About this...
As for Debian, Welp, I've never used Debian! That might be a shock considering how long I've been using Linux but, No, I've never used Debian, Only its derivatives.
At first glance, Here's what I
Like about Debian:
- It's stable
- It's secure
- It's amazingly fast
- It has support for .deb files (duh) which will make my life wayyy easier so I don't spend 2 hours writing an ebuild for an app I will use for about 10 minutes
What I dislike about Debian:
- It's stuck with systemd (I know there's Devuan but for some reason I don't trust it)
- Most packages (Like Gnome, KDE, XFCE) come with a "Debian Theme" Meaning it's not "Factory default" which is kinda meh
M'kaaaay..... Here's some Debian facts song:
Falsehoods spread by many a plebian,
Surrounding my old and faithful Debian,
Oh I can tell ye plentiful tails
Of this OS which ne'er fails
But first, to debunk a myth or two,
And root out the falsehoods given to you
It's stable --
Circumstantially True. The "stable" and "oldstable" branches are stable. The others have no guarantee. However, they usually still are. Even running Sid/Unstable gives minimal issues and there's usually a reasonable lead time on patches (or just compile yourself from upstream since you're used to using Gentoo). That said, "stable" is a sort of mindset, though. Some people consider only one crash per month stable, others would barely forgive one per year. Some people think it's just about the OS, some include packages, some even include the interaction between packages as a metric. And the fact that there's occasional breakages and dependency mess-ups outside "stable" means we cannot blanket Debian.
It's secure --
False. False in the sense that most distros are as secure as you make them. Some are not well-secured by default as they are not meant for beginners or aren't designed for Desktop OSes. Others are excessively robustly secure by default. Debian isn't either. Debian is as secure by default as any general-purpose distro. Now, they do get security patches fast. That's because they have a security team specially for this. But just gtting good, timely security updates is not actually the most important criteria for "secure" (probably ranks 3rd).
It's amazingly fast --
False. Install it with the default Debian-flavoured Gnome3 and call that fast... Well, the definition of "fast" is relative... but so is how fast Debian is. Install the base only and then openbox + sxhkd and rofi and you'll have a monster, but it'll also look like an early 2000s OS (not a bad thing). There are some lighting distros like MX, and even faster, Antix, which are all Debian family. But LMDE and Ubuntu are also Debian-based. See, a lot of the "speed" depends on the software installed and the DE.
It has support for .deb files (duh) which will make my life wayyy easier so I don't spend 2 hours writing an ebuild for an app I will use for about 10 minutes --
True. But "One does not simply" install .debs like they were Windows .msis or .exes. Debian has a massive package repo and a competant package manager that is simple and straightforward. Use these tools.
It's stuck with systemd (I know there's Devuan but for some reason I don't trust it) --
Grey Area. Debian GNU/Linux has changed to systemd by default, but Devuan is not the only alternative. I mentioned Antix and MX earlier (MX being Antix family). Now installing a core Antix and building it up will give you what you want. Alternatively, do a full install and de-clutter it. You will be running a nearly pure Debian (minor tweaks). I used Antix for years on an old laptop (installed, not persistent live) and it's a very good option. Honestly, the difference between the two when just using them for everyday work/entertainment is negligible if you know your way around some of the more classic CLI tools Antix ships default (which you can change most of if you dislike them -- albeit a 10min learning curve if you just stick with the tools provided). While these are all technically derivs, arguably including Devuan, it's hardly the same relationship. Debian:Antix is very close, whereas Debian:LMDE is further away, and Debian:Ubuntu is even further (despite the irony of Mint's parentage -- some distro incest there).
Most packages (Like Gnome, KDE, XFCE) come with a "Debian Theme" Meaning it's not "Factory default" which is kinda meh
False. The default "desktop environment"-s are metapackages (as is "Debian Desktop Environment", AKA Gnome3). Just install the base system only and then manually install the DEs stand alone (or by component if you're that OTT) --
here's XFCE4 unveiled. Ignore recommends, take suggests.
However, the "theme" argument is invalid since nobody, well, maybe 0.1% of people, uses a DE vanilla from upstream. So, you are going to download icons, GTK themes, WM themes, cursors, wallpapers, etc. and customise your DE anyway. What difference does it make what it looked like before?
So, you made it this far. Good. Okay, now as to deciding on a distro, you clearly want stability and are capable of putting in the work but not too willing. That is, you're sick of the schlep. Don't blame you. I used to build my distros up from their ost core/base option, but nowadays, I partition my disks manually and then just hit Enter, Enter, Enter. I can always remove what I don't like. It'd faster and easier. As someone who has been surviving Gentoo (surviving, yes) for 15 years, aside from suggesting you get a platinum medal, I would say go for Debian. That's not my bias talking. Sure, Arch has the AUR, but you've been using Gentoo for 15 years. Compiling the odd package yourself isn't going to be a major PITA for you, it'll be a minor annoyance. You'll also come to realise that tons of stuff in AUR is also available on Appimage, which is a much easier beastie to manage. But I'm confident you'll find Debian's official repo more/less enough.
Just my two cents.