A new distro for my new storage

[Kernel_chilli]

Good day, good night, wherever you are.

I am looking for a new distro to start fresh on as I got a new SSD. I am a long time Arch user but I switched to Debian simply for as I got talking to some people who told me how super stable it is. I knew it was a stable distro but I questioned this and they replied with a ton of memes all making the point of Debian being one of the most stable distros you can get. One of these people also told me they had Debian installed on a laptop without turning it off in nearly 2 years and not a single issue. How true that is I don't know, but he was pretty adamant.
Anyway, As a long time Arch user, no stranger to Mint and with a large and solid appreciation for Debian in mind, I'd like some ideas for a new distro to go to.
Preferably, something I can keep on for years without issue, something fast that runs efficiently, and allows for a good mix of Desktop Environments. I tend to use KDE on everything but I am open to trying Gnome above all the other options, as long as I can still go back to KDE if I cant get on with it.

I know all the distros I have mentioned using have both the above mentioned environments available for use and they do indeed have their merits, but I want a change and although super stability isn't a necessity it would be a large plus.
So, with that in mind, can I have some suggestions please? Even if it is one of the distros mentioned above, tell me why its a good choice and I Might end up back on it. Just please no Fedora as I hate the name as silly as that sounds.

 

[Brickwizard]

if it's Debian stable based distros you preferrer then your choices are endless, for something a little different you could look at MX-Linux, or Parrot Home edition, or there is the euro distribution Tuxedo, all of which if you don't like the desktop you can change it to your favourite, or you could throw a curveball and try openSUSE [another EU lead distribution]

 

[KGIII]

Debian installed on a laptop without turning it off in nearly 2 years and not a single issue.

That alone should tell you something.

In short, that's not what 'stable' means (in this context). Yes, a system running for two years is 'stable', but when Debian is talking about stability, they're talking about the core functions not changing. The software you'll use will be the "LTS" software, so commands won't change, your scripts will continue to work, there will be no binary breaking changes, and stuff like that.

They're talking about stability in a different way.

Another way to think of this kind of stability is 'consistency'. Your experiences won't change for the duration of support. As long as that distro is supported, everything that works now will work until the end of that support.

That's what it means when we talk about stability in this context. Perhaps 'consistency' would be a better term.

And, if you want stability, the best out there right now is SUSE Linux Enterprise Server (SLES). They offer support for up to 16 years. They call it something like LTSS. As I recall, it's also not cheap. It's about $800 per year, but cheaper if you buy multiple years at once. They have 10 years of support with an optional 6 years of extended support.

Now that is stability.

 

[Condobloke]

Not turned off for some extended period of time, is just a shonk...it proves nothing in terms of stability.

Quite often when a replacement kernel is introduced, it will require a reboot. Is that included in their "not turned off" ?

More to the point, which distro?

LMDE 7

(Linux Mint Debian Edition)

 

[KGIII]

Quite often when a replacement kernel is introduced, it will require a reboot. Is that included in their "not turned off" ?

Some distros offer 'live patching' the kernel.

What is Linux kernel live patching?

Linux kernel live patching is a way to apply critical and important security patches to a running Linux kernel, without the need to reboot or interrupt runtime.

www.redhat.com

Livepatch | Security | Ubuntu

Ubuntu Livepatch eliminates the need for unplanned maintenance windows for kernel vulnerabilities, by patching the Linux kernel while the system runs.

ubuntu.com

Live Patching

Live Patching

www.suse.com

(Those are some examples.)

 

[CaffeineAddict]

I tend to use KDE on everything but I am open to trying Gnome above all the other options, as long as I can still go back to KDE if I cant get on with it.

KDE and Gnome come with a lot of packages, changing one with the other on same OS install is not what I'd recommend, you'll end up with a ton of junk afterwards (when one is removed) and also display manager may get messed up, I did it myself and concluded fresh OS install is the only clean option for switch.
Having both is also not an option, same reason disk bloat and display manager problems.

If you're used to KDE then Gnome won't impress you, I switched to Gnome once for a week and couldn't live with it due to UI limitations and some other minor annoyances such as needing to press key combos often to do things. (not fun if you're mouse user)

they replied with a ton of memes all making the point of Debian being one of the most stable distros you can get.

Debian is rock solid but to keep it that way a user needs to do things "debian way", this among other things means avoiding external repositories or otherwise using backports or making your own backports for newer software.
Not mixing repositories with other release channels etc.

This isn't an obstacle to installing software since Debian repo has the biggest package repository out there, you'll almost never need extra repositories.

Here are 2 links that will help you understand what this means:

Debian -- Reasons to use Debian

www.debian.org

DontBreakDebian - Debian Wiki

wiki.debian.org

 

[MikeRocor]

In short, that's not what 'stable' means (in this context). Yes, a system running for two years is 'stable', but when Debian is talking about stability, they're talking about the core functions not changing.

Thanks for this - I had no idea. I thought they were referring to "not degrading nor crashing" and my reaction has always been, "I've never even seen an unstable Linux system (that wasn't an alpha)".

 

[deb_user]

Debian's use of stable and unstable are somewhat confusing, and better terms could be used. Debian has a stable release, and an unstable release, which is called Sid. It's not unstable in the sense that it crashes frequently, but in the sense that it changes, and gets new packages and new versions of existing packages regularly. Stable is aimed at servers, and Unstable is aimed at desktop users. I've been running Sid for years, and it seldom breaks, but it sometimes does. The most important thing to remember when running Sid is to actually look at the proposed changes when upgrading, and never, ever just press Enter to accept the proposal by apt. Sometimes a lot of packages get updated, and not always in the proper sequence. If apt proposes to remove more than one or two packages, abort the upgrade and wait a day or two. Things get sorted out quickly.

I don't really have another distro recommendation. I did a lot of distro hopping when I first started out, but that got old and now I just run Debian, stable on my home server and Sid on my daily driver. I sometimes try a distro in a VM, but that's getting to be more trouble than it's worth. Debian is where I've settled, and I have no plans to move.

 

[osprey]

Debian's use of stable and unstable are somewhat confusing, and better terms could be used. Debian has a stable release, and an unstable release, which is called Sid. It's not unstable in the sense that it crashes frequently, but in the sense that it changes, and gets new packages and new versions of existing packages regularly. Stable is aimed at servers, and Unstable is aimed at desktop users. I've been running Sid for years, and it seldom breaks, but it sometimes does. The most important thing to remember when running Sid is to actually look at the proposed changes when upgrading, and never, ever just press Enter to accept the proposal by apt. Sometimes a lot of packages get updated, and not always in the proper sequence. If apt proposes to remove more than one or two packages, abort the upgrade and wait a day or two. Things get sorted out quickly.

I don't really have another distro recommendation. I did a lot of distro hopping when I first started out, but that got old and now I just run Debian, stable on my home server and Sid on my daily driver. I sometimes try a distro in a VM, but that's getting to be more trouble than it's worth. Debian is where I've settled, and I have no plans to move.

Debian releases, described here: https://www.debian.org/releases/, appear to be quite clear. Briefly, "stable" is the recommended release and is stable in the sense that its packages do not change much during the life-cycle of the release. Because of few changes, it's also stable in the other sense that it doesn't "fall-over" or break. It receives security updates, and critical bug fixes.

The other two releases, testing and unstable have different purposes.

Testing is the platform that slowly builds towards the next stable release which takes around 2 years lately and has been created for the purpose of testing the software that will eventually constitute that new stable release. It inherits packages from the unstable distribution, and provides a release for users to test a whole range of functioning and respond with bug reports where necessary. The bug reporting is from where the efficacy of the eventual stable release is derived. It's from there that things get fixed and software reveals its capacity.

The unstable release is where the latest packages are introduced by maintainers from developers and where those packages remain for a short time, perhaps a week or two but it varies, whereupon basically, they are installed to testing if they don't break. Developers get to have packages installed in unstable until they pass some criteria, after which the packages are passed down to the testing release.

Users are able to select any of the releases of course for any reasons they have. Breakages may occur in testing and unstable releases which don't occur in the stable release. Users are able to use their own judgements about their needs and capacities and interests in making their selections. For example, it's not wise for a inexperienced linux user to install the unstable release as their sole computing resource if they need to use it for vital functions like banking etc; if a user wants or needs more recent software than exists in the stable release, they may need to move to the testing release. It's not uncommon for users who just like to be "up to date" to use testing or unstable releases. It's useful however, in those latter cases, to have some capacity to repair and recover systems that break.

There is another debian tier of packaging which is called experimental. See here: https://wiki.debian.org/DebianExperimental. Using that repository can probably be referred to as being close to the "bleeding edge".