
Why Use Debian Stable on the Desktop? - russianhun
http://wayoflinux.com/blog/debian-stable-on-desktop
======
dsr_
This particular article seems to be an ad for consulting/support services, but
their underlying point is one that I agree with:

Desktop usage (terminals, browsers, editors, word processing, spreadsheets,
presentations, media listening/viewing and light creation) should not be
surprising. It should not change out from underneath the user.

I've run Debian Stable for more than 15 years as my primary desktop system,
almost always with XFCE. I add the Google Chrome repository and download the
latest Firefox and Firefox Nightly. That's it. The whole thing runs really
nicely on an i5-2500 with 16GB RAM and 2 SSDs in a ZFS mirror. I'll need new
hardware when I switch from 2 1920x1200 monitors to a big 4K screen; I won't
need to change my OS.

~~~
sametmax
Problem is, most softwares that are NOT in the official repository are made
for Ubuntu TLS, not debian stable.

So if you want to install VSCode, Telegram, Skype, Stremio, Sublime Text,
Python 3.6, clipgrab, steam, dukto, tilix, etc. You know that half of them
won't work out of the box on debian stable. Each year it will be different
ones, to make it spicier, for different reasons that can take a huge amount of
time and energy to figure it, if you ever do.

Then if you need to do anything exotic, and it's worse. E.G: I'm currently
compiling a lot of crypto currency wallets (I run a master node automation
service). Most of them will compile only on Ubuntu. And if you don't want
precisely Ubuntu 12.04 (I compile for 16.04), you'll need a little tweak.

Don't mistake that for hatred. I donate to the debian project financially, I
adore them.

But for the desktop, it's really not making my life easy.

~~~
kn0where
Leave it to Ubuntu to invent their own Transport Layer Security standard

------
morganvachon
As a serial distro hopper, my only complaint about using Debian Stable over
the years is hardware compatibility. As the author noted, Stable isn't for the
latest and greatest hardware. This was especially true for me a couple of
years back when trying to run Debian Jessie on a then-new Intel Braswell based
system. The video driver as shipped was unable to render at any resolution
above 1024x768, and there were severe artifacts especially with certain fonts.
Switching to Ubuntu cleared up the issues (newer kernel and newer X11 driver).

That said, Debian Stable is an ideal desktop OS for older hardware. I have a
Mac Mini from the first generation of Intel Macs, upgraded to a Core 2 Duo
CPU, that runs BunsenLabs Linux (based on Jessie and a 3.x kernel) just fine.
In fact, it's one of the few Linux distros that still supports that 11 year
old machine, long after even Apple left it behind.

~~~
UncleEntity
It's literally the only distro I can run on my two My Book Live mini-file
servers being powerPC and all. Have to run a patched kernel though.

Couldn't see running it as my desktop distro since I like to fiddle with stuff
and having an older compiler and python isn't really all that desirable. Back
when I hacked on blender I was even having a hard time keeping up on
'bleeding-edge' fedora since one of the main devs liked to upgrade to the
newest python release as soon as it was out.

~~~
morganvachon
Debian has dropped PPC support moving forward, so you're on borrowed time. You
may want to look into OpenBSD or NetBSD as a backup plan if you intend to keep
that hardware long-term. I've found OpenBSD to be nearly painless to maintain
and not too much of a learning curve (admittedly coming from Slackware being
the Linux distro I cut my teeth on nearly 20 years ago).

That said, I don't know how difficult it would be to install a non-Linux OS on
that particular device; I know it was designed for and shipped with Debian.
I've had success installing the various BSDs on all kinds of obscure hardware
but I've yet to get my hands on a MyBook Live.

------
ZenoArrow
Or in other words, "I use Debian Stable on my home computer and here's how
I've justified it to myself".

If Debian Stable does everything you want out of an operating system, by all
means use it, there's no reason not to, but some other people may want to make
use of the newer features of Linux and its surrounding ecosystem that aren't
available in Debian Stable yet. The idea that Debian Stable is a good choice
for all users ignores those with different desired features than the author.

In other words, people have different priorities. If you've found something
that works for you, good for you, there's no need to justify it.

~~~
digi_owl
The more i have had to deal with the Linux ecosystem, the less i want to do
with the bleeding edge of it.

Because you will find shit breaking, willfully, every other month or so,
because some caffeine addled code monkey thought he could do a decade+ usage-
tested lib better in a new language over the weekend.

~~~
majewsky
As a contrary anecdote, Arch Linux has only gotten more stable for me over the
past years. I'm running it in multiple servers and had only one incident where
a downgrade was necessary (which is not particularly hard either).

~~~
coffee9
>I'm running it in multiple servers

You're the only one.

~~~
Svenstaro
Eh, I also do that and in fact, archlinux.org and all of its servers are also
hosted on Arch Linux. It works really quite well and there is little reason to
suspect it should be any less stable than other distros.

~~~
coffee9
Last I checked the Arch website was run by a Debian box, not to mention funded
by Debian.

~~~
Svenstaro
I'm fairly knowledgeable about our (Arch Linux) infrastructure because I set
up a big chunk of it. I'm not sure where our donations come from, though.

------
lucideer
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nHJYRop...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nHJYRopzoTAJ:wayoflinux.com/blog/debian-
stable-on-desktop+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie)

------
billsix
As a Debian user for 15 years, I like it, but as a developer looking to
contribute packages, I am displeased. I can't figure out how to update Gambit
Scheme to the newest version by making a package, setting up a local repo,
etc. The documentation on the subject in debian is all over the place on many
sites giving conflicting answers.

Gentoo and Arch in my limited experience are much simpler to build packages
for. Redhat too. One build file is all that's required.

~~~
majewsky
I regularly build Arch packages. I once tried to build a Debian package,
followed the tutorial, but gave up after nearly two hours. The amount of
ceremony involved in Debian packaging is just absurd.

~~~
samueloph
Debian Maintainer here (currently in the process of becoming a Debian
Developer).

I agree that the documentation lacks various improvements, but i would like to
add that there's a difference between building a deb package and building a
deb package for Debian.

Tl;DR: To build a deb package for Debian involves lots of extra steps and
cautions than to build a simple deb package because Debian is pretty strict
with what can enter the official repository. The documentation needs to be
improved for both cases anyway.

~~~
billsix
I'd like to update Gambit Scheme from the 4.2 series to the 4.8 series in
debian unstable. if you have some time to help me figure it out, please email
my username at Gmail.

------
nickik
As an Arch Linux user for years this hurts me. I can't even imagine living
with all that old crufty stuff and then when you actually upgrade something
you have library issues and so on.

For those who are to afraid to run Arch, consider openSUSE Tumbleweed. It is
as up to date (or more so) as Arch Linux but they do a lot of automated
testing, plus they do a lot of automatic snapshots so you can go back if
needed (that is if you are willing to run Btrfs).

~~~
cbcoutinho
I totally agree, have been a happy Tumbleweed user for over a year now.
Installation is a breeze compared to Arch.

~~~
nickik
How dare you say that installing Arch is not easy?????

~~~
cbcoutinho
> _compared to Arch_

Have you ever tried to install Tumbleweed? I was comparing the two, not using
absolutes.

------
russianhun
Sry folk, some oversensitive kid took it on themselves to correct what they
didn't agree with, and DDoS-ed the site for about an hour or so.

Should be back online now...

------
Dowwie
I use Debian 9 with gnome. I don't know what I'm missing by not using one of
these other distributions and don't care enough to seek out that information
because I have thus far managed to do everything I need with Debian, and have
used it for years.

Damn. Maybe I need to look around.

~~~
mmjaa
I have been a Debian user forever, but my current go-to for "recommending
Linux to friends" is Ubuntu Studio.

Latest release pretty much rocks, everything works smoothly out of the box,
and the system is set up and ready for multimedia audio/video/etc. content
creation.

It still quite Debian underneath, but there is a lot to be said for having a
multimedia workstation ready to go, out of the box, on the other end of the
spectrum ..

~~~
Dowwie
Yeah, it's nice to experience a low-friction setup that does great many
things. I used Ubuntu for a little while but kept breaking it. I'm a bull in
an operating system china shop.

------
vog
Site is down.

Google Cache:
[https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nHJYRo...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:nHJYRopzoTAJ:wayoflinux.com/blog/debian-
stable-on-desktop+&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de)

<obligatory-rant> I'll never understand why serving static(!) sites is so
hard. Are modern blog systems still that bad? HN traffic is far below 100
req/sec (perhaps below 10 req/sec), which should be an absolute no-brainer for
any modern webserver. [1] Heck, given a good internet connection, one should
be able to run 10 such blogs on a Raspberry Pi and still survive HN.
</obligatory-rant>

[1] According to ServerFault, challenges start at 100000 req/sec:
[https://serverfault.com/q/408546/175421](https://serverfault.com/q/408546/175421)

~~~
majewsky
> I'll never understand why serving static(!) sites is so hard.

It's not hard. They're all adding stupid bloat for no good reason.

When my blog was on the frontpage, traffic peaked at 1 Mbit/s (that's
megabits, not megabytes) and CPU load peaked at 5% of a single core (and only
because that box runs a dozen services in parallel).

Everyone who's blog cannot withstand the HN crowd deserves to have their
computer operator's license revoked.

~~~
Macha
A couple of years ago I had a couple of articles on a static blog hit HN.

Out of the box nginx on Ubuntu 14.04 on the 1GB Linode (then the second tier)
handled it perfectly fine. With no disruption to a teamspeak server that was
on the same host at the time.

------
aceofspad4s
Using Debian Stable on a desktop is probably the closer to hell that you could
ever get. Imagine to never be able to get that one feature you need because
it's only in a more recent version.

The best option for a stable desktop is Gentoo, where you can run old software
but then unmask recent stuff if you need it. As a recent example I'll say that
MTP support in stable (libmtp) was flaky for my mobile phone. With Debian I
would've had to suck dicks in the bug tracker forever to get the fix
backported. With Gentoo I just unmask a more recent version et voilà. And that
applies to any software you could ever need: you are always going to need more
recent versions of certain packages at some point. Stuff that gets fixed, a
certain new feature you want, a more recent kernel...

I know someone is going to mention apt pinning but that only works in theory
since pinning a more recent version of a certain package usually means you
have to update half your packages to unstable because of dependencies. And in
that case why even use stable?

~~~
craigsmansion
>The best option for a stable desktop is Gentoo

Get with the times, gramps. Arch is where the racing stripes are at now. Not
held back by all these weird dinosaur architectures Arch can _really_ optimise
for superior speed, and features, and modern things, leaving Slackware
steamboats, Debian diesels, and Gentoo petrols in the dust, because Arch is
the EV of Linux operating systems.

The world of anecdata and pointless optimalisations has transcended Gentoo.
You're now the Debian stable of the next generation of Linux users, and boy do
they know better!

\----

with apologies to any Arch and Gentoo users out there. Your OS is fine. I just
thought it was amusing if you look, out of context, at these developments.

~~~
aceofspad4s
I've used Arch years ago. It was a trainwreck. They had a very very bad QA and
I had to reinstall every few months. The community is also full of people I
wouldn't want to have around, as your own message shows.

Also I don't use Gentoo to get "pointless optimisations". Ricers are the low
hanging fruit that's there to be mocked. I use Gentoo because it's the best
rolling out there.

~~~
craigsmansion
> full of people I wouldn't want to have around, as your own message shows.

That's way stronger than anything I intended to say, even if I made a bit of
fun of the overly enthusiastic ones.

My joke was based on that way back when, when Gentoo was younger and the hip
distro, whenever a thread discussed Debian on the desktop or server, a newly
minted Gentoo user would drop by to extol the virtues of Gentoo for every use
case possible: "But _I_ use it on servers," "My desktop is so much faster,"
etc.

Now in this, and similar threads, I notice it's the Arch users who have taken
over this function. So when you brought out Gentoo, it felt like a blast from
the past, prompting me to accuse you of being "out of touch" for humourous
effect. No offence (well, very minor offence) was intended, and I bear no ill
will towards either Arch or Gentoo users.

