Debian based Distros... Really better?

[Head_on_a_Stick]

^ The Census page is a bit more current:

https://wiki.debian.org/Derivatives/Census

BunsenLabs is on the list

[tpprynn]

Now that Ubuntu has done away with Unity, which I hated but which 'distinguished' it, and now that Mint doesn't come with codecs pre-installed, Debian is at worst an equal in terms of user- and beginner-friendliness. In some ways, in particular the LXDE iso, with its inclusion of a functioning media player, it is nearer good-to-go than its derivatives.

For me it's more satisfying to use the root distro, the honest source of the work as it were, and when a Mint or Ubuntu user I still felt like that, that I was swizzing myself a bit. I still get very annoyed with problems or issues to solve that stem from arguable ethics or installation quirks, which I honestly experience more often with Debian, e.g. I recently installed 9.2 only to find that once I'd reattached my data drive the OS won't boot, which doesn't happen with Ubuntu for example. I believe the same happened with 9.1 _unless_ I left the data drive plugged in for the install, which feels a bit nerve-wracking. The presentation of Debian could be a lot better too, though as often as not this is true of editions of Ubuntu and Mint, whose endeavour to 'polish' can lead to spectacular yet buggy gaudiness.

Overall, now that I mostly know what I am doing I've arrived at Debian. I have it on a mini PC and a laptop and am on the verge of replacing an occasionally crashing Ubuntu Gnome install on my desktop PC. (On that machine I would have preferred to use Windows 10, just to have the option, but I've run into permissions nonsense that would take too much effort and time to resolve as far as I can see, so Windows is gone.)

I use Testing and the iso with the nonfree stuff on comfortably enough so I am neither type of stickler.

[Bulkley]

^ The Census page is a bit more current:

I didn't know there is a Census page. Thanks.

BunsenLabs is on the list

So is Storm OS. When I installed Storm 2000 I found it to be the smoothest install I'd done up until then. I got Storm from the back of a magazine which was how most distros got started back then. I still have it in my desk drawer. Storm was a Vancouver company whose sad mistake was to start during the tech boom of the late 90's which went bust taking a lot of startup companies with it.

[debiman]

now that Mint doesn't come with codecs pre-installed

what i heard is that a special legal situation in ireland made it easier for them to do so in the first place, then something changed with that law and somebody seriously threatened to sue them over it.
the articles from over a year ago never seem to state that (and i cannot find the one that did anymore) and are all more-or-less verbatim copies of this.
since this hasn't been the news item i expected it to be, linux mint just happily continued plowing on as number one, even hough i think this extreme ease of installation made it number one in the first place.
(and i have a personal axe to grind with linux mint; on 2 occasions i tried to install it for friends, and each time i had to use Xubuntu in the end because linux mint's updating process is just too fragile)

btw...

only to find that once I'd reattached my data drive the OS won't boot

usually this means "won't boot to a graphical desktop", which is the same thing for ubuntu (et al.) users, but not debianites.

[VentGrey]

Debian is at worst an equal in terms of user- and beginner-friendliness.

How about customizability?

[Nili]

Debian offer NETINST to build your system according to your will, so enough to say that Debian is better than a based distro for someone.

[Wheelerof4te]

Short answer:
Not really. Not anymore, at least. It is as easy to install Debian now as it is Ubuntu. If you have LAN cable, just install non-free firmware and Wi-Fi driver later (if needed) and you're off. Or use non-free images.

Long answer:

1) Ubuntu and it's DE derivatives became popular because they were easy to install and use snaphots of Debian Testing (LTS) and Sid (Regular release).
2) Debian is, as of now, the largest and the most influental GNU/Linux distro. It has one of the largest and the most organised repositories of any distro.
3) It comes in three branches: Stable, Testing and Unstable (Sid). So you get the choice of running either LTS version or going for rolling-release.
4) Thanks to the above, one can run Debian using very new PC hardware, if he/she digs a little into the documentation. Just start with netinst minimal install, upgrade to either Testing or all the way to Sid and you're done.
5) Debian Testing and Sid bacame very robust in the recent years. Breakages are minimal.
6) All this means there is not much point to the Ubuntu anymore. Everyone is looking to Debian since it has both the reputation and ease of use now.

Honestly, there are three OS choices that matter as of 2017. Windows, MacOS and Debian GNU/Linux. Everything else is (IMHO) either niche or unnecessary. Except Arch. BTW, I don't use Arch.

EDIT: In case you wonder why i didn't mention Fedora/RHEL. While Fedora team can be given credit for great deal of (controversial?) innovations in GNU/Linux world (systemd, Wayland, pulseaudio/pipewire etc.), it is at it's core just another distro, albeit with a different package manager and with fewer packages than Debian. It is also a distro backed by and dependent on a single corporation (Red Hat Inc.). For these reasons, I don't consider it a viable long-term OS in the future to come.

[IzayoiFlandre]

Speaking of Arch Linux I dislike that some people think they're of a higher rank than other Linux users by using Arch. Though most of said people are teenagers

And don't even talk to me about Ubuntu. It's heavily overrated, Canonical are not a good company at all especially for their controversial search function and choices (changing the default DE to Unity and then going back on that a few years later is not a great decision). Also, Linux Mint isn't much better than Ubuntu, to be honest, it's pretty much the same thing...

I've only been using Debian for 2 days and it feels much smoother and stable than Ubuntu, and actually feels ok as a desktop OS, something I never really got with many Linux distributions.

[Nili]

Well spoken Wheelerof4te, splits into two very understandable parts. Thanks for sharing your view.
Regards!

[Wheelerof4te]

^Why, thank you very much! I added a bit about Fedora, since I left it out at first. It deserves to be mentioned (even though the topic is about Debian).

[makh]

Hi

...

http://www.ocsmag.com/2017/11/18/open-linux-beyond-distributions-regressions-and-rivalry/

How about customizability?

+1

Debian offer NETINST to build your system according to your will, so enough to say that Debian is better than a based distro for someone.

I think it is doable in Ubuntu, Linux Mint and others, even Slax, right now.

...

Sir! You sound like a Debian Pro. But not all can play with advance customizations, compiling, hardware support, etc.

Speaking of Arch Linux ...
And don't even talk to me about Ubuntu ...
I've only been using Debian for 2 days...

a. Welcome to Debian & Debian Forum.
b. Arch is difficult to install, but not difficult to run. Then there are arch based distros, which simplify installation also. But Arch is a no go for people who cannot understand arch wiki.
c. Debian Stable is fully optimized for server use, but not the desktop.

^Why, thank you very much! I added a bit about Fedora, since I left it out at first. It deserves to be mentioned.

I personally thing that Opensuse is better than Fedora. But I didnt explore Fedora for a while, ... its been years. But Opensuse is not that customizable due to yast. It restricts the user and user changes to file configurations. But yast seems to the best Control Center in the Linux world.

Thankyou

[Wheelerof4te]

Sir! You sound like a Debian Pro. But not all can play with advance customizations, compiling, hardware support, etc.

I am not a Debian Pro by any stretch (no pun intended) of the imagination. I just used to read and absorb the great Debian Wiki. You need to read only a few key pages of it to install and use Debian, IMO (SourcesList page, Wi-Fi/Firmware page, Apt page, Debian releases page) And the installation manual, of course. If anyone wants to install an OS, they should at least research it beforehand. If someone can't do that, then better install Windows.

[IzayoiFlandre]

Sir! You sound like a Debian Pro. But not all can play with advance customizations, compiling, hardware support, etc.

I am not a Debian Pro by any stretch (no pun intended) of the imagination. I just used to read and absorb the great Debian Wiki. You need to read only a few key pages of it to install and use Debian, IMO (SourcesList page, Wi-Fi/Firmware page, Apt page, Debian releases page) And the installation manual, of course. If anyone wants to install an OS, they should at least research it beforehand. If you can't do that, better install Windows.

I learn by trial and error and asking others, as well as researching. No question is too stupid to be asked in the Linux world.

In fact it was when I was discussing Lubuntu with a friend, that they mentioned Debian 9 to me, and then that's how I came to try and like it!

As for what makh said earlier about Debian Stable being mostly optimised for server usage, it still translates pretty good to the desktop, from a former Solus, Mint and Ubuntu user. It's also very lightweight and that makes it great

[debiman]

But Arch is a no go for people who cannot understand arch wiki.

well said, that.

[RU55EL]

But Arch is a no go for people who cannot understand arch wiki.

well said, that.

So, Arch is no go for people who cannot read.

My favorite safety sticker:

Do not operate this machine if you cannot read!

Found on a aerial reach machine.