it was always wild to be back in the day when so many container images were based on ubuntu… was like PLEASE debian is functionally identical here at like 1/10th the base container size!
Mostly yes but there are functional differences in convenience. For example the standard upgrade process is completely manual. You have to disable third party repos. You have to change the repos. You have to check if you have space. You have to remove obsolete oackages. And more. On Ubuntu, the software update tool does all that, eliminating a lot of possibility for error. To an exoerienced user, the Debian process is fine. A novice would have plenty of opportunity for frustration and pain.
What? Software Center is GNOME, not Ubuntu. Discover is KDE, not Ubuntu. Debian updates can be done the same way? I don’t do any of the things you mention. Using SC or just apt upgrade works just fine.
You have to at least modify your sources.list.d manually first. For most people, updating sources.list.d and running full-upgrade will probably work fine…
The full instructions are
run dist-upgrade
remove back ports
remove obsolete packages
remove non-debian packages
clean up old configuration files
add non-free-firmware (this is a 12 -> 13 specific)
remove proposed updates
disable pinning
update sources.list.d to point to the next release
apt upgrade --without-new-packages
apt full-upgrade
It takes like an hour? but it’s still not “just press okay.”
Ubuntu’s has broken on some upgrades for friends and they had to do the whole Debian process manually, but it does try to automate the removals, disablements, and updating sources
Edit: instructions taken from Trixie release. I skipped some that aren’t really unique, like make a backup
If you need to rely on back ports to have day to day function of HARDWARE. Then your OS is not suitable to your use case. Backport reliance should not be the norm for your avg user.
I would argue that backporting one package does not ruin everything. If you backport a lot of stuff, then I would agree that it changing distrio to something more up-to-date should be considered because of the increase of potential problems.
Obligatory: “Use Debian instead of Ubuntu. It’s basically Ubuntu without Snap.”
it was always wild to be back in the day when so many container images were based on ubuntu… was like PLEASE debian is functionally identical here at like 1/10th the base container size!
Mostly yes but there are functional differences in convenience. For example the standard upgrade process is completely manual. You have to disable third party repos. You have to change the repos. You have to check if you have space. You have to remove obsolete oackages. And more. On Ubuntu, the software update tool does all that, eliminating a lot of possibility for error. To an exoerienced user, the Debian process is fine. A novice would have plenty of opportunity for frustration and pain.
What? Software Center is GNOME, not Ubuntu. Discover is KDE, not Ubuntu. Debian updates can be done the same way? I don’t do any of the things you mention. Using SC or just
apt upgradeworks just fine.They’re talking about a Debian 12 -> Debian 13 upgrade
On Debian, you get release notes on what commands to run.
Ubuntu has their own software update utility, separate from Software Center or Discover, that runs the commands for you
Ahhh OK. I’ve always gone fresh for a full upgrade. But does
apt dist-upgradenot work? That’s what the docs say to do.You have to at least modify your sources.list.d manually first. For most people, updating sources.list.d and running full-upgrade will probably work fine…
The full instructions are
It takes like an hour? but it’s still not “just press okay.”
Ubuntu’s has broken on some upgrades for friends and they had to do the whole Debian process manually, but it does try to automate the removals, disablements, and updating sources
Edit: instructions taken from Trixie release. I skipped some that aren’t really unique, like make a backup
https://www.debian.org/releases/trixie/release-notes/upgrading.en.html
Ahh yea, thats not too great
I prefer “ubuntu without the bullshit”
It has much slower release cycle and ancient kernel. For people with new hardware it’s not suitable.
Unless you prototype in a cpu fab it does not matter, debian 13 came out last week and its kernel is not that old
Pop_os
This is why Backports exists. You can get any newer packages or kernels you need by enabling it.
And Ubuntu LTS doesn’t go much farther ahead than base Debian.
A great way to brick your system and enter the package versionning conflict hell
If you need to rely on back ports to have day to day function of HARDWARE. Then your OS is not suitable to your use case. Backport reliance should not be the norm for your avg user.
I disagree, since this is why Backports was made. That being said, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
At that point why not just run a rolling release? Debians whole selling point is stability which backports kinda ruins.
I would argue that backporting one package does not ruin everything. If you backport a lot of stuff, then I would agree that it changing distrio to something more up-to-date should be considered because of the increase of potential problems.
Bullshit