With the Debian 9 release yesterday, I was thinking of switching

1) they're big enough, and yes
2) yes
3) Debian stable is stable. Get a server install and install your WM yourself, you'll avoid the bloat

>>60961964
So you recommend a net-install/minimal install?

File: debian.png.cf(2).png (39KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 400x400px

>>60962054
Debian user here

Stable is fine and I highly doubt anything will EVER crash or break on you. That's why they call it stable. Be aware however that you will not get new features on programs, just security fixes for the most part. It is best used on servers for this reason.
Just did a little research and stable will change for a little bit because of the recent (yesterday) migration of Stretch being testing to stable and Jessie to oldstable. This should subside soon.

On desktops, many people use testing or unstable. Unstable is rolling release with the repos updated every 6 hours. For the most part, unstable really isn't what its name says it is. Sure, you may have to freeze a package from time to time and whatnot, but honestly I have had MUCH less issues with unstable than Arch.

Testing is a good middlepoint as packages must be bugfree in unstable for about a week before they are able to be migrated to testing. Semi-rolling release if you think about it. Only bad thing about it is that you are usually he last to get security updates and bug fixes due to the unstable -> testing release cycle.

In order to upgrade, you should go from

Stable -> Testing -> Unstable

Simply edit your /etc/apt/sources list to have testing/Buster ((to follow either the testing branch or follow the buster branch(which is testing now) into stable when it turns) ) or unstable/Sid. Note that Sid will always be the codename of the Unstable branch as it was the Toy Story character that always broke everything. Hahaha.

You'll also want to install apt-list{changes,bugs} if you go to unstable.

I use unstable and have had much more luck with it than testing, but it requires you to read changelogs and stuff. Takes about 5 minutes.

>>60962054
>>60961905

Same guy, also yes. Do a minimal install and go to the branch you want immediately. THEN do what you need to do! Install xorg, a de/wm, browser, term, etc.

File: 1497726101145.png (362KB, 838x574px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 838x574px

>>60961905
just use xubuntu or ubuntu gnome

>>60964103
Tried both, didn't like. Gnome is too annoying to customize (and very limited), XFCE is too "basic" for my taste (also old and hard to make look good). Ubuntu base itself I also dislike

>>60964271
>Gnome is too annoying to customize (and very limited),
In what way(s) is it limited?

>>60961905
who the fuck uses centos for a desktop?

File: 1497684225886.png (19KB, 787x398px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 787x398px

>>60964574
it is limited in that xfce can do every single thing gnome can do and gnome can only do one single thing (be a phone layout)

>>60964103
Lubuntu is the true patrician choice.

Xubuntu is also ok.

>>60964682
I just realized that you wrote gnome and not gentoo. My bad.

>>60961905
What exactly would push someone from Ubuntu to Fedora?

>>60961905
1. debian probably has one of the biggest repos, and nobody is blocking you from installing .deb packages but use repos if possible. do not use ubuntu ppa:s
2. backports, yes, or just run unstable or testing
3. on debian as far as i know stable means it will work and wont change, the software stays the same

>>60964682
Ah 7/8, I fucking love 7/8.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-hsdOZ8FiU

Are there any good guides for baby's first minimal Debian install? I intend to jump right into i3.
It seems like I just need to go with the net install and only install "standard system utilities" and then update the repos, install/setup sudo, install network-manager, and then install xorg, i3, ranger, and urxvt, I should be good, right?

>>60964796
I wonder the same, Debian or Devuan if you hate SystemD is all we truly need