How stable is Testing for daily use by the way?

Debian is 100% community run, it cannot “have tentacles” in it. There is no leader that takes the choices that can be influenced.

It wouldn’t be for backing up, just for the storage to last longer if one drive fails.

Thank you, that makes sense.

Yeah I’ll always do backups. When I have the money I probably will buy another drive and try to do RAID1 on the two, just to be sure. But I do want them to last as much as possible.

How do you typically recover things on zfs vs btrfs? Also, is the out-of-tree kernel modules thing something you have to deal with or take into account?

Hey, thanks for the help. Can you elaborate on what kind of issues BTRFS gave you? What caused them, too?

I don’t mind needing to be technical or having to read to do things right. I probably wont really do much fancy things, I just don’t want the filesystems dying on me out of nowhere. If they’re stable enough for that, that’s enough for me. Thanks for the help

Thanks for the help. Both of my drives are SSDs, the boot drive is M2 and the storage is SATA. I’ve heard filesystems that support compression would be better for their health and lifespan as they’d have to write less. But yes, no matter what, I will keep constant backups. Snapshots would be appreciated, but since I’ll run Debian I don’t think they’d be that necessary, if to have them there’s a lot of problems to deal with in exchange.

I don’t plan on installing Windows at all. The only thing I’d do in my boot drive is have a separate home partition, I won’t really do anything else though. Did the corruption you experience happened just on its own? Or was it something you did?

I think it’s dishonest to paint that incident as “plenty of drama”. It was a decision most of the community agreed to and those who didn’t made a fork. I don’t think anyone did anything wrong in that. Compare it to Canonical forcing it’s official flavors to break flatpaks and appimages. I think the severity is very different.

That’s the thing with 100% community backed distros. There’s never any drama, there’s never any controversial decisions, the most you’ll hear of is some leader figure being replaced or not treating others well. Honestly it’s what Linux should be in the first place.

I hadn’t thought of it that way, it makes sense. Thank you for the nice explanation.

Thank you!

I mean, in my eyes Canonical is already evil. SUSE is pretty nice right now, but like I said, them being nice is nothing but a luxury. There’s no guarantee it wont happen, and you could probably argue it’s fated to happen eventually.

Any tips for when I do switch, by the way?

Absolutely agreed. I just don’t think many non-IT businesses would consider using Debian.

Really? I’d assume the opposite case, no? If a business is not related to IT, it doesn’t really need to be compatible with the RHEL environment or tech support, whereas an IT business would prefer those. I also use Debian for my server and have never had any issues with it. Just upgraded it to bookworm recently and it was boringly seamless.

In my eyes my problem with moving to SUSE or Ubuntu is that it’s the same thing. A corporation backed or straight up corporation developed and owned distro still has ONE failure point. Right now SUSE are “the good guys”, but what if they get bought? What if there’s a new CEO? What if they suddenly just decide to abuse their power? Then you’re simply screwed. Red Hat were also seen as “one of the good guys” some months ago, but the way things work, companies always end up pivoting towards what makes them more money. Them being ethical is nothing but a luxury that happens if they can afford it and if we are lucky.

I’m moving to Debian once I get my new PC.