As someone who has been using Ubuntu for 10 years, I am sad that I don't know more about the intricacies of Linux.
I know more than I did 10 years ago... But probably would really be uncomfortable running arch.
I think I will install Debian 24.04 as my desktop (daily driver) this year and be done with Ubuntu. Hopefully I learn some more and eventually try out Arch on my laptop.
You’d have to wait a while for Debian to reach version 24
I like Debian - it’s foss and stable
See you in 48 years
Lol yeah, what is their release schedule like? Any speculation on when 13 is coming out?
I just assumed Ubuntu releases were based off of Debian.
Ubuntu maintains it's own package library which is far newer then Debians but less tested/stable. Debian only releases new version when it's team feels their ready. However Debian does keep up to date with security patches
If you would like a distro that keeps itself up to date try out Fedora, it's updated every 6 months and has been super popular lately
Note that if you use flatpacks they will be up to date no matter what distro you choose, making Debian a very stable option while still getting new features in applications
Edit: edited to answer the question more clearly
I would not claim that Ubuntu is anything but stable. We run a bunch of Ubuntu lts servers at work and there’s hardly any issues. Found a 16.x the other day with over 500 days uptime driving signage. That was desktop version.
I use Debian because of the OSS focus, and stability. And because I know the distro fairly well. They’re conservative in choice of tools and for instance only went full systemd a few years back (5?)
I don’t mind systemd but I don’t mind sysv init either. Even slackwares scripts worked fine. If it’s not broken don’t fix it.
However Debian does keep up to date with security patches
Only if you use the stable version. Debian has a security team that handles quickly uploading patched versions of Debian packages, but only for stable. Debian testing and unstable aren't handled by the security team and instead require the package maintainers to upload security updates (which can lag behind)
There is no Debian 24.
Just install Linux Mint or maybe even Fedora
I'm considering trying Mint Debian Edition once my new laptop arrives (pre-ordered Framework 16)
You can also play with it in a virtual machine. It won't give you quite the same experience for your specific hardware, but you will get a feel for how it works, especially the package manager etc.
I like Mint for Ubuntu's simplicity without Canonical's bullshit
Check out MX. It's Debian, but it has some improvements for desktop use.
Just last week I was arguing with a bunch of #ubuntu fan boys here about how that system prevents you from learning, how Debian is a tiny bit better, but with arch/based systems you both have a reliable daily runner and be able to learn as much as you can take.
The more you learn the more aggravating debians (mint-ubuntus) become, forcing their choices on you. Arch respects and rewards people who want to do it their way. They provide the blocks, you build your system.
Arch is unstable and pacman is prone to breakage. That's not necessarily bad for some people but for people who want everything to be reliable and stable it is problematic
And you are either an ubuntu/debian troll or pretending to know something.
Can you show us some reference of how/when pacman broke last?
Arch-testing has been more stable than sid ever was, and it was rare that sid ever broke.
And I haven't used systemd EVER, unless that is where ALL the instability comes from, and I missed it, from wheezy to arch-testing
Arch uses systemd so you haven't use Arch if you haven't used systemd. That probably doesn't change anything. You are welcome to not use systemd I could care less.
Arch is unstable because it ships packages that are brand new compared to Debian stable (not sid) that ships packages that have been tested for 2 years. Debian also used to only be free software but that has changed as of recently. (Stability and security are the exception)
Debian sid is the Debian unstable branch which has little to no testing. Software goes from there into the testing branch before finally making it into stable. By the time that happens its unlikely you will ever find a bug as the vast majority of the bugs have been found.
On the other hand, Arch pulls the packages as soon as possible as its user base prefers newer packages over stability. That's fine but to say it is somehow more stable is incorrect. For instance, here are some recent issue on Arch:
My point here isn't to say Arch is bad. My point is that you can't just leave Arch by itself for years on auto update without issue. Updating Arch often requires reading of changes and manual fixes. Some people enjoy that, others do not.
bad package update, can't boot (GRUB)
didn't update in a few weeks, update, can't boot
update script on endeavour gave up at some point, and so I couldn't boot if I didn't manually mkinitcpio after updating
I used it for 2+ years on multiple devices, and almost never updated without having a flash drive nearby to arch-chroot. I ran Mint before that for about the same time, it never crashed let alone failed to boot. I'm now on MX+Nix and get the best of both worlds.
As someone who has been using Ubuntu for 10 years, I am sad that I don't know more about the intricacies of Linux.
I know more than I did 10 years ago... But probably would really be uncomfortable running arch.
I think I will install Debian 24.04 as my desktop (daily driver) this year and be done with Ubuntu. Hopefully I learn some more and eventually try out Arch on my laptop.
You’d have to wait a while for Debian to reach version 24
I like Debian - it’s foss and stable
See you in 48 years
Lol yeah, what is their release schedule like? Any speculation on when 13 is coming out?
I just assumed Ubuntu releases were based off of Debian.
Ubuntu maintains it's own package library which is far newer then Debians but less tested/stable. Debian only releases new version when it's team feels their ready. However Debian does keep up to date with security patches
If you would like a distro that keeps itself up to date try out Fedora, it's updated every 6 months and has been super popular lately
Note that if you use flatpacks they will be up to date no matter what distro you choose, making Debian a very stable option while still getting new features in applications
Edit: edited to answer the question more clearly
I would not claim that Ubuntu is anything but stable. We run a bunch of Ubuntu lts servers at work and there’s hardly any issues. Found a 16.x the other day with over 500 days uptime driving signage. That was desktop version.
I use Debian because of the OSS focus, and stability. And because I know the distro fairly well. They’re conservative in choice of tools and for instance only went full systemd a few years back (5?)
I don’t mind systemd but I don’t mind sysv init either. Even slackwares scripts worked fine. If it’s not broken don’t fix it.
Only if you use the stable version. Debian has a security team that handles quickly uploading patched versions of Debian packages, but only for stable. Debian testing and unstable aren't handled by the security team and instead require the package maintainers to upload security updates (which can lag behind)
There is no Debian 24.
Just install Linux Mint or maybe even Fedora
I'm considering trying Mint Debian Edition once my new laptop arrives (pre-ordered Framework 16)
You can also play with it in a virtual machine. It won't give you quite the same experience for your specific hardware, but you will get a feel for how it works, especially the package manager etc.
I like Mint for Ubuntu's simplicity without Canonical's bullshit
Check out MX. It's Debian, but it has some improvements for desktop use.
Just last week I was arguing with a bunch of #ubuntu fan boys here about how that system prevents you from learning, how Debian is a tiny bit better, but with arch/based systems you both have a reliable daily runner and be able to learn as much as you can take.
The more you learn the more aggravating debians (mint-ubuntus) become, forcing their choices on you. Arch respects and rewards people who want to do it their way. They provide the blocks, you build your system.
@youngGoku @mr_MADAFAKA
Arch is unstable and pacman is prone to breakage. That's not necessarily bad for some people but for people who want everything to be reliable and stable it is problematic
And you are either an ubuntu/debian troll or pretending to know something.
Can you show us some reference of how/when pacman broke last?
Arch-testing has been more stable than sid ever was, and it was rare that sid ever broke.
And I haven't used systemd EVER, unless that is where ALL the instability comes from, and I missed it, from wheezy to arch-testing
@possiblylinux127
Arch uses systemd so you haven't use Arch if you haven't used systemd. That probably doesn't change anything. You are welcome to not use systemd I could care less.
Arch is unstable because it ships packages that are brand new compared to Debian stable (not sid) that ships packages that have been tested for 2 years. Debian also used to only be free software but that has changed as of recently. (Stability and security are the exception)
Debian sid is the Debian unstable branch which has little to no testing. Software goes from there into the testing branch before finally making it into stable. By the time that happens its unlikely you will ever find a bug as the vast majority of the bugs have been found.
On the other hand, Arch pulls the packages as soon as possible as its user base prefers newer packages over stability. That's fine but to say it is somehow more stable is incorrect. For instance, here are some recent issue on Arch:
https://archlinux.org/news/openblas-0323-2-update-requires-manual-intervention/
https://archlinux.org/news/incoming-changes-in-jdk-jre-21-packages-may-require-manual-intervention/
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/linux-kernel-update-kills-laptop-displays
My point here isn't to say Arch is bad. My point is that you can't just leave Arch by itself for years on auto update without issue. Updating Arch often requires reading of changes and manual fixes. Some people enjoy that, others do not.
bad package update, can't boot (GRUB)
didn't update in a few weeks, update, can't boot
update script on endeavour gave up at some point, and so I couldn't boot if I didn't manually mkinitcpio after updating
I used it for 2+ years on multiple devices, and almost never updated without having a flash drive nearby to arch-chroot. I ran Mint before that for about the same time, it never crashed let alone failed to boot. I'm now on MX+Nix and get the best of both worlds.