Those who don’t have the time or appetite to tweak/modify/troubleshoot their computers: What is your setup for a reliable and low-maintenance system?
Context:
I switched to Linux a couple of years ago (Debian 11/12). It took me a little while to learn new software and get things set up how I wanted, which I did and was fine.
I’ve had to replace my laptop though and install a distro (Fedora 41) with a newer kernel to make it work but even so, have had to fix a number of issues. This has also coincided with me having a lot less free time and being less interested in crafting my system and more interested in using it efficiently for tasks and creativity. I believe Debian 13 will have a new enough kernel to support my hardware out of the box and although it will still be a hassle for me to reinstall my OS again, I like the idea of getting it over with, starting again with something thoroughly tested and then not having to really touch anything for a couple of years. I don’t need the latest software at all times.
I know there are others here who have similar priorities, whether due to time constraints, age etc.
Do you have any other recommendations?
Get a big mainstream distro and stop tinkering with it.
deleted by creator
This really is the answer. The more services you add, the more of your attention they will require. Granted, for most services already integrated into the distro’s repo, the added admin overhead will likely be minimal, but it can add up. That’s not to say the admin overhead can’t be addressed. That’s why scripting and crons, among some other utilities, exist!
deleted by creator
Such a bad comment, what does tinkering mean? Not use any software besides the default one? So only browsing and text apps? facepalm
Tinkering, in my personal definition, would mean installing third party repositories for the package manager (or something like the AUR on Arch) or performing configuration changes on the system level… Just keep away as most as possible from accessing the root user (including su/sudo) is a general a good advice I would say.
Keeping away from sudo, got it.
If you want to take that from my text then feel free.
Ubuntu. It’s boring but it all works.
I am currently using an recent version of Ubuntu live USB for backups and a “serious” error window pops up every time I boot it. Same experience with Ubuntu installations. For me at least, Ubuntu isn’t anything close to stable.
Ubuntu is literally just Debian unstable with a bunch of patches. Literally every time I’ve been forced to use it, it’s been broken in at least a few obvious places.
So, you are saying Debian is the better choice, right?
Absolutely. I’ve been running Debian for literally decades both personally & professionally (on servers) and it’s rock-solid.
On the desktop, it’s also very stable, but holy-fuck is it old. I’m happy to accept the occasionally bug in exchange for modern software though, so I use Arch (btw) on the desktop.
Ubuntu comes with non-free drivers which can make it easier to set up and use. I use Debian on my server and Ubuntu on my laptops. They have both been pretty reliable for me. LTS versions of Ubuntu are pretty bug free but have older versions of software. I’d guess that Daniel was using a non-LTS release which are a bit more bleeding edge. The LTS ones strike a good balance between modernity and stability.
- yet another vote for Debian Stable
- second the comment on: if you need a newer kernel for hardware reasons, use backports
- Xfce
- stick to flatpaks when dealing with wanting to try out a new program (if you like it, then make the decision to use apt or not)
- don’t confuse “hasn’t been updated” with “hasn’t needed to be updated”
The thing with Debian is that yes, it’s the most stable distro family, but stable != “just works”, especially when talking about a PC and not a server (as a PC is more likely to need additional hardware drivers). Furthermore, when the time comes that you DO want to upgrade Debian to a newer version, it’s one of the more painful distros to do so.
I think fedora is a good compromise there. It’s unstable compared to RHEL, but it’s generally well-vetted and won’t cause a serious headache once every few years like Debian.
What makes Debian 12 a painful distro to upgrade?
The problem is when it comes time for a major version upgrade. Debian 12.10.0 to 12.11.0 probably won’t be a big deal. But upgrading from Debian 11 to 12 was a pain. Debian 12 to 13 will probably be a pain as well.
In what way? I haven’t upgraded between major releases on Debian before.
Here’s the official documentation for upgrading from Debian 11 to 12. The TL;DR is that it takes 8 chapters to describe the process.
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.html
I don’t understand that comment either. I’ve been using Debian for years on my server, and it just keeps up with the times (well with Debian times, not necessarily current times).
It’s way easier than Kubuntu was for me, for example, which required reinstalling practically every time I wanted to upgrade. A few times the upgrade actually worked, but most of the time I had to reinstall.
Debian as a server is fine and probably the best ! However as a daily drive OS I don’t think it’s the best choice.
I have always seen Debian as server distro and that’s probably what they meant ?
I have debian as my server distro since the beginning of my Linux journey (NEVER failed me !) However I can’t see how Debian as daily drive is a good idea. Sure they try to catch up with testing repo for those who wan’t a more up to date distro, but it’s seems harder to keep up when something breaks along the way.
That’s where Arch and derivatives shine, if something goes wrong it’s fixed in a few days.
I’ve been daily driving it on my desktop and laptop for several months now, seems fine. But I don’t need the bleeding edge either.
But that’s not what the comment was about… The top level comment said Debian was hard to upgrade, and I have not had that experience.
Specifically upgrading major versions. See the official documentation for upgrading Debian 11 to 12. It’s far more involved than minor version upgrades.
https://www.debian.org/releases/bookworm/amd64/release-notes/ch-upgrading.html
This is what I’ve always done. It has worked fine for me every time.
Even then, there’s a warning that the upgrade process can take several hours. Even if it’s largely hands off, that’s not exactly my image of an easy upgrade.
fedora has been this for myself. maybe tweaking every now and then to fix whatever edge cases I’ve run into but it’s the least painful distro I’ve used so far
As others have mentioned, Debian stable and Xubuntu are my default recommendations for anyone who wants a simple “just works” kind of system. Debian if they want it to be as clean as possible, Xubuntu if they want some creature comfort right out of the box.
deleted by creator
Are you using the liquorix kernel?
I can only see one downvote and four upvotes from here - I think you’re good!
fedora with gnome for me.
deleted by creator
Every time I stray from Mint I am reminded why I go back to it.
I second Mint. I’ve installed it on my laptop with zero issues, although that thing is pretty old so your mileage may vary on newer hardware. But mint comes with pretty up to date kernels these days so it’s definitely worth a try.
Same here. I got to a point I wanted to use the OS rather than play with and fix it. Went back to Mint and stayed there.
Use timeshift, It saved my ass like 3 times
PopOS is very stable as a desktop. It also keeps up to date with packages better than base Ubuntu in my opinion.
My desktop has been running debian for 5 years no problem including 2 major debian version upgrades, and a new(er) GPU.
I had an old laptop that ran the same debian install for 8 years. All upgrades in place, no reinstalls.
boring, and works. Stable + backports should cover the majority of people with new hardware support needs.
You’re not going to believe this, but I’ve found Arch is it. My desktop install was in December 2018: Sway with Gnome apps. Save for Gnome rolling dice on every major update, it’s been perfectly boring and dependable.
There are two camps of Arch users:
- Use it despite it breaking on every update, because of AUR and other benefits
- What? Arch breaks?
My Arch Linux setup on my desktop and my servers are low-maintenance. I do updates on my servers every month or so (unless some security issue was announced, that will be patched right away) and my desktop a few times a week.
Nearly anything can be low-maintenance with the proper care and consideration.
For your constraints I would use just use Debian, Alma Linux or Linux Mint and stick with the official packages, flathub and default configuration on the system level. Those are low-maintenance out of the box in general.
Debian
