Why use a server-oriented distro for desktop? If the goal is stability, wouldn’t something like Linux Mint, Ubuntu, Zorin, etc. be a better option for desktop?
It’s not server-oriented. There are people who have used it as a desktop for 25 years.
Debian is the upstream for almost everything now. IMO, the more layers are added to Debian, the more delays or errors that can be introduced. For example, Mint was famously withholding security updates a few years ago. Ubuntu has snaps which have been consistently problematic … enough that I switched to Debian on three systems because routine updates would routinely break Firefox.
Flatpaks have closed the gap. It is entirely possible to have up to date user applications on a stable, secure base system. Now that the Debian installer includes non-free firmware by default, the downstream distros are really just adding pretty wallpapers and color schemes. Not really worth it for the added overhead.
So I just cut out the middle man and go straight to the source.
Just my opinion, I’ve learned to appreciate Debian after 25 years of avoiding it and using every other distro you can think of.
Debian isn’t a server-oriented distro, it’s a universal one.
I use Debian Stable on my server.
Debian Oldstable on my ancient netbook. (It’s the only OS I could get to boot on it at all.)
Debian Unstable on my gaming PC and my laptop. (It’s as up-to-date and as stable as Arch, faster to install and has better third-party support.)Well,
For me its simple: i use Debian for servers, so who not for Desktops either. And personally i dont consider Debian a “server oriented distro” perse. for me its basicly a kernel with userspace software. You can make it a server if you leave it after a minimal install, or you can make it a desktop if you install a desktop environment.
I use it for both. It’s rock solid and once setup and customised to my liking it’s low maintenance. Basically I wanted a stable Ubuntu. I wouldn’t say it’s a server orientated distro, it’s good at both.
