Linux

62319 readers

1275 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

161

Why is Debian always left out of the distro recommendations? (lemmy.zip)

submitted 21 hours ago by UnfinishedProjects@lemmy.zip to c/linux@lemmy.ml

133 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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in Debian (because Debian was always mentioned as a distro good for servers, or stable machines that are ok with outdated software)

And while I get that Debian does have software that isn't as up to date, I've never felt that the software was that outdated.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?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] False@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] utopiah@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] False@lemmy.world 1 points 9 minutes ago

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