I've been using the Debian distribution of GNU/Linux for a while now and always found it to be to my taste. Some complain of its crude
installer but I've always found it to be highly capable. I think by crude they mean that it is character terminal based rather than being graphical. I think people get hung up on the need for graphics. Graphics, in their mind, seem to equate to simplicity. I have found many cases where that is demonstrably not true and a clear, well designed, character based system can be at least as simple as a graphical one.
The other complaint frequently leveled at Debian is that it is outdated
meaning that the packages in the stable
distribution are all of old versions. To this I say: Well, yes! That's what makes them
The point is that all the up to date packages are in the stable
!testing
stream. It's an easy job to tell Debian to use different package streams or even combinations of multiple streams.
I think Debian has a small nomenclature problem. Those of us who are familiar with the distribution do a little internal mapping of the names applied to the different package streams. Stable
becomes Server
and we use these packages where we want to feel confident that we will have a rock solid system. Testing
translates to Current
, this stream is used when we want an up-to-date system. Note that all packages in testing
are generally reliable but there is less guarantee than for the ones in stable
.
For the really scary stuff you need to go to unstable
also known as Sid
because he breaks toys. This is where the brand new packages go. Once they have proven that they are not too calamitous by managing to stay in unstable
without accruing any bug reports for 10 days they are migrated into testing
. For people interested in the really far-out stuff there's also experimental
which is for packages of completely unknown provenance with no pretensions of going anywhere near the main-line distributions any time soon.
Of course I have not been able to avoid hearing about Ubuntu
. In reality this is an alternative distribution based on Debian. I think of it as basically being Debian testing
. To hear the eulogising from some quarters you would think it was the second coming in Linux distribution form.
Recently I've been setting up an old machine to be a Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
server and I thought I'd give Ubuntu a crack, see what the fuss was about. My experiences were not good. I installed it several times in quick succession because, while looking really polished, something was wrong with the installer. It seemed to install everything but didn't leave me with a bootable system at the end. In the end I got fed up and installed Debian which went flawlessly.
Previous to this I had been toying with the idea of trying out Ubuntu on my Acer Aspire One. Mindful of the fact that I am very familiar with Debian so installing it would seem easy and the fact that not all the people singing the praises of Ubuntu can't be wrong I decided to go for it.
My choice for both these attempts was XUbuntu, which utilises the XFCE4 desktop environment. It is designed to be lighter weight than the Ubuntu standard Gnome environment. (although it uses a lot of Gnome technology underneath) This seemed appropriate for both a headless server and a netbook.
I was concerned the fact the the XUbuntu installer doesn't offer hard drive encryption. This wasn't an issue for the server but is a critical omission for any kind of portable machine, as the government keeps finding out. Then I discovered that there is an alternative installer which does offer this. I downloaded it, burnt it to CD-ROM and booted it up. Low and behold, I was confronted with the comforting sight of Debian's old terminal installer. I whistled through the installation with the speed to which I have become accustomed and now have God's Own Operating System on my AA1.
So far it has proved to be pretty solid. No unexpected breakages or weirdnesses. And it does look very nice.

