I use Debian testing on my laptop and Debian Sid on my desktop. But using Debian stable+backports is a nice way to get key packages to be newer versions.

Yeah they seem to have fixed the steam controller issues with steam-devices a while ago. Not 100% sure the 'Stretch' version of it was updated though.

There isn't much I've had a lot of issues with getting working on Debian, it's just like any other distro, but it has a MASSIVE amount of packages already built for it, which is why I use it.

Quoting: slaapliedjeI use Debian testing on my laptop and Debian Sid on my desktop. But using Debian stable+backports is a nice way to get key packages to be newer versions.

Yeah they seem to have fixed the steam controller issues with steam-devices a while ago. Not 100% sure the 'Stretch' version of it was updated though.

There isn't much I've had a lot of issues with getting working on Debian, it's just like any other distro, but it has a MASSIVE amount of packages already built for it, which is why I use it.

To be honest it is VERY confusing for a newcomer.
With any other distro there is usually an ISO , sometimes more depending on Dekstop flavor.
With Debian , I feel like I'm at Subway and I can choose 50 kinds of bread alone.

Being a linux user for over 20 years I don't mind my distro breaking every now and then and Arch feeds my version number addiction quite nicely. For gaming arch and such on the mesa side of things fits rather nicely.

That being said though, my son of 11 who doesn't like to fix too much (if at all) and is on linux Mint right now. The only thing that needed fixing on my part was installing the propr. NVIDIA drivers and steam-devices and he has has been happy with it ever since.
It requires little to no fixing on my part and better yet it has a XFCE edition so the bloat is reasonable.
Currently I would recommend mint over most other distro's when it comes to low maintenance and long term support and with the PPA's for current MESA and such even AMD users aren't left in the cold.

My points for mint :

• stable (at least in my experience)


• not too much bloat (XFCE edition)


• reasonably up-to-drivers if you use PPA (might affect first point, who knows)


• being based on ubuntu, a lot of "help" around


• being a ubuntu LTS based distro no multiGB update every few days (if that matters to you)

But as always YMMV.

Ysblokje pretty much covered why I run Mint Xfce on my gaming box. It does what it's supposed to do with minimal hassle, and games tend to just run. I like Debian as well, but haven't used it on the desktop for a while. Love it on servers though.

Quoting: ysblokjeBeing a linux user for over 20 years I don't mind my distro breaking every now and then and Arch feeds my version number addiction quite nicely. For gaming arch and such on the mesa side of things fits rather nicely.

That being said though, my son of 11 who doesn't like to fix too much (if at all) and is on linux Mint right now. The only thing that needed fixing on my part was installing the propr. NVIDIA drivers and steam-devices and he has has been happy with it ever since.
It requires little to no fixing on my part and better yet it has a XFCE edition so the bloat is reasonable.
Currently I would recommend mint over most other distro's when it comes to low maintenance and long term support and with the PPA's for current MESA and such even AMD users aren't left in the cold.

My points for mint :

• stable (at least in my experience)


• not too much bloat (XFCE edition)


• reasonably up-to-drivers if you use PPA (might affect first point, who knows)


• being based on ubuntu, a lot of "help" around


• being a ubuntu LTS based distro no multiGB update every few days (if that matters to you)

But as always YMMV.

Mint is by no stretch of the imagination bad , but it does have some bloat.
It's why I disliked Antergos. Eventually one icon theme broke while i was experimenting with DEs and my desktop ended up looking like icon vomit.
My previous experience on Mint was me playing with some settings trying to install some open-jdk , and removing something. I have no clue what in god's name I removed but the desktop environment had a sizure and audio was out the window.
I like Arch very much , but the bleeding edge stuff can bite you in the butt at the WORST possible moments.
I don't mind setting it up if it just stays up.
I am leaning towards Debian since it is well known for its stability. Only thing I haven't wrapped my head completely around is how everything is spread out and why there are so many editions compared to other distros.

Debian Stable is a good choice if you just want something reliable.
I've been using the same installation of Stable for the last few years, was freshly installed as 8.0, then updated to 9.5.
In terms of drivers I'm running Nvidia 396.54 from the experimental repo with no issues. Able to run the newest DXVK/Proton things without any issue.

Since it's a lot more structured than something like Arch it has a slightly steeper learning curve, but when you understand the different components, how the package manager works and where to find things, it offers an amazing user experience.

Regarding the different installation images, there is really only one that you have to think about, which is the netinstall. The other official ones just come with packages already loaded, which is unnecessary if you have access to the internet. The single-DVD images usually come with different desktop environments, while you can also get the full set of DVDs that contains I believe everything in the main repo.

For a less painful installation with recent hardware it's a good idea to get the unofficial "non-free" netinstall, however, as it's essentially the same just with the proprietary firmware required for some new devices to work (not easy to do a NETinstall if your networking isn't working).

As to the different releases, you have only three current ones: Stable, Testing and Unstable. Each separate release also has a code name. The current Stable (9.x) is codenamed Stretch, the previous (8.x) was Jessie, then (7.x) Wheezy.
The current Testing release (10.x) is called Buster, which after a freeze period, will then become Stable, and Stretch will go on to be obsoleted.
The Unstable release is constantly being updated, and doesn't change its release codename or follow any cycle like Stable and Testing does and is simply always codenamed Sid. This release is, as the name implies, Unstable, and should be expected to break. This is sort of the Arch of Debian.

Generally the recommended way to get Testing is to either install Stable and change the repos, or download a daily/weekly build image to install from.
The way you'd go to install Unstable is to first get Testing and then change the repos, as there are no installation images for Unstable. Alternatively it's also possible to change the mirrors in an "expert"-mode netinstall or bootstrap manually much like you do with Arch.

The last thing you might want to know about in terms of releases is the backports, which exist for every Stable release. These repositories can be added for you to individually install packages from the current Testing release on Stable. Since these are taken from Testing, installing these generally doesn't cause any harm when the time comes to update to the next Stable release.
This is the easiest way to get more recent video drivers, for instance, or otherwise libraries/programs that lag a little too far behind in Stable.

On the other hand if you start installing packages from Unstable, Experimental, or even packages from Ubuntu releases, you can expect things to break or behave unexpectedly during upgrades. You should only really do this when you've familiarized yourself with Debian really well and you are planning to do a full reinstall at the next release anyway.

Since Debian has so many releases and even more derivatives that have their own repositories and packages that generally will "work", it's easy to end up with what's referred to as a Frankendebian. This is when you have packages from many different repositories and places that don't really synchronize in any way, causing the system to become unstable, especially during updates. This is fine in some cases if you have control over the situation, but comes with a risk and cost which you should factor in before going down that road.

Edit: The "non-free" installation image I'm referring to is this: https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/9.5.0+nonfree/amd64/iso-cd/firmware-9.5.0-amd64-netinst.iso

TL;DR

If Debian stable just fits your needs then it is perfect.

At least if you are ok with the installation process but you have installed Arch which is even worse than debian at this.

If you need newer software it is not too bad as there are ways but it quickly gets worse than Arch. In my personal experience Arch has been the simplest and safest distro at this.

Edit: just noticed that I drifted far away from what wanted to post intially and was about to hijack the thread. Sorry.

Edit 2: ontopic: Isn‘t manjaro the distro based on ARCH that claims to solve the gap the thread opener is describing? Is it too bloated? Or is it still too bleeding edge?