▲ | trabant00 8 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I was hoping for a review from a server perspective. That's where Debian shines in my opinion. I feel like the desktop part is a secondary priority for them. That's not a criticism, there's no other distribution I would use in production if it where my choice. On the desktop though they are a bit too stable. Even if one uses testing or unstable the focus on long term versions is still there. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | jillesvangurp 8 days ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Long term usually equates to a bit stale/out of date with distributions that only release every few years. Appropriate for stuff you don't really care about. That's why I use rolling release distributions on my Desktop. For Debian, people recommend Debian testing usually. And that's fine. Maybe they should just call it Debian rolling releases and rename stable to Debian LTS. I think it's more appropriate to how people actually use these things. Manjaro is not without issues but I've had it on one of my laptops for the last four years and it's nice to have the latest driver updates, kernels, etc. working together. It also helps that the community is just focused on current versions of stuff and fixing minor integrations with released packages rather than working around issues in some long forgotten release with distribution specific patches, etc. You find relatively little of that in Arch (which underlies Manjaro). For production servers, the server just needs to boot my docker containers and get out of the way. IMHO There's no need to support > 10K packages for god knows what there. Most of that stuff probably has no business being installed on a server. I'm actually leaning towards immutable distributions and servers for that reason. The business of manually fiddling with servers in a production environment is something I'm trying to avoid/do less off. They shouldn't need a package manager if they are properly immutable. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | goku12 8 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> On the desktop though they are a bit too stable. You're obviously correct here. But perhaps there are users who prefer stable packages on the desktop too. Corporate users most likely (yes, there are such users too). It helps with their security strategy and a development environment similar to their server. To be very honest, I think the stable security-oriented approach is better than that of a rapid update distro. You should probably use an overlay package manager like flatpak, mise (for dev tools) or even Nix/Guix for anything modern. Preferably something with minimal installs and good sandboxing features. Please let us know if anybody has better suggestions to offer. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | fh973 8 days ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Indeed, with the tmpfs move (tmp in RAM) however it sounds like they have more Desktops in mind. You don't want to use RAM for tmp files for which you probably can't do capacity planning, and you don't to enable swap on server either. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|