This is why Linux will never take over the desktop...

[Rigg]

apparently it used to be based on Debian testing but is now based on Debian stable.

Sparky linux is one of the main distros I know of that uses Debian testing

Yeah, I just realized this and was going to add an edit to my post. Looks like LMDE 7 is indeed based on Debian 13 Trixie.

 

[biostud]

Yeah it's one of those automatic updates that broke my wife's system and it wouldn't even boot up.. so I gave her LMDE as she didn't want to learn everything again.

Till today (4 years later) she has never noticed the difference. It's basically linux mint.. but under the hood it's debian, not ubuntu (like with the normal linux mint).

Except for the update cycles and some difference in commands, I still don't really understand why one should choose different forks of Linux. Is there difference in things you can do in Ubuntu, Fedora and Debian?

If you run the same desktop environment, wouldn't it more or less feel the same in daily usage?

 

[mv2devnull]

If you run the same desktop environment, wouldn't it more or less feel the same in daily usage?

It should, for a "user". However, the while viewpoints of user and admin are separate, some cannot be just users.
(Then again, I don't care about DE -- they do all feel the same to me. Granted, I have not used many.)

For the admin the differences are more noticeable, particularly between rpm-based and deb-based distros.
What is in the box, and what/how/whether to get what is not in the box. Procedures, policies, and conveniences.

 

[biostud]

It should, for a "user". However, the while viewpoints of user and admin are separate, some cannot be just users.
(Then again, I don't care about DE -- they do all feel the same to me. Granted, I have not used many.)

For the admin the differences are more noticeable, particularly between rpm-based and deb-based distros.
What is in the box, and what/how/whether to get what is not in the box. Procedures, policies, and conveniences.

I could understand that the differences are probably larger when a corporate roll-out or server admin. But if it's just your private home PC?

 

[Zepp]

Except for the update cycles and some difference in commands, I still don't really understand why one should choose different forks of Linux. Is there difference in things you can do in Ubuntu, Fedora and Debian?

If you run the same desktop environment, wouldn't it more or less feel the same in daily usage?

I have definitely had times in the past while distro hopping when 2 different debian/ubuntu based beginner friendly distros had different issues or quirks with my system. Especially Ubuntu spins. There are a lot of distros out there that repackage their own software from the base and have different defaults set that can cause issues. so you can run into different experience with seemingly very similar distros.

aside from that there is a larger support base for debian/ubuntu based distros than any of the others. Large help community and your more likely to find deb files for obscure apps not in official repos than rpms or any other package types.

It's hard to argue against debian based distros when you have a plethora of stable options, a few testing and a few unstable(rolling) options with every possible desktop environment available.

 

[WelshBloke]

aside from that there is a larger support base for debian/ubuntu based distros than any of the others. Large help community and your more likely to find deb files for obscure apps not in official repos than rpms or any other package types.

This is what keeps me on something with an Ubuntu base.
That said Arch based stuff get a lot of support now and it's a lot more user friendly than it used to be!

 

[Ken g6]

going forward.. go with LMDE instead of basic linux mint.

It's even better and one update every 2 years is plenty for most people instead of constant updates.

Current version of LMDE is LMDE 7.

My first Linux for my primary desktop was LMDE XFCE in 2009. It was a rolling release, constantly breaking things. They discontinued the XFCE version a few years later. Has it gotten any better and do they support any nice, simple, Win2K-ish desktop?

 

[Zepp]

My first Linux for my primary desktop was LMDE XFCE in 2009. It was a rolling release, constantly breaking things. They discontinued the XFCE version a few years later. Has it gotten any better and do they support any nice, simple, Win2K-ish desktop?

wild, had no idea the early version of LMDE was rolling release

apparently they only offer cinnamon desktop for LMDE but the primary ubuntu-based Mint offers Xfce desktop as well as MATE(basically Gnome 2).

there are quite a few solid debian and ubuntu based distros out now that offer Xfce/MATE versions.

 

[mv2devnull]

I could understand that the differences are probably larger when a corporate roll-out or server admin. But if it's just your private home PC?

Like I tried to imply, for all I know KDE is KDE is KDE regardless of how you install it.
(Presumably, I don't use KDE nor hop distros.) Same for every DE.

Especially Ubuntu spins.

I don't quite get what "spins" are. A convenience for initial install?
I would install core OS and none/one/multiple DE to it as/when needed.

 

[Indus]

My first Linux for my primary desktop was LMDE XFCE in 2009. It was a rolling release, constantly breaking things. They discontinued the XFCE version a few years later. Has it gotten any better and do they support any nice, simple, Win2K-ish desktop?

Yes.. much much better.

I can't comment for earlier versions than LMDE 5 but 5, 6 and 7 have been stable juggernauts.

 

[Zepp]

I don't quite get what "spins" are. A convenience for initial install?

basically yeah. Instead of the most default version of a desktop environment the spins are typically curated a little better by the devs.
In the case of my favorite desktop Budgie, the ubuntu, spiral and Ultramarine spins add a menu applet that is not present in the default budgie that I dont have the skill to add myself, so I am glad to have the spin QoL that in for me.

 

[mv2devnull]

In the case of my favorite desktop Budgie, the ubuntu, spiral and Ultramarine spins add a menu applet that is not present in the default budgie that I dont have the skill to add myself, so I am glad to have the spin QoL that in for me.

But if it's just your private home PC?

Zepp demonstrates the point for "private home PC". Systems from all spins could be identical, if Zepp could install the additional applets to any of them.
Identical to use.
However, Zepp's private PC -- unlike corporate systems -- does not have an expert admin to roll out those installs and thus Zepp depends on the spin creators.
Everybody is not a "biostudent"?

 

[DavidC1]

I tried Bazzite. It didn't work well for me.

Ubuntu got messed up somehow when I tried to install Nvidia proprietary drivers so I can get the GTX 1080 to idle at 10W, rather than whatever makes it 10-12W higher. Based on previous experiences, it may be little more than the GPU's fault. It was from the official Ubuntu installer. Yes, I do care if my desktop idles at low power or not. If I'm not doing anything intensive why should it waste it? And that's still a plus for Windows for those that think power on desktops are irrelevant.

I know Linux can do better than Windows for power use as demonstrated by SteamOS and Android but man it's hard to get it working for custom setups. My previous experience was on a HP laptop. Couldn't get it below 6W idle. On Windows I think it was at least a watt less. I broke another installation previously trying to get PCIe power states working on different laptop.

Each of these problems are barriers and dealbreakers. The little experiences I had with Linux distros remind me of early Windows days. 95, 98 both had me having serious issues I had to deal with every single day. It improved greatly with XP, then with Vista, then with 7. Vista was the first with actually working admin accounts that couldn't be easily broken by standard users. And updates really sucked. Many times I realized I need to prioritize installing heavy updates first and restart, despite not telling me I need to do so. And MS servers regarding updates were unreliable. Nvidia proprietary drivers from Ubuntu breaking the OS is exactly pre Vista/7 experience. Of course, don't forget the need to defrag! Either defrag or updates would take most of the day! At least defrag worked on it's own. Updates I had to babysit for 8+ hours sometimes. Installation would take forever too, hours and hours and hours. Windows 7 worked so well that it was... boring!

I hate Windows, but it's really a dealbreaker when you need a system just for working. I don't care about fixing problems, I want it to work, including power management. I bet Microsoft knows these difficulties, that's why they keep shoving malware at you.

I hate to break it to ya guys, but the world in general doesn't want open source. They want you addicted to their locked down setups. You may be able to get Open Source software, but how long do you think AMD and Intel will allow this? With their spyware TPM and Pluton "security" chips and all that?

 

[biostud]

Zepp demonstrates the point for "private home PC". Systems from all spins could be identical, if Zepp could install the additional applets to any of them.
Identical to use.
However, Zepp's private PC -- unlike corporate systems -- does not have an expert admin to roll out those installs and thus Zepp depends on the spin creators.
Everybody is not a "biostudent"?

I use Ultramarine with KDE which is a Fedora spin and before I tried Mint. I am very much a novice, so I'm just trying to figure out if which branch of Linux really matter if you just use your computer as a casual home PC.

So far it most seems to about stability vs newest features/drivers, immutable vs non-immutable distros and how easy is it to install.

 

[mv2devnull]

If you can start all the programs that you want to use, then does it matter whether they are on Linux, Windows, OS X, Android, BSD, or whatnot?
I don't think it matters.

how easy is it to install

This is what could matter. However, if you have found one that you can install, then would it really diminish your success if out there is something that is even easier to install?

 

[biostud]

If you can start all the programs that you want to use, then does it matter whether they are on Linux, Windows, OS X, Android, BSD, or whatnot?
I don't think it matters.


This is what could matter. However, if you have found one that you can install, then would it really diminish your success if out there is something that is even easier to install?

Just trying to understand the world of Linux and the different flavors work.... When you're used to only have one flavor you don't need these kind of questions.

But yes it matters, because some OS' use my data and make tied to either their hardware or software eco system, so sure Windows does everything I need, but I'm really not sure if I want them to have access to my data, and change my OS in ways I don like anymore.

 

[Zepp]

If you can start all the programs that you want to use, then does it matter whether they are on Linux, Windows, OS X, Android, BSD, or whatnot?
I don't think it matters.

I guess it depends a lot on the person and their hardware.
Windows has a lot of baggage I am very relieved to be done with. I don't have the latest and greatest hardware and windows makes my machine feel like a guy wearing a heavy fat suit.
I am also so glad to be rid of hour+ long windows update sessions, interface lag and lack of taskbar options. so for me it matters a lot that I can run what I want on a lean FOSS operating system that just works

 

[mv2devnull]

But yes it matters, because some OS' use my data and make tied to either their hardware or software eco system, so sure Windows does everything I need, but I'm really not sure if I want them to have access to my data, and change my OS in ways I don like anymore.

That is a good point. That is less about how a user uses applications and more on what is and happens under the hood. (Also about how transparent the hood is -- as we know about MS and Apple, for example.)

Are there differences in that among the Linux distros? Definitely.

One piece is the policy on licenses. A distro can be less or more strict on what licenses included packages may have. All software licenses -- even the open ones -- are not equal. As example:

Nvidia proprietary drivers ... from the official Ubuntu installer.

Ubuntu supports that install even though those drivers have proprietary license. Red Hat's RHEL does not -- but there are third-party repos to "easily" install from. The distro may not support what its devs disagree with, but the user can still decide differently.

Another piece -- different aspect from license policy -- is what is in the distro. For example, Kubuntu is Ubuntu installer that installs KDE. The "default" Ubuntu is packages from Debian + what Canonical adds. Some have alleged that some Canonical additions "use data", not unlike MS. While in principle one would be able to comb through all the open source code, how many of us actually can and will check that every piece, package, and application in our system is "clean and honest"? Almost all of us simply choose to trust some packager(s) (just like MS is trusted). For example, choose to trust Debian but not Ubuntu, since for some uses Debian has all the necessary bits.

 

[manly]

Just trying to understand the world of Linux and the different flavors work.... When you're used to only have one flavor you don't need these kind of questions.

But yes it matters, because some OS' use my data and make tied to either their hardware or software eco system, so sure Windows does everything I need, but I'm really not sure if I want them to have access to my data, and change my OS in ways I don like anymore.

I think you've answered your own question. It doesn't matter until it does. Like Microsoft deciding to turn Win11 into the Spamvertisement edition, driving migration to alternatives.

Or Canonical pushing Snap packages so hard that Ubuntu is no longer the dominant client Linux distro.

One final example is as @Rigg mentioned: Debian was always an excellent server OS but it wasn't as popular for clients because it was so conservative. So software became stale as time went by, as updates are only for bug fixes. This was one big reason that Ubuntu, being derived from Debian unstable, became the most popular desktop Linux distro.

Having said that, most software is pretty mature nowadays, so being on the bleeding edge isn't quite as valuable and exciting as it used to be.

But you're right that the desktop environment drives the day-to-day UX. (This is also the case for Android, nobody asks what Linux kernel is under the hood.)

 

[lxskllr]

Ubuntu supports that install even though those drivers have proprietary license. Red Hat's RHEL does not -- but there are third-party repos to "easily" install from. The distro may not support what its devs disagree with, but the user can still decide differently.

That's why I like debian. My philosophy closely aligns with theirs. If you don't do anything to change it, a default install will be all libre. If you want proprietary software, they don't make it needlessly difficult to do so, but you have to make an active choice. You won't be surprised by proprietary software.

I started on ubuntu. The default gnome2 setup was perfect for me. I could install, make a couple trivial changes, and it was ready to go. Also, since I was new, it made a nice transition to the linux world instead of going to debian. Debian does very little setup, and some things you expect to work, won't. It isn't hard to make it work, but it's hard to get the answer if you don't know the question, and ubuntu eliminated that.

Ubuntu drifted away from what I was interested in. More changes to the default install, and adding special ubuntu stuff that did the same thing as standard stuff did, and it made sense to go to debian.

 

[Zepp]

That's why I like debian. My philosophy closely aligns with theirs. If you don't do anything to change it, a default install will be all libre. If you want proprietary software, they don't make it needlessly difficult to do so, but you have to make an active choice. You won't be surprised by proprietary software.

...Debian does very little setup, and some things you expect to work, won't. It isn't hard to make it work, but it's hard to get the answer if you don't know the question, and ubuntu eliminated that.

Ubuntu drifted away from what I was interested in. More changes to the default install, and adding special ubuntu stuff that did the same thing as standard stuff did, and it made sense to go to debian.

I came to appreciate Spiral linux as it's Debian with more user friendly defaults and some added apps to make it a solid beginner friendly distro but it doesn't repackage anything or use it's own repos. It's all debian in the end so if the dev suddenly dropped "support" one day you'd just have a debian system that continues to update normally.
I could probably setup pure debian myself, but I like what the spiral dev has done especially with budgie desktop and am glad to support his project. He's very attentive to his github forum.

 

[you2]

In simple terms with all of ubuntu shit (snap, wayland - both of which i've disabled); because they make it simple to use zfs. zfs is really really good and hard to beat. In truth i run xfce4 as my desktop (but not xubuntu packing) and everytime i think about switching i just don't want to have to hand compile os-es for zfs - there is a user layer zfs if you want' to totally kill performance.

 

[DavidC1]

Ubuntu supports that install even though those drivers have proprietary license. Red Hat's RHEL does not -- but there are third-party repos to "easily" install from. The distro may not support what its devs disagree with, but the user can still decide differently.

My point is, the installation from Ubuntu screwed up the installation.

 

[mv2devnull]

Debian does very little setup, and some things you expect to work, won't. It isn't hard to make it work, but it's hard to get the answer if you don't know the question, and ubuntu eliminated that.

Ubuntu drifted away from what I was interested in. More changes to the default install, and adding special ubuntu stuff that did the same thing as standard stuff did, and it made sense to go to debian.

You had learned questions by the time Ubuntu did drift. A good journey.

My point is, the installation from Ubuntu screwed up the installation.

True, the fact that a feature is provided for the convenience of the user does not always guarantee that it actually works. There are memes about NVidia's drivers ...