They say debian is free and has its promise, but Arch has like 2-4 maintainers?

  • Barbarian@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    14 hours ago

    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.

      • stuner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        12 hours ago

        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.

      • Otter@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        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

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        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.