Serious question. Why would anyone use a distro other than Debian?

because they decided to ruin it with systemd
and GuixSD exists

because it's obviously made with servers in mind over desktops and the devs refuse to fix old bugs that have been worked out in other distros

Debian isn't loonix exclusive numbnuts

Then keep using Ubuntu, it can do everything Debian can.

Use the unstable channel to get rolling releases and the latest packages

Ubuntu is pretty much just commercially supported debian brainlet

Not really, its pretty flexible now especially the installation now

because they want a stable distro?

>install Debian
>sound, wifi, Ethernet, proper native display res doesn't work
>fuck Ethernet into submission, get it working
>YouTube plays at 8fps with major distortion

>install Ubuntu
>everything works
>YouTube works fine

But muh ricing and proprietary drivers :(

nigger you're doing something wrong

Attached: whatswrongwithyou.gif (446x251, 721K)

This. Even when you get the non-free firmware iso.

Ricing has nothing to do with distro.

This guy

Attached: 075.jpg (1024x576, 51K)

old packages

because i can roll out an arch install for whatever vm need i have within 10 minutes with my build scripts

also because knoppix is more useful to me as a livecd-style distro

Because Arch is always minimal install, minus popularity contest botnet that is always on despite what you think.
Also, I dislike the general default color aesthetic that I gotta look at for the first 30 minutes of install.

what in the hell, user? I even did the netinst and ethernet worked just fine. I think this is a (you) problem.

They like up to date packages and wifi that actual works. Why anyone would ecer use debian is the question. It hss no redeeming qualities .

Rule of Jow Forums: Its probably your fault

Ubuntu just werks. Debian makes you jump through hoops.

Gentoo is more comfy.

I like my FacebookOS

Attached: facebookOS.png (512x512, 26K)

Why Linux?
Unstable, check.
Have to be experienced in creating OSes, check.
No driver support except for Neckbeard Thinkpads, check.

>Unstable, check.
FUD, check. It's way more stable than MacOS or Windows.
>Have to be experienced in creating OSes, check.
FUD, check. Installing Mint is as easy as tying your shoelaces. Only senile people would fail both.
>No driver support except for Neckbeard Thinkpads, check.
FUD, check. I use it on a Thinkpad, desktop with Ryzen and small home server with Intel Atom. No compatibility issues.

FUD result: 3/3
Conclusion: back to with you

That completely defeats the true purpose of using Debian...

Works on my machine.

I Debian for my file server, Ubuntu for everything else because the documentation/support is good, apt is objectively the best package manager, and systemd hasn't had any meaningful negative effects on my systems as of yet so it's whatever

intel master race

Na I wouldnt say its the best. It leave a lot to be desired. But its rock solid because doesnt have many features. I'd rather have something stripped down that doesnt break though

Hardware support
Software that gets bugs fixed in a timely manner

Because I want a rolling release distro.

Gentoo doesn't have systemd and you compile software in your computer.

You can certainly compile software on debian mr brainpoo

>Werks on my machine :^)

>unstable
lmao how

unstable aka on vacation from /v/reddit

Because OpenBSD exists and maybe you want an ACTUAL unix system..

Attached: LIBERATORS.jpg (906x1330, 817K)

>implying

OpenSuse is a better compromise. Never trust the eternal Anglo.

i don't want to type apt-get, it's ugly

>OpenSuse
kill you're self

You have been able to type just apt for a long while now. Shows how out of it you are.

>Installing linux to use youtube

never used it desu
still ugly

>a tool is ugly
Little bitch detected!

openSUSE Tumbleweed is nicely tuned to KDE and just werks.

The real question is, why would anyone use Debian when it's never the best choice and autistically complains about missing firmware during installation, even with the nonfree iso?
For general use, performance and customization, the almighty Gentoo or Void are superior. For server use, both CentOS and Slackware are far better choices. Also,
>uses systemd
>outdated repos
>shit package manager
There is absolutely no reason to use Debian anymore.

Shit-toothed Anglo spotted.

I prefer pacman file systems honestly, but I might switch to a BSD, I just don't like debian in general.

>shit package manager
I dunno, I tried a pacman based distro and it had issues pulling all dependencies required for packages to work.

i've been on apt based shit for over three years and have never had an issue with apt on ubuntu or debian

i moved from xubuntu to debian testing because i felt superior, but in reality i still have to use the unstable repo to get an up-to-date browser. the rest doesn't matter to me.

>and autistically complains about missing firmware during installation, even with the nonfree iso
I haven't experienced this and I use Debian on multiple computers. You must have some weird space toaster as a computer.

>shit package manager
Compared to what, exactly?

I prefer going source-based and I like Portage.

Attached: 1525009856323.jpg (1200x859, 237K)

portage and xbps.

old packages
thats my only qualm

>You must have some weird space toaster as a computer.
Doesn't matter, considering Debian has the balls to call itself "the universal operating system.

Debian is king, there is no argument.
RHEL for security, and it feels good.
Arch for freedom and minimalism. Arch is beautiful.

FreeBSD has a slick TCP/IP stack and I like their philosophy.

I love Plan9 for being unique.

you can pull from backports, go get the newer .deb, or build from source. it's not that hard.

this was actually a thing in 2006

Well it doesnt include non free firmware by default. You can download iso with non free include from the cd image site. Your criticisms "but I use gentoo" are not an argument.

Who said anything about nonfree firmware?

I have an old ass ThinkPad T43p, which needed firmware to be supplied manually from an external source during installation in order to get wifi to work.
The difference is that it worked under Gentoo, while it didn't on Debian.

this what ubuntu is for user
It's african for: I'm too stupid to use debian

there's install images with non-free firmware
You're just too stupid to navigate an ftp

You misspelled Ubontu

Nigga, Debian is crap. You have to do a lot of work to make is as good (and safe!!) as Ubuntu.

I use debian on my server. Using linux for anything but HTPC, SERVERS or NAS in general is fucking stupid snowflake tier.

Trying to change to debian... What did I do wrong? Says I my processor architecture is AMD64...so I downloaded that USB and made a live USB. But the shit doesn't run

Attached: ehhhh.png (922x485, 108K)

Memes are cool

Works on my machine :^)

Why would you use debian?

Your VM seems to virtualize a 32-bit CPU.

i like debian

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

And whats your machine

I started using Debian 1.3 in 1997 back when it only supported the x86 arch and use libc5. I remember the shitful politics that led to the OS being paralyzed during potato/woody/sarge and ultimately to many jumping ship to found or use Ubuntu.

Ubuntu polished and fixed so many things that have filtered back to Debian, to the extent that Debian noobs don't realize what a neckbeard shitshow Debian really is.

You misspelled Fedora, OP.

> Nice bait, mate.

Attached: redhat.jpg (684x250, 52K)

Idolfags are so embarrassing

Why would i use Debian when Ubuntu works out of the box?
I literally don't see any benefits in what is effectively making my life harder for myself

>stable
>disable aslr and dep
>reap performance benefits
i just started doing this, convince me not to (running as root)

Because i use Slackware. And, compared to Slackware, Debian brings literally nothing to the table

>tips laptop

m'cuck

use the mini.iso (its like netinst, but more packages download over the network, so less needs updating later)
ftp.nl.debian.org/debian/dists/stretch/main/installer-i386/current/images/netboot/mini.iso

Why would I use Ubuntu when Windows works out of the box?
I literally don't see any benefits in what is effectively making my life harder for myself

Except there is no effective difference between Debian and Ubuntu besides the fact that one doesn't use non-free software out of the box and requires more setup to get it working. Oh and the stigma of Ubuntu being babby's first distro.

ubuntu has some pretty good security practices by standard, does debian have the same i wonder?

wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features

>wiki.ubuntu.com/Security/Features

That was what really drew me to Ubuntu server in the first place. Things like bounties for privsep services etc as well as other sane defaults makes for a secure platform. Sane defaults have always been one of the main security features of OpenBSD too, where you have to go out of your way to misconfigure a service.

I'm too much of a dummy to build and install (and keep track if need updating) packages so the aur is perfect. Like Zotero for example is terrible but good on aur

>implying i didn't already use the nonfree iso
Why are debianlets so arrogant and just won't admit thier beloved OS isn't perfect?