They say debian is free and has its promise, but Arch has like 2-4 maintainers?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 70 points 3 months ago (2 children)

If you know vaguely what you're doing or are willing to learn, you can go with whatever and it'll be fine.

Personally not a big fan of debian because they tend to be slower and more conservative on updates. Arch is a bit more technical, but very customizable.

I'm personally a big fan of Fedora. Software updated quickly enough to have all the bells and whistles, slow enough to not get cut by bleeding edge software.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Gentoo is where you learn the most about Linux and software in general.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Long time gentoo advocate(/fanboy) here, and so, it stings a little to say this, but, there are ways to use gentoo that do not have you learn as much about your system as, say, e.g. CRUX, KISS/Carbs, LFS(?), starting with just a busybox and kernel, Exherbo, or even many ways of using slackware [and several other suggestions yet, but gotta cut the list short somewhere].

    Gentoo's very conveniently wrapped up with portage. So conveniently, you can be forgiven for lingering in the convenience and not venturing deeper into what the convenience wraps around. It's not a thick opaque plastic wrap like some distros that try hard to lower the entry bar, but it is still convenient. ... Conveniently availing advanced fidelity of choice over what you're installing, conveniently managing complexity in simplicity, but ultimately a convenience trap still none the less. ... Many Gentoo users look like uneducated yokels in flying saucers, compared to those who actually do compile their software themselves (they run make), rather than those who have emerge do it for them. [Or an even more extreme example, we're like anyone using an LLM voice assistant.] As in: We're not superior skilled savvy sysadmin, we just have better tools.

    And why do the effort of learning to become better, when the machine does it for you.

    But then, with gentoo, you do still have the choice. Gentoo is all about choice.

    One can try say same for any distro, and that's true, for all being (mostly) Free Software ("Opensource") and so can study (freedom1) it to whatever depth your curiosity takes you, but, Arch does try take some of your choice away from you, not the freedom to study it, but in that it insists it have the freedom to bite you. [ Though, there be ways to mitigate that ]. Debian (or Devuan), Gentoo, Suse, and others, let you opt-in to the fast lane. Arch seem to be screaming "COME WITH US, FAST AS WE CAN!!!" and leaving little room to hear anything about taking arch to a slow lane.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 months ago

    It was mostly sarcastic suggestion, but as you said, you can hit the ground running with Gentoo nowadays very quickly, and go back and revisit every part of it and play around with it, and learn about everything later.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (5 children)

    I think it's Ubuntu that's slow, while Debian as its base is smaller and faster?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 3 months ago* (1 child)

    Slower on updates, not slow to run. Slower on updates is referring to how it takes longer for new features / software to be shipped out for you to download. Debian usually prioritizes machines that chug along for a long time without anything breaking, rather than adding new stuff

    You're right that it's not slow to run. It is small and fast

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago (1 child)

    Performance differences between distros tend to be negligible. Unless you have a specific use case and a distro specifically tuned for that, you will hardly notice any difference.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 months ago

    Your logic seems sound, yup.

    Though broader than the issue you're responding to, the bigger quality of note in Ubuntu, is not that it's slow (nor larger), but instead, the most issue of ubuntu, is that they're very very silly. More marketing silly than sensible development.

    Better Ubuntu be slow than fast anyway. See what they do when they try go fast? Like replacing the userland with rust...

    That's beyond just "ready or not, here it comes" release model madness.

    It's silly.

  • source
  • parent