I just switched from openbox to i3, then had to use win7 for a while. Felt dirty and crippled. i3 is seriously useful.
But yeah, Debian is great. Once installed and stuff, haven't had a serious problem in almost a year. Still consider myself ignorant when it comes to computers, Debian isn't that difficult.
I tried reviving an old computer with Mint and it didn't feel right so should I try installing Arch, Fedora or your "based" Debian. I don't want to deal with the spying of Ubuntu and I'm still new to Linoox.
because it's the most widely used version of linux. When companies offer a 'linux version' of something typically it's either Ubuntu or just the raw source.
Everyone in the linux community should just standardize around ubuntu already - all this duplication of effort is dumb - you can run different DEs on ubuntu - so what's the problem?
it's not 'as easy as ubuntu'. You need to enable non-free packages (ie wlan firmwares), and actually not having shitload of useless crap by default is 'harder' too. Plus some packages aren't in repo and you need to compile them by yourself (wine).
I'm using debian though. For me, there aren't any difference between any debian-based distro, they're all same.
>you need to compile them by yourself (wine)
what are you talking about?
Either you compile software or you run software with wine. There are situation where you can do both, but I don't think you are talking about this.
Or in other words: Why do you need to compile windows-software and run it afterwards with wine (on debian)?
>Everyone in the linux community should just standardize around ubuntu already - all this duplication of effort is dumb - you can run different DEs on ubuntu - so what's the problem?
Ubuntu isn't for enterprise, it's for desktops, phones etc. Debian is a stable base distro which is why it is used to develop other distros. Know and understand why this ecosystem works as it does.
Ubuntu is fine for normies and I use it for convenience, but if I were doing enterprise work it would be on Debian Stable or Red Hat/CentOS.
Ubuntu breaks shit and while desktop users can tolerate network management not working now and then (for example it barfed on my clean install after update, and I've been running Linux since 1999) enterprise can't have that shit.
Same position as you. The themes available by default on Debian are also mostly terrible.
Could add the shimmerproject quantal ppa. Satisfied my needs at least.# add-apt-repository 'deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/shimmerproject/ppa/ubuntu quantal main'
# apt-get update
# apt-get install shimmer-themes-greybird
Debian is actually a nice, clean distro. I used wheezy for a while and squeeze before that. After a while, though, having older versions of everything just got annoying. Quite often, newer versions of software have new features, and not just bug fixes.
I can totally understand the appeal of Debian though. It's stable. I've never really had stability issues with other distros either though. Except for buntu.
It's not like #! just stopped working. Security updates come from Debian repos and it'll continue to get them for a year(ish) even after Jessie goes stable, which is still a few months out.
You can build a #! clone off a Jessie netinst base though, so if I were doing a fresh install, this is what I'd do:
>apt-get install xyzt
>2mb + 500mb of additional dependencies
>use the program for a while
>decide to remove it
>apt-get remove --purge xyzt
>removes 1 package (xyzt) leaving the other 500mb worth of dependencies
>apt-get autoremove --purge
>"0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove"
>not have this problem
Usually ? apt-get autoremove.
For metapackages (like a DE) you apt-get install a single package that brings others with him (xfce-desktop brings thunar, quodlibet and all), and then you have to remove the main packages (thunar, quodlibet) manually, their dependencies will be removed as well, but to go through each main package is tedious.
I mainly use OS X, although last night I set up an OpenBSD/OS X dual-boot on my PowerBook, and I'm probably going to be using that a lot on my laptop. I'm sticking with OS X on desktop though.
Installed debian 4 years ago. Thought it was ok but switched to mint
Went back to debian website a few days ago
MUTHAFUCKIN U FUCKING WHAT?
It's still on the same version as when I left it.
I was thinking of phoning them up and saying "Ever so sorry to wake you guys the fuck up but you have been asleep for 4 fucking years now"
Install Debian-testing or Debian-unstable, idiots
Debian-stable is only for enterprises that need very high levels of reliability. The average user should be using Debian-testing because it has recent versions of most packages.
You can look that up on their page. The x220 comes with everything but wifi for example. The files are easily downloaded and tossed into the designated folder on your install medium.
Yeah. T400 and T420 work perfect. Had to use non-free intel wifi drivers on the T400 though. It was simple as adding the non-free repos to sources.list and using an ethernet cable to install.
Cuz anything is more out of the box than debian... Even using plan9 from 2002 i had less problema than using debian. Arch and Ubuntu(Xubuntu •> 1000x better than unity) do the job and bassicaly cover almost all kinds of users.
I was actually thinking about out getting a T420 so this is perfect. What is the version that's best for desktop use, was it testing or unstable? Do Debian users miss out on anything because of the libre-kernel?
>Why don't you use debian /g/?
I get a better out-of-the-box experience with Ubuntu. Longer support cycles (on LTS). Better support for non-free software. 99% of articles about GNU/Linux are applicable to Ubuntu.
I put debian on my server, but I regret it. No ethernet drivers (even though I have a standard supermicro board with intel nics) so I had to switch to unstable. Then I frequently find myself in dependency hell or with plain outdated packages.
Xubuntu selects and pulls patches for XFCE from upstream dev channel and does stability testing on it. Debian just waits until the stable release. Which has been what for XFCE, 2 years? I suppose I could install debian, then add the Ubuntu repos for XFCE to get access to the packages I want but oh wait that's what Xubuntu is.
No, it's not. For example, compare the multi-monitor support on Debian XFCE, then try it on Xubuntu. One of them actually works.
Yeah, that's bizarre, you are literally the first person I've ever heard having that problem. Who was the mobo manufacturer? Did they maybe accidentally use chinese knockoff NICs?
I also feel like desktop-oriented distros are way better than minimal distros, if you are going to use it for desktop OS anyway. So many under-the-hood -tweaks that normal people need to google otherwise. I want Linux to replace Windows on the casual desktop, which requires it to be polished and easy out of the box.
I use Debian on my netbook, it's great, but I use ubuntu on my desktop because the bloat isn't really an issue. They're both great in their own roles.