No, but they're similar in a lot of important ways. I generally prefer Gentoo to Arch, it's a little more "just Linux" whereas Arch has some idiosyncrasies.
they can affect your productivity.
They definitely can, but in general it's still a choice. I've been using Gentoo to do work for years and years, and only getting in the weeds with OS configuration when I want to. However, it's always tempting, and it is possible to screw up your box pretty easily if you're not careful and don't do your research, which is absolutely a productivity drain
outdated software
From my understanding, Debian ships with a bunch of outdated (but highly tested) software, but still gives you the ability to pick and choose some software to keep closer to upstream. That seems like the best of both worlds to me, what remains to be seen is how easy it actually is to manage on a per-package basis. Most of my software, I don't care if it's years out of date as long as it works reliably.
I gave up on Debian because I felt I was too "noob" to use it, but perhaps I'll go back to it when I feel I'm more experienced with Linux. I really like the Debian Project in general.
Totally. That's a huge barrier, and I had a similar experience when I was getting started. I think Ubuntu addresses that need well. However, I now do have enough familiarity to overcome pretty much anything it throws at me - the basic setup I needed to do to get graphics and WiFi running on Debian Buster took me about ten minutes yesterday, which is acceptable especially because I probably won't ever need to touch it again, even though Ubuntu would have likely done it for me out of the box. It was only that fast because I've been down that road before many times, though, and I remember wasting hours my first time around.
I really like the Debian Project too, and would rather use their OS than Ubuntu's if it doesn't get too much in my way.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
No, but they're similar in a lot of important ways. I generally prefer Gentoo to Arch, it's a little more "just Linux" whereas Arch has some idiosyncrasies.
They definitely can, but in general it's still a choice. I've been using Gentoo to do work for years and years, and only getting in the weeds with OS configuration when I want to. However, it's always tempting, and it is possible to screw up your box pretty easily if you're not careful and don't do your research, which is absolutely a productivity drain
From my understanding, Debian ships with a bunch of outdated (but highly tested) software, but still gives you the ability to pick and choose some software to keep closer to upstream. That seems like the best of both worlds to me, what remains to be seen is how easy it actually is to manage on a per-package basis. Most of my software, I don't care if it's years out of date as long as it works reliably.
Thanks for your take!
I gave up on Debian because I felt I was too "noob" to use it, but perhaps I'll go back to it when I feel I'm more experienced with Linux. I really like the Debian Project in general.
Totally. That's a huge barrier, and I had a similar experience when I was getting started. I think Ubuntu addresses that need well. However, I now do have enough familiarity to overcome pretty much anything it throws at me - the basic setup I needed to do to get graphics and WiFi running on Debian Buster took me about ten minutes yesterday, which is acceptable especially because I probably won't ever need to touch it again, even though Ubuntu would have likely done it for me out of the box. It was only that fast because I've been down that road before many times, though, and I remember wasting hours my first time around.
I really like the Debian Project too, and would rather use their OS than Ubuntu's if it doesn't get too much in my way.