Base on Debian stable instead of Ubuntu LTS

[irondave]

Basing eOS on Debian Stable instead of Ubuntu LTS can offer several distinct advantages, particularly if you’re aiming for a system that emphasizes minimalism, predictability, and a truly community-driven experience:

Unmodified and Pure Base:
Debian Stable provides a relatively unaltered, “pure” environment. Unlike Ubuntu LTS, which layers additional patches and customizations from Canonical, Debian’s base remains closer to upstream. This can simplify maintenance and allow eOS to implement its own vision without working around extra modifications.

Rock-Solid Stability:
Debian Stable is renowned for its rigorous testing and conservative update cycle. This reliability means fewer surprises and a more predictable platform—ideal for a desktop OS where stability is paramount.

Minimal Bloat:
Debian’s default installation tends to be leaner. This minimalism gives eOS developers the freedom to add only what’s needed, ensuring that the final product remains lightweight and performance-optimized, whereas Ubuntu LTS often comes with additional packages and features that might not align with eOS’s streamlined approach.

Enhanced Customizability:
With Debian’s more “bare-bones” nature, eOS can build a customized user experience from the ground up. This level of control allows developers to tailor every aspect of the system, which can be harder to achieve when starting with a base that includes extra, pre-configured elements like Ubuntu LTS.

Community-Driven Ethos:
Debian is entirely community-driven, which can resonate well with users and developers who value transparency and collective input over corporate decision-making. This can also lead to a more flexible and open ecosystem for future enhancements in eOS.

Overall, choosing Debian Stable as the foundation for eOS can result in a leaner, more stable, and highly customizable system that stays true to a community-first philosophy, avoiding the potential bloat and corporate-imposed layers found in Ubuntu LTS.

Thank you.

[teamcons]

Without wanting to sound rude - is this written by chatGPT/an LLM ?

[reece146]

Often thought about what it would take to re-base on Debian. Debian is a better philosophical fit since it is a community driven upstream source.

To kick the can around...

In terms of the effort required, one of the obvious things would be the age of the underlying OS components and if they make a difference to compiling the Elementary specific tools, libraries, apps, etc. Perhaps once an iteration or two of releases went by there would be alignment of all the components and the Debian cadence would be fine.

Another thing is that the Ubuntu upstream HWE system gives Elementary an 'easy button' of sorts keeping the kernel, firmware, etc. up to date independent of making a full release. Debian does not have an easy HWE method and I find the backports system is klunky at best. Having experience of running ZFS enabled Debian hosts in the past with backport kernels, it wasn't matter of if but when a system or two wouldn't boot and needed hands on sysadmin level interaction to correct. Maybe things are better nowadays.

It's a huge undertaking trying to have an Ubuntu and Debian based version at the same time; not just the creation but also the maintenance and support aspects. Linux Mint is doing this currently but I get the sense that is a much larger team.

2¢