Ironically Ubuntu is more popular…
Ironically Ubuntu is more popular…
What’s Debian based on again? I think it was some earlier variant of Ubuntu
/s
You're viewing a single thread.
Debian was first in that line. Here's the Linux family tree
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1b/Linux_Distribution_Timeline.svg
lol I know :)
sorry, missed the /s, but figured the tree was still worth seeing for some.
#echo "" > $1; echo "Debutu"
Whoever collected this data is a real one
Yep, Debian was (is) a disaster to configure graphics with modern hardware. It was pure open source (even blocked firefox as the logo was copyright protected). They opened up with a non-free repo for hardware support, but already lost the 'market share' on the desktop to Ubuntu (and the load of forks with just a different windoemanager as default... instead of adding a desktop selection on install). Also Ubuntu is offered a lot as option on new hardware.
With snap I'm guessing users migrate back... (a very few at least)
Yep, Debian was (is) a disaster to configure graphics with modern hardware.
Hasn't been the case for years. Perhaps even a decade, from what I recall. Just check the "nonfree" option in the installer, and you'll get all the drivers you need. It's not any harder to set up than Ubuntu these days.
Ubuntu has been around for 2 decades (close nough, octobet it's 2 decades) and yes, Debian is 11 year older and now known for it's desktop friendly use. That Debian caught up in the last decade is about time, but to late for the major population who want linux but not the hassle of manually configure the graphics environment.
To be honest, I see that most people of 30 and younger don't know or care how a computer (or anything) works, it just works.
Then they don't need to use Debian. There are plenty of user friendly options. Debians installer is kind of bad but that doesn't mean Debian is bad.
What is bad about it? It's as fool proof as the RedHat installer, unless you go to the expert text mode one. (And even that is pretty straight forward)
Why debian installer is bad? Literaly press okay to almost everything and you got installed
You can't disable root and tasksel may be confusing to some.
Why would you want to disable root?
Remote root login is disabled by default, local root disabeling is useless anyway, as when you have acdess to the physical system you can break it open anyway.
Because sudo exists and is way better for so many reasons.
It's a better way, but not fool proof. I always keep root available for console login. (Saves booting from external media when there is an issue) For the rest, sudo is perfect though, but it doesn't replace root login in 100% of the situations.
Honestly Debian was one of the few that still kept a strong stance on freedom. Its sad that they went the opposite direction. I wish that they would of just broke the non-free into firmware and apps like they have now and then provided two isos. They could have a simple paragraph explaining free software with two links.
Same feeling, although on some systems you need the non-free firmware to complete the installation. No screen or network is a tad annoying when installing. ;)
That's why they should just provide 2 ISOs
Thanos snap those nerds straight to arch
