Why use a server-oriented distro for desktop? If the goal is stability, wouldn’t something like Linux Mint, Ubuntu, Zorin, etc. be a better option for desktop?

  • unix_joe@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s not server-oriented. There are people who have used it as a desktop for 25 years.

    Debian is the upstream for almost everything now. IMO, the more layers are added to Debian, the more delays or errors that can be introduced. For example, Mint was famously withholding security updates a few years ago. Ubuntu has snaps which have been consistently problematic … enough that I switched to Debian on three systems because routine updates would routinely break Firefox.

    Flatpaks have closed the gap. It is entirely possible to have up to date user applications on a stable, secure base system. Now that the Debian installer includes non-free firmware by default, the downstream distros are really just adding pretty wallpapers and color schemes. Not really worth it for the added overhead.

    So I just cut out the middle man and go straight to the source.

    Just my opinion, I’ve learned to appreciate Debian after 25 years of avoiding it and using every other distro you can think of.

    • hardcoreufo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      This has been pretty much my evolution as well. Started with Ubuntu in 2006 and would distro hop a ton but eventually come back to Ubuntu. Then I found Solus and used it for 5 years and loved it for the most part. The past two years or so Solus has been been in a transition that seems like it will last a few more years and I find it is falling behind. Went back to distro hopping and finally tried Debian and not an upstream distro. I’ve been happy as a clam with Debian and flatpaks.