Long story short, I have a desktop with Fedora, lovely, fast, sleek and surprisingly reliable for a near rolling distro (it failed me only once back around Fedora 34 or something where it nuked Grub). Tried to install on a 2012 i7 MacBook Air… what a slog!!!!! Surprisingly Ubuntu runs very smooth on it. I have been bothering all my friends for years about moving to Fedora (back then it was because I hated Unity) but now… I mean, I know that we are suppose to hate it for Snaps and what not but… Christ, it does run well! In fairness all my VMs are running DietPi (a slimmed version of Ubuntu) and coming back to the APT world feels like coming back home.
On the other end forcing myself to be on Fedora allows me to stay on the DNF world that is compatible with Amazon Linux etc (which I use for work), it has updated packages, it is nice and clean…. Argh, don’t know how to decide!
Thoughts?
I am not in the mood for Debian. I like the Mint approach but I am not a fan of slow rolling releases and also would like to keep myself as close as upstream as possible, the Debian version is the only one that seems reliable enough but, again, it is Debian, the packages are “old”. Pop Os and similar are two hops away from upstream and so I’d rather not.
Is Snap really that bad?
Edit: thank you all for sharing your experience !
People dont hate on ubuntu cause its inherently bad. They hate on it because its a corporate distro and they do some questionable stuff sometimes. The OS runs fine.
Why not debian unstable? Its better than ubuntu in pretty much every way imo. Somewhat less user friendly i guess.
Is Debian unstable really unstable or is just like.. Ubuntu?
Debian unstable is not really unstable, but it's also not as stable as Ubuntu. I'm told that when bugs appear they are fixed fast.
I ran Debian testing for years. That is a rolling release where package updates are a few weeks behind unstable. The delay gives unstable users time to hit bugs before they get into testing.
When I wanted certain packages to be really up-to-date I would pin those select packages to unstable or to experimental. But I never tried running full unstable myself so I didn't get the experience to know whether that would be less trouble overall.
It's unstable in the sense that it doesn't stay the same for a long time. Stable is the release that will essentially stay the same until you install a different release.
Sid is the kid next door (Iirc) from Toy Story who would melt and mutilate toys for fun. He may have been a different kind of unstable.
Neither is unstable like an old windows pc.
Unstable is pretty damn stable, feels arch-y to me, and arch rarely has issues. If there are issues they're fixed fast.
Testing is the middle ground. Tested for a bit by unstable peeps but thats it.
IIRC packages have to be in unstable with no major bugs for 10 days before migrating to testing. It's a good middle ground IMO.
Of course, you could always run unstable and be the one to report the bugs :)
It's not actually unstable, more accurately it's tested and verified as much as Debian stable, meaning it's fine for desktop use but I wouldn't use it for a server or critical system I plan on running 24/7 without interruption, both since it may have bugs that develop after long term use and gets more frequent updates which will be missed and render it out of date quickly if it's running constantly.
It's relatively alright for something that's called unstable. There is also testing which is tested for at least 10 days. And you can mix and match, but that's not recommended either.
I wouldn't put it on my server. And I wouldn't recommend it to someone who isn't okay with fixing the occasional hiccup. But I've been using it for years and I like it.
However, mind that it's not supported and they do not pay attention to security fixes.
I used to run Debian testing on my servers. These days I don't have much free time to mess with them, so they're all running the stable release with unattended-upgrades.
To be clear, it can still get security updates, but it's the package maintainer's responsibility to upload them. Some maintainers are very responsive while others take a while. On the other hand, Debian stable has a security team that quickly uploads patches to all officially supported packages (just the "main" repo, not contrib, non-free, or non-free-firmware).
Thanks for clarifying. Yeah I implied that but didn't explain all the nuances. I've been scolded before for advertising the use of Debian testing. I'm quite happy with it. But since I'm not running any cutting edge things on my server and Docker etc have become quite stable... I don't see any need to put testing on the server. I also use stable there and embrace the security fixes and stability / low maintenance. I however run testing/unstable on my laptop.
Use MX Linux instead, I will never go back to something else
What are the advantages in your opinion?
It's a dumping ground for new packages. Nobody makes any guarantees about it. It's supposed to be used only as a staging area by developers.
It may happen to work when you install it or it may crash constantly. You don't know.
Doesn't Debian still ship with X11 by default? For my desktop use, I can't go back from wayland.
Havent installed debian with a desktop environment in a long time. If its still default then its just that, default... meaning you could change it
I prefer software with defaults that are in line with my preferences. I rather have sensible defaults and a nice OOTB experience, instead of fighting my distro and it's packages.
Thats fair. I've jumped that ship a while back.
I checked and they seem to use wayland by default on gnome at least
Don’t think so. I mean it has X11 but I’m running Wayland can’t remember if it was installed by default though.
Side question on this, why are people suggesting Debian, a stable but “old” distro, but never mention RHEL / Rocky? They are on par with stability (and quite possibly RHEL wins on it). Did you know that you can get a free licence if you register as a developer?
If we pretend the issue is just the corporate aspects of Ubuntu/Canonical, Red Hat and RHEL have all of those and then some. People just try not to think about that because Fedora is so nice.
As for Rocky: The status of that is pretty much in massive flux since Redhat bounce between tolerating it and wanting it to be even deader than CentOS depending on the day.
The thing is R Hell can't legally block rocky from using their source, unless they break GPL or stop publishing their images to iron bank.
Are we really back to the 00s? Are we going to start calling it Micro$hill next?
And "Legally it can't be stopped" doesn't really bode well for long term support in the context of contributors and so forth. It won't prevent me from using Rocky (I actually really like it for servers I will likely re-image sooner than later) but it also means I am not going to recommend it to people looking for a distro.
When looking at the 8.x and 9.x releases Rocky is the most popular distro for enterprise Linux. Even more popular than R hell, and yes I'm still bitter about what they did to centos.
Technically they have to give the code to people who use their product. And the general public is not it. Except I guess the free license one would be problematic. Unless their is something in the license for your use.
You do not have to sign a licensing aggreement when you pull the image from Iron Bank, or spin up cloud VMs. In both of those cases you will get access to their source.
As the other reply said, Fedora and RHEL harbor the same problem as Ubuntu in terms of corporate backing.
They're all as stable at it gets when it comes to linux distros; all those "server distributions".
I guess people recommend debian because that's what they know. It's got the biggest community, so the most support.
Nothing against Rocky, but i wont recommend it if i've never used it.