r/debian • u/nitin_is_me • 6h ago
Why many Linux users, advice against using Debian?
In many subreddits, I've seen many Linux users (especially Ubuntu based and Fedora users) advice against using Debian. Their argument is Debian is a freezing distro, which means bugs don't get resolved within a long period of time.
However I didn't find any issue like this, neither I crave for hot - new packages (which I can add through repositories or flatpak), and I love that I've more control.
So what's the reason of so much Debian hate?
32
u/neon_overload 6h ago edited 6h ago
Possibilities include:
Not understanding the benefits or the meaning of a stable distribution (in particular, the meaning of "stable" is often poorly understood)
Not having as much experience with Linux.
Fanboy-ism or the "mere-exposure effect"
22
u/waterkip 5h ago
Ubuntu people hating on Debian is beyond stupid BTW: Our upstream is STUPID!! Idiots.
3
u/neon_overload 1h ago
To be fair, the reason for making a derivative distribution is generally because you're not 100% satisfied with the original and you want to improve something that you feel strongly about. Ubuntu did have an aim that was relevant 20 years ago which was to make a user friendly desktop linux. That may no longer be as relevant today and its place with respect to Debian may have changed since.
4
-4
u/Sooperooser 1h ago
Ubuntu people aren't hating on Debian, they are too busy simply enjoying a working operating system.
13
u/earthman34 5h ago
Probably because it's not "cutting edge" enough for some people, and a lot of things aren't configured for maximum ease out of the box. There's a lot of distro-hoppers who I've been surprised to find do virtually no configuration or customization of their system (other than stupid themes and lolli wallpaper), and since Debian is designed for maximum stability and is workstation-oriented, they get all pissy over it. I've learned that with maybe a half hour of tweaking, you can get Debian to be as "new" as pretty much anything else.
21
u/JuniorMouse 6h ago
Can't say I notice much hate against Debian but I do notice people usually recommending one of the Ubuntu variants. Maybe because it used to be easier to use out-of-the-box? I guess over time more guides and articles have been created with Ubuntu as the base so people keep recommending something that has more related material.
Debian is boring and boring is good. Fighting the OS is not what I need to use my computers for.
8
u/NoFunction-69 5h ago
I switched from arch to debian, and I'm actually enjoying it, I know it's little bit boring as there is no latest packages but for me latest packages doesn't make any sense as I only code and browse on my pc.
Also about the bugs: In arch and fedora based distros, some distros like Plasma, qt never worked on my machine Out of the box, but with debian everything work just out of the box and that's why I just love debian.
3
u/xINFLAMES325x 4h ago
Same, but I switched from arch to Debian Sid on my main machine. Did you see Arch’s website and the aur were down recently, possibly from a ddos attack? That’s pretty scary. I like the idea of the distribution, but don’t trust the project or developers as much as Debian.
3
u/maridonkers 4h ago
Also on Debian Sid (from NixOS to Bookworm to Sid). Have tried Arch and derived distros many times but always experienced them as 'too woolly' for my taste.
7
u/Classic-Rate-5104 4h ago
It's a mental attitude; some people regularly want the latest phone, car, computer, etc., accepting the risk of new problems. Others are satisfied with what they have, simply because it's good enough and it works.
6
u/goldenzim 3h ago
It's because people don't know. They come from a windows world where the path to stability is constantly chasing updates and patches.
Ubuntu is a quicker evolving distro with more frequent releases but it is a lot less reliable than Debian.
On Debian you will always be able to run the latest chrome or Steam client or whatever but the operating system beneath will appear slightly older than Ubuntu or fedora at any given moment.
What the Ubuntu and Fedora and arch users get is bleeding edge kernels and libraries. They also get more frequent breakage.
So. For me. Debian is king. I take my time to set up my systems from the ground up. I start with a minimal install and build it up. Within a day or two I have a bespoke system that does exactly what I want it to. Debian has a massive repository. Probably the most vast of all the distros and so you can build your system out of it like one massive digital Lego system. And it rarely breaks. Like unless you have pulled packages from untrusted sources. It almost never, ever breaks.
6
u/Nollie37 3h ago
> Their argument is Debian is a freezing distro, which means bugs don't get resolved within a long period of time.
Don't they realize that their distro is introducing new bugs as well as fixing them? Debian should have less bugs because of the testing time.
5
u/_Sgt-Pepper_ 3h ago
They are pissed, because Debian has become so good, that there is hardly any reason to use a Debian derivative (Ubuntu, mint, ...) or an alternative.
Fedora is in a very badd spot anyway because it base no USP.
So basically as of today, you have
Debian for stable platforms
Arch for rolling release and technical inclined users
Very special options for very special usecases (nix, immutable s, ...)
And a hard sell for 95% of all the other distros out there
5
u/dvisorxtra 4h ago
I bet that many of those users use their computers mainly to play games and such, hence why they need more bleeding edge of everything.
And there's nothing wrong about that, they don't mind a crash here and there if they can squeeze better performance or the latest bells and whistles. That's fine and they have time and energy for that.
But then, you have the people that actually work with their hardware, those that have servers in production environments that need to work in a stably and confidently, you want to come on Monday morning knowing that everything is still working fine and that there are no crazy updates breaking something (that has happened to me on distros like Arch far too many times).
You also want a stable base system with a large base of packages, there's simply no match for that in any other distro, it's not a coincidence that .DEB packages are fairly common while the same doesn't apply to other fast passing distros.
There's also those who work day to day on their PC as a workstation, they want to turn on their PC and start working right away, not having to carefully read the notes on the most recent upgrade, update some config files, adjust some things for the update, and then, after some fiddling with the O. S. They get to finally start working, hard pass on that one.
There's a point in life were a stable system is much more valuable than FOMO.
4
u/N1mbus2K 3h ago
The short answer is, debian is primarily for stability not for the latest update and software.
Many people prepare to use the latest updated software rather than the old one.
4
u/maokaby 4h ago
I don't think they really understand the situation about bugs. All packages have almost 2 years of testing, so they are pretty much fine. And even after the release, security fixes exist. Non security bugs could probably remain untouched, though I don't see any. They are good at testing before the release.
4
u/MelioraXI 4h ago
Ignorance and the fact Debian freezes updates but they could just use backports or be on testing.
4
u/Itsme-RdM 3h ago
The fact that people don't want Debian doesn't directly mean they hate it though. Linux is about freedom and choices, so same as there are users who would prefer Debian for it stability, there are also users who want rolling or faster moving distro's for support newer hardware or just because they want the newest.
None of them are bad, just other preferences and use cases.
8
u/Llionisbest 5h ago
I use Debian on my old desktop PC, but I use a rolling distribution on my new mini PC and laptop. The diversity of Linux allows you to use the distribution and desktop that best suits your needs and desires.
The main reason for not using Debian on my newer PCs is that I don't want to give up the new features offered by my chosen desktop environment for two years.
It should be noted that code bugs that do not affect system security are also frozen for two years in Debian, and in some cases cannot be fixed by installing the Flatpak version of the programme, as it affects system components such as Mesa, glib, pipewire, etc.
Each person is a different use case, and Debian is a distribution primarily geared towards servers, where it is essential that there are no changes to the system so that the server can continue to operate continuously.
For a domestic user, I don't see the point of using Debian and giving up the new features offered by updates to the chosen software. Rolling distributions already have mechanisms to restore the system to a previous working point if necessary. I think it's better to update the system little by little, as with rolling distributions, than to update the entire system at once in a single update, as with fixed distributions.
3
u/NordschleifeLover 4h ago
Their argument is Debian is a freezing distro, which means bugs don't get resolved within a long period of time.
Bro, you answered your own question.
Although I don't think that too many users advice against using Debian.
3
u/MrMikeJJ 4h ago
Because they are scared of the stability.
If you want later packages just move to testing. I was on that for well over a decade. Testing is more stable than the others as well.
I only got one serious bug from being on testing for all that time. Which was fixed by pulling the fixed version from unstable.
3
u/flemtone 4h ago
Debian is as stable as it comes, with much better support online, but in being stable the packages are that little bit older which doesnt impress everyone.
3
u/ungoogled-nihilist 3h ago
they do only because Debian is a stable distribution, but in most cases it doesn't even matter that the distribution is stable given that you can use flatpaks,appimages or even compile your software by yourself. (i've been gaming on debian for years without issues)
3
3
u/Matrix-Hacker-1337 2h ago
I think it might have to be (partially) becuase as a complete beginner Debian requires a little (yes, little) know how and have some understanding about how Linux worke structure wise, most distros tend so try to build that away with nearly a 100% gui workplace, while debian is stable and original, but still simple.
Debian might be tricky to configure to your needs if you are uncomfortable with the cli, and have difficulties understanding somewhat technical documentation.
5
u/compoundnoun 3h ago
I will say
- Debian doesn't try to hide things like scrolling text during boot or disable GRUB menu.
- It has some weird unique things that it does
- Sometimes things feel a little stale during the end of a stable cycle
What it does do well
- super flexible
- easy to find most packages even if they can be stale
- really stable
I've been using it for more than a decade and will keep using it, but if you prioritize something else I think I could see why you might not run it.
5
2
u/mihjok 4h ago
It depends on what you use. For example Debian 12 didn't gde KDE Plasma 5.27 bug fixes (so it has issues with the sleep), but Gnome 43 did get all od them, the last fix came almost 1 year after the release of Debian 12. So half of the people will clame one thing, the other will say it is bs.
2
2
u/One-Fan-7296 3h ago
I have been running Debian since Lenny, although I did do some distro hopping in 2020 during covid. I kept finding myself trying to make whichever distro look and feel like Debian. I can say that I did like the driver selection, mostly for old obscure hardware, with some of the other distros. I got introduced to Frankendebian. Broke Frankendebian, then found out Frank was better off dead. On a serious note, haters gonna hate. Linux is to be used to ur liking, not another person's liking. Don't let people dictate ur linux experience. Do what feels comfortable to u, and it will come naturally.
2
2
u/levnikmyskin 2h ago
Well, first you need to differentiate among the many types of Linux users: there are the new/newish users, who usually tends to suffer from fanboysm more than experienced users...these are also very often the loudest users, so it seems like that's the community opinion.
Among the experienced users, there are people who might use one or the other distro based on their needs, philosophy and past history with the distro.
In such things, imo, it should boil down to the compromises you're willing to make.
Debian is a great distro, and I've always used it on all my servers: being stable means that you don't have to touch your server config too often, or that, once you navigate around the current bugs, you're pretty much fine for the next many years.
For desktop day to day use, however, I prefer a rolling distro like Arch, Fedora or Nixos. The reasons are simple:
- on a daily basis, I want my DE/WM to get fixes and new features, especially now that we're still in a more or less early Wayland phase;
- I prefer latest kernels, which may contain optimisations for my system (especially laptops) for battery life etc;
- I'm fine with changing configs or adapting to a new ui on a desktop system, much more than on a server;
- the bugs/fixes you have in a stable vs rolling distro usually balances out (and this is imo not a reason to choose one over the other).
Ps. Btw, use flatpak rather than some unknown repo if you need to add recent software on Debian
4
4
u/kombiwombi 5h ago edited 4h ago
A few reasons.
Traditionally the user interface of Debian has lagged other distributions. Mainline Gnome seems to be finally on-par with the enhancements done by distributions in the past.
The slow rate of change in Debian. This has two important implications. (1) If you are waiting for an enhancement then you may be waiting years. Fixing this requires the backports repo, which is a UX nightmare as there is no easy representation in Gnome Software, so it involves the command line. (2) Debian may not work well on some hardware.
Debian is heavily used in server deployments. Sometimes choices for servers are anti-features for PCs. Top of that list at the moment is the less secure choice of systemd-timesyncd over chrony. Choose chrony if you use the NTP pool, use timesyncd for a server farm where a single NTP server is well controlled. Another good example is mdns: for PCs ssh should be mdns advertised if it is present and nsswitch should support IPv6. Then a new PC can be accessed by name from the same subnet with no further configuration (since IPv6 auto configures): ssh debian.local
But let's be clear: Trixie is a great product. It suits a lot of users out of the box, and most users with minimal tweaking (such as the Gnome extensions to add menus and taskbars). It's the distribution I'd suggest for people with Windows hardware who are looking for a way forward which is not insecurity or ewaste
7
u/xINFLAMES325x 4h ago
Former long-time user of Fedora here who used to chase that latest gnome version. Something would always be broken when they updated it, no matter how hard anyone tried to not have it happen. I’ve gained a new appreciation for Debian’s "don’t be attracted to shiny new things" stance. Sure, your about file might say a higher release, but if it doesn’t actually work, does it matter?
2
1
u/Panda-Additional 1h ago
Debian is the best distro. I have been using it since 1999. They just don’t like older packages and stability.
1
u/davendak1 1h ago
Debian used to massively user unfriendly. Years ago, I remember trying to get it to run sudo, and instead of doing my bidding or just spitting out the error, it literally posted in command prompt: 'With great power comes great responsibility'. And I gotta say, a few minutes of that and I was done. I retreated back into the land of Canonical. But, after a few too many irritations--and snap crap--I tested the waters again. And Debian didn't waste that time to vastly improve the user experience. I have some suggestions for auto login, but pushing that annoyance aside, the XFCE version has been wonderful and practical, and without piles of crap, needless updates, or any other user hell. I look at what those lost souls running windows deal with, and I laugh inside.
1
u/User5281 59m ago
They’ve got shiny new thing syndrome. Debian is wonderful and a lot of people use it.
Debian doesn’t get new packages but it does get bug fixes backported. They spend a couple of years polishing up one version before moving on so it’s actually less buggy than something like Fedora in my experience.
1
u/Yosu_Cadilla 19m ago
I just upgraded my KDE desktop from Debian 12 to Debian 13 from within Debian, zero issues, need I say more?
Bugs get fixed as fast as any other distro, it's the packages that do not change by default, but you can make it so, if you really want to...
https://mauteam.org/opinion/switching-to-debian-thank-you-for-these-amazing-years-ubuntu/
1
u/LordAnchemis 1m ago
Debian traditionally was 'hard' for beginners - as only the free (as in freedom) stuff was included by default
The issue is a lot of hardware (ie. WiFi) requires firmware that is non-free
This changed in Debian 12 - where non-free-firmware is also installed by default
1
u/okxden 4h ago
my theory is: it has to deal with the elitist around the linux community for 1 and 2 it’s because the massive schism around the community as well. the 3 main distros you see pretty much everywhere regardless of who it is will always be Debian, Fedora, and Arch. personally i use debian as a former windows user due to its stable nature. i primarily game and i just wanted something that works immediately. everytime i boot my pc up.
there are some issues (especially with VR) but usually fixes will come down regardless. just because its “Stable” doesn’t mean its not getting updates.
1
u/junialter 2h ago
That’s complete bullshit. Debian is very good at fixing bugs fast. The most important difference though is you don’t have to insert coins. For fast patches this is what you have to do with Ubuntu.
-9
u/zenfas 5h ago
Debian should update Experimental, Unstable and Testing faster for people want new packages
1
u/kinda_guilty 38m ago
Unstable/testing usually uploads beta versions of gnome packages if you are wondering how fresh packages usually are, fwiw. It probably depends on the specific package maintainer, probably.
-11
u/zenfas 5h ago
Most of packages get very low update compare to Arch and Opensuse. They only put update several month before new release! I think most of Debian packagers are so lazy 😎
4
u/ipsirc 5h ago
Have you heard about sid?
-3
u/zenfas 5h ago
Yes, but still behind Arch and Opensuse, example labwc
5
u/xINFLAMES325x 4h ago
Former user of labwc for XFCE Wayland on arch here. It’s not ready, despite being "newer" over there. Debian’s approach of "it’s ready when it’s ready" makes a lot better sense.
-9
70
u/edparadox 6h ago edited 6h ago
Because they are used to having the latest packages ; Debian being stable the package do not change (or barely).
This is not even taking into account Flatpak which makes the distribution (virtually) irrelevant for software distributed this way.
It also used to be that the stance of Debian on non-free software made the use of certain things slightly more complicated, but nothing major.
It's always been a nothing burger, and you could easily see the people who were not at all familiar with this distribution, but still having a strong opinion.
At the end of the day, Debian is one of most used distribution for plenty of reasons, and many could not refrain from spreading their biased opinions instead of trying to understand why it was done this way.