170
submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

What’s Debian based on again? I think it was some earlier variant of Ubuntu

/s

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Yep, Debian was (is) a disaster to configure graphics with modern hardware. It was pure open source (even blocked firefox as the logo was copyright protected). They opened up with a non-free repo for hardware support, but already lost the 'market share' on the desktop to Ubuntu (and the load of forks with just a different windoemanager as default... instead of adding a desktop selection on install). Also Ubuntu is offered a lot as option on new hardware.

With snap I'm guessing users migrate back... (a very few at least)

[-] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yep, Debian was (is) a disaster to configure graphics with modern hardware.

Hasn't been the case for years. Perhaps even a decade, from what I recall. Just check the "nonfree" option in the installer, and you'll get all the drivers you need. It's not any harder to set up than Ubuntu these days.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Ubuntu has been around for 2 decades (close nough, octobet it's 2 decades) and yes, Debian is 11 year older and now known for it's desktop friendly use. That Debian caught up in the last decade is about time, but to late for the major population who want linux but not the hassle of manually configure the graphics environment.

To be honest, I see that most people of 30 and younger don't know or care how a computer (or anything) works, it just works.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago

Then they don't need to use Debian. There are plenty of user friendly options. Debians installer is kind of bad but that doesn't mean Debian is bad.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Why debian installer is bad? Literaly press okay to almost everything and you got installed

[-] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

You can't disable root and tasksel may be confusing to some.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Why would you want to disable root?

Remote root login is disabled by default, local root disabeling is useless anyway, as when you have acdess to the physical system you can break it open anyway.

[-] [email protected] 0 points 7 months ago

Because sudo exists and is way better for so many reasons.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

It's a better way, but not fool proof. I always keep root available for console login. (Saves booting from external media when there is an issue) For the rest, sudo is perfect though, but it doesn't replace root login in 100% of the situations.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

What is bad about it? It's as fool proof as the RedHat installer, unless you go to the expert text mode one. (And even that is pretty straight forward)

[-] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

Honestly Debian was one of the few that still kept a strong stance on freedom. Its sad that they went the opposite direction. I wish that they would of just broke the non-free into firmware and apps like they have now and then provided two isos. They could have a simple paragraph explaining free software with two links.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Same feeling, although on some systems you need the non-free firmware to complete the installation. No screen or network is a tad annoying when installing. ;)

[-] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

That's why they should just provide 2 ISOs

[-] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Thanos snap those nerds straight to arch

this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
170 points (92.9% liked)

linuxmemes

20765 readers
1446 users here now

I use Arch btw


Sister communities:

Community rules

  1. Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
  2. Be civil
  3. Post Linux-related content
  4. No recent reposts

Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS