I think the Debian distro has always targeted/attracted free software purists.
a) Their (now changing) stance against unfree firmware files. This made the default adverdised installer fail most laptop installations due to the WIFI firmware not being available, so no internet to pull down the required packages to make it work. There were unofficial ISOs, but they were hard to find and so a frustrating experience if you didn't know about it. Same, but not as worse with other unfree stuff, like NVidia drivers, you are required to enable the non-free repos, which makes totally sense if you check it out more closely but still a bump in the road for users new(er) to Linux or only used Debian derivatives that often have a stance that is (relatively) less freedom oriented. As hinted, the firmware situation recently changed and will get better with the next major release next year.
b) It's more universal and flexible to go in various direction, so it comes with a less opinionated out-of-the-box experience, for the better or worse (depending on your preferences). For example, Ubuntu provides a Server and a Desktop edition, and then all the semi-official Desktop spins for KDE, XFCE, ..., but Debian doesn't you can get it to move in either direction quite easily once you grasp its basics, but that naturally still is an overhead compared to just pulling a preconfigured "ready to fly" version ISO.
c) It is definitively is sturdier, but due to their policies guaranteeing that it's also less bleeding edge, well at least if you use the stable release. You can run the Debian Sid version (unstable), but the project doesn't want to promote that to inexperienced users. FWIW, I run that on my laptops since years and got an excellent experience. It's a rolling edge version of Debian, fresh as Arch, but I just align a bit better with Debian (plus develop on it at work).
There are surely some more, but those where the biggest three popping into my head.
The great thing about Debian, they got quite a healthy relationship to most of their derivatives. Which could IMO only happen due to not being run by a major company or the like, but 100% community based. While that sometimes makes for slow turning mills, but still (or maybe exactly because of that) an excellent and safe foundation for their users, be it direct ones or indirect through derivatives.
The second thing was that I couldn't figure out my way from debian.org, to the relevant ISO to download. There's just so many options, scattered explanations, I felt overwhelmed by the site and couldn't figure it out reliably.
The third thing is the out of box experience. Every major Debian descendant has this mentioned in the articles that compare them. Ubuntu is like a refined, user friendly Debian. Mint further polishes Ubuntu. Elementary is designed for newbies and to have excellent OOTB experience. And so on.
Fourth thing, that Debian Stable seems to be behind in version numbers, and Debian Testing seems to be not stable enough. Maybe these are not true, but they haven't inspired confidence in me either.
Fifth, Debian came with some proprietary things off by default, so no WIFI on my laptop, no MP3, bluetooth, other minor inconveniences. I love open source, but I'm not a purist, and I wanted to make use of my computer first, and improve on it later.
After Ubuntu pushing their current in-house bullshit again (snaps this time), and Mint behaving weird on my main computer for some reason (maybe the multiple release upgrades), I took the plunge into Debian after some research, and ended up on using Debian Testing with KDE. So far, the experience has been good, but this really feels like a Linux enthusiast's distro, where I had to look up things on the Internet, because the installed just haven't explained anything - me, with 10+ years of Linux experience, ending up with installing a system that won't boot into the graphical desktop, despite selecting the KDE option in the installer!
But thanks ;)
I occasionally talk to a Debian user. Ask how they handle their long term Debian use. Which usually takes them several minutes to describe. XYZ from stable, ABC from unstable, track the latest with foo from testing, and bar from backports. Basically they end up with a custom setup, unlike any other on the planet, and that hasn't been tested.
LTS on the other hand does get testing, generally I just apt install the packages I need, and then do-release upgrade every 2 years. LTS is popular enough that generally if I google the problem there's a quick fix, and a large fraction of LTS users don't seem to customize their repos to the degree that seems common on Debian.
Very inconsistent behavior for installation: flatpaks require no specific rights but normal packages require sudo password. Not a good UX in that regard.
I know vaguely that flatpak is "like docker" in terms of wrapping dependencies.
I have no clue how that translates to missing features of compatibility issues with other apps.
Even knowing which is more up to date isn't shown. Or why i should pick one over the other.
The multiple packaging types confounded my efforts to debug an issue I had with VLC, as i initially thought it was a flatpak permissions problem.. No evidence, just hearsay by what i'd seen of flatpak in general online.
And if the packaging difference does matter (as it did for my vlc issue, one solution only worked for the deb), then an explanation for newbies should be given as to the general expectations for each package type.
Or should I just "git gud" and go digging through ppa/flathub? mailing lists to find a 2013 reply to a post?
> or should I just "git gud"
The opposite. Just blindly click on one. If it works you are done, if not click on a different one.
You are really, really overcomplicating this for no reason.
Same with selinux: Lots of "advice" was just to turn it off completely.
> You would have no idea why
Yes, file a bug to get it fixed instead of leaving other users standing in the rain.
Like for example I've been playing with Kodi and as a deb package you can't install some (but not all) add-ons through the built in UI, you have to go find special apt packages for them and install those outside the Kodi UI. Nowhere is this documented or visible to users--Kodi's webpage doesn't concern itself with how Debian packages it so no mention there, and Debian itself is a black hole of information for end users. The exact same issue is present with RetroArch and its Debian packages version. My bottom line is I always pick a deb package as the very last option and expect pain or confusion when doing so.
1. Slack is a snap. Do you have to run it in the browser? I don't know if desktop sharing works well there, it's been years since I only used their app (Electron?)
2. Is flatpack optional or are there some mandatory flatpack apps that are part of the system? I'd like a deb only system.
3. Contrary to some of us I don't want to use a tiling window manager. Can I keep using my heavily customized Gnome Shell or do I have to use whatever System 76 created for Pop_OS?
2. I'm not sure how mandatory flatpak is. I suspect it's optional, but I'd suggest testing removal on a non-essential install before committing to it.
3. The tiling feature is completely optional and can be disabled easily in the settings.
And the tiling extension is off by default. It's just a little toggle in the (very nice) settings dialog to turn it on or off. You can totally uninstall it too as it's just a regular gnome extension (and you can even install it right now on non-pop gnome 3 systems).