Debian 12 Review

#Debian #Linux #Bookworm #Technology #News #Review

  • dark_stang@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Did the reviewer try to install it on some laptop that came with Windows Vista originally? This review seems to try to be as negative as possible, which is weird. Leh gasp, the gnome desktop took up “a whole 1GB of ram”. Then install xfce or mate dude.

    • Nuuskis@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s rarely the frontend chugging the ram. My minimal (full amd) Alpine Linux with Sway takes 430 mb on idle and with 2 tabs Firefox 1200 mb of ram.

  • socphoenix@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    This feels like the reviewers expected Debian to create their own desktop environment between releases or something. The point of Debian has always been a stable experience, not to be flashy.

  • mekkagodzilla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Seems to me an inability to read plain text during the install.

    For instance when you are asked to set the root password, it says that if you leave it blank, the user you’ll create will have sudo.
    That’s the behavior you expect if you come from ubuntu or mint.

  • potpie@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Those installer problems are mysterious. I just installed Debian 12 with no issues, so in my book, being able to use WiFi from the outset was enough of an improvement to earn a couple big ol’ thumbs up.

  • sin_free_for_00_days@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Unfortunate experience, and something I’ve never had happen with Debian. I’ve been on 12 for awhile. Of course I didn’t clean install, just did a normal dist-upgrade and had no problems, as has been the case for the last decade or so on this machine.

  • levi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sounds a bit like a faulty image. I had similar problems once with Ubuntu. Turned out the image was corrupted. Always check your md5sums, kids.

    • Louis Dureuil@lemmyrs.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Apparently, they did.

      The media checksums passed, the hard drive had plenty of room on it (less than a quarter of the available space was used when the installer failed), and the installer requires very little RAM (less than 1GB).