I distro hopped for a bit before finally settling in Debian (because Debian was always mentioned as a distro good for servers, or stable machines that are ok with outdated software)
And while I get that Debian does have software that isn’t as up to date, I’ve never felt that the software was that outdated. Before landing on Debian, I always ran into small hiccups that caused me issues as a new Linux user - but when I finally switched over to Debian, everything just worked! Especially now with Debian 13.
So my question is: why does Debian always get dismissed as inferior for everyday drivers, and instead mint, Ubuntu, or even Zorin get recommended? Is there something I am missing, or does it really just come down to people not wanting software that isn’t “cutting edge” release?
People asking for distro recommendations usually ask for their desktop.
Debian is great, but it’s hardly ever the best choice for a desktop, at least not for the kind of people who ask for distro recommendations.
I’ve used it for a few years. What issue does it have for a desktop? I’ve had everything “just work”.
There is absolutely no issue with it.
But there are lots of other distros that add things to it which are great for desktop.
GUI tools for driver installation and kernel switching, snapshots, preinstalled Steam+Wine+Codecs+Flatpak, newer and more software, atomic updates, a faster package manager, more third party support, etc.Debian is better than it ever was, but so are lots of other distros, especially the ones that build on it.
Nowadays you really have the choice between “good” and “better”.My parents for example do not care about tools for drivers installation (everything works just fine already), they don’t know what a kernel is (so there’s no need to switch), snapshots/Flatpak/Steam/Wine/faster package manager are not important (they don’t know what any of that is).
They use a browser and occasionally a text editor, that’s it. Debian + GNOME works really well for them.
Often something simple is just right.
Debian might work but it will always be behind and if any performance upgrades are done at a kernel level or a DE then you won’t get them until those fixes are potentially already obsolete.
Debian is not behind. Changed enter the repos pretty quickly and every 25 months you get a release. Which is perfect, as it means I don’t have to maintenance for my mother that often.
Still there are security patches.
If you want the newest shiny stuff, use Testing or Unstable. I’ve done that for years, for that is not the right choice for everyone, as things change on the time. And I don’t get paid for the tech support I do for my family, so I’d rather see them have larger changes less often. Family would agree, as they find it difficult to learn how to deal with the changes.
then why do people suggest Mint so often? especially to gamers who often have new hardware
GPU drivers and DEs lagging behind, mostly.
Something like Fedora which releases newer code quicker will provide a better desktop/laptop experience. It’s the same reason other stable distros, like the EL distros, aren’t the best for desktops/laptops.
Historically, desktop applications would also be versions behind, but Flatpak really helps with this.
At this point, Debian is probably fine as a distro for a few year old computer that won’t be helped by fractional scaling. Pick a DE and install applications from Flathub.
Everything in Debian just works, but people are looking for more features than Debian offers out of the box.
I can see why people would want Debian if they’ve been burned couple of times by distros that move very fast and break stuff.
Old packages in repos. I tried some stuff on LLM and VR and ubuntu had package more updated than Debian. That sad you have to reinstall Ubuntu each time you have to do a security update…
I’ll be honest : because people is ignorant.
They tried Debian once few years ago, it didn’t have the exact driver they wanted out of the box, they gave up. They think that’s the normal and current experience.
Reality is I use Debian every day on my servers, SBCs, laptop but also my desktop. I’ve been gaming on it since the first day of the installation and it just worked. Sure I had to follow https://wiki.debian.org/NvidiaGraphicsDrivers and basically follow those steps. It took me maybe 15min and 1 reboot but since then NO tinkering, 0, and I’m gaming nearly daily from indie to AAA, from 2D to 3D to VR. As I mentioned in another reply sure I might not have perfectly optimized all my performance but I don’t give a shit, I’m just gaming!
Also as I mentioned elsewhere the “cutting edge” is bullshit. You can have a Debian installation, stable, and cherry pick the packages you want. Heck you can even pull from a forge the software you want, built it, run it. That’s how “bleeding edge” it can be. Of course you can use VM (with GPU passthrough), distrobox, AppImage, Nix (different from NixOS), etc so they are many many ways to make sure you use the absolute latest without breaking your system.
TL;DR: Debian does not position itself as a gaming distribution. A lot of gamers want to optimize everything for gaming and consequently assume a specialized distribution will do better. Meanwhile people who JUST want to play can definitely do so on Debian.
Hot take but totally agreed
I do debian on my servers (barring specific uses), arch on my desktop.
debian is meant to be stable and ancient, it’s for servers
Debian unstable has entered the chat
It works a treat on old laptops. I daily drive it on an old Latitude and it’s awesome
I guess its cause when people ask for distro recommendations they’re usually new to Linux, thus a more user-friendly distro that’s built on-top of Debian like a flavour of Ubuntu or Mint is a better fit than straight Debian
My 2¢:
I think it’s gamer discourse bleeding out into other fields. Gamers need the newest libraries and the newest drivers or their stuff might not run as well as it possibly could, because gaming is a relatively young but aggressively growing field with the Linux ecosystem in general. Sure games have always been around, but it’s never been the focus.
Now that gamers are switching more frequently, and that the average user is likely to play a game occasionally, it’s becoming relatively important that packages be up to date for desktop workloads.
Gamers need the newest libraries and the newest drivers or their stuff might not run as well as it possibly could
No they don’t. They think they do because they believe they run their precious expensive hardware only at 99% whereas they imagine, I bet due to trying to compete with each others on benchmarks, that with the absolute latest driver they can actually push their GPU at 99.99% and gain .1FPS in the most popular game they might not even like and 2 points in the trendy benchmark.
Source : I’m a gamer playing on Debian, from indie to AAA, from 2D to 3D to VR, and it just works. Sure I’m not at 99% perf on my hardware, I might even be at 80% but I’m definitely spending 0% time tinkering and 100% having fun.
I’ve literally had to wait for fixes to hit new mesa versions to play newly released games. Having those packages be up to date is just going to be a better experience for people that care about that kind of stuff
Newer packages will in theory always be better, that doesn’t really matter which distribution or use case (gaming or not) one has.
Even if Debian were generating packages the second a pull request was accepted and making it available to everyone and any one it wouldn’t change that the next pull request would, in theory (without regression) be more up to date.
If people have to wait 1s or 1 year, for gaming or not, they can have fun.
If hardware is not properly supported though it’s a different issue. It means people need to buy hardware that is well supported. It’s not specific to a distribution.
I’m playing old and new games on the SteamDeck and it works even if I don’t update it. That’s how things should be, that’s how things already are.
Anecdotes, even if important personally of course, showing things don’t work in a specific context don’t make a trend. There are plenty of things that don’t work well on Debian but also on Arch, Mint, etc and of course on Windows too. It’s very annoying but I don’t see how that helps.
My example applied to all distros, the difference would be the time it takes that code change (which resolved a critical to me bug) takes to actually be available to use.
There’s also very little that’s specific to me about that, it’s a real use case that comes up repeatedly for new releases that tend to push things graphically. I’m only going to recommend distros that minimize the time to get those fixes because it’s a better user experience for the target demographic with little downside.
I’m sorry but I might be totally out of the loop here, do gamers use Mesa? I thought proprietary drives from NVIDIA and AMD, sadly, was what most people actually used nowadays. Again to be clear I’m NOT saying it’s a good thing (it’s not!) just wondering what’s the actual share of users relying on it.
Edit: oh, looks like Mesa is now the default for AMD “AMD promotes their Mesa drivers Radeon and RadeonSI over the deprecated AMD Catalyst” (via Wikipedia), then yes it’s a big deal. Still makes me wonder what’s the current share but mostly out of curiosity.
Mesa has been the defacto standard for AMD for years. It’s always performed better than the official driver. AMD just made it their official recommendation recently.
I think Intel also uses Mesa, with Nvidia being the odd one out
Nvidia being the odd one out
Right, I get that but also :
(Source Steam Hardware & Software Survey: January 2026 )
Entire top10, then for marketshare I don’t count NVIDIA I count the rest :
AMD : ~15%
Intel : ~6%
I’m too lazy to guesstimate when it’s below 0.5% but you get the idea, at least 75% is NVIDIA.
So “odd” yes but still a big deal in terms of market share for gamers.
To be clear though I am NOT advocating for NVIDIA (especially with all their AI BS) just showing how dominating they are in that segment.
Considering games are the most intensive things most people will use their computer for, I think it’s fine to optimize for that use case and assume everything else will be “fine”
you’re probably right as to why.
I’ll note that on my gaming desktop I decided to try out Debian instead of my usual choice of Fedora and its worked fine for gaming with latest gen CPU and GPU. I did install the steam flatpak which will have a newer version of Mesa. I think this is a good middle ground for a system you don’t want to mess with too much.
For desktop use debian sucks. I dont want to wait a year to update my apps. For servers its fine. Arch and Nix are my favorite rn and im looking to convert my home media server into Nix soon.
I dont want to wait a year to update my apps
Why? Are they not working as-is?
I like having the latest updates and features as soon as possible. Especially for software that’s in its early stages and regularly getting large updates. But to each their own, some people value the stability more than the features.
Debian takes work, especially if you have tricky, proprietary hardware that requires firmware support. It comes with that magical “free software only” mentality that makes it harder to adopt and hence why Ubuntu and Mint exist. It’s a great minimalist distro
It comes with that magical “free software only” mentality
Less free than it used to be. Now you get closed source firmware by default, making the initial setup much better than it used to be.
I’ve been running debian sid on desktop for 4 years, I think. Yes, I don’t care if it breaks. I wanted to try debian and didn’t want to use old packages at that point. These days I don’t really need the latest things. I recently switched to testing - I only needed to replace a few words in a few files in /etc. I didn’t even need wiki or anything for that, because testing is almost like sid. If this doesn’t break on me majorly, I might not switch and just replace “testing” with “forky”. I’m really satisfied with debian.
Others already explained basically everything. I’d like to elaborate and offer a few examples to support them.
-
On potential users:
-
The people who look for distros to try are seen as newbies by linux users, and therefore are recommended newbie-friendly distros. Also, debian is conservative: it rarely offers shiny new things, so its desktop use isn’t high. There isn’t much to be excited about, so there are no hype cycles. The current “shiny new thing” in debian was the recent change in apt’s interface (now it formats its output into tables, for example), compare that to “atomic” distros. People often still use apt-get (it is in the guides for some reason) instead of apt so even this news in nothing to them.
-
Furthermore, software development often happens with the latest libraries around. It’s often a great help that Arch ships the latest software. Debian doesn’t have that. While languages these days have their own package managers, having the latest devtools, editors, etc. to try out is harder to do on debian. Therefore, IT students and software engineers have better time on faster-moving distros. Debian is more for the sysops/sysadmin people ( you can leave it there on auto-update and not care for 2 or more years ). The above further restricts its appeal and userbase.
-
Even further, Debian might be bigger than it seems, as others have pointed it out. Perceived marketshare is often based on desktop use. See EU OS’s FOSDEM presentation on how opensuse has a bigger company behind it than ubuntu.
-
-
On “latest drivers”:
- It used be much harder to configure Debian. Recently ( think it was with Bullseye) I installed it on an old machine, and debian didn’t install the right wifi drivers by default. I think it also lacked the proper firmware. This changed only with Bookworm. Back in 2008, I also tried it on my pentium 3 I had then. Debian didn’t have ath5k at that time, and the ndiswrapper hack was harder to pull off for me than just using mandriva, or later, lubuntu and salix.
- I heard that these days, people expect linux to fully support their hardware on day1. They also expect it to just run on any new hardware they buy. Also, games often need the latest optimizations in drivers: it might just be the thing that pushes the fps count above 30, 60 or 120. They also that they want the driver bugfixes to come ASAP. Early on during a release cycle of a game, driver updates sometimes give big improvements. While using the latest drivers on debian is possible, and not too hard (Compiling a newer stock kernel is easy, even if it complies slowly. Mesa isn’t hard either. Still, these require knowledge of old & basic dev tools, and also new ones.), ubuntu offers new drivers to LTS kernels, they are called HWE. No idea how doable this on debian, I never needed such things.
-
On “stability”:
- What people usually don’t think about it that there are different kinds of stabilities. Debian offers something like API stability, so that user-provided software on the same version of debian rarely - if ever - breaks. It’s not necessarily shipping the most stable software, but it has a guarantee that updates won’t break anything. Even a slight change can disqualify being included. This very slow process resulted in the old and famous xscreensaver vs debian drama. The abovementioned stability also applies to other distros, but to a lesser extent, I believe. Mostly due to the 2-year release cycle.
-
On “ease of use”:
- Debian doesn’t have a user repo like AUR, so it isn’t as easy to install 3rd party stuff (I know, makedeb, flatpak, snap, pkgsrc, nix & guix exist), debian is so big that anybody providing packages will do it (to list a few examples: freetube, discord, librewolf, signal, Trinity DE, and there are bleeding edge emacs packages available).
- Debian has docs, but I often just use arch wiki or the gentoo wiki to figure out stuff. I can only do that because I understand the differences and the similarities. Newbies would have trouble with this. Also, ubuntu automatically configures a few things, like installing something with a systemd service also will enable that service. Debian doesn’t do that.
Thanks for the thorough response :)
How bad is the situation with security updates in sid? This page shows a grim picture: https://www.debian.org/releases/sid/
It’s not monitored for security patches as it gets all the latest stuff anyways pretty quickly, security patches (and new vulnerabilities) included. It’s just not meant to be hardened nor rock solid as it’s excactly what it claims to be: development branch of the whole project. That doesn’t mean it’s insecure by default, it just works differently from stable releases where security patches are provided for years after official release.
-
I’ll give you an example:
I tried to run an old videogame through plain wine. On ZorinOS it ran out of the box no questions attached. On Debian I had to install wine and go through a few hiccups and issues. An average user shouldn’t go crazy when the command like says something incomprehensible
The reason I don’t recommend it by default is that there is no updater across releases.
The official upgrade process is to modify apt sources files and run upgrade, then full-upgrade, etc.
That’s fine for me but it makes it hard to recommend to people who may not be as willing to deal with modifying system files and reading some upgrade notes
alright, but you have to do it only once in every 10 years, so…
Because Mint exists and is just ”Debian configured for regular humans”.
Anyone that would rather have raw Debian doesn’t need to be told that.
Because those recommendations are written for new users. A new user will be better served by a distribution which puts user-friendliness at its forefront. If you’re not a newbie you probably don’t need recommendations because you already know what distributions are available out there.
While Debian is my preferred distro, I wouldn’t reccomend it to others unless they are techy and don’t mind fiddling with things. I absolutely wouldn’t reccomend it to my grandma (I would reccomend her Mint though) and probably not to someone who just wants to play games, especially if they have an Nvidia card. I do game on Debian with a 3060, but it was cumbersome getting stuff working properly because of old drivers. I did get it working, but I think most people just want to play their games and not deal with that. I also have a nearly 10 year old laptop with Debian, and since it’s so old, everything does, “just work”, but I imagine most people aren’t also using the same 10 year old laptop.
As much as I’d like to recommend Debian, its release cycle really leaves a lot to be desired for pragmatic computer users.
Bugs stick around for years, and with each new release you get new bugs that won’t be fixed for years.
It could be better if the ecosystem had more support, but as it stands right now there are just better options for the desktop space.
It’s fine for servers because they have the resources to make sure server programs aren’t a buggy or featureless mess.
I spent most of last year running LMDE6 and while it started off good, things just got more frustrating to troubleshoot and the system felt buggier over time. (Which I know is not how things are supposed to be for “stable” Debian.) Switched to CachyOS a couple months ago and things work so much smoother.
