is there a point in switching from arch to debian? people say that theyre both the S tier distros but debian has slower package manager with smaller official repo and doesnt have any unofficial one like arch has, also its heavier than arch and dont say anything about stablility because I literally never had any problems with arch that couldnt be solved in a couple of minutes since Ive switched to it like a year ago
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
does S stand for shit?
I preferred Debian but if you have no problem with Arch then just stick with Arch.
I sat on windows 7 for a very long time, you really don't need to switch OS that much.
Just sit on something that works.
Arch is for hipsters, where they have to have the newest of the new.
Debian is for people who are older and just need change less often.
Once AI tools start getting integrated offline, it's going to blur the distros.
If you need or want something new, the AI will simply just make it for you.
Made the switch to debian from ~~*Ngubuntu*~~, everything works and it isn't complete fricking shit.
Pretty excited for that. Wasn't urbit going to do something similar? I forgor.
Arch for desktops. Debian for servers. Simple as.
Fedora for laptops
Debian for servers/turnkey
Arch for distrobox
I don't see why you would, arch is better in pretty much every way. maybe if you're too lazy for system maintenance then Debian's stability is worth switching for but otherwise there's no reason
I've been using Debian for two days after years of using Xubuntu. It's the second distro that I've ever used, so I don't know about Arch, and since I've been only using it for just a couple of days, I cannot say much about Debian either.
Debian works and I was able to set it up the way I like it. That's all I can say.
one doesn't simply switch "to debian" without knowing the point. debian is the only distro you should use. forget every other distro. move on, be happy with life. the more time you tweak your os and switch back and forth, the less time you actually fricking do something. install debian, do something, don't stop doing somethings until you die. live happy. good life. goodnight.
Smaller official repo? Debian's repo has over 80k programs. It's more than 10 times the size of Arch's repo. You should try to be less of a tard anon.
Yup... Debian has the largest repos of any distro. Truly a moronic and baffling thing to criticize.
Debian's is larger, but AUR will get you more exotic/rare software. The red tape a package has to go through to make it into Debian is astounding. They mean well, but Debian policy does not lend itself to the heterogenous nature of the Internet
For daily driver desktop use, Debian creates far more problems than it solves
>is there a point in switching from arch to debian?
Without more context, no. Both are solid distros. Debian doesn't seem generally superior, so the specific circumstances are what make the difference: whether you need packages that are only designed for Debian, whether you or your coworkers are already more familiar with Debian, whether your company already has tools and processes designed for Debian, etc.
Even if Debian works on your current hardware, you will always be living in fear of your current system dying and you needing to switch to a new system on short notice. Debian does poorly at hardware enablement.
>just run unstable
If you can get away with running unstable as your daily, then you are either lucky, or skilled enough that this question becomes irrelevant. Sid is designed for Debian developers for the purpose of making the next Debian
>just use a backports kernel
Or just use a distro that supports you in its official release, instead of having to use such hacks
stay out
what the frick are you talking about, are you on non-x86?
are YOU on non-x86? take a look at kernel changelogs sometime
i run amd cpus and nvidia gpus (sorry, amd sucks at ML/AI) like a normal human
some saps run intel
what possible hardware issues are you running into?
didn't want to create a new thread just for this. anybody know how to properly set perms for shared directory? have to set this up for small office. everybody needs their own personal folder and then one monolithic Shared directory that everybody can use for swapping info around.
GPT gives me trash. I've gone in CIRCLES because it has a one-line fricking memory and it warns you that calling it moronic is a "violation" of the user agreement
ask claude
also lmao there's nothing in the user agreement about not insulting gpt for being a dipshit, funny how it hallucinated that
what did it say exactly?
i've just had LLMs say they don't feel comfortable after i call them a fricking moron
It wasn't in the response. it was a red interactive banner that said "your response may violate our safety guidelines" blah blah. Fricking pussy bot.
anyway, I'm having trouble with a specific requirement on this server
The general folder layout is like /Root/Shared and /Root/User1 and /Root/User 2.
ONly issue I have is that if user1 adds a directory to Shared, then when User2 drags it to their User2 folder, it copies rather than moves. You can apply permissions recursively to fix them even with an ACL but it won't apply to anything added afterward so it's not a perpetual fix.
basically the only issue I have is that is User1 adds something to the Collaboration folder, User2 can't delete it. Everybody is all about restricting delete privs but I specifically WANT to allow anybody is the Office Group to delete whatever they want in the Collaboration folder
i wish debian would get rid of the wifi drivers so the frickin losers on IQfy on their dad's wifi couldn't install it
Which Debian? Unstable is very similar to Arch. Stable is a different thing, good for servers.
>is there a point in switching from arch to debian?
Yeah, it's for when you want/need a more stable and predictable fixed release environment, where you don't have to worry about unnecessary/unwanted updates, or some core library updating and breaking something else.
Pretty much this. I recently made the change to Debian stable after not being able to keep up with arch updates. Which I feel is important for security reasons. I can't afford the possibility of something breaking after an update, either. At least with debian I know the only time shit can break is when it's time for a full upgrade every 1-2 years
Debian is great.
apt is great.(controversial take becaise it trades robustness for simplicity)
The only bad thing I noted was how bloated athe default "task-kde-desktop" install package is. I found the perfect command to install a minimal KDE plasma with apt. It's a little complex though because you have to not choose any DE when doing an install then run it from TTY. I can post it if you want.
Please post
>security reasons
Another good point. From a security standpoint, it's arguably better to leave something like CentOS 7 without any updates for 2 years, than Arch for 2 months.
just use what ever suits you
It's just the old stable/rolling dichotomy. For my personal and hobby pc Artix. For my pro workstation, Devuan, and for my servers, Devuan. Simple as
Arch:
pacstrap (incredible for fixing faulty partitions bs)
pacman -R (pacman logs things and can uninstall packages neatly)
Debian:
none of the above
maintainer got cucked by his wife and killed himself
You know what to choose.
>but arch is trannies
If you want latest versions of sw, arch can do that. Debian too if you want to run sid.. I prefer debian stable for main workstation, been with debian for around 2 decades now I think.
Have been playing around with alpine lately, it's fun and certainly has a use case
Gentoo cures distrohopping