Why does such a massive distro has such outdated documentation? Imagine if this had a wiki like arch. Hell, if I don't want to tl:dr I just google "arch problem x" and done. Debian is actually harder to get help.
Why does such a massive distro has such outdated documentation? Imagine if this had a wiki like arch. Hell...
dude, I used to post this sort of shit at your age when I got stoned, too. Let me give you some advice. Try to keep off the weed. It wont make your computer experiences better. It w3ill just make you sound like a loony
Because Debian is a distro where you jump through hoops to get anything done.
What does that have to do with anything? Are you high or something?
What's a good alternative?
Everything about Debian feels outdated. Even their installer feels like it’s from 1995.
OP here, I don't need documentation because this doesn't break. Based I would say
Most of the people who actually contributed jumped ship (sometimes completely out of FOSS) long ago due to a shitload of idiosyncratic desicions like systemd
The few ones still around are busy maintaining the few packages that are essential, the rest are screeching about CoCs and harassing contributors until they quit
Thus no one writes documentation
Debian's really easy to manage if you use the official repos and package system and it all goes fine. When something gets fucked up, you end up with serious problems and have to reinstall.
It's the same with Arch, Gentoo, Red Hat, you name it. The only distro that is immune is Slackware. But it's much more of a pain to keep up with upgrades, especially major upgrades.
It's why I switched to OpenBSD ultimately, I want a package system that actually works.
Their website is a joke, it’s the worst for any distro I’ve ever seen. They say on the main page you should do a network install, but this won’t work for most people as the normal netinstall ISO doesn’t have the right firmware for WiFi to work. So right off the bat your first installation will probably fail. So then you have to go back to the website and get the version with firmware. And it’s buried under pages and pages of crap that feels hidden away. And in general the installation feels geared only for businesses, a lot of the options are irrelevant for individuals (domain name, full name, separate root password?). For such a stable and reliable distro it gives a really messy first impression
Is Ubuntu's documentation better?
keep up the good work bro
Because its users already know how to do the basic things.
Based and redpilled. Use a distro OP???
Yes, Ubuntu has extremely clear and well written documentation.
That's because 99% of Debian installs are onto servers. The reason the nonfree packages are hidden is to discourage the use of proprietary firmware which 99% will never need.
their wiki unfortunately still applies to current debian
Based,=
Nonfree isn't hidden, Debian offers a number of nonfree ISO images. So you plug in your Ethernet cable for the install, add non-free and contrib to your repos, sudo apt-get update, and install linux-firmware-nonfree with normal Debian anyway.
Sure, but they don't recommend using it or even mention it anywhere on their website
What makes Slackware immune?
The nonfree ISOs are pretty hidden. You have to go through a bunch of pages to find them
Lie
It has been updated, they use calamares now, easy to install.
This is true tho
Because they predate wiki's, it's never been a first class thing. Read the readmes and man pages and ask on mailing lists.
Stable with less documentation
or
Breaks a lot with more documentation
choose 1
Gentoo
they stuck with tar.gz "packages" like old school unix installations used
except for the numerous links to it on their site and the page where you download it
other than where they mention it you're right though, they don't mention it
This. Debian isn't for zoomers
I don't see how that makes it immune against anything. Packages are all essentially just archives. Though if you want true unbreakability, use a system image manager instead of a package manager.
Debian nonfree KDE on a Thinkpad is super comfy. I use Sid and it still doesn't break. Would recommend.
>I don't see how that makes it immune against anything.
that's because you're a newfag zoomer
What, did you touch apt once and realize it's fucking terrible? That doesn't mean tarballs are the only good option. rpm-ostree makes your system indestructible while still tracking which file belongs to which package as well as having every other useful package management feature. System upgrades/downgrades are a breeze, too, even between different distro version releases, hell you can switch to a different variant just as easily. Due to rollback deployments, the system cannot ever break and therefore never requires a reinstall. Tarballs are nice, but ostree is the future.
>imagine that damage control level
nobody's using your shit zoom zoom
just calm down
Because you're not improving it! Create an account and help. But they certainly need an updated wiki software.
However Debian isn't harder to get help except if you're too retarded to properly DuckDuckGo your problem. It's just that most of the time help won't be found on the wiki but elsewhere.
do people browse this board sober....?
I use my Debian 10 to game on my system and use it as my Desktop OS
It works great, no complaints. I think some of the things like installing drivers gets complicated if you don't "Do Linux" but if you have half a brain you can learn and find out via online and forums.
As a matter of fact, Jow Forums helped me install an updated driver from github for my MX s2 Master mouse.
thanks Jow Forums
Nobody uses it, therefore it can't break.
Interestingly enough the Arch wiki sometimes has information useful on other distros, just look up a piece of software that you're having problems with or want to tweak and see if anything applies.
In fact the system time article documents Ubuntu's odd way of handling the system time when you dual boot with Winblows and how to fix it.
if i run sudo apt update, and then wait a few days to run sudo apt dist-upgrade, does that basically guarantee i wont have problems on unstable?
Arch's wiki is the reason I moved from debian to arch. I got everything working now for the mast 2 years but Im afraid something can break and I will end up going back to debian in a hurry.
documentation resides in man pages, the arch wiki is a pathetic unorganized mess and most of the times it never helped me out.
Debian can't do anything without a full vote of all subcommittees of the Debian Project and individual approval of each involved package maintainer, half of whom will say no just to be contrarian and then you need to track down some random dood in Belgium who hasn't been seen since like 2006