I’m your regular end user. I use my computers to edit text, audio and video, watch movies, listen to music, post and bank on the internet…
my main computer uses now debian 12.5 after abandoning xubuntu.
For my backup notebook I have several candidates:
-
Simply install debian 12.5 again, the easiest choice.
-
Install linux mint, so I get ubuntu but without them throwing their subscription services down my throat. I’m unsure about other advantages, as ubuntu is debian based, maybe the more frequent program updates? Kernels are also updated more often than with debian as far as I know. Do you know of other advantages?
-
Go for FreeBSD: this might require a learning curve, because this is an OS I’ve never used. Are commands that different from debian?
other more niche linux OSs seem too much a hassle and I guess won’t be as supported as the main ones.
@merompetehla If you want to go down the #FreeBSD rabbithole and are afraid of the initial learning curve you can check GhostBSD, nomad BSD or hello system if it suits your needs and your hardware is supported.
looking into the *BSDs was definitely worth it for me. Using it as a stable daily driver for awhile now. But ymmv.
I dont know, why do you want that?
I would of course say try Fedora Kinoite and give rock solidly packaged but modern software a try. KDE is also really cool.
Um… Debian? I may be biased, but sometimes I think half the “which distro” questions I see are specifically designed to get me to say Debian. It’s unclear why you think that more frequent updates would be an advantage.
More up-to-date packages can be an advantage. One, they may have features you need. Two, there may be compatibility issues. This is especially true of dev tools and the graphics stack. The packages in Debian Stable are not that old yet but they will be.
It’s unclear why you think that more frequent updates would be an advantage.
kernels: I forgot the command to compare both but ubuntu/canonical releases kernel upgrades more often than debian. To a newbie like me this means ubuntu/canonical reacts to security flaws and fixes stability bugs that get discovered faster than debian. Updated hardware support is also a plus.
Kernels shouldn’t be a problem if you have the backports repo enabled (you can enable it during install, otherwise add it to your
sources.list).You do first have to specify that you want the kernel from backports (or set up APT pinning preferences), but after that, it’ll keep that specific package updated whenever you run
sudo apt upgradeand there’s a newer version.If you installed the generic Linux image on installation (usually the default, I believe), the quick way to upgrade is basically just:
sudo apt install -t bookworm-backports linux-image-amd64It should be noted that backports is not Sid or Testing, it’s stuff built specifically for current Stable that people might need newer versions of for various reasons (e.g. hardware, limited feature updates that don’t affect the base system, some development libraries, etc.), so it’s quite small in the amount of unique packages it has. Like, you can get newer LibreOffice packages, but you’re not going to get Plasma 6 or whatever.
Right now, the kernel is on 6.7 in backports, while Stable is on 6.1 and Sid is on 6.8. So you’ll get them a tiny bit later, but that’s in terms of days/weeks, rather than, you know, the usual two-ish years (not counting security updates).
Side note: if you want all this enabled by default, Spiral Linux is just straight up Debian Stable with a bunch of firmware packages preinstalled for easier installation on a variety of hardware and the kernel is updated via backports by default, so you could give that a shot as well.
It’s not like “a distro based on Debian”, it is Debian, but set up with conveniences for modern desktop users and also sets up btrfs + apt snapshotting by default, similar to OpenSUSE Tumbleweed’s process.
OpenSuse Tumbleweed, gets you on the bleeding edge and I have had 1 issue like 5 years ago where I got a broken xorg driver. Rolled back the patch using snapper/btrfs and was back in business. Upgraded like a week later and everything was fine. System is still chugging all these years later.
Also nothing wrong with running Debian Sid another distro I never ran into that many problems.
I wouldn’t switch to mint from debian. Freebsd could be worth trying, but I would play with it in a VM first. I am not knowledgeable about BSD’s, but there are others if you were unaware. They have similar names but I think netBSD and freebsd exist. FYI, BSD isn’t linux if you were unaware. Your phrasing suggested that you might think it is so I wanted to let you know.
Newer kernels are great if you need bleeding edge hardware or filesystems, but for your use case I really think debian is the way to go.
I would like to suggest you throw Fedora into the mix, or even opensuse if you want to try an rpm based distro. Opensuse has a leap flavor which is stable like debian. Fedora is fairly stable, but has regular releases (2 a year) so you also get more current software.
Sorry to throw more options into the mix, but those are fairly simple and mainstream options (fedora is more mainstream fyi) but they are worth considering.
I’d go with Linux Mint Edge Edition (not the default Mint). Better support for hardware than either plain Mint, or Debian, and more optimizations for laptops and battery (ubuntu might be hated, but they have lots of kernel patches). Also, for some weird reason, Mint with Cinnamon uses less RAM than Debian with Cinnamon. Also, easier support for third party non-free drivers.
I love BSD, but I wouldn’t want it on a laptop. They’re just not optimized for such usage with batteries etc.
Linux Mint Edge Edition
is Edge a desktop environment or a system that lets you use other DEs later? I’m partial to xfce.
I thought every DE gets the same kernel patches.
If you want Debian with more frequent updates, consider going Debian sid. Base Debian is also fine, maybe with Flatpaks for more up-to-date applications where needed.
From your experience is it really unstable ( annoyingly buggy ), or do they just call it that and it stable really ?
Sid exclusively gets security updates through its package maintainers. The Debian Security Team only maintains security updates for the current “stable” release.
Is this a good thing ?
I used unstable for years (don’t anymore). It broke itself in minor and major ways every couple of months. Maybe it wouldn’t boot or X wouldn’t start, or the package dependencies were broken and I couldn’t install certain packages for a couple of days. Stuff like that.
You will have manually to fix these things from time to time, or do a workaround (like manually downgrading certain packages), or wait a week so stuff gets sorted. Most of the time it works fine though. I imagine the experience is somewhat similar to running arch.
You do not get security fixes, but it’s not a massive problem usually, since you’ll get the newest version of most software after a couple of days (occasionally longer) after it is released.
Anyway do not recommend unless you want to be a beta tester. I did report bugs sometimes, but almost always by the time I encountered an issue, it was already reported and a fix was already in the works.
Same here. I feel like Sid is there to catch problems, so devs and maintainers use it as such. Arch aims to be stable, though obviously not to the degree of Debian Stable, and so devs and maintainers aim for that. If one wants the Arch equivalent to Sid, there’s the testing repo, but there’s much less of a delta between stable and testing in Arch, so there isn’t much point unless you actually want to help test.
It is very usable, provided you pay attention to major upcoming changes. To give you a very recent example, during May they switched the time libraries to use 64 bits, and like others said, it was dependency hell until the tide of all the packages being recompiled passed. In those cases, unless you know EXACTLY what to do, it’s better to wait for updates to come in, let apt sort out what could be updated and what had to wait, and just make sure it doesn’t propose you to delete things. After 2 weeks it was all business as usual. Side note: aptitude (my package manager of choice) was unusable, while apt threaded on and pulled me out of the tangle.
The main “instability” I’ve found with
testingorsidis just that because new packages are added quickly, sometimes you’ll have dependency clashes.Pretty much every time the package manager will take care of keeping things sane and not upgrading a package that will cause any incompatibility.
The main issue is if at some point you decide to install something that has conflicting dependencies with something you already have installed. Those are usually solvable with a little
aptitude-fu as long as there are versions available to sort things out neatly.A better first step to newer packages is probably
stablewithbackportsthough.
Not much use to go Ubuntu or Mint, unless you have specific issues with Debian that don’t happen with those. Even then, it may be one
apt installaway from a fix.If you want to try out BSD, power to you. I wouldn’t experiment on a backup computer though, unless by backup you just mean you want to have the spare hardware and will format it with Debian if you ever need to make it your main computer anyway.
Otherwise, just run Debian!
The obvious recommendation is Gentoo stage1 tarball running in Windows Linux Subsystem.
(on a serious note: whatever you’re running on your daily driver)
I would recommend Linux Mint. Yes it’s faster to update than Debian, but it doesn’t push the envelope nearly as fast as Fedora or Arch based distros.
Linux mint is just super easy, user friendly, you could use Mint without ever touching a terminal if you wanted. BSD would be a great pet project to fiddle with, but if you’re looking for a rock solid backup machine with zero fuss, Mint is perfect for that.
If by backup notebook you mean a notebook that you use in case your main notebook breaks or something similar, I’d install the same OS and software on it.
If by backup notebook you mean that you want to use it as a server where you store backups on, I’d use either Debian or AlmaLinux.
I use Debian on nearly everything that isn’t a “testing machine”…it’s just what I’m familiar with. Used to be like this with Fedora. If you are looking to just use it as a regular end user and don’t really need anything different or particularly want some new scenery, you might as well just install Debian again.
MX or antix.
what linux OS should I install on a backup notebook if my main one is debian?
It depends:
- If your backup notebook will only rarely be used, then just make it Debian as well. I can’t think of a reason why you’d make it harder on yourself for those spare times you’d have to rely on the backup notebook. (As a side note, if your main system was on a rolling release (like e.g. Arch), then there would be merit in going for a different (i.e. more stable[1]) distro (like e.g. Debian Stable) on the rarely used backup. This is tied to the fact that rolling release distros somewhat require you to update every so often for proper functioning. This hassle is simply absent on distros like Debian Stable etc.)
- However, if the backup notebook will be used as a second system of sorts for all kinds of needs and does not have to be reliable per say, then please be my guest and quench your distrohopping thirst to your hearts content.
Install linux mint, so I get ubuntu but without them throwing their subscription services down my throat.
Linux Mint does indeed provide you some Ubuntu goodies without its associated negatives. But, perhaps it’s worth mentioning LMDE; i.e. Linux Mint Debian Edition.
I’m unsure about other advantages
Linux Mint does a lot of heavy lifting to provide a seamless and polished experience. This does come with being more opinionated than either Debian or Ubuntu is. However, one might argue that they’re just offering the bare minimum that your average Linux user would want on their systems anyway. Hence, it’s unsurprising that Linux Mint has become the go-to distro for many newbie and veteran Linux users alike. You don’t know what you’re missing if you’re unsure of other advantages…
maybe the more frequent program updates? Kernels are also updated more often than with debian as far as I know.
FWIW, Debian also has its
testingandunstablereleases.Do you know of other advantages?
As has been previously alluded, Debian is pretty bare-bones compared to Linux Mint. So, if you’re mostly interested in setting up things exactly as you’d want to, then you should go for Debian and build it up as you go. However, if you’re more in favor of sane and opinionated (albeit bloated to some) defaults, then Linux Mint takes the cake. Ultimately, you’d have to experience it for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
Go for FreeBSD
😅
this might require a learning curve, because this is an OS I’ve never used.
Yup.
Are commands that different from debian?
Debian (and its commands) are more similar to Arch, Fedora or any Linux distro for that matter than it is to FreeBSD. Like, it’s a pretty significant departure. And one, I’d argue, you’re simply not equipped for (yet).
Overall, I think making the move to FreeBSD doesn’t seem like the logical next move for ya. Its ecosystem (unfortunately) is a lot less developed compared to Linux. And while there are definitely some pros and cons to it, I just can’t fathom why your average user would use it without properly knowing what they’re getting into and why they’re deliberately and consciously making that choice. If you allow me, may I ask you where this interest to FreeBSD stems from?
other more niche linux OSs seem too much a hassle and I guess won’t be as supported as the main ones.
Do Arch, Fedora or openSUSE (to name a few) fall under “other more niche linux OSs”? Furthermore, do you think that FreeBSD will be less of a hassle compared to “other more niche linux OSs”?
- The term “stable” is used here to mean slow cadence of change which manifests most commonly as little to no updates in-between point releases. These point-releases occur annually/biennially and come with big updates/changes. As you might expect, a distro with a release cycle as such comes with the added benefit that (little to) no breakage should occur until the next point release. Hence, these distros are (rightfully) associated with providing reliable and robust experiences. Though, this does not mean that they have a monopoly on this. When used responsibly, all (if not most) mainstream/popular distros are able to provide reliability and robustness.–
If you allow me, may I ask you where this interest to FreeBSD stems from?
the wikipedia linux article with the linux development tree
do you think that FreeBSD will be less of a hassle compared to “other more niche linux OSs”?
I have no idea
Thank you for the response!
the wikipedia linux article with the linux development tree
Aight. Understood. Therefore your interest is still pretty juvenile. Thus, I recommend you to either install FreeBSD on a device to revert right away or dismiss the thought of FreeBSD for the foreseeable future.
I have no idea
Aight. It will be (on average) (a bit) more troublesome until you’re past the learning curve. Which is steeper and broader than the one found on Debian/Mint/Ubuntu.
So, all in all, I would forego going for FreeBSD for the time being. Thank me later.
