Should I?

Should I?

Other urls found in this thread:

without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No, install arch. ( I'd recommend just installing Antergos, easiest way of installing Arch. )

No, install openSUSE instead.

I am testing it on VM now, its best dist so i wanna install it on my PC
Check it. Maybe you dislike it
Just download oracle virt box or vmware player

Its too hardcore for beginners

here let me predict the autistic response u'll get
>No Debian should be run on servers only because it's so stable!
>hehe install arch xd
>>using a linux os in 2016

I use it. it's comfy

hardened
a gentoo
r e
d n
e t
n o
e o
d

Debian is SO STABLE that you should never ever install anything except from their official repos and expect that to need heavy configuration before working properly. Anything outside their (outdated) repositories will inevitably cause conflict in their primitive package manager and thus will turn your system into a bomb.

Second opensuse because it's simple and not ubuntu (hacky EEE kernel)

Fedora seems to be an option but I've never had any success with it, either i'm a jinx or their installer is the trashest trashaconda ever written.

Install minimal and build it up - sleek as fuck

dumb tripposter is dumb
antergos is the easiest way of installing antergos
the easiest way of installing arch is architect

and OP, install testing if you're going debian

so you just make instead of make && make install. There's an official backports repo if you really need the latest version of something.

protip: you generally don't, I think I have three things from backports on my system

I got something hard right here, if you catch my drift

and then you keep a separate ld config profile handy for when you need to use a version that doesn't precisely agree with your repo's version of libs OR ELSE.

I'm not saying debian can't possibly ever run ever-so-slightly software, with massive amounts of effort it can.... I'm saying it really is not the right tool for the job.

how are packages in testing? Do they feel dated? Buggy?

Fug off
>mint..
Now leave me alone
>edgy fagatrons

testing is usually pretty recent, except right before a stable release when it slows down to become the next stable. (there's a freeze in a few months I think)

it breaks less than most other distros. but when it does it takes over a week to get fixed, since packages have to go to sid (unstable) first and sit there for a while without any bugs before testing gets them

Yes.

Ah driftwood. Nice one friendo

Sure. My OMV VM's are all Debian 8.5 / OMV 3x

I haven't used it in a while, but packages in Testing are pretty much what said, with the added caveat that they're typically behind a bit from other distros like Ubuntu or Fedora.

Honestly, Debian is probably the best distro you can use to learn how Linux works without being thrown out to sea to fend for your self. An added bonus is that it probably has the largest stable/"stableish" repos of any distro out there, along with being the father of more popular distros, so it's unlikely that you won't find what you need on there, and what you find works.

If you're feeling ballsy, you can try a testing/sid mix if you absolutely want to try to keep up with everything, it's not as bad as some people might suggest unless you go full ham, but it can cause some nightmares at times if you just run apt-get update without any idea what you're doing.

How does debian compare with fedora?

Fedora current is approximately red hat 5 years from now, debian current is debian current 5 years from now.

Just beware when transitions occur, they can take days to fully finish and some software may get broken during that period.

>How does a tank compare with a car?

Both are great for certain things. It just depends on what your needs are. To try and compare them is really apples to oranges.

Server/Barebones
>RHEL
>CentOS
>Debian

Development/Enterprise enviroment
>Fedora
>OpenSUSE

Desktop
>Ubuntu, Kubuntu etc

Timesink
>Arch

Trash
>Mint

Etc etc etc

Opensuse really is 100% on ubuntu-tier for desktops, it's just very enterprise flavored. It also has proper releases of the major DEs, unlike kubuntu which is literally not ubuntu or kde or particularly usable. Some people also really like cinnamon and mint is otherwise literally ubuntu.

Fedora is closer to arch in its BLEEDING EDGE MOVE FAST BREAK THINGS mentality but they legitimately put a lot of dev time into things.

Once you are a proper guru arch manages itself once you learn to avoid pitfalls and perform very basic maintenance/repairs. Most of the effort spent un-breaking arch is reading the wiki.

Apt is a fucking piece of shit compared to dnf.

No, Antergos is the easiest way of installing Arch. It is arch with a graphical install interface. You're mentally fucked.

dnf is a direct copy of (NIH!!!!) zypper, how is copr doing these days?

Some people find CLI simplicity easier than blundering through 'maybe they'll find this easiest' GUIs. If you do it the hard way once or twice it'll stick with you for life.

that's like saying ubuntu is actually debian since "it is debian with unity, you're a retard btw"

antergos is it's own distro
i suggest you run lsb_release -a on an antergos machine

I know, I was being somewhat sarcastic. I'm just saying it's apples to oranges to compare distributions geared for often completely different uses.

And as far as Arch, I've been running Linux exclusively since Slack 4.0 and still say it's a timesink.

Antergos actually uses the official Arch repos, it's like switchign your debian repo to ubuntu and dist-upgrading, only it doesn't explode.

i don't get the arch time sink vibe from anything, I mean there's a lot of ways you can MAKE it a time sink and there's a LOT of people in the arch community that do sink it... but the repos+AUR are so good that you spend a lot less time hunting down working/compatible versions or compiling and everything just drops into place.

I know. but it also has it's own repo (regardless of how small a modification it may be)
what I'm arguing is antergos being almost the same as arch doesn't mean that they're the same
and antergos itself acknowledges this as fact

(let's not continue bumping this thread with this inane argument)

without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page