If you know vaguely what you’re doing or are willing to learn, you can go with whatever and it’ll be fine.
Personally not a big fan of debian because they tend to be slower and more conservative on updates. Arch is a bit more technical, but very customizable.
I’m personally a big fan of Fedora. Software updated quickly enough to have all the bells and whistles, slow enough to not get cut by bleeding edge software.
No, Debian is typically quite a bit older than even the Ubuntu LTS. E.g. they currently still don’t ship a Nvidia driver that supports the 50 series GPUs.
Slower on updates, not slow to run. Slower on updates is referring to how it takes longer for new features / software to be shipped out for you to download. Debian usually prioritizes machines that chug along for a long time without anything breaking, rather than adding new stuff
You’re right that it’s not slow to run. It is small and fast
Performance differences between distros tend to be negligible. Unless you have a specific use case and a distro specifically tuned for that, you will hardly notice any difference.
Though broader than the issue you’re responding to, the bigger quality of note in Ubuntu, is not that it’s slow (nor larger), but instead, the most issue of ubuntu, is that they’re very very silly. More marketing silly than sensible development.
Better Ubuntu be slow than fast anyway. See what they do when they try go fast? Like replacing the userland with rust…
That’s beyond just “ready or not, here it comes” release model madness.
If you know vaguely what you’re doing or are willing to learn, you can go with whatever and it’ll be fine.
Personally not a big fan of debian because they tend to be slower and more conservative on updates. Arch is a bit more technical, but very customizable.
I’m personally a big fan of Fedora. Software updated quickly enough to have all the bells and whistles, slow enough to not get cut by bleeding edge software.
I think it’s Ubuntu that’s slow, while Debian as its base is smaller and faster?
No, Debian is typically quite a bit older than even the Ubuntu LTS. E.g. they currently still don’t ship a Nvidia driver that supports the 50 series GPUs.
Slower on updates, not slow to run. Slower on updates is referring to how it takes longer for new features / software to be shipped out for you to download. Debian usually prioritizes machines that chug along for a long time without anything breaking, rather than adding new stuff
You’re right that it’s not slow to run. It is small and fast
deleted by creator
Performance differences between distros tend to be negligible. Unless you have a specific use case and a distro specifically tuned for that, you will hardly notice any difference.
until you leave linux, to assembly operating systems, like kolibrios.
Ubuntu is based off the testing version of Debian, so they have newer software versions
Your logic seems sound, yup.
Though broader than the issue you’re responding to, the bigger quality of note in Ubuntu, is not that it’s slow (nor larger), but instead, the most issue of ubuntu, is that they’re very very silly. More marketing silly than sensible development.
Better Ubuntu be slow than fast anyway. See what they do when they try go fast? Like replacing the userland with rust…
That’s beyond just “ready or not, here it comes” release model madness.
It’s silly.