Give me three good reasons why I should use a non-Debian-based distro, if you are not a pro Linux user

Give me three good reasons why I should use a non-Debian-based distro, if you are not a pro Linux user.

Debian-based distros dominate both the desktop and server markets. They are much more well-supported than other distros. If you have a problem, you can find the solution very easily, since Ubuntu and Linux Mint are used by millions of people. Even if you ARE an experienced user, just maintaining Debian is less annoying than Arch.

Other urls found in this thread:

stallman.org/stallman-computing.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

>tfw there will never be an Arch Debian Edition

The reason why I use Ubuntu instead of Debian is that one time Ubuntu had a library I needed and Debian didn't. It was for DICOM processing.

ubuntu is debian-based..

No. Do your own damn research you fucking shitter we have this same thread daily.

Sage

I know, I just wanted to write why not Debian, but a Debian based distro I use.

Bigger question folks, if you're a Debian user why aren't you using Debian stable? Easily the best OS to have you sorted for 5+ years without any tinkering whatsoever.

A few programs that are 'out of date' still run really well with their current version on Debian Stable: LibreOffice, VLC, SMXI, Deluge, Firefox, GIMP and Steam all work great even though some are a few versions behind the most recent versions.

It's the OS you use when you finally stop being a baby who installs a new Linux OS every 3 months to see the differences, and be a wo/man who actually does things with one.

What if the "doing things" that I do is maintaining a non-Debian distro?

because some people need recent software to accomplish their goals.

You have an odd cpu arch and wish for all installed software to be compiled to your CPU.
>This is very important if you have an AMD bulldozer and friends CPU, march=native is imperative for performance.

That's about it.

Because gentoo runs a lot faster on my T61 and the compiling can be done while I sleep.

Every place I worked got CentOS servers (or red hat ones) with small scale things based on whatever (CentOS or Ubuntu usually). Worked in 4 companies total

1. You're an autist who feels good about not using debian.
2. After beating your dick for the 5th time today, you need something else to do. Like compiling kernels.
3. You're stallman

Shit, op said three and I only said one.

Picelated, this shit is stationed on CentOS machine

Same here. We deploy and maintain RHEL and CentOS for 9 out of 10 clients and the odd 1 is Ubuntu. I consider redhat to be the standard.

You didn't read the OP clearly. He's asking why to use a NON-Debian-based distro (i.e. why don't you use Debian, Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Elementary, BunsenLabs, etc.).

I use redhat distros because it's the industry standard in my neck of the woods. I don't particularly dislike debain but it just isn't something I care to keep up with. CentOS is a great server distro, Fedora is a fine desktop. My needs are already met.

Noobuntu is so bloated

you didn't read this user response clearly

I would choose Gentoo with a proper distrobution system over anything, the hard part is most companies already use OpenSUSE/RHEL/Debian/Ubuntu then i rather not rebuild everything.
But if you had to start from 0 i would choose Gentoo because of performance & reliability

Distribution*

Hardly any company wants that kind of overhead in-house. It's just most efficient to outsource the bulk of the broadest level support to Redhat so they are responsible for making sure most things just work and the local staff can just keep things running smoothly day to day.

A few years ago I worked for a small company that used Slackware and while it was rock solid they had a much harder time growing their platforms out because it meant local staff being redirected from the usual work and into specifically deployment and expansion roles for a while. That kind of thing is tough to do but manageable for a company with a few dozen employees. With a company with hundreds or thousands and much more hardware the process generates too much role fragmentation. Having that many highly competent Linux people on staff is expensive.

>not using rolling release sid.

Yeah I know it's called unstable but it's actually been really stable for me

Stallman actually uses Trisquel which is based on Ubuntu.

Well nowadays there are so many tools to rapidly deploy any distro that have those tools in package manager.
But yea if the system is already setup I don't want to start a new one that might be slightly faster.

>Give me three good reasons

there aren't really any good reasons for doing things in life, OP

>Maintaining Arch
>Annoying

I know right, nothing more annoying than running sudo pacman -Syu

Nope

Yep
stallman.org/stallman-computing.html

People actually take this Stallman faggot seriously?

1. No ports system like Arch/Gentoo/Void. Ubuntu has PPA and Fedora/Fedora based distros have RPM Fusion. So low third party software support

2. Package repo is bloated. Installs unnecessary packages unless you have to pass a retardedly long parameter every time you install any package

3. Philosophical reasons:
3a. Wants to be a freetard distro but people enable the non-free repo anyways.
3b. Tricks people into thinking holding back a package for half a decade means stability
3c. SJW cancer and male programer's privilege checklist

Also APT is a dumb package manager. The output is absolutely the worst when compared to DNF, Pacman, XBPS or Zypper.

Backports nigger

because Fedora is well supported and it just works

You can use the latest software on Debian Stable, its just that most people that use stable prefer that, stability over bleeding edge.

Then your life is empty and no one will remember you after you pass.

try antiX if you want something debianish but without systemD, select the jessie repo during the install

>No third party repositories to install a lot of packages
>Official package repository has too many packages

Can you see how stupid that is?

The reason third party repositories exist for Redhat is because Redhat refuses to support nonfree software and is extremely conservative about what they allow in their repositories-- which is part of the reasons to use Redhat in the first place, since it allows extended stability and a GPL-compatible development environment. But now people literally install Redhat for the specific purposes of using RPMfusion which is against the very purpose of using Redhat in the first place.

That's fucking retarded. You know what distro you can use if you want innovative/non-free software? DEB-FUCKING-IAN. It supports the software you need to use, officially, on purpose. No need to install a port system. It's the point behind Debian and Ubuntu: To provide you the software you need to use it without encountering constant adversity.

Also, a repository's content can not "bloat" your machine. Both apt and yum are designed to install the packages that the package you want to install depends on. If you want to install packages without all their dependencies, you are taking the risk of it shitting up, regardless of the distro.

You could have used it in Debian.
Bullshit

Is gentoo really faster and more reliable?

Yes.

I prefer testing because i can still freeze it and eventually turn it into stable. sid youre basically stuck with sid

1) what are ports? Its possible to use ppas on debian.
2) packages are split so you have much more choice than in arch. If you dont like to type -no-recommends everytime you can either grab it from bash history with c+r or write an script that'd invoke apt get with thus parameter without your doing.
3) its free that way because peopke have CHOICE
Not so in testing.
Don't care about sjws

What makes it dumb? Its pretty verbose, especially compared with Alpines apk.

How often do you have to compile stuff?