Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Does Debian still matter?

Filed under

Debian was one of the first Linux distributions, and it pioneered much of what we take for granted in Linux systems today. But has Debian had its day?

The release last month of Debian 5.0, codenamed "lenny", has certainly been a success, but Debian has always been seen as a distribution made by geeks, for geeks, and has had trouble attracting new users.

In a world where Ubuntu combines Debian's package management technology, up-to-date software and a fixed six-month release cycle, is Debian still relevant as a distribution?

The Ubuntu factor
On the desktop, it's hard to argue the case for Debian, mainly because it's such a conservative distribution.

The Debian developers pride themselves on not making a new release until they feel it's ready, but this inevitably leads to delays, compounded by Debian's massive size (over 23,000 packages, supported on 12 different CPU architectures). The end result is that Debian releases are widely spaced -- the last release took 22 months, but the gap between the 3.0 and 3.1 releases was 35 months.

rest here

Of Course!

I've had more bug issues with *buntu than with Debian, and once I made the switch to Debian I've not been happier. Check out Launchpad, there are so many bugs there that do not affect Debian.

Other users can run what they want of course, but server rooms and desktop users both want a stable OS. Bleeding edge can still happen in Debian without upgrading the whole system, but *buntu required a full upgrade and even then, it breaks all the time (in my experience, of course).

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Oh Snap – to boldly package where no one has packaged before

One of the great disadvantages of the Linux desktop is its software distribution mechanism. While the overall concept of central software repos works great and has been adapted into powerful Stores in commercial products, deploying and using programs, delivered as packages, is a tricky business. It stems from the wider fragmentation of the distro ecospace, and it essence, it means that if you want to release your product, you must compile it 150 odd ways, not just for different distributions but also for different versions of the same distribution. Naturally, this model scares away the big game. Recently though, there have been several attempts to make Linux packages more cross-distro and minimize the gap between distributions. The name of the game: Snap, and we’ve tasted this app-container framework before. It is unto Linux what, well, Windows stuff is unto Windows, in a way. Not quite statically compiled stuff, but definitely independent. I had it tested again in Ubuntu 17.04, and it would appear that Snap is getting more and more traction. Let’s have another look. Read more

Kubuntu 17.04 - the next generation

As usual, Kubuntu 17.04 does not give you any surprises. It is stable and reliable. It is reasonably resource-hungry. There are no wonders in this new release. Just a well-rounded distribution for everyday use. Yes, there are small bugs or inconveniences here and there, but they are not huge and can be easily fixed, replaced or lived with. The biggest of them for me, of course, is the lack of multimedia codecs. You can heal that easily. Read more

KDE vs. GNOME Design Philosophies

The days are gone when the Linux desktop was dominated almost entirely by KDE and GNOME. However, the influence of their design philosophy remains, with KDE favored by a third of users, and many modern desktop alternatives, from GNOME itself to Linux Mint’s Cinnamon and MATE using applications originally designed for GNOME. Broadly speaking, KDE’s design philosopy can be described as completist, and designed for users of all levels of experience, while GNOME’s is minimalist, and aimed particularly at new users — although all levels of users can appreciate GNOME design as well. By “completist,” I mean that KDE applications try to include every function that could possibly be included in a task. Confusion is limited by the setting of intelligent defaults, but more functions are still visible than most everyday uses require. Perhaps the ultimate example of this design is digiKam, which over the year has calved new windows the way that polar ice caps calve glaciers. At the opposite end of the spectrum, GNOME applications tend to include only the features for the most common use-cases. This choice makes GNOME apps easy to use, but can leave users stranded if any problems emerge. A typical example is Simple Scan, which is so uncluttered that at first it can almost seem confusing. Read more

Kubuntu 17.04 Zesty Zaphod - Kawabuntu!

Let us continue with the spring season distro testing. Next on the menu: Kubuntu. After many years of offering bland, emotionless releases, we had a cautiously reasonable Yakkety Yak edition, so me hopes are high for today. And for today, we will examine the latest Kubuntu, which officially bears the name of Zesty Zapus, but once again, like my recent Ubuntu review, my version of the distro's name is totally better. So allow me to ask thee, what is the answer to Linux, multiverse and constant forking? Read more