How is Debian GNU/Linux as desktop distro?

How is Debian GNU/Linux as desktop distro?

Attached: 2000px-Debian-OpenLogo.svg.png (2000x2642, 166K)

Other urls found in this thread:

backports.debian.org/
mozilla.debian.net/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>GNU/
Dropped.

Good enough if you use Sid. But I'd use something else because I don't like apt.

it's stable and free as in freedom and beer but some of the packages are older than stallman's balls. meh tier 3,5/5

>systemd
Dropped.

It is for grown ups not ricers plus script kiddies

The installer is fucked with NVIDIA GPUs

Worked on my machine.

doesn't support Intel Wi-Fi cards out of the box

It's just like any other Debian- or Ubuntu-based distro. Arr Rinux same. Just different repositories and package managers.

That's slackware.
I see a lot of Debian users in desktop threads, and the most popular script kiddie distro (Kali) is based off Debian.

You'll need to perform additional steps if you have any Realtek network card or other hardware with non-free drivers.

How are you this mentally ill?

It is the right choice for me.

fine
ran it on my laptop while I was in school, no problems

At least in my gtx 960 it doesn't work (and I've read online that it's because the gpu drivers). It's the only distro I've had a problem with (and I've used distros without graphical installers like arch and void).
After the installation, when booting, a non-tty prompt pops out, that doesn't reed any bash commands.
why do you say that?

pretty solid, but it has many old, outdated packages, don't expect anything bleeding edge. Also some bugs with running XFCE

werks on my gtx 1060. Post install works too.

It's been a long time since I've used a non-rolling release distro. When the new version of debian comes out, can you update it or do you have to reinstall it?

This.

Basically, every time there's a Debian OS upgrade, there's instructions on debian.org on how to do the upgrade, with considerations for different scenarios and software packages.

Unless you use Sid ofc, which is the rolling release version of Debian.

Isn't testing/buster also considered a kind of rolling release?

Here's the explanation from debian.org


>The "testing" distribution is an automatically generated distribution. It is generated from the "unstable" distribution by a set of scripts which attempt to move over packages which are reasonably likely to lack release-critical bugs. They do so in a way that ensures that dependencies of other packages in testing are always satisfiable.

>A (particular version of a) package will move into testing when it satisfies all of the following criteria:

> It must have been in unstable for 10, 5 or 2 days, depending on the urgency of the upload;
>It must be compiled and up to date on all architectures it has previously been compiled for in unstable;
>It must not have release-critical bugs which do not also apply to the version currently in "testing" (see below for more information);
>All of its dependencies must either be satisfiable by packages already in "testing", or be satisfiable by the group of packages which are going to be installed at the same time;
>The operation of installing the package into "testing" must not break any packages currently in "testing". (See below for more information.)

>A package which satisfies the first three of the above is said to be a "Valid Candidate".

it's good if you want a solid stable system but if you want more recent packages, fedora is a great choice especially for gayming

I usually use testing if I am on Debian, because many packages do not receive any updates at all, except security updates, for about 2 years.

Of course, you could always include the testing repos on your stable system, but I wouldn't recommend this because it means that some packages are only available in testing. This might conflict with "stable" packages, and create a so-called "Franken-debian", composed of Stable and Testing, crudely merged together.

So if you want rolling release on debian, yes, testing is more "rolling" than Sid, but also:

>security updates for testing are not managed by the security team.

So use at your own risk.

It's okay. Everything works, it's stable and "easy" (if you aren't totally new to Linux) to use.

Can recommend.

Yeah the security patch part is my only real concern. I switched from Xubuntu to Debian Testing about three months ago and it works bretty good. All free packages except for intel microcode.

Are you under the age of 23? If so, Debian sucks, use Arch.

Are you over 23? Use Debian, it's sane. Be sure to move off of the stable repo branch though, those packages are old as fuck.

I like Debian because they don't preload it with garbage like ubuntu and fedora. It kinda sucks that they still have a hard stance against firmware though because most hardware is rendered inoperable without them.

Does it come with bluetooth configured and wifi/ethernet manager and all these basic programs that Windows have for example?

In my experience if you select the "desktop applications" in the installer it will install basically everything you need to make your hardware work but by default the debian installer does not come with the firmware images you need to make the hardware functional. It's not particularly difficult to install the images from usb if you don't have internet access and there are unofficial ISOs with the firmware images included.

Debian Stable with backports enabled and a third party browser package is fantastic.

Its ubuntu for people who don't want to admit they like ubuntu

Ah ok then, cool.

what does age have to do with anything?

When you get older, you can't be assed to have autism

You can do an in-place upgrade from inside Debian. By default Stable's mirrors target whatever release has reached the "stable" branch so it receives a major upgrade every 2 years but between upgrades you get security updates still. You can change the mirrors so they point to testing branch instead which will then get you newer software faster but functionality may break more often. From testing you can upgrade further to unstable and that's just a straight up rolling release system you get the latest releases of all software but at that point the Debian devs aren't actually maintaining the software they're just re-hosting so if something changes that break your software you're on your own like any other rolling release.

Aside from the generic labels like stable, testing, and unstable you can also target a specific named release like jessie, stretch, buster, and bullseye and Debian will never get a major upgrade beyond that release but instead just continue to receive security updates. That's more useful for servers and workstations.

It's ok. Sucks in terms of software without using debian unstable. Just use Mint, or Manjaro

>if you need stability, use debian
>just make sure to get on the repos that are way less stable then arch or the AUR

It's probably best that most people just stay on stable and for the few packages they want the latest release of they can use backports instead.

backports.debian.org/

Worked on my machine.

it's the best distro by far. it has more binary packages available, it's not bloated, you're not a slave to the insane whims of canonical's developers, and for some reason testing is actually more stable than ubuntu lts despite having newer packages. it has a reputation as a server only distro with ancient packages, but that's just a bunch of horseshit from the ubuntu fanboys.

nigga what's the point of GPUs in loonix anyway

I don't understand how people can dislike package managers, like they install software how can you have a preference for one over an other?

True but I also need Windows on this machine

oh makes sense now

i like it

Attached: gnu_maki.png (2000x2477, 330K)

Thanks. This is my new wallpaper now.

Arch is better in every way, other than Arch being newer and (some people) claiming Arch packages are inferior in terms of stability. I've used both and they're both good.

Been using it on desktop for over a year. It's excellent in stable, the only thing I've upgraded through backports is Libre Office. My favourite distro apart from Slackware.

Attached: Blood+.full.266860crop.jpg (1024x600, 161K)

Attached: 1458224497549.png (2133x1200, 1.01M)

It's for autists who are too dumb for Gentoo or Arch, but want to still make things too complicated anyways.

There's nothing complicated about Debian. It just werks.

that's why u get the nonfree version nerd

Read = production machines.

What would be an easier distro for you?

What does this mean?

Ubuntu is an ancient African word meaning "I can't configure Debian."

its perfect linux distro

running testing with some software of my choosing from unstable

It’s a great distro overall. It’s free as in freedom by default, and I can update it and not have to worry about it breaking. Fedora works well too.

>configure Debian
You mean click through the installer? The default theme is about the only difference I can see once you get through the very similar installers. They're literally the same thing at this point, debian just lets fags like you pretend you arn't using noobuntu in the screenfetch thread

go with *buntu for desktop. Debian is fine, but Ubuntu perfects the user experience without causing any incompatibility between the two

The packages are outdated and poorly maintained

but it's mostly true. I am using Debian Testing, and they still don't have Firefox 60 ESR in the repos. I manually install Firefox until they finally do that because umatrix doesn't work in 52.8

>Ubuntu is an ancient African word meaning "I can't configure Debian."
That's going into the copypasta file.

Attached: 28362588588_2ab01c4564_k.jpg (1367x2048, 993K)

That's an old joke. I think the original version was "I can't install Debian"

Move to sid, also install waterfox

Arch became objectively better since Debian adopted systemd.
pacman > apt
Devuan > ... > Arch > Debian

it's not on sid either. the only place it's shown in the repos is in the experimental branch.

i'd rather move to icecat than waterfox, but they're still on 52 right now/

Isn't there a separate Mozilla repo?
Don't blame Debian for this though, Mozilla have been a bunch of cocksuckers since the start

if you're going to make shit up, at least try and make it believable

Umm
mozilla.debian.net/

And if you COMPILE rather than just dld a binary - that's exactly where I'd get the source from.

>If you're going to try and look like a smartarse by shitting on someone at least be correct and have your information correct.
An ill informed smart arse is just a mouthy idiot.

Attached: 29089892_1788232308150094_7972949410214576128_n.jpg (1080x1080, 236K)

Mozilla has been giving debain shit for over a decade

That is literally the debian website. Its a debian team for mozilla apps. So care to try and explain how this is mozillas fault again?
I mean I guess you didn't make it up, but you're certainly talking out of your ass

Not the poster you think I am and I was correcting you on
>Isn't there a separate Mozilla repo?
>if you're going to make shit up, at least try and make it believable

If you were admonishing that user for
>Don't blame Debian for this though, Mozilla have been a bunch of cocksuckers since the start
Then I have to ask - do you work for mozilla by any chance?

Attached: 22319556540_a989e25e8c_k.jpg (2048x1365, 943K)

autism

then change the repository and load new packages
hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

>If you were admonishing that user
this one
>Then I have to ask - do you work for mozilla by any chance?
Nope. But I know how repos tend to work, and "I'm waiting on mah special friends at mozilla for help" is not an excuse for not having a package weeks after other distros.
I'm no happier about the shitshow the debian repos are than you user, but theres no need to cover for them here.

Debian has replaced Arch as my all time fav distro. Way easier and better to set up, better community, better everything. Except the wiki. Wiki can be better.

I run Debian Sid, btw.

its great been using it longer than any other

>uduhhh uggghr if it doesn't require you to spend the entire day setting it up it's for dumb people

Attached: 1506999742274.png (211x239, 6K)