What’s Debian based on again? I think it was some earlier variant of Ubuntu

/s

      • comador @lemmy.world
        7·
        10 months ago

        sorry, missed the /s, but figured the tree was still worth seeing for some.

        #echo “” > $1; echo “Debutu”

    • TheInsane42@lemmy.worldEnglish
      74·
      10 months ago

      Yep, Debian was (is) a disaster to configure graphics with modern hardware. It was pure open source (even blocked firefox as the logo was copyright protected). They opened up with a non-free repo for hardware support, but already lost the ‘market share’ on the desktop to Ubuntu (and the load of forks with just a different windoemanager as default… instead of adding a desktop selection on install). Also Ubuntu is offered a lot as option on new hardware.

      With snap I’m guessing users migrate back… (a very few at least)

      • TimeSquirrel@kbin.social
        10·
        10 months ago

        Yep, Debian was (is) a disaster to configure graphics with modern hardware.

        Hasn’t been the case for years. Perhaps even a decade, from what I recall. Just check the “nonfree” option in the installer, and you’ll get all the drivers you need. It’s not any harder to set up than Ubuntu these days.

        • TheInsane42@lemmy.worldEnglish
          52·
          10 months ago

          Ubuntu has been around for 2 decades (close nough, octobet it’s 2 decades) and yes, Debian is 11 year older and now known for it’s desktop friendly use. That Debian caught up in the last decade is about time, but to late for the major population who want linux but not the hassle of manually configure the graphics environment.

          To be honest, I see that most people of 30 and younger don’t know or care how a computer (or anything) works, it just works.

          • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
            3·
            10 months ago

            Then they don’t need to use Debian. There are plenty of user friendly options. Debians installer is kind of bad but that doesn’t mean Debian is bad.

            • TheInsane42@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              10 months ago

              What is bad about it? It’s as fool proof as the RedHat installer, unless you go to the expert text mode one. (And even that is pretty straight forward)

                • TheInsane42@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  10 months ago

                  Why would you want to disable root?

                  Remote root login is disabled by default, local root disabeling is useless anyway, as when you have acdess to the physical system you can break it open anyway.

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipEnglish
        4·
        10 months ago

        Honestly Debian was one of the few that still kept a strong stance on freedom. Its sad that they went the opposite direction. I wish that they would of just broke the non-free into firmware and apps like they have now and then provided two isos. They could have a simple paragraph explaining free software with two links.

        • TheInsane42@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          10 months ago

          Same feeling, although on some systems you need the non-free firmware to complete the installation. No screen or network is a tad annoying when installing. ;)