2 ms·

Yes in theory, mot really in practice. Many times I’ve add to add external/weird repositories to get some functionalities i rrallneeded (eg: appropriate codecs

by znpy 3y ago

Yes in theory, mot really in practice. Many times I’ve add to add external/weird repositories to get some functionalities i rrallneeded (eg: appropriate codecs fir bluetooth audio and a version of bluez that supported by bluetooth headsets) and that kind of tainting really endangers the longevity of a debian-based system. I understand that the fault is completely on the external repositories and on the user… however the choice then is to be able to use my hardware (or, in general, to the kind if computing i need) or not. These days I’m using fedora btw, which has been really stable while providing fairly up-to-date packages.

fjfuvucucuc 3y ago
I think if you're finding debian too slow you're probably not valuing stability to the same level. That's not a problem with debian, that's just a mismatch in needs, you're probably better off with a "less" stable operating system.
- znpy 3y ago
  > That's not a problem with debian, that's just a mismatch in needs, you're probably better off with a "less" stable operating system. I'll be honest, i haven't had any stability issues with Fedora either, and i've been upgrading as often as i would with Debian. And in both cases, i'm using fairly old and known hardware (years old thinkpads, the T440 and the X270).
  - fjfuvucucuc 3y ago
    Ok, and when google starts deploying Gmail to old t440s running fedora I'll tell them the reliability "just as good as debian".
ylyn 3y ago
Then Debian is the wrong distro for you. Debian is for people who want to configure a server once and have it stay running and secure. "Stability" in Debian's context means _version_ stability, not that it doesn't crash. I think most Linux distros aim to not crash.
- znpy 3y ago
  > Then Debian is the wrong distro for you. Indeed, I moved to Fedora and I haven't looked back. I was already using RHEL and CentOS (later Rocky Linux) on servers, I guess it's bye-bye time for Debian. > Debian is for people who want to configure a server once and have it stay running and secure. The same could be said for RHEL and most of its derivatives though.

by znpy 3y ago

fjfuvucucuc 3y ago

I think if you're finding debian too slow you're probably not valuing stability to the same level. That's not a problem with debian, that's just a mismatch in needs, you're probably better off with a "less" stable operating system.

znpy 3y ago
> That's not a problem with debian, that's just a mismatch in needs, you're probably better off with a "less" stable operating system. I'll be honest, i haven't had any stability issues with Fedora either, and i've been upgrading as often as i would with Debian. And in both cases, i'm using fairly old and known hardware (years old thinkpads, the T440 and the X270).
- fjfuvucucuc 3y ago
  Ok, and when google starts deploying Gmail to old t440s running fedora I'll tell them the reliability "just as good as debian".

ylyn 3y ago

Then Debian is the wrong distro for you. Debian is for people who want to configure a server once and have it stay running and secure. "Stability" in Debian's context means _version_ stability, not that it doesn't crash. I think most Linux distros aim to not crash.

znpy 3y ago
> Then Debian is the wrong distro for you. Indeed, I moved to Fedora and I haven't looked back. I was already using RHEL and CentOS (later Rocky Linux) on servers, I guess it's bye-bye time for Debian. > Debian is for people who want to configure a server once and have it stay running and secure. The same could be said for RHEL and most of its derivatives though.