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?
deleted by creator
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.
Stable/unchanging (zero maintenance for several years, no new bugs appearing out of nowhere), as minimal or bloated as you want it to be (made my own custom live/installer ISO which means I can start fresh with my environment already set up in a matter of minutes), huge number of pre-packaged software, good documentation, identical base distribution across my servers and desktops, mostly sane defaults, community-backed (no or few corporate interests driving the project to shit… look what it did to Ubuntu/CentOS…).
Other Debian-based distributions don’t bring anything of value to the table for me, I’d rather use OG Debian.
deleted by creator
I use Debian as a desktop both for work and personal use because I am a boring person that doesn’t need any surprises. I have been using it since woody after moving from Mandrake Linux
What makes Debian unfit for Desktop use? Nothing. Debian is as good a Desktop OS as Mint, Ubuntu, Zorin and any other distro out there. It isn’t just for tinkerers. Perhaps it doesn’t have the amount of new user friendly features but I would rather use an OS that pushes me to learn than pushes me to be complacent and also pushes me to seek the 1-click options rather than spending 5 minutes to set something properly. Debian might not be everyone’s cup of tea… but for those who it is their cup of tea Debian will never disappoint.
I don’t see Debian as a “server only” distro.
It is good at being a headless SSH-only infrastructure server, but it’s also got a huge package set and many well-supported desktop environments, so it’s a good desktop distro as well.
Ubuntu-based stuff is getting increasingly full of snap and ESM advertising and other rubbish I don’t want.
Sure Debian might end up with older packages later in the release cycle, but it’s not much different to using Ubuntu LTS as desktop, and anyway this is largely solved these days by desktop container tech (Flatpak, Podman Toolbox, distrobox, etc).
I used Debian on my desktop and laptop for many years, eventually I felt like I was spending too much time thinkering. I switched to Ubuntu 20.04 LTS and everything works great. But the snap crap is getting in to my nerves so I’ll probably switch back to Debian next time.
These (Mint, Zorin, etc) and Debian are basically the same. You can use either of them and have mostly the same experience once you finish setting up your system. Exception here goes for Ubuntu that forces Snap. I personally go with a minimal installation of Debian and add what I need along the way. If you don’t want to set things up thoroughly, you should use a distro you think has the most functionality out of the box.
I typically install my own window manager, so Debian tends to to be perfectly fine for a base install for me.
Stability
And neither of this distros are good with stability tbh
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I started out on Ubuntu back when it was basically just Debian with more stuff preconfigured and newer packages.
So I’m intimately familiar with the .deb ecosystem.
Moved away from Ubuntu when they started trying to push their own solutions over accepted standards (Unity, Upstart, Snap) and included ads in their OS.
Moving downstream to a Ubuntu-based distro felt wrong so I moved upstream to Debian instead.I don’t think it’s the best distro out there in all respects, but it’s rock solid, dependable, predictable and I know it inside out.
Plus, it lets you choose how up-to-date vs. stable you want it to be, with its testing and unstable branches, backports, apt-pinning and third-party support. And also, how bare-bones you want it to be, since it offers a minimal installation with less hassle than Arch as well as a full bells-and-whistles system with its default installation.I use it for both. It’s rock solid and once setup and customised to my liking it’s low maintenance. Basically I wanted a stable Ubuntu. I wouldn’t say it’s a server orientated distro, it’s good at both.
Because I’m a junior sysadmin. I need to learn all the stuff as fast as I can.
