this post was submitted on 10 Sep 2024
69 points (93.7% liked)

Linux

47730 readers
810 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

Related Communities

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

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
69
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by elucubra@sopuli.xyz to c/linux@lemmy.ml
 

What do you consider to be the "Goldilocks" distro? the one that balances ease of install and use, up-to-date, stability, speed, etc... You get the idea.

I'm not a newb, these last few years I've lived in the Debian and derivatives side of things, but I've used RH, Slackware, Puppy :), and older stuff, like mandrake/mandriva and others. Never tried Suse or Arch, and while Nix looks appealing, I need something to put in production rapidly. I have tried Kinoite in a VM, but I couldn't install something (which I can't remember), and that turned me off.

Oh I'm on Mint right now, because lazy, but it's acting up with a couple of VMs, which I need, I really don't have the time or desire to maybe spend two days troubleshooting, and I'm a bit fed up with out of date pkgs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] superkret@feddit.org 24 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (10 children)

Debian. I run Stable on servers and Unstable on desktops.
Although I do think OpenSUSE Tumbleweed and Arch are actually better in some aspects, I find Tumbleweed too rough around the edges (it's a derivative of Leap and that shows). And I just can't be bothered to install and configure Arch anymore. Fedora and Ubuntu are too buggy on average, Mint is too "stable" for a desktop and I don't use all the helpers that make it newbie-friendly. Slackware suffers from issues that were solved in the Linux world decades ago, and I dislike derivative distros on principle.

I've probably tried around 30-40 distros and I always return to Debian.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (6 children)

For years I used Debian. Because it worked, but also because Debian looked to me to be the purest and most solid FOSS distro. That is, it's not run by a for-profit company, and it isn't a derivative that will go away one day. It looked - still looks - like the "universal" Linux distro, which I believe is even its motto.

Firstly, is that assessment justified?

Next: the problem. A few years ago I read a disturbing report about the behind-the-scenes dysfunction at Debian. Specifically:

  • a serious dearth of maintainers
  • lots of very outdated packages with possible untreated security holes
  • silly political wrangling by Debian insiders - one representative allegation was that more time was being spent debating the positioning of a Black Lives Matter logo on the Debian site than on the technical challenges just mentioned

Possibly this was disinformation by someone with a scurrilous agenda. I want it not to be true because I believe Linux needs a flagship FOSS distro and Debian is the obvious candidate.

Can anyone set the record straight? Because when I had to do a new install I went with Ubuntu (LTS), and this was partly inspired by the above. I would really like all this to be wrong and to know that Debian is on the right path.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 12 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

I looked behind the scenes quite a bit in Debian and what you say mirrors what I saw. The project is very political and does suffer from a serious lack of man-(and woman-)power in many areas. If you do want to help, you're almost immediately hampered by the community's Byzantine structure.

If that puts you off, Arch is a more dynamic project that's easier to get into as a maintainer. But it's also organized with a more hierarchical and less democratic structure.

Additionally, you'll find the issues Debian has all over the FOSS world (The Linux kernel is especially bad). And if you work in corporate IT like I do, you'll soon notice that proprietary software organisations are no better. There's software many people depend on maintained by a single overworked and struggling person everywhere you look. Yet it still works somehow. Cause wherever there is demand, a solution is found. And Debian at least has a long-established structure with the goal of finding that solution, even though it's antiquated.

[–] piexil@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

It seems they are prepping to do something about the sea of unmaintained packages

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

This is great news! Debian is back in contention for me.

Recently Debian developer Helmut Grohne initiated the Debian development discussion around removing more packages from the unstable archive. He argued in favor of more aggressively removing unmaintained packages from the archive given the QA-related costs, additional work/complexities when dealing with major fundamental changes to Debian, and other non-trivial costs

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)