> Debian Stable had fewer regressions in security updates, Ubuntu really dropped the ball on one regression that would make some devices unbootable (Ubuntu stra

> Debian Stable had fewer regressions in security updates, Ubuntu really dropped the ball on one regression that would make some devices unbootable (Ubuntu strangely silent on the bricking, and I had to confirm it with a contact at another distro company), getting rid of Ubuntu's Snap changing things outside of APT control was a huge relief, and we don't have to worry as much about privacy&security problems of Debian phoning-home. Curiously, I've had regular Debian updates also mess up my install, to where it cannot boot: https://blog.kronis.dev/everything%20is%20broken/debian-and-grub-are-broken https://blog.kronis.dev/everything%20is%20broken/debian-and-... That said, both Debian and Ubuntu have been passable in my experience, both on the desktop and for servers, basically the whole DEB group of distros including something like Linux Mint and others on the desktop as a daily driver. I might be an outlier, but they've generally let me get things done more quickly and easily when compared to something like CentOS, RHEL, Oracle Linux and so on (though Fedora on the desktop was generally pretty good). On RPM distros things tended to go wrong, everything from using Docker instead of Podman for Docker Swarm in some smaller projects not being entirely supported (even when Podman didn't have feature parity), some oddness when setting up K3s clusters because I didn't have resources for OpenShift or whatever, regular Docker networking failing and needing to add masquerading to firewall configuration, issues with SELinux not playing nicely with some software, kswapd utterly killing the CPU when the system is running low on swap and others. > Also, especially for startups, there are often efficiencies to using Debian Stable for everything for which it can be used. For example, it's not the smallest base of a bespoke Docker container, but there are development and operations (personnel) efficiencies when containers, host servers, and workstations are all running the same thing. Fewer surprises in production, less time and complexity trying to support multiple environments, and you can rapidly debug some things more easily on bare metal on workstation when necessary. I actually moved over my container images to Ubuntu as well, so that I can setup dev environments on the desktop directly the same way I would for a container (sometimes debugging inside of containers is a pain): https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/using-ubuntu-as-the-base-for-all-of-my-containers https://blog.kronis.dev/articles/using-ubuntu-as-the-base-fo... So now I'm basically running the setup you're describing (the same OS locally, on servers and also in containers) even if I've settled on Ubuntu LTS instead because of the longer EOL and it's been a great experience so far! That said, the whole snaps/Flatpak/AppImage situation could be a bit better.