You are not logged in.
I'll start by saying that I'm not an expert with any of the distros, but I've dabbled and tried here and there a lot of the major ones, starting way back with Redhat 5. I've tried Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandrake, then Mandriva, PCLinuxOS, LinuxMint, and most recently LinuxMint Debian, before moving to Arch. Just a few weeks ago I was running LMDE (LinuxMint Debian) upgraded to the unstable distro with Gnome 3 / Gnome Shell packages installed from the experimental repo. I understand that they don't call it unstable or experimental without reason. I wanted to try out Gnome 3 / Gnome Shell so I took the plunge. Most of the time the experience was pretty good, but every few days there would be package upgrades that would break the system. Usually you could wait a day or two and everything would be fixed, but I got tired of that. I happened across Arch and saw that there were more of the Gnome 3 packages available and they were generally newer than what Debian was offering so that encouraged me to give Arch a try. I agree with others that I am learning more about Linux with Arch than I was with Debian and so far, no updates, even kernel updates, have broken my system. I'm happily plugging away with Gnome Shell and everything seems to be quite stable. I really did like the LMDE flavor of Debian which is based on the testing distro of Debian and a rolling release. It was actually pretty stable, but even there, occassionally some update would bite you, just not as often as in sid and experimental. So any problems that I had with it were due to my own pursuits of newer, bleeding edge stuff than the more stable versions had to offer. Debian definitely has a place for anyone that needs a super stable system (provided they stay away from sid and experimental) and doesn't want to have to spend time fixing things. I kind of enjoy fixing things to a point because you usually learn more that way, but if I was at the point where I depended on my Linux install for all my computing tasks then I would want something stable. A production system probably needs stability more than cutting edge. With Arch I'm finding myself spending more and more time with Linux instead of Windows 7, mostly hanging on to it because my printer doesn't work with Linux, yet. So far, Arch has proven to be pretty stable for me, even with cutting edge Gnome 3 stuff on it. I really don't know how Arch would be in a server environment, but it's great for the desktop world.
Last edited by sidneyk (2011-05-16 16:00:37)
Offline
Arch kinda' rocks for servers, if you configure a few extra things, first. The 'only use what you need approach' really helps.
I like Debian because of its history, but not especially because of its packaging and tools. It's great if you're an Ubuntu user trying to get a bit more basic or need a stable system that won't die on you after an update somewhere. I'm sad whenever I hear about someone sticking to Windows for a piece of hardware, since that's actually usually more easily replaced than software habits are. I wish I could just throw hardware at people so they don't feel like they need to use Windows-only devices. T^T
Here's hoping you can run into a new printer, soon- hopefully you don't need a very expensive one (most of the expensive ones work with Linux, anyway). Gnome-Shell is kinda' hard to stay away from after the first few days.
Offline
When my primary computer's motherboard quit a couple months ago, I hauled out my backup machine, which was very slow with Windows XP. I put Debian 6 with Xfce on it and was quite pleased. I used that for about a month. For longer term, I think the outdated packages would have really got on my nerves (I was just using Stable, since I was trying to fix one computer and didn't want to have to put much work into a second), but as a temporary solution it was wonderful. I was coming from openSUSE 11.3, which was my first full-time Linux, so I got to try something different and get more experience with the variety of Linux distributions. I'm in the process of writing up a "review" of my experience with Debian for my blog, but it's not ready yet.
I think Debian would be a good one for moderately competent Linux newbies who are genuinely interested in Linux, not just "Windows, but Free". An ordinary desktop user could probably get by on Debian without ever having to use the command line. The sheer number of packages in the repositories is useful, since there'd be very little a user couldn't find there. The stability of the main release is very good too, which would make it attractive to people who panic when something crashes. While I can see that the FOSS-or-die philosophy could be a problem in some ways, it's nice to see that there /is/ a philosophy behind the project (like there is with Arch) rather than just, "Hey, let's make a Linux distro."
That said, getting started can be a bit overwhelming. It's available for a large number of architectures and many new users simply won't have any clue which one they need (I had to do some research myself, to be sure of downloading the right ISO, because Debian doesn't provide any information about what all those architecture numbers mean). Then there are something like 30 CD ISO files available to download, and you have to really go through the FAQs thoroughly to realise you only need the first one.
I never got the hang of aptitude/apt-get other than "sudo apt-get install packagename". It just seemed clumsy to me.
Offline
I was trying to set up a "friendly" system for my wife to use on my computer as a test before I put it on hers (we're not in the same location), so I chose debian (linux mint de, crunchbang xfce, debian itself) and I just couldn't get past the OLDNESS of everything. Why do I have to apt-pin to get kde 4.6? Casual updates broke the whole system. Xfce feels like a hack of gnome when you're running 4.2 (thunar 4.8 updates ftw!). So I tried to use ubuntu-based linux mint and ubuntu itself and it was like fighting me into using the stupid identification tool they came up with that is a system tray with different icons that you CAN'T manipulate. And maybe I don't want to install evolution, maybe because Gmail is on the internet already so why connet my mail client to the internet to download the mail so I can read it when I'm not on the internet? So after like a week of this, and just getting generally tired of the "defaults" of debian/ubuntu(although not necessarily the same) continually conflicting with me trying to establish my own defaults, I switched back to Arch. She's just going to have to accept that Arch+Xfce is better than whatever she was expecting to use anyway. Probably won't even notice...
[edit] One thing I do like though... regular expressions in apt... apt-get install gstreamer0.10*
Last edited by BKLive (2011-05-17 17:48:01)
Main Arch Setup: HP Pavillion p7-1209, Quad-Core i3-2120 3.3Ghz, 8GB RAM, 1TB HDD, Intel Graphics
Laptop Arch Setup: Gateway lt3103u Netbook, AMD Athlon64 1.2Ghz, 2GB RAM, 250GB HDD, ATI X1270 R600
Offline
I was trying to set up a "friendly" system for my wife to use on my computer as a test before I put it on hers (we're not in the same location), so I chose debian (linux mint de, crunchbang xfce, debian itself) and I just couldn't get past the OLDNESS of everything. Why do I have to apt-pin to get kde 4.6? Casual updates broke the whole system. Xfce feels like a hack of gnome when you're running 4.2 (thunar 4.8 updates ftw!). So I tried to use ubuntu-based linux mint and ubuntu itself and it was like fighting me into using the stupid identification tool they came up with that is a system tray with different icons that you CAN'T manipulate. And maybe I don't want to install evolution, maybe because Gmail is on the internet already so why connet my mail client to the internet to download the mail so I can read it when I'm not on the internet? So after like a week of this, and just getting generally tired of the "defaults" of debian/ubuntu(although not necessarily the same) continually conflicting with me trying to establish my own defaults, I switched back to Arch. She's just going to have to accept that Arch+Xfce is better than whatever she was expecting to use anyway. Probably won't even notice...
[edit] One thing I do like though... regular expressions in apt... apt-get install gstreamer0.10*
You were probably doing it wrong if apt-pinning broke your system:
http://jaqque.sbih.org/kplug/apt-pinning.html
http://wiki.debian.org/AptPreferences
Offline
apt-pinning to install necessary updates. a routine update broke the system (unrelated). should have made bullets?
Main Arch Setup: HP Pavillion p7-1209, Quad-Core i3-2120 3.3Ghz, 8GB RAM, 1TB HDD, Intel Graphics
Laptop Arch Setup: Gateway lt3103u Netbook, AMD Athlon64 1.2Ghz, 2GB RAM, 250GB HDD, ATI X1270 R600
Offline
KDE 4.6 isn't a necessary update for Debian Stable if that's what you're trying to say.
Offline
I've never used straight debian, but I did have a short run with linux mint debian edition, which is based on and compatible with debian-testing. Was a pretty nice distro, much faster than regular mint or ubuntu. But software was simply to outdated for me. I prefer arch or fedora.
Offline
I've never used straight debian, but I did have a short run with linux mint debian edition, which is based on and compatible with debian-testing. Was a pretty nice distro, much faster than regular mint or ubuntu. But software was simply to outdated for me. I prefer arch or fedora.
Mint tracks Debian Testing; what you want is Debian Unstable which is as nearly current as Arch and Fedora. And yes, Debian Stable tends to be pretty outdated: I'm using Chromium 6 at the moment! Iceweasel 4/5 made it to backports.debian but the most recent releases of Chromium haven't yet.
Offline
If it weren't for Debian, my old Canon laser printer would long have been out of the game. I managed to use it with Arch only for a short period of time, following the ceremony of restarting the Canon thingy (ccpd) and Cups ten times before every need for the paper output of my work. After every minor Cups update printing was virtually impossible, and the only option seemed to be getting a new hardware (not a Canon make this time). Then I set up a little, cli only virtual machine with Lenny onboard to manage all my printing. The installation is frozen, as its task is solely to handle all printing jobs, which it does great.
I like Debian for the same reason I like Slackware -- the way we like the old ones in the family, although at times we don't get them at all. Debian has and will remain to have its purpose, pretty practical one, even if we tend to believe that the old chap belongs to the museum only. It definitely does not.
:: Registered Linux User No. 223384
:: github
:: infinality-bundle+fonts: good looking fonts made easy
Offline
What model printer?
My old LBP1120 works fine with capt.
xfce | compiz | gmrun | urxvt | chromium | geany | aqualung | vlc | geeqie
Offline
It's LBP2900. And yes, I've followed all the tips and tricks, read the Wiki's, used common sense and magic, but in the long run I always ended up with nothing, including no error in the logs. Probably the most stubborn piece of hardware I've had.
:: Registered Linux User No. 223384
:: github
:: infinality-bundle+fonts: good looking fonts made easy
Offline
Debian is cool.I`ve used Debian for 6 years
Offline
Why not to deploy Arch on production machines?
I have half a year experience in Debian and one year experience in Ubuntu,
after that I've stick with Arch for five years and never tend to go back.
What's the difference between Arch and Debian performing on a web server?
p.s. how to make an avatar like BKLive's?
Last edited by cqpanxu (2011-05-29 02:24:41)
Offline
Why not to deploy Arch on production machines?
I have half a year experience in Debian and one year experience in Ubuntu,
after that I've stick with Arch for five years and never tend to go back.What's the difference between Arch and Debian performing on a web server?
p.s. how to make an avatar like BKLive's?
Honestly, if you're looking for absolute stability, Debian stable will run RINGS around Arch. Arch breaks far, far, far more often than Debian stable. While on a desktop it's FAR worth it due to how much more up to date it is, on a server, I could never consider Arch because things simply are too bleeding edge and unstable.
Offline
I support friends and a few charities/businesses. I use Arch as my primary and only OS. I've used it so much I'm more familiar with how to fix it if I break something, or a package breaks.
I find that even with this approach, it is a rarity when I do get bit because I don't keep older packages on my system. So if a new package has bugs (the recent NVidia and new xorg 1.10.1 ABI being one)....I had some problems. Not show-stoppers, just an adjustment of my driver while NVidia and xorg get it all sorted out.
I like Debian, but I deploy Mint primarily for the folks I support. It's easier when I have to provide phone support.
What I don't like about Debian is the packages that is part of Debian many times are from the late Cretaceous era. And downloading the latest of a needed package can often lead to lib versioning issues. Forcing the issue can break a system.
This is personal opinion only, but I've soured lately to Debian. I personally feel that they are taking the FOSS a tad too far IMHO. For my graphics card, nothing works better than the NVidia divers. The nv driver is good for 2D, and nouveau for me is downright maddening. I need 3d support that works. To strip an entire distro of firmware just because the various drivers aren't OSS would be fine if the OSS alternatives performed as well. It has been my experience that often times the OSS firmware are often early works in progress that don't perform as well. IMHO, the FOSS firmware needs a little more time to mature to take such a draconian swing of the sword and exclude all non-OSS firmware.
So for me, the really old software, and the almost fanatical removal of firmware from the distro makes it a no-go. I do a lot of multi-media stuff, non-linear video editing, transcoding from this format to that....Debian's software is just too old. And I've broken it by forcefeeding it fresh software that causes dependency issues. Even if you migrate to sid....Arch is still fresher.
Again, personal opinion only......
Offline
What I don't like about Debian is the packages that is part of Debian many times are from the late Cretaceous era.
Overstated as usual.
This is personal opinion only, but I've soured lately to Debian. I personally feel that they are taking the FOSS a tad too far IMHO. For my graphics card, nothing works better than the NVidia divers. The nv driver is good for 2D, and nouveau for me is downright maddening. I need 3d support that works. To strip an entire distro of firmware just because the various drivers aren't OSS would be fine if the OSS alternatives performed as well. It has been my experience that often times the OSS firmware are often early works in progress that don't perform as well. IMHO, the FOSS firmware needs a little more time to mature to take such a draconian swing of the sword and exclude all non-OSS firmware.
You're asking Debian to be pragmatic about FLOSS. That's not the idea. Usability barely trumps being free as the primary concern.
Offline
Debian was okay when I could use it but they just recently yanked the firmware out of the base install that my RealTek ethernet cards need so no connectivity since 6.01a. Debian was okay but no distro is worth those kind of annoying headaches. So I quit using it on any of my machines, there are many other fine alternatives. It's so much easier and simpler keeping them all Arch anyway. I really haven't missed it.
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." ~ Voltaire
Offline
Debian was okay when I could use it but they just recently yanked the firmware out of the base install that my RealTek ethernet cards need so no connectivity since 6.01a. Debian was okay but no distro is worth those kind of annoying headaches. So I quit using it on any of my machines, there are many other fine alternatives. It's so much easier and simpler keeping them all Arch anyway. I really haven't missed it.
?!!?
Just enable"contrib" and "non-free" in /etc/apt/sources.list, update via 'apt-get update' and install:
# sudo apt-get (or aptitude) install firmware-linux-nonfree
Most of what I read comes down to the "arch has more recent software so I ditched debian".
Again, personal taste. I'm not that sure that it is always a good thing to be "bleeding edge".
But if you think it is, then run some distribution that includes the very latest software versions.
This discussion is getting pointless.
Regards,
- aurocha
Last edited by aurocha (2011-05-31 20:54:36)
Offline
disastrophe wrote:Debian was okay when I could use it but they just recently yanked the firmware out of the base install that my RealTek ethernet cards need so no connectivity since 6.01a. Debian was okay but no distro is worth those kind of annoying headaches. So I quit using it on any of my machines, there are many other fine alternatives. It's so much easier and simpler keeping them all Arch anyway. I really haven't missed it.
(...wtf...)
?!!?
Just enable"contrib" and "non free" to /etc/apt/sources.list update via apt-get update and installsudo apt-get (or aptitude) install firmware-linux-nonfree
Doesn't get more simple than this really, and I thought that was held in high esteem 'round these parts.
Offline
And there are unofficial Debian net-install cds that have firmware in them for these kinds of situations.
Personally I liked Debian and used it for a while before finding Arch, but I found Arch to be more of what I wanted than Debian.
If Arch didn't exist I would probably stick with Debian.
Last edited by Dastingo (2011-06-01 05:52:28)
Offline
... issues I have with Debian are due to it's abstractions (update-alternatives, dpkg-reconfigure, etc).
i couldnt agree with you more
Offline
aurocha wrote:disastrophe wrote:Debian was okay when I could use it but they just recently yanked the firmware out of the base install that my RealTek ethernet cards need so no connectivity since 6.01a. Debian was okay but no distro is worth those kind of annoying headaches. So I quit using it on any of my machines, there are many other fine alternatives. It's so much easier and simpler keeping them all Arch anyway. I really haven't missed it.
(...wtf...)
?!!?
Just enable"contrib" and "non free" to /etc/apt/sources.list update via apt-get update and installsudo apt-get (or aptitude) install firmware-linux-nonfree
Doesn't get more simple than this really, and I thought that was held in high esteem 'round these parts.
apt-get no work without internet silly, lol. Sure, I could get the packages and copy them over from another machine or something (liveCD is also worthless - no connectivity) but it just struck me as a little ridiculous so I just blew it off and went to all Arch. With Arch I've never had a problem I couldn't figure out and fix very quickly and everything is working so well (up to date software too!), I simply haven't missed Debian. Arch serves my needs better so it's a better choice for me.
edit-punctutation
Last edited by disastrophe (2011-06-02 11:15:26)
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." ~ Voltaire
Offline
techne wrote:aurocha wrote:(...wtf...)
?!!?
Just enable"contrib" and "non free" to /etc/apt/sources.list update via apt-get update and installsudo apt-get (or aptitude) install firmware-linux-nonfree
Doesn't get more simple than this really, and I thought that was held in high esteem 'round these parts.
apt-get no work without internet silly, lol. Sure, I could get the packages and copy them over from another machine or something (liveCD is also worthless - no connectivity) but it just struck me as a little ridiculous so I just blew it off and went to all Arch. With Arch I've never had a problem I couldn't figure out and fix very quickly and everything is working so well (up to date software too!), I simply haven't missed Debian. Arch serves my needs better so it's a better choice for me.
edit-punctutation
Uh how'd you fix it in Arch without a connection to teh Internet?
And apparently you can bring your own drivers to a Debian net-install via USB thumb-drive.
Last edited by techne (2011-06-02 12:55:02)
Offline
Uh how'd you fix it in Arch without a connection to teh Internet?
And apparently you can bring your own drivers to a Debian net-install via USB thumb-drive.
Fix it in Arch?? Arch never was problematic, just Debian.
Yes, I'm sure I could have got it working but it pissed me off. I've preferred Arch for some time now anyway, I think I made the better choice.
It was just a question of one of my boxes anyway, the other two were already all Arch.
Apparently Debian removed the firmware from the base install somewhere between releases 6.0 and 6.01a. I don't know why nor do I particularly care, I'm happy.
Last edited by disastrophe (2011-06-03 11:04:46)
"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." ~ Voltaire
Offline