’t like being bothered every ten minutes about updates. I need a newer version of something I install a Flatpak.
Once I installed Debian on an old eMMC weak netbook for a friend after trying about 6 other distros that all had some problem or another, including Mint and Xubunto. Debian worked flawlessly
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.
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.
Why would one recommend Debian? I guess being actually community made might be worth it for some.
It’s not particularly beginner friendly.
apt is kinda meh.
Using up-to-date software isn’t just for the users. It’s for the devs too so they don’t need to deal with bug reports for long fixed issues.
For desktop use debian sucks. I dont want to wait a year to update my apps. For servers its fine. Arch and Nix are my favorite rn and im looking to convert my home media server into Nix soon.
I dont want to wait a year to update my apps
Why? Are they not working as-is?
I spent most of last year running LMDE6 and while it started off good, things just got more frustrating to troubleshoot and the system felt buggier over time. (Which I know is not how things are supposed to be for “stable” Debian.) Switched to CachyOS a couple months ago and things work so much smoother.
My 2¢:
I think it’s gamer discourse bleeding out into other fields. Gamers need the newest libraries and the newest drivers or their stuff might not run as well as it possibly could, because gaming is a relatively young but aggressively growing field with the Linux ecosystem in general. Sure games have always been around, but it’s never been the focus.
Now that gamers are switching more frequently, and that the average user is likely to play a game occasionally, it’s becoming relatively important that packages be up to date for desktop workloads.
Doesn’t steam still ship Ubuntu 12.04 software libraries?
Considering games are the most intensive things most people will use their computer for, I think it’s fine to optimize for that use case and assume everything else will be “fine”
you’re probably right as to why.
I’ll note that on my gaming desktop I decided to try out Debian instead of my usual choice of Fedora and its worked fine for gaming with latest gen CPU and GPU. I did install the steam flatpak which will have a newer version of Mesa. I think this is a good middle ground for a system you don’t want to mess with too much.
Gamers need the newest libraries and the newest drivers or their stuff might not run as well as it possibly could
No they don’t. They think they do because they believe they run their precious expensive hardware only at 99% whereas they imagine, I bet due to trying to compete with each others on benchmarks, that with the absolute latest driver they can actually push their GPU at 99.99% and gain .1FPS in the most popular game they might not even like and 2 points in the trendy benchmark.
Source : I’m a gamer playing on Debian, from indie to AAA, from 2D to 3D to VR, and it just works. Sure I’m not at 99% perf on my hardware, I might even be at 80% but I’m definitely spending 0% time tinkering and 100% having fun.
With how frequently I have to wait on mesa updates, kernel updates and package updates to even hit my arch systems for functionality.
No fucking world exists where Debian with out a bunch of fucking around has 1/2 those fixes in reasonable time frame.
In fact I know they don’t cause I frequently have to put my Debian install aside to play various games because the fixes and packages required literally do not come fast enough.
I’ve literally had to wait for fixes to hit new mesa versions to play newly released games. Having those packages be up to date is just going to be a better experience for people that care about that kind of stuff
Newer packages will in theory always be better, that doesn’t really matter which distribution or use case (gaming or not) one has.
Even if Debian were generating packages the second a pull request was accepted and making it available to everyone and any one it wouldn’t change that the next pull request would, in theory (without regression) be more up to date.
If people have to wait 1s or 1 year, for gaming or not, they can have fun.
If hardware is not properly supported though it’s a different issue. It means people need to buy hardware that is well supported. It’s not specific to a distribution.
I’m playing old and new games on the SteamDeck and it works even if I don’t update it. That’s how things should be, that’s how things already are.
Anecdotes, even if important personally of course, showing things don’t work in a specific context don’t make a trend. There are plenty of things that don’t work well on Debian but also on Arch, Mint, etc and of course on Windows too. It’s very annoying but I don’t see how that helps.
My example applied to all distros, the difference would be the time it takes that code change (which resolved a critical to me bug) takes to actually be available to use.
There’s also very little that’s specific to me about that, it’s a real use case that comes up repeatedly for new releases that tend to push things graphically. I’m only going to recommend distros that minimize the time to get those fixes because it’s a better user experience for the target demographic with little downside.
I’m sorry but I might be totally out of the loop here, do gamers use Mesa? I thought proprietary drives from NVIDIA and AMD, sadly, was what most people actually used nowadays. Again to be clear I’m NOT saying it’s a good thing (it’s not!) just wondering what’s the actual share of users relying on it.
Edit: oh, looks like Mesa is now the default for AMD “AMD promotes their Mesa drivers Radeon and RadeonSI over the deprecated AMD Catalyst” (via Wikipedia), then yes it’s a big deal. Still makes me wonder what’s the current share but mostly out of curiosity.
Mesa has been the defacto standard for AMD for years. It’s always performed better than the official driver. AMD just made it their official recommendation recently.
I think Intel also uses Mesa, with Nvidia being the odd one out
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)
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.
As much as I’d like to recommend Debian, its release cycle really leaves a lot to be desired for pragmatic computer users.
Bugs stick around for years, and with each new release you get new bugs that won’t be fixed for years.
It could be better if the ecosystem had more support, but as it stands right now there are just better options for the desktop space.
It’s fine for servers because they have the resources to make sure server programs aren’t a buggy or featureless mess.
It’s not user-oriented the way the distros based on it are. apt is mediocre and slow compared to a lot of other distros package managers.
The out of date software is really important for new users for one big reason, and that’s hardware compatibility. Arch Linux, especially with AUR DKMS, can work with basically anything supported by Linux. Debian will struggle with anything sorta new. Having on old kernel, like Debian does, is one of the worst things a distro can do, for performance, for compatibility, and more.
Their software is also actually super duper out of date, too. To the point where KDE on Debian and Kubuntu is several versions out of being supported. A lot of software developers are sick of people reporting fixed issues because the user is using Debian, so they tell them to use a more up to date distro.
Also has to be said that KDE on those slower-moving distros is actually buggier than on up-to-date distros. I have to use Kubuntu LTS at work and it has so many more glitches and crashes compared to openSUSE Tumbleweed and NixOS on my personal laptop.
Debian and Red Hat are the foundation for most of the popular distros out there.
It really depends on the situation. Hardware support is definitely better than it used to be and everything in linux is hackable regardless of distribution if needed, but the reason I haven’t switched my main tower from Arch to Debian is that fear of requiring extra work for things like gaming and music production. If you’re running the newest and latest hardware you might run into an issue depending on the kernel version being used, etc.,
That being said, I use Debian every day on my thinkpad and love it. I have an interest in migrating away from Ubuntu Server and toward Debian for servers as well. I don’t think I’ve ever heard it “not recommended”, just similar caution expressed.
