this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2024
11 points (76.2% liked)

Sysadmin

7566 readers
1 users here now

A community dedicated to the profession of IT Systems Administration

No generic Lemmy issue posts please! Posts about Lemmy belong in one of these communities:
!lemmy@lemmy.ml
!lemmyworld@lemmy.world
!lemmy_support@lemmy.ml
!support@lemmy.world

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Debian has less complexityand is very stable. It has a nice wiki and a Debian system can run for a few years on unattended upgrades.

Edit: this post was originally about cost savings but that is not really a useful metric

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world -1 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Compared to Arch Linux then yeah you'll save a ton of money almost guaranteed. But something like Windows? Good luck trying to calculate that.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn't even deploy Arch in production as its not designed to be stable.

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

I mean you'd have to be pretty insane to use Arch on an actual server.

That or a masochist.

[–] PeterPoopshit@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I don't really subscribe to Arch or Debian being better or worse than each other. I encounter issues just as frequently on both. Maybe it's a little harder to do things in Debian because the repositories don't update as often but the AUR is where a lot of important stuff is and that's a pain to deal with too.

Either way it's better than using Windows.