• shirro@aussie.zoneEnglish
    0·
    2 days ago

    I only ever deploy and develop on Debian. Community run distros all the way. I had bad experiences with Redhat decades ago and do everything I can to avoid it or its siblings.

    Debian has faults but it is often a taste thing. I like systems that give me upstream with minimal patches, like Arch. I moved to Arch on all desktops/laptops. The Debian devs repeatedly doing dumb shit with ssh patches was part of that. Arch is not unreliable but it is unstable. All that means is that software updates which aren’t backwards compatible sometimes require intervention . To be clear that is not a fault with Arch but it does make it less suitable for long hassle free server deployments. Also Arch doesn’t have the Debian security announce list or maintain a stable production environment for years with backported security fixes and unnattended security updates.

  • Lettuce eat lettuce@lemmy.ml
    0·
    2 days ago

    Debian has become my favorite server OS. Some more specialized distros are great for specific use cases, but for 90% of my stuff, I just install Debian and chill.

  • zemo@lemmy.world
    0·
    2 days ago

    I surfed a few distros before landing on Debian. It solved (almost) all the issues I had with Linux. Debian for life.

      • Flatearth_Habeebi@lemmy.zip
        0·
        2 days ago

        Their security updates are some of the best you could find, my friend. They are only “slow” on features. Debian doesn’t fuck around when it comes to security.

      • furry toaster@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        0·
        2 days ago

        debian’s security updates are faster than Arch’s, Ubuntu’s and many more, you seem to not understand what the “stable” in “stable distro” means, please, this has nothing with security updates

      • redrum@lemmy.ml
        0·
        2 days ago

        If that server includes the security repository in its source files, I disagree. In fact, the use of the security repository in Debian has a history spanning more than 20 years.

            • CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml
              0·
              2 days ago

              it might be a failure to read on my part but this reads as unfixed on Debian but fixed on Arch

              Edit: Oh, yeah ok, in the security repo it’s fixed, why is the vulnerable version distributed to stable though?

            • Nalivai@lemmy.world
              0·
              2 days ago

              Rolling releases better at updates, by definition, that’s my point. This can backfire, but also can save you sometimes.

              • furry toaster@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
                0·
                2 days ago

                we are talking abou specificly security updates, upstream for most projects that are important for security have a concept of LTS releases, e.g the kernel’s LTS, debian updates their stable packages rellying on upstream’s LTS, debian does sometimes switches to newer LTS releases even if it means breaking the no new feature general rule of thumb, e.g kernel LTS goes EOL, debian maintainers sometimes do try to backport fixes themselves but generally debian prefers to follow upstream’s LTS EOL where possible, generally updating to the oldest LTS not in EOL yet

                debian has a specific team dedicated to security, updating packages, contacting and colaborating with upstream, reporting potential vulnerabilities e.g the xz backdoor first was reported to the ssh package maintaince team from which the importance and the nature of the issue was discovered and then reported to the debian security team which confirmwd the findings and made reports to other teams and tried contacting the old owner of xz since xz was effectively taken over by the malicious actor

      • data1701d (He/Him)@startrek.websiteEnglish
        0·
        2 days ago

        Eh. They’re actually pretty on top of security patches for pretty much any internet-exposed server software.

        The OpenSSL incident was a long time ago at this point.

    • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
      0·
      2 days ago

      I run it with KDE for my daily driver & gaming and it is very boring and stable, which is what I want in my PC. Debian is 99% of the time supported.

      I recommend it.

      • Flatearth_Habeebi@lemmy.zip
        0·
        2 days ago

        I’ve invested so much time and effort into CachyOS. I’ve been running it for over 2 years now. A switch would be very hard and unnecessary work for me since it works no issues for me. Otherwise, Debian would be on my machine.

        • Croquette@sh.itjust.works
          0·
          2 days ago

          Makes sense. I started with Ubuntu so Debian was a very natural move for me

          I tried a few non-debian distro but always came back to it as it is the one I am most familiar with.

        • CommanderCloon@lemmy.ml
          0·
          2 days ago

          Not only does cachy work perfectly, Debian needs so much fiddling around to get latest software versions it’s a hindrance for a lot of stuff including gaming

  • SpaghettiMaster@feddit.uk
    0·
    2 days ago

    I should install Debian to replace my current Ubuntu install at some point. Might move some services I run to a VM to reduce effort when reinstalling my OS. Then it’s just install steam and copy over my game backup folders. Plus with a VM I can easily move it to a proxmox mini PC if I ever get round to buying one.

  • ohshit604@lemmy.halstead.host
    0·
    2 days ago

    I picked Debian with absolutely no knowledge of Linux, have yet to switch or try other distros, it’s been well over two years now.

    • Nonagon ∞ Orc@lemmy.world
      0·
      2 days ago

      They backport security updates to the existing software versions on stable, which causes the packages to be secure without introducing new behavior. Feature updates only occur with a new stable release I believe.

      • furry toaster@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish
        0·
        2 days ago

        it is rare but some feature updates do get to stable, most software that is important to up to date with security fixes have the concept of an LTS or somethinf akin to it, firefox has ESR for example, basically it is a version where the devs will continously backport security fixes to it but not the features

        • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
          0·
          2 days ago

          I also saw that recently. I’d like to highlight this bit from the news:

          This update contains behavior changes, all of which stems from the CVE fixes themselves, not exclusive to the version bump.

          So it looks like the package is still mostly kept stable despite the exception made.