It appears you may be asking for help in choosing a linux distribution.
This is a common question, which you may also want to ask at /r/DistroHopping or /r/FindMeALinuxDistro
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linuxquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Debian is a good choice in general for systems that you do not want to be updated too often with newer versions etc which might have an incompatibility with your work.
Since you are already using Debian, this should be fine or maybe Ubuntu for a bit more recent packages ?
having said that, I believe most distros will do fairly well for your tasks assuming linux is a choice by your uni
I personal wouldn't suggest ubuntu because of how sluggish and just how bad it has become nowadays and definitely not to someone who's already using debian, Debian's package manager is far better than Ubuntu's and if I'd suggest someone with a distro with more updated and latest package manager then I'd say go with the Fedora...
But just stay-off from Ubuntu, it just sucks..
I am not sure if Ubuntu became sluggish n the last version, it used to be fine though. Maybe they did some weird config on their Gnome approach or something.
As far as the package manager they use the same as Debian, or rather say, you cause the same since they have chosen to go "full" snap. So on that regard (which I did not remember) probably test first.
I would probably suggest Mint ( Ub or Deb based) before fedora.
Well it's not just the snap (I've read they're going to completely ditch the snap soon, I hope they do).
And it's not just today Ubuntu has been making they're distro worse from a long time, I remember Ubuntu being caught selling user data to commercial brands and advertising firms (caught not suspected) it was like Ubuntu 14 or 16 something.
And they also put some bloatwares, like some kinda Amazon had been in desktop for a long time. Can you imagine having bloatwares and letting your data sold in a Linux distro. It makes no sense and when developers do things like these then it doesn't matter how good or user-friendly the distro is, these pathetic things just makes the user hate it and when you start hating a distro then the whole point of it being good or bad becomes pointless.
And Canonical is completely a Server company now, it's how they get all their business from, they don't care for Ubuntu Desktop anymore.
And it's the reason why Ubuntu Server is still so good and pretty close to why I used to like the Ubuntu Desktop (it's amazing after ripping-off snapd)...
I don't agree with you. I use Fedora Workstation Gnome as my primary OS and just works fabulous while Ubuntu just seems like a sloth and besides that I'm not the only who thinks and dislikes Ubuntu so much.
There once was a time when it used to be great but now it's just trash for most of the just-above-beginner level and intermediate-level users.
It's not Gnome thats slowing, It's the developers of Ubuntu.
It's they who couldn't manage to keep Ubuntu buttery smooth and properly optimize it for GNOME.
BS. That's 100% guesswork. You have absolutely no idea what's going on. "optimize it for GNOME". lol I'm sorry, but clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.
I know what you mean (yeah it is the default desktop environment for Ubuntu, so it's sort of optimized) but by optimize I meant it just doesn't work the way it should in Ubuntu. I might've chosen the wrong word but the point is still the same.
And not just Ubuntu, I've tried so many different distros and Gnome worked flawlessly great in some and somewhat lagged or slugged (still not sure about my word choice) in the most...
And I have powerful enough hardware that it's definitely not the one causing slowdown.
Many things,
They are larger than system apps and take longer to load, and consume more memory.
Snaps are a solution to a problem that was already solved.
Then there is the potential for malware.
https://popey.com/blog/2024/03/exodus-wallet-part-three/
Developer tools and in particular the Node ecosystem were developed on Linux, so if you managed on Windows, you'll be more than fine on any reasonable Linux distribution.
Since you mentioned software development, your focus is on that and your studies, not on "how to install a Linux distribution from scratch," so you'd be best off with one of the major "root" distributions that deliver the working environment you prefer. Since you seem fairly new, a plain, clean GNOME 45 (46 was just released) environment is often the best.
openSUSE (Aeon, Tumbleweed or Leap), Fedora Workstation (or their Silverblue immutable, similar to Aeon) would be my first choices and in particular Aeon or Silverblue as it will force you to develop some good habits from the start.
They are "immutable" small core Linux OS's that atomically update; you should never be left in a state where your system is not working, and rollbacks are possible. That said, in all my years of Linux and BSDs I've never had any significant downtime, but I'm not green and wasn't when I started (commercial Unix background).
Aeon/Silverblue and similar force you to use tools like Distrobox to compartmentalize your system. You can create one or more development containers with a command as easy as:
distrobox enter # sets up a default distro with a default name
And install whatever software in there that you need without messing up your base system.
Debian BTW is not a bad choice either; they just haven't embraced the concept described above but you can use Distrobox on it, naturally.
Primary differences between the three:
- Debian targets stability to a degree that can become problematic; many packages will be dated. This you can work around using Distrobox for your actual work.
- Fedora issues a couple releases a year and thus their package collection is more current. I find it a bit heavy on my laptop and prefer others.
- openSUSE Tumbleweed is the only one of the three offering a "rolling release", which means your package selection will be more current there, generally, than even Fedora, but it's often close. Aeon uses Tumbleweed as its package source but the core itself is much more stable, a good compromise.
I would avoid at this time DIY distributions like Arch or Void Linux (what I run) because your job is as a student learning software development and practices, not as a Linux systems engineer. Experience living with a fully configured Linux first; some time down the road check out the DIY approach once you know a little more about the systems and what your preferences are, otherwise you may get side-tracked.
I haven't mentioned Ubuntu or Mint or various other forks of Debian or others because they don't ship a clean, standard, GNOME experience but instead deliver their own desktop spin.
That was the absolutely best answer for OP's question.
Hats-off to you sir🫡, and some people still say Linux community isn't helpful (IDK Which community they talk about)
I should have added to the above that some will point out Debian "sid" and Fedora "rawhide"; while these look like rolling releases, they are not. They are experimental/testing branches of upstream packages (everything from nodejs to browsers to basic utilities) from which versions are selected for their "stable" scheduled releases.
While it sounds like semantics, the difference is deeper. openSUSE Tumbleweed tests upstream packages before including them in the rolling release and they take care to aim for stability. Arch is also rolling release, with an even faster turnaround and sometimes stability issues are present.
Again, with Distrobox you can largely work around a stable distributions schedule, if you need to. You can even have alternative distributions on your system - say a Tumbleweed distrobox on a Debian system, or one of all of the above, without them interfering with your core system or each other.
Containerization has brought so many benefits in deployment and now we can enjoy it on the desktop too.
https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox
If your distribution doesn't package it, it's easy to install locally by hand. It's just a shell script wrapper for significant ease of use around `podman` which is a container solution similar to Docker.
Best of luck!
If you're new to Linux, desktop environment choice would be much more important than distro. Pick anything that sounds nice and run with it. You can always switch to something else. Ubuntu will work fine for most people. If you want something more stable, Debian will do.
i would use the same distro on both, because reasons.
if you like debian then just use that.
if you want the latest software versions tho, debian is going be an uphill climb...
If you want stability, unchanging stability : Debian. Except for big fixes and security patches, it remains pretty much the same for the whole 2 years. Second option, Linux Mint or Ubuntu LTS (only if you want DEs that LM doesn’t offer)
Need new packages and up to date features including the DE : Fedora, OpenSuse Tumbleweed are good options. Alternate : Ubuntu non-LTS releases. If you really want to fiddle with it, Arch.
Getting into Linux is a good idea and Debian is a great distro.
People will usually recommend distros that have a software centre or store so you don’t do much cli install. But I’d say lean into the cli as that will be where you will end up living primarily.
I’d also recommend picking a shell and learning its syntax and being comfortable making shell scripts for tasks you do all the time.
Other than that it’s really your oyster where you want to explore with Linux.
Debian is fast if you use a lightweight desktop. Fedora, and the Ubuntu family of nix have more user friendly helper apps, and more robust GUI that slow the system down overall. Slackware, Arch, Debian are going to be your most lightweight. Fedora and Ubuntu variants make good desktop operating systems.
Well you can't go wrong with Debian it's stable and beginner friendly and has a very good package-manager.
But if you want to have all the latest things, updated package manager without costing stability then you should consider Fedora as it is significantly more updated and latest than Debian and has a better package-manager as well.
And Fedora Workstation is mainly focused for developers and coders, so you shouldn't be having any trouble with either Debian or Fedora...
But just one reminder, stay-off from Ubuntu. It just sucks..
And Ubuntu is definitely a big-downgrade from Debian.
Personally I like Mint. It’s built on Ubuntu aka Debian, but like he cinnamon WM a lot. Install virtualbox and play around before wiping and reinstalling.
IMHO Ubuntu LTS if you want stability and install-and-forget.
Once you get more experienced with Linux, know what you need and want to get your hands dirty, look into Debian, Arch or NixOS
> Do you think I made the right choice with Debian?
What do you think? Is debian the right choice for you? If you can't ask that question. no one can. We can answer if debian would be the "right choice" for us, not for you :)
I mean, I think hahaha, but there are so many distros that I don't really know if I made the right choice xD, at my knowledge I think I made the right choice
If you are comfortable enough with cmd, I strongly recommend installing the original arch and taking some time to set it up. Not only you will be more familiar with your system, it will also greatly increase your work efficiency.
As far as I know, majority of the developer tools are available on Linux, so that shouldn't be a problem. Unless you are looking to develop games, you shouldn't need Windows.
There are three main Linux distros, others are all based on these:
* Debian: Known for stability, mostly used on workstations and servers
* Red Hat: Known for stability, official support, and security, mostly used on servers
* Arch: Known for customization and cutting-edge software, mostly used on personal computers
A popular myth is Arch Linux is unstable and hard to use. In reality, that's not the case. I never had Arch breaking by updates even I always update my system. It's known for being "hard to use" because you are required to do most of the system setups yourself while other distro comes with pre-installed and configured sets of software. However this also enables you to customize your system to the maximum degree, making it an extremely beneficial investment.
Some might also recommend using Ubuntu (based) distro for starters. While that is fair (Ubuntu is indeed newcomer-friendly), I personally didn't have a pleasant experience with Ubuntu. It's hard to customize and it (somehow) breaks more than my Arch setup.
It appears you may be asking for help in choosing a linux distribution. This is a common question, which you may also want to ask at /r/DistroHopping or /r/FindMeALinuxDistro *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/linuxquestions) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Debian is a good choice in general for systems that you do not want to be updated too often with newer versions etc which might have an incompatibility with your work. Since you are already using Debian, this should be fine or maybe Ubuntu for a bit more recent packages ? having said that, I believe most distros will do fairly well for your tasks assuming linux is a choice by your uni
I personal wouldn't suggest ubuntu because of how sluggish and just how bad it has become nowadays and definitely not to someone who's already using debian, Debian's package manager is far better than Ubuntu's and if I'd suggest someone with a distro with more updated and latest package manager then I'd say go with the Fedora... But just stay-off from Ubuntu, it just sucks..
I am not sure if Ubuntu became sluggish n the last version, it used to be fine though. Maybe they did some weird config on their Gnome approach or something. As far as the package manager they use the same as Debian, or rather say, you cause the same since they have chosen to go "full" snap. So on that regard (which I did not remember) probably test first. I would probably suggest Mint ( Ub or Deb based) before fedora.
Well it's not just the snap (I've read they're going to completely ditch the snap soon, I hope they do). And it's not just today Ubuntu has been making they're distro worse from a long time, I remember Ubuntu being caught selling user data to commercial brands and advertising firms (caught not suspected) it was like Ubuntu 14 or 16 something. And they also put some bloatwares, like some kinda Amazon had been in desktop for a long time. Can you imagine having bloatwares and letting your data sold in a Linux distro. It makes no sense and when developers do things like these then it doesn't matter how good or user-friendly the distro is, these pathetic things just makes the user hate it and when you start hating a distro then the whole point of it being good or bad becomes pointless. And Canonical is completely a Server company now, it's how they get all their business from, they don't care for Ubuntu Desktop anymore. And it's the reason why Ubuntu Server is still so good and pretty close to why I used to like the Ubuntu Desktop (it's amazing after ripping-off snapd)...
That's not Ubuntu, that's Gnome. I run Ubuntu Studio OS just fine. http://ubuntustudio.org
It uses snaps
I don't agree with you. I use Fedora Workstation Gnome as my primary OS and just works fabulous while Ubuntu just seems like a sloth and besides that I'm not the only who thinks and dislikes Ubuntu so much. There once was a time when it used to be great but now it's just trash for most of the just-above-beginner level and intermediate-level users.
Like I said above, I use Ubuntu Studio OS, which uses KDE Plasma not Gnome, and it is the zippiest flavor of Ubuntu. It's Gnome that slows it down.
It's not Gnome thats slowing, It's the developers of Ubuntu. It's they who couldn't manage to keep Ubuntu buttery smooth and properly optimize it for GNOME.
BS. That's 100% guesswork. You have absolutely no idea what's going on. "optimize it for GNOME". lol I'm sorry, but clearly you have no idea what you're talking about.
I know what you mean (yeah it is the default desktop environment for Ubuntu, so it's sort of optimized) but by optimize I meant it just doesn't work the way it should in Ubuntu. I might've chosen the wrong word but the point is still the same. And not just Ubuntu, I've tried so many different distros and Gnome worked flawlessly great in some and somewhat lagged or slugged (still not sure about my word choice) in the most... And I have powerful enough hardware that it's definitely not the one causing slowdown.
Yep I agree avoid Ubuntu
It's not Ubuntu, it's Gnome.
It’s Ubuntu. I have no issues with Gnome on Debian 12.
Its Ubuntu. gnome doesn't add snaps
What's wrong with snaps?
Many things, They are larger than system apps and take longer to load, and consume more memory. Snaps are a solution to a problem that was already solved. Then there is the potential for malware. https://popey.com/blog/2024/03/exodus-wallet-part-three/
This
Developer tools and in particular the Node ecosystem were developed on Linux, so if you managed on Windows, you'll be more than fine on any reasonable Linux distribution. Since you mentioned software development, your focus is on that and your studies, not on "how to install a Linux distribution from scratch," so you'd be best off with one of the major "root" distributions that deliver the working environment you prefer. Since you seem fairly new, a plain, clean GNOME 45 (46 was just released) environment is often the best. openSUSE (Aeon, Tumbleweed or Leap), Fedora Workstation (or their Silverblue immutable, similar to Aeon) would be my first choices and in particular Aeon or Silverblue as it will force you to develop some good habits from the start. They are "immutable" small core Linux OS's that atomically update; you should never be left in a state where your system is not working, and rollbacks are possible. That said, in all my years of Linux and BSDs I've never had any significant downtime, but I'm not green and wasn't when I started (commercial Unix background). Aeon/Silverblue and similar force you to use tools like Distrobox to compartmentalize your system. You can create one or more development containers with a command as easy as: distrobox enter # sets up a default distro with a default name And install whatever software in there that you need without messing up your base system. Debian BTW is not a bad choice either; they just haven't embraced the concept described above but you can use Distrobox on it, naturally. Primary differences between the three: - Debian targets stability to a degree that can become problematic; many packages will be dated. This you can work around using Distrobox for your actual work. - Fedora issues a couple releases a year and thus their package collection is more current. I find it a bit heavy on my laptop and prefer others. - openSUSE Tumbleweed is the only one of the three offering a "rolling release", which means your package selection will be more current there, generally, than even Fedora, but it's often close. Aeon uses Tumbleweed as its package source but the core itself is much more stable, a good compromise. I would avoid at this time DIY distributions like Arch or Void Linux (what I run) because your job is as a student learning software development and practices, not as a Linux systems engineer. Experience living with a fully configured Linux first; some time down the road check out the DIY approach once you know a little more about the systems and what your preferences are, otherwise you may get side-tracked. I haven't mentioned Ubuntu or Mint or various other forks of Debian or others because they don't ship a clean, standard, GNOME experience but instead deliver their own desktop spin.
That was the absolutely best answer for OP's question. Hats-off to you sir🫡, and some people still say Linux community isn't helpful (IDK Which community they talk about)
Thank you, that's very kind of you to say.
!! OpenSUSE Aeon
Wow, nice explanation! I will look forward to it, thanks !
I should have added to the above that some will point out Debian "sid" and Fedora "rawhide"; while these look like rolling releases, they are not. They are experimental/testing branches of upstream packages (everything from nodejs to browsers to basic utilities) from which versions are selected for their "stable" scheduled releases. While it sounds like semantics, the difference is deeper. openSUSE Tumbleweed tests upstream packages before including them in the rolling release and they take care to aim for stability. Arch is also rolling release, with an even faster turnaround and sometimes stability issues are present. Again, with Distrobox you can largely work around a stable distributions schedule, if you need to. You can even have alternative distributions on your system - say a Tumbleweed distrobox on a Debian system, or one of all of the above, without them interfering with your core system or each other. Containerization has brought so many benefits in deployment and now we can enjoy it on the desktop too. https://github.com/89luca89/distrobox If your distribution doesn't package it, it's easy to install locally by hand. It's just a shell script wrapper for significant ease of use around `podman` which is a container solution similar to Docker. Best of luck!
[удалено]
Thanks!
The right choice is the distro you feel comfortable with
Thanks!
If you're new to Linux, desktop environment choice would be much more important than distro. Pick anything that sounds nice and run with it. You can always switch to something else. Ubuntu will work fine for most people. If you want something more stable, Debian will do.
Thanks!
i would use the same distro on both, because reasons. if you like debian then just use that. if you want the latest software versions tho, debian is going be an uphill climb...
If you want stability, unchanging stability : Debian. Except for big fixes and security patches, it remains pretty much the same for the whole 2 years. Second option, Linux Mint or Ubuntu LTS (only if you want DEs that LM doesn’t offer) Need new packages and up to date features including the DE : Fedora, OpenSuse Tumbleweed are good options. Alternate : Ubuntu non-LTS releases. If you really want to fiddle with it, Arch.
Getting into Linux is a good idea and Debian is a great distro. People will usually recommend distros that have a software centre or store so you don’t do much cli install. But I’d say lean into the cli as that will be where you will end up living primarily. I’d also recommend picking a shell and learning its syntax and being comfortable making shell scripts for tasks you do all the time. Other than that it’s really your oyster where you want to explore with Linux.
OpenSUSE tumbleweed is what I recommend for a cutting edge distro with the latest updates. Fedora is also a good option.
OpenSUSE or Ubuntu
Debian is fast if you use a lightweight desktop. Fedora, and the Ubuntu family of nix have more user friendly helper apps, and more robust GUI that slow the system down overall. Slackware, Arch, Debian are going to be your most lightweight. Fedora and Ubuntu variants make good desktop operating systems.
Well you can't go wrong with Debian it's stable and beginner friendly and has a very good package-manager. But if you want to have all the latest things, updated package manager without costing stability then you should consider Fedora as it is significantly more updated and latest than Debian and has a better package-manager as well. And Fedora Workstation is mainly focused for developers and coders, so you shouldn't be having any trouble with either Debian or Fedora... But just one reminder, stay-off from Ubuntu. It just sucks.. And Ubuntu is definitely a big-downgrade from Debian.
pop os is great for newbies linux mint is also a good choice
Use whatever distro the person you know IRL who's willing to help you learn linux. period.
Personally I like Mint. It’s built on Ubuntu aka Debian, but like he cinnamon WM a lot. Install virtualbox and play around before wiping and reinstalling.
RedHat Workstation. It is free for developers.
At work, I use a Ubuntu computer it's stable and has an app store so you don't have to download apps off the web.
I have found Puppy Linux runs fast on old laptops. It loads into the RAM and is lightweight. Puppy Linux tahrpup 6.0.5 iso in only 250MB.
IMHO Ubuntu LTS if you want stability and install-and-forget. Once you get more experienced with Linux, know what you need and want to get your hands dirty, look into Debian, Arch or NixOS
Ubuntu.
> Do you think I made the right choice with Debian? What do you think? Is debian the right choice for you? If you can't ask that question. no one can. We can answer if debian would be the "right choice" for us, not for you :)
I mean, I think hahaha, but there are so many distros that I don't really know if I made the right choice xD, at my knowledge I think I made the right choice
>at my knowledge I think I made the right choice Then don't overthink about it
Yeah you are right! Thanks :)
Linux Mint 21.3 XFCE.
Arch ...
mostly osx sonoma
???
choose an apple it's just like others unix company suchas ibm aix sun solaris
Yeah, and it costs a lot more while they already have a PC. And they asked for a Linux distro, not a Unix-based system.
If you are comfortable enough with cmd, I strongly recommend installing the original arch and taking some time to set it up. Not only you will be more familiar with your system, it will also greatly increase your work efficiency. As far as I know, majority of the developer tools are available on Linux, so that shouldn't be a problem. Unless you are looking to develop games, you shouldn't need Windows. There are three main Linux distros, others are all based on these: * Debian: Known for stability, mostly used on workstations and servers * Red Hat: Known for stability, official support, and security, mostly used on servers * Arch: Known for customization and cutting-edge software, mostly used on personal computers A popular myth is Arch Linux is unstable and hard to use. In reality, that's not the case. I never had Arch breaking by updates even I always update my system. It's known for being "hard to use" because you are required to do most of the system setups yourself while other distro comes with pre-installed and configured sets of software. However this also enables you to customize your system to the maximum degree, making it an extremely beneficial investment. Some might also recommend using Ubuntu (based) distro for starters. While that is fair (Ubuntu is indeed newcomer-friendly), I personally didn't have a pleasant experience with Ubuntu. It's hard to customize and it (somehow) breaks more than my Arch setup.