Debian (and by extension, MX) is often called too old. What is your response to this?

[Arnox]

Every time someone recommends Debian or a Debian Stable based distro, a very common complaint against it is that the packages are too old to run and, as they say, are more unstable than more updated repos. Also tied directly to this is the accusation that Debian doesn't support new enough hardware. Now, my response to these accusations has been that before any Debian release, all major bugs in the packages in the repo need to be worked out or the package is tossed. Further, Debian needs to be run a certain way. Specifically, the Debian Stable repo should be the first stop for all software, and then if, for whatever reason, that's not an option, to just use flatpaks. And as to hardware support, MX already has an AHS flavor.

What would be your guys' answer to these issues though? Or seeming issues.

[Eadwine Rose]

Do you want a stable system, or do you want a DIY system that needs constant care?

People are addicted to wanting to have the newest thing. I wonder how much of that is inherited from the old Windows, as we were drilled to the max to keep things updated, or we'd flush down the street or something.

[j2mcgreg]

It's a different skin on the same spurious argument as in: Coke vs Pepsi, HDD vs SSD, KDE vs Gnome vs XFCE, etc.

Newer isn't always better. In Linux, the best solution is the one that works.

[chrispop99]

MX Linux addresses those Debian detractors to some degree by having the MX Test repo, which carries newer versions of some software, and some software not available from Debian. It means MX Linux gives the best of both worlds, at the user's choice.

Chris

[MAYBL8]

It also comes down to what you want to use your computer for.
Office tools , word processor, spreadsheet work etc.
Web browsing and email.
Gaming

You don't want to constantly to be having problems if you want it to always work.
Anybody that is using LInux knows or should know that what you have here for the most part is user supported and created.
That is pretty awesome in my opinion.

There are many avenues to debate.
Windows vs Linux

Debian Stable vs Testing or unstable

Distro vs Distro

I think it is just awesome we have all of these choices in Linux.

Debate what you will. I just know I found Linux years ago and will never leave it.

[Neil]

Debian is not "too old". It's just old enough to be competent, rather than young and reckless.

[linexer2016]

I have to agree with the notion that Debian and MX by extension is absolutely reliable and dependable. As Eadwine said, (and I paraphrase) stability trumps the latest shiny new thing :)

[entropyfoe]

I've got to agree with chrispop99,

MX is the best of both worlds.
We have the latest Debian stable, access to the latest kernels.

Just about any program can be packaged by the packaging team, making the latest available in addition to the test repo.

I prize stability, with up times in the weeks. My MX-21 just passed my made up stability test to class 4 with 43 days uptime with no crashes or lock-ups.
[Class 1, 1 day, class 2=3 days, class 3=10 days, class 4 >40 days with no stability issues, crashed or lock-ups. After that stable hardware and software is more limited by the stability of the power mains (no UPS) ]
This test is with heavy use, massive file transfers, back-ups, constant synaptic upgrades, hibernation and waking, periods of >90% CPU usage with stockfisn12 running 11 threads. MX passes with flying colors.

So, best of both worlds, stability AND access to the latest packages.

[oops]

... You don't want to constantly to be having problems if you want it to always work.

+1 For not stable distribs, I use a VM to play with.

[Mauser]

Every time someone recommends Debian or a Debian Stable based distro, a very common complaint against it is that the packages are too old to run and, as they say, are more unstable than more updated repos.

That statement is false because Debian is the most stable Linux distro because the packages are tested the longest and most thorough.

Also tied directly to this is the accusation that Debian doesn't support new enough hardware. Now, my response to these accusations has been that before any Debian release, all major bugs in the packages in the repo need to be worked out or the package is tossed. Further, Debian needs to be run a certain way. Specifically, the Debian Stable repo should be the first stop for all software, and then if, for whatever reason, that's not an option, to just use flatpaks. And as to hardware support, MX already has an AHS flavor.

What would be your guys' answer to these issues though? Or seeming issues.

Flatpak would remedy many of those issues of Debian. This is why the MX Linux developers added Flatpak.