Hi all,

I’m currently a happy Fedora user, but I’m attracted to the Debian world because of the sane choices Debian has mostly always taken. It’s a phenomenal distro, with a lot of support (both internla and from 3rd parties), and that follows some of the principles I care about. It has a long support period, it’s less opinionated than other distros, has a huge ecosystem and it’s community-run. Also, it’s an excellent distro for almost all use-cases: IoT, Server and Workstation.

I love Fedora, but it’s not exactly an LTS release, so I have to jump ship to CentOS whenever I need something more stable. Not that I dislike that heavily, though, but I’d like to try the Debian world.

I am not opting for Ubuntu because the snapization of the distro, which is becoming more dependent on snaps as time passes. I like some stuff about PopOS, but some other stuff I don’t. If I were to choose vanilla Debian, which one should I pick to be the most similar to Fedora?

  • Stable
  • Testing
  • Unstable (Sid)

I’ve read that Stable = CentOS, Testing = Fedora, Unstable = Rawhide/Arch. However, during the freeze period, neither Testing nor Unstable will actually behave like that at all. How long is that freeze period and how much of a big deal is it?

  • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.worldEnglish
    81·
    1 year ago

    Freeze is a fairly exceptional time unless something goes wrong; most of the the time it’s:

    • Stable if you’re running a server, something boring and important where security is paramount and it’s okay for the software to be kind of old
    • Testing for daily use (personal machines etc)
    • Unstable / sid is also fine for daily use most of the time, although once in a blue moon something important might break. It mostly behaves like testing; the only reason you would choose unstable is if you’re actively developing for Debian or else if it’s so important to you to have extremely up-to-date software that you can accept some brokenness.

    I recommend testing for normal machines and stable for servers.

  • GustavoM@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    If you are not planning to update your distro for the next few months neither on using it for all the day long, visiting weird/suspicious sites and the like… then you can pick any “branch” you want, even unstable/sid.

  • HousePanther@lemmy.goblackcat.comEnglish
    21·
    1 year ago

    What level of Linux user do you consider yourself to be? I dunno, I guess if you are attracted to the Debian way of doing things, check out Linux Mint Debian Edition. If you want more control over your system and consider yourself intermediate to advanced, go with Arch. I finally settled on Arch and as long as they keep doing good work, I am going to stay with it.

  • neuromancer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23·
    1 year ago

    The freeze is normally close to 24 months, a new version is release every 2 years.

    I’m running stable, never had any issues with it, it’s rock solid.

      • mo_ztt ✅@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        1 year ago

        I swear the delays in the woody -> sarge development cycle, 20 years ago, made such an impact on the internet’s collective memory that things like “Debian stable is old!” and “Freezes are something that you’ll definitely be aware of, let alone experience any problems from!” are still part of the collection of stereotypes that get repeated as knowledge.

        • ladyanita22@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          I mean, those delays were huge. Debian’s longhorn. Whereas Fedora was pumping releases in a stable cadence, Debian was stuck in there. If it weren’t for that, probably Ubuntu wouldn’t bave existed.