Linked by Dedoimedo on Thu 17th Mar 2011 23:17 UTC
Debian and its clones Writing about Debian is not a simple thing. You know it's the giant that has spawned pretty much every other distro out there. It's almost like a Roman Empire, almost a taboo. Furthermore, it's not a desktop distro per se. It's more sort of a template you use to build your platform. It's also a SOHO server distro, therefore it more fits into the business category, comparable to CentOS and similar.
Thread beginning with comment 467166
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

If you can use the parent distribution, do so. If you can't, use an appropriate child fork.

This isn't meant to sound harsh. I started with Red Hat when it still included mp3 codecs. When it became less good as a desktop distro I ended up with a child fork that was more appropriate; Mandrake. It was also one of the first "user friendly" and had fantastic gui config tools. The child fork was better suited to me and was when I really started figuring things out. Now, I've gone the other way having switched from .rpm to .deb based. The fork parent fits my needs so for me, there is no reason to use a child fork like Ubuntu or Mint specialized liveCD tools not withstanding.

For other's, a child fork of Debian may be better suited to there needs. In such cases, use the child fork rather than the parent.

Reply Parent Score: 2

debuser Member since:

I find your post to be correct but as a Deb desktop end user (yes we exist),i feel obligated to post a question: why is it common place that Deb is for servers mainly, i mean:

1 if people do default install to the entire disk, installation system is just five or such more questions than ubuntu or win 7.If you want a dual boot than its not more difficult than lets say: Partition Magic.

2 how selecting repository and install a plugins package (codecs and such)different from going to adobe site to download a binary to win 7 or a codec pack, and really are forks really that good for saving me 15 minutes work?

3 deb always had kinda outdated software and that is fine.It has lesser bugs.Paraphrasing:Call me anal but i
like my system to work cohesively whatever the software i install into it.Ergo: what is the point of having edge software if the system crashes or becomes unstable or heavy because of the packages with functions mostly cosmetic for example.(whats the point in having thousands of plugins if firefox/iceweasel slows or crashes?
Plus for those who complain about eye candy: download testing and default install's almost ubuntu (hww, i wonder why)

4 Why would i prefer wireless even on notebooks if researches has shown it's around 30% slower (sorry don't remember where i read it, pretty easy to find though).

It all brings me to the another point: assuming there are precompiled binaries for your card how would that be different than let's say downloading a win 7 driver from cards manufacturer?

When i see fork's reviews they are always tailored towards newbies like this: now featuring firefox 4.0 with thousands of plugins and such,not a single word about how updating from the last version is going to crash your system (yes ubuntu i'm talking about you).
Albeit generally when i see red slack or deb reviews its often like this:
"The system shows minor changes and despite being rock stable lacks codecs and plugins and thus is more suited for servers" do people really believe end users are really that stupid?
forks generally achieve more sucess by hiding instabilities and focusing on features,good marketing.
while parents have a much higher stability allowing the media (Pr)community to fucus on the Stable features and updates what we often see is the other way around:this is like adressing a windows gamers compilation and instead of talking about the tweaks on regedit and such going on about how the installation process is slower or how the download it's bigger.
It's not only counter productive but also puts fear into newbies (most often a total newbie asks a friend to help install it anyway)

Point is: anyone who can install a ubuntu or win desktop (Os+driver+games+decent firewall..etc)is more than able to install deb.

P.S: Started as windows user up until xp then deb, never written a single line of code in my life never installed a server, don't know how to configure apache...and apart from using managers and the eventual make command to compile drivers am not very fond of command lines.(Tried ubuntu and hated,never tried mint for that matter)

Reply Parent Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:

Debian is a perfectly valid desktop distribution. I really don't get the "Debian is for servers only" claims either. Why should only one's servers benefit from Debian's focus on stability and security.

Personally, I'm a fork snob by nature too though. I just can't understand using a child fork based on a parent distribution when one can simply use the parent distribution. I used Mandriva only because Red Hat was inadiquate for my needs. I use Debian because there is no justification for me using a child fork based on it's beta and development versions.

Besides.. Dolphin is unstable enough at it's Debian Stable version. I'm going no where near a Beta or development version of it on a production machine I use daily.

Reply Parent Score: 2