Hey all! Yesterday, I've made following post: How to choose your first distro - A guide for beginners (flowchart + text post) and need some input and critique from you.
One thing I got asked a hell lot is why I didn't recommend Debian (and by some extend, Ubuntu) all that much.
While I included Debian in the list too, I had my reasons to recommend Mint, Zorin, and some other Debian-/ Ubuntu based distros above the OG Debian.
Ubuntu
My decision to exclude Ubuntu didn't meet that much of a big resistance, probably because said decision wasn't as controverse.
Reasons, copied from the post:
It used to be good and paved the way of today’s Linux desktop world, but nowadays, the Corporation behind it, Canonical, decided to shit on its user base.
- Once, they decided to make advertisements for Amazon a few years ago, which they’ve reverted
- They now make ads in the terminal for “Ubuntu Pro”
- And, mostly, they force their own and highly controversial package format (Snaps) onto users. You almost can’t get around them, even if you actively decide for it. While Snaps became better in the last years, they still bring a lot of trouble. Just, for example, think of Valve when they officially recommended everyone to not use the fricking Snap package because it’s broken all the time? Good luck doing that with Ubuntu, when they shove Snaps down everyones’ throat, without even notifying the user. While we more experienced users just change the package format, newcomers aren’t aware of that and blame a malfunctioning app to Linux, not the Snap.
I just don’t see any reasons to recommend Ubuntu over something like Mint or even Debian. Both are pretty much the same (same command compatibility with apt, documentation also applies to them, etc.), but just better in any aspect.
Also,
Fedora is often considered “the new Ubuntu” [...]
if you want something similar in terms of release schedule and more, but more sane.
Debian
For Debian, I think I might edit the post and include it more prominent too.
With the newest release, it got some very well thought out defaults, like Flatpak support, a more polished DE (Gnome, KDE, etc.) experience and more. It used to be a "server only"-distro in my eyes, but now, it is actually viable for desktop use, if you like stability (in terms of staleness/ changes).
My reasons to not include it originally were following:
- ~~The installer sucks:~~ It looks outdated/ ugly, and has bad/ unintuitive defaults, making the installation process way more complicated than it needs to be -> I gladly got corrected, and I think I'm just too dumb for that one. It seems to be more straight forward than I had it in my mind.
- Too lean: For more experienced users, who already know what they want, the relatively minimalist base without any "bloat" (office software, etc.) is great, but I think including said stuff in beginner distros (e.g. by a checklist post-install, or just straight ootb) is a good thing.
- Missing first steps: Zorin or Mint have a welcome wizard that guides new users through the OS, showing them how to install new apps, change settings, and more. TuxedoOS for example was specifically designed by a hardware company that wants every user, who never installed Linux themself, get a good first impression and being capable to use the laptop out-of-the-box. Debian misses that imo.
- Flatpaks not being the default app installation method, resulting in very old software.
- Too old OS in general: I think most DEs in particular have already found their direction, and won't change radically in the future (e.g. Gnome 2 to Gnome 3), they only get polished and improved. By using 3 year old DE variants, you'll miss a hell lot of performance and usability improvements in my opinion, and something like Fedora is better suited for desktop use, as it's still reliable, but more modern.
- Does everything too well: Debian has every DE and a hell lot of good arguments to use. When I put "use Debian" on every arrow, it gets recommended proportionally too often, and overshadows something like Mint.
- Stability is NOT reliability!: While Debian is one of the most stable distros out there, in terms of release cycle, it isn't more reliable because of that. If you mess up your system, there are no recommended-by-default safety measures, like there are on Mint (Timeshift backup) or Suse (Snapper rollback). For me, it is in some regards very comparable to Arch, just that's frozen in time for 3 years.
Now, I would like to hear your opinion and reasons why I might be wrong.
Do you think Debian should be put more into focus, and if yes, why?
How has your experience been, especially if you started using Linux just recently?
Hm... I don't exactly understand what you mean. Newcomers and experienced users alike gave me good feedback on the guide, even the mods liked it, and with this post here, I'm trying to improve my guide even more.
I tried to be as neutral as possible, and also had to simplify stuff a lot regarding the "uninformed writing". I just can't go too much into detail/ nuance or mention every distro out there, because otherwise, this guide wouldn't make any sense. If one wants to get an detailed overview over every distro out there, they're at the wrong ressource.
I tried to make it especially for the sole point of "Here's one simple distro, use that for now, it's a solid choice.", because there are so many ones out there, but which are overwhelming due to choice.
I do. Having a longer stretched release schedule with feature freezes gives devs time to iron out bugs or other issues, and especially for server use or people who don't like change on their desktop, this is also an advantage.
I just think 3 years is too long for a lot of desktop users, especially when they're younger and want new stuff, in particular for hardware compatibility (drivers, kernel, etc.).
Linux Desktop is evolving very fast, and 3 years is a hell lot of time.
See above, I don't get your point, please elaborate further. Newcomers said it gave them a great first impression and overview, and experienced users didn't rip me apart midst air, which I see as a win :D
If you mean this specific post about Debian here, I made it a bit provocative on purpose, since I want all your opinions and you changing my view.
I did...? I split it up in three groups: Debian/ Ubuntu based (but basically only differing in their DE), Fedora, and Immutables. And then I explained each on why I chose it and what defines them. Apart from the immutables, which I see a huge potential in, especially VanillaOS for users who don't want to interact with their system, there are no controversial choices in my post.
Your response is proving my point. Go and read Debian's philosophy and mission statements. It's not a desktop-first distro, so why even mention it if your guide is for newcomers who probably want a desktop (that's what you focus on).
So this is a good tip for technical writing in general, but try writing FOR the topic at hand in comparison to the feature being discussed, and don't repeat previous comparisons unless a new idea is being introduced. What this means is: don't mention "X isn't Y" five times in the span of the topic at hand. It doesn't convey any new or useful information, and it's not a constructive structure to your document.
In your case, you don't need to constantly hammer that "this distro doesn't do this thing". It's not constructive for the reader to grasp what you're trying to convey.
"This distro has this unique feature" on the other hand is constructive, and conveys useful information to the reader.
Your writing is just trying to move the reader to your point of view.
Your advice with positive framing (pointing out what makes it unique, instead of telling what it doesn't have) is a good idea. I will try to implement those tips next time, thanks.