I’ve been using Ubuntu as my daily driver for a good few years now. Unfortunately I don’t like the direction they seem to be heading.

I’ve also just ordered a new computer, so it seems like the best time to change over. While I’m sure it will start a heated debate, what variant would people recommend?

I’m not after a bleeding edge, do it all yourself OS it will be my daily driver, so don’t want to have to get elbow deep in configs every 5 minutes. My default would be to go back to Debian. However, I know the steam deck is arch based. With steam developing proton so hard, is it worth the additional learning curve to change to arch, or something else?

  • Rustmilian@lemmy.worldEnglish
    42·
    11 months ago

    Bruv. I’ve packaged software for all 3 and beyond.
    Which btw is completely irrelevant here so get off your high horse.
    There’s clear performance differences between 6.1 and 6.6.3 Why? Because there’s several performance related patches & bug fixes that effect various APIs both Wine & Proton take advantage of.
    Ofc, you can install newer kernels, you could install kernel 6.6.0 if you wanted, but you’d be going outside of the stable repo to do it which kinda defeats the entire purpose of Debian Stable. Not to mention that mixing and matching packages can lead to problems in the future. Like accidently using the wrong dkms driver version on the wrong kernel version, and other general compatibility issues.
    I take it that you’re not active in the kernel development space, which is fine. However I personally am. Hell, there’s going to be even more of a noticable difference in kernel 6.7 thanks to FUTEX2 improvements.

    • ono@lemmy.caEnglish
      22·
      11 months ago

      There’s clear performance differences between 6.1 and 6.6.3

      As already stated, kernel 6.5 is available on Debian Stable.

      Ofc, you can install newer kernels, you could install kernel 6.6.0 if you wanted, but you’d be going outside of the stable repo to do it which kinda defeats the entire purpose of Debian Stable.

      No, it does not. Stable Backports exist for exactly this reason.

      Not to mention that mixing and matching packages can lead to problems in the future. Like accidently using the wrong dkms driver version on the wrong kernel version.

      I don’t know how you might have managed to do those things, but no, installing the Stable Backports kernel would not cause either of them.

      Please stop spreading falsehoods.

      • Rustmilian@lemmy.worldEnglish
        42·
        11 months ago

        “Stable Backports” what a joke, Backports can and have destabilized user systems.
        Let me just take the thing that’s not ready, configure it a bit differently and by some magic it’s “stable”, make it make sense.
        At that point you have a semi-stable system, so… Ubuntu, PopOS, LMDE.
        Even the Debian devs tell you to use the Backports with care.
        Ignore reality, I don’t care. Go do it on someone else’s time.

        • ono@lemmy.caEnglish
          12·
          11 months ago

          Changing the subject away from Debian’s gaming performance is a strange tactic, but since you’ve shifted to mocking the name of the distribution, Debian Stable’s name comes from this sense of the word:

          stable 3 of 3 adjective
          1b : not changing or fluctuating : unvarying

          I would expect someone so familiar with “all 3 and beyond” of the Debian distros to know that.

          To indulge your sophistry, though, practically all operating systems have released broken packages at some point. Debian Stable has a well-earned reputation for doing it less than others. Even with kernel Backports. Trying to scare people away from it is a disservice to the community.