I cut my teeth on Red Hat (before Fedora was a thing), used Gentoo for a few years when I cutely believed that waiting hours for compiles to finish was fun and useful, but for the last 8-10 years I've been on Debian.
It's not perfect, but it gets the job done. For my laptop I usually run testing, and then stick with stable for 6 months or so after it's released, before switching back to testing. For me, it's a good balance between stability and having recent versions of applications.
I use both gentoo and debian. I find it hard for either one to replace the other. I can't let go of the control gentoo gives me and as you noted the smooth and stable binary based debian let's you get the job done fast with little hustle. I try to mix and match, using gentoo as a minimalist and debian as a full blown desktop or prod network(http,etc...) server.
I've seen companies using Gentoo (with a lot of tooling around it) in specialized context.
Particularly in military contracts, Gentoo brings you several things:
1) you have a full audit trace from the compilation, and in paranoid situation, it's a huge plus.
2) it permits you to minimize the OS footprint quite a lot (feature flags), which helps improving security (less exposure).
3) it permits an high degree of customization, including the combination of software versions used.
4) it's relatively easy to import a patch and maintain an overlay yourself.
We have to keep in mind the constrains of Military contracts: The systems tends to be quite complex, validation is quite lengthy, updates are far in between, they tend to use specialized/weird/not powerful hardware which might need some tweaking, and the level of traceability is generally quite high.
As a relative Linux newbie, who's running Ubuntu 20.04 LTS on two laptops at home, would there be any advantages to Debian 10.4 over Ubuntu 20.04?
(I assume at least some of that answer would depend on my use cases and hardware, but if you have general insights to the differences, some of us might find that useful!)
Ubuntu is based on Debian so things such as the way to install applications and the variety of applications available are very similar especially when compared to Fedora, Arch and others which use different package managers.
Main difference you might notice on Debian 10.4 vs Ubuntu 20.04 is that the default Gnome on Debian is a couple of versions behind. Debian only updates security patches rather than new releases between main Debian version releases (10.4 is more like a security update rather than a major new release). You would have to run Debian Testing or Debian Unstable/Sid in order to get the same Gnome version (3.36) as on Ubuntu 20.04.
Other than that there are no Snaps enabled/installed by default (you can install/enable them yourself if you choose to do so) and Debian Gnome is the way the Gnome developers intended it without any extra extensions and customization done (Ubuntu comes with several extensions and other customization enabled by default). You can install these manually yourself if you choose to do so.
Do remember to pick the non-free (as in it includes non-free firmware) ISO from Debian's website as chances are your WiFi won't work if you go with the official free software only ISO.
If you go with the NetInst ISO you can install minimal Gnome which comes without any additional software (untick everything on the last step, log in when the install is finished and then install gnome-core using apt install gnome-core).
I can't stand gnome3 on Ubuntu. It's just dysfunctional and slow in so many ways. I could expand on that, but lets just say I had installed 19.10 in Feb for testing, and when I occasionally switched back to using my old notebook (with 16.10 and Unity), which I had to to search files since 19.10 doesn't find anything, I was shocked how much faster and usable it is. And while Ubuntu offers other flavours (Lubuntu, Xubuntu, etc.), once you leave the mainstream setup, you can as well use something else altogether since you're loosing the network effect and QA through crowd-testing that Ubuntu has anyway. Mandatorily updating Snap packages on 20.04 were the last straw for me, as I'm having no use for such a setup; as developer working with multiple customers and customer data, and often times from remote and not-so-well connected spots, I absolutely need to be in control of what SW is on my system so I decided I'll go back to using Debian proper (Devuan, specifically, so I can also get rid of SystemD).
Debian's packages are generally older and more thoroughly tested. Debian also didn't customize things as much as Ubuntu does, so the software you get is much closer to what the "upstream" projects originally released.
Debian is famous both for having extended support for all releases, and for obsessive attention to seamless upgrade-in-place support. Some people will keep a single Debian install running for a decade, upgrading as they go without ever reinstalling.
Ubuntu is fantastic if you want a user-friendly desktop system out of the box. Debian is really nice for systems that you want to run with minimal maintenance for years at a time.
I moved away from Ubuntu to Debian, four ideological reasons, roughly a decade ago, when Ubuntu started to do crazy UI changes, and included ads in the OS (I don't know if this is still the case).
Debian on xfce4 also works fast on my old laptop (and my new laptop).
It is, and it's one of the more annoying MOTDs I've encountered. You won't see it unless you get rid of the login manager and login at the terminal. Or, use the server edition.
> You won't see it unless you get rid of the login manager and login at the terminal. Or, use the server edition.
And even though you don't see it, it's still there -- on every Ubuntu install (by default) -- phoning home to Canonical (every 12 hours, if memory serves).
(Some users may not mind, of course, but they certainly don't go out of their way to let you know about it beforehand, which is my major issue with it.)
I had no idea this was a thing. Thanks for the details. Do you happen to have a link handy for more information? If not, I'll see what I can find scouring the internet!
Here's an HN thread [0] from a few years ago regarding "advertising" in the MOTD, specifically, and Ubuntu's "dynamic" MOTD, generally. (I'm not sure if all of the hardware/system details were being sent back then, though.)
The relevant "snippets" responsible for this behavior live in their own directory, /etc/update-motd.d/, if memory serves. That may not be exactly right -- perhaps unsuprisingly, I don't have an Ubuntu box handy -- but it should at least be close enough to help you find the actual directory.
Please note: Starting with Debian 7, the minor number is not part of the Debian release number, and numbers with a minor component like 9.4 or 9.7 now indicate a point release. Basically, only security updates and major bug fixes, with new updated installation media images. This, 10.4, is not a new major release of Debian.
It didn’t use to be that way; Debian 3.1 was a major release after Debian 3.0, and Debian 6.0 had minor releases up to 6.0.10. This did not change until Debian 7 (which was called 7, not 7.0, and had a minor release numbered 7.1). Therefore, many people might still be used to the first minor version number being a major release, even though it is not true anymore.
Take a look at the website for Debian's parent organization, Software In The Public Interest, and see all the projects they are responsible for: https://www.spi-inc.org/projects/
My problem with Debian (and Ubuntu) has been that often when I want to install a seemingly little piece of software, be it a library or a program, I end up getting the whole slew of stuff - frameworks, daemons, even language processors I haven't suspected existed. (This may not be the distro's problem, but I believe at least some of those things may be optional, and I would have liked to treat them as such.)
You can avoid installing non-required dependencies by adding the following (based on your preferences and/or use case) to a file in the /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/ directory:
Alternatively, you can do as pengaru suggested and the pass "--no-install-recommends" and/or "--no-install-suggests" parameters when installing packages, as described in the apt-get man page [0].
You can, but it does require one to RTFM and know/learn about the available installation options.
My automated "preseed" installs are quite minimal. I don't recall exactly how many packages I end up with on a new install but I think it was 224 -- much fewer than what you'll end up with when doing a typical installation.
If you go with the NetInst ISO you can install minimal Gnome (or whichever desktop environment you prefer) which comes without any additional software. You have to untick everything on the last step where it asks you to choose your DE, log in when the install is finished and then install gnome-core using apt install gnome-core. This is Gnome with Gnome Software, Gnome Terminal and other major pieces but without mail client, office, games etc.
I've actually been using Raspbian Desktop installed on a laptop to develop software for raspberry pi. For some reason it's faster compiling xojo apps than windows or mac. Debian FTW!
I used to love the shit out of Debian., but nowadays, that I am really startled and shocked what it had become.
Try to get nvidia graphics running on an optimus based laptop, and you will find yourself in a midst of an multiple hour long try and error prone session of head-shaking and cursing. Graphics installer -> no touchpad?!?!? Blueutooth A2DP -> fix it by hand..... This list goes on and on and on...
I built a PC in 2005 with an Nvidia graphics card and ran Debian on it exclusively. I had a lot of trouble with that graphics card over the years, but that wasn't caused by Debian, but rather by Nvidia, because they did neither offer nor even support open source drivers. My conclusion was to not buy any Nvidia product again, until they offer proper open source drivers for it. Since I retired this PC I haven't owned any Nvidia product anymore and I couldn't be happier. Sure the drivers for other graphics cards aren't perfect either, but at least I don't have to deal with binary blobs anymore where nobody except of the manufacturer can fix issues.
Hardware support and lack of polishing has always been an issue in the Linux world and all distributions have suffered from it one way or another.
Having spent quite a lot of time in the past on this kind of issues, I do sympathize.
But from my experience, things actually tends to get a bit better now days, for example, I'm far less cautious about avoiding Broadcom ethernet and wifi cards as they generally tends to work out of the box today (even if I still prefer Intel for these).
Fighting hardware/default configuration issues is unfortunately be part of the game, but in my experience, it's a game I play less and less often.
thank you to the team for a great OS and for keeping the spirit of ian murdock alive.
the tough decision for me right now on my laptop, is whether to use MX Linux, which has been great the last few years, or this Linux Mint Debian Edition, which i've been trying since the latest release and is very nice.
The first Debian release I used was slink (released March 1999). I stopped using debian on most of my personal machines when they switched to systemd. This is because a few of them refused to boot or exhibited strange init related bugs after the switch.
My first Debian was also Slink, installed from a box of floppies onto a 486. Had to use rawrite to put the disk image onto the floppies. That box of floppies is still around here somewhere, though the 486 is long gone.
I remember the troubles using "dselect" without a stable internet connection, "apt" came quite later (with Potato or Woody, don't recall). On the other hand, I never had the need to try something else...
The thing that most impressed me about the install was the experimental hardware detection. I had a list of all she system hardware and the installer only missed a single component. Even then, it was an alternate recommendation.
Snap. It's only the last year I chucked away my slink, potato and woody CDs.
I had terrible problems with NFS and systemd. In fact, when testing Ubuntu 20.04 in a VM, the problems are still there even today. It's not freezing on boot as regularly, but it's still unpredictable and often freezes on shutdown.
We can play this game, I started on Linux with 0.99pl15 but I can pretty much guarantee you given this place someone will show up within an hour who got on the train in '92 and within a day someone who did in '91.
Related: on the occassion of Little Richard dying I have reflected on how every Beatles album was released closer to World War I than today. (Almost, Abbey Road needs a few more months, it'll be true on Aug 13.)
It's not perfect, but it gets the job done. For my laptop I usually run testing, and then stick with stable for 6 months or so after it's released, before switching back to testing. For me, it's a good balance between stability and having recent versions of applications.