Linux

For reasons similar to why plain bread doesn't show up in sandwich recommendations.

People asking for distro recommendations usually ask for their desktop.

Debian is great, but it's hardly ever the best choice for a desktop, at least not for the kind of people who ask for distro recommendations.

One of the main historical reasons was the Debian project's puritan approach to open source, meaning the distro was very picky about what it could easily run on. As an example, most network drivers for Realtek nics weren't included out of the box as they contained non-free code, there was no direct way to install Nvidia drivers instead of nouveau, a lot of the hardware didn't work in the installer unless you sideloaded the drivers from a usb stick and so on.

There was a non-free ISO version to get around this, but you needed to know of it to use it, and it wasn't provided anywhere by default. The download page for it was just a barebone directory listing within the mirror. No link or information was provided for it on the main project page.

Starting from version 12 or 13 (don't remember exactly) proprietary drivers have been included in the installation images, which removed the biggest pain point (IMO) for novice users. Apart from that Debian has been one of the easier distros to install, and has things like a considerably better experience when updating to the next major release. It's not really slower to update packages than Ubuntu, as I'd be wary of recommending the non-LTS versions to novice users. They tend to be quite unstable compared to LTS.

Personally I've daily driven Debian for close to five years, on all my devices except the work laptop. That one is running Ubuntu 24.04 as the employer requires either that or Fedora for Linux users.

I'll be honest : because people is ignorant.

They tried Debian once few years ago, it didn't have the exact driver they wanted out of the box, they gave up. They think that's the normal and current experience.

Reality is I use Debian every day on my servers, SBCs, laptop but also my desktop. I've been gaming on it since the first day of the installation and it just worked. Sure I had to follow https://wiki.debian.org/NvidiaGraphicsDrivers and basically follow those steps. It took me maybe 15min and 1 reboot but since then NO tinkering, 0, and I'm gaming nearly daily from indie to AAA, from 2D to 3D to VR. As I mentioned in another reply sure I might not have perfectly optimized all my performance but I don't give a shit, I'm just gaming!

Also as I mentioned elsewhere the "cutting edge" is bullshit. You can have a Debian installation, stable, and cherry pick the packages you want. Heck you can even pull from a forge the software you want, built it, run it. That's how "bleeding edge" it can be. Of course you can use VM (with GPU passthrough), distrobox, AppImage, Nix (different from NixOS), etc so they are many many ways to make sure you use the absolute latest without breaking your system.

TL;DR: Debian does not position itself as a gaming distribution. A lot of gamers want to optimize everything for gaming and consequently assume a specialized distribution will do better. Meanwhile people who JUST want to play can definitely do so on Debian.

debian is meant to be stable and ancient, it's for servers

I guess its cause when people ask for distro recommendations they're usually new to Linux, thus a more user-friendly distro that's built on-top of Debian like a flavour of Ubuntu or Mint is a better fit than straight Debian

My 2¢:

I think it's gamer discourse bleeding out into other fields. Gamers need the newest libraries and the newest drivers or their stuff might not run as well as it possibly could, because gaming is a relatively young but aggressively growing field with the Linux ecosystem in general. Sure games have always been around, but it's never been the focus.

Now that gamers are switching more frequently, and that the average user is likely to play a game occasionally, it's becoming relatively important that packages be up to date for desktop workloads.

My FP right now:

Debian is more like AOSP. It's a starting point. Super bare. More commonly used in servers and such.

The reason I don't recommend it by default is that there is no updater across releases.

The official upgrade process is to modify apt sources files and run upgrade, then full-upgrade, etc.

That's fine for me but it makes it hard to recommend to people who may not be as willing to deal with modifying system files and reading some upgrade notes

Debian and Red Hat are the foundation for most of the popular distros out there.

Debian takes work, especially if you have tricky, proprietary hardware that requires firmware support. It comes with that magical "free software only" mentality that makes it harder to adopt and hence why Ubuntu and Mint exist. It's a great minimalist distro

Debian used to have quite old software before version 6.0 or so. Ever since then it’s been quite a good daily driver for workstations too.

Because linux distribution recommendations are written by people who have nothing better to do than be hypnotized by the jangling keys of whatever’s new or hot for people who have nothing better to do than be hypnotized by the jangling keys of whatever’s new or hot.

It’s the same reason rhel doesn’t get recommended tbh.

For desktop use debian sucks. I dont want to wait a year to update my apps. For servers its fine. Arch and Nix are my favorite rn and im looking to convert my home media server into Nix soon.

I'll give you an example:

I tried to run an old videogame through plain wine. On ZorinOS it ran out of the box no questions attached. On Debian I had to install wine and go through a few hiccups and issues. An average user shouldn't go crazy when the command like says something incomprehensible 

Once I installed Debian on an old eMMC weak netbook for a friend after trying about 6 other distros that all had some problem or another, including Mint and Xubunto. Debian worked flawlessly

Outside of security patches probably won't be the latest version of apps available, so the software you use can be out of date and you will have to wiat for new features that have been. Flatpak mostly solves this for gui user-level apps, but it's not set up by default and can require tinkering with permissions to fix some issues. If you have new hardware it might not work well with the kernel that comes installed, but you can enable backports and get a newer one. Practically half the linux exo-system is built on top of debian, so you can get a different distro built on debian but with better default experience or custom guis for certain tasks like managing drivers, so people you can save time and not have to dive into terminal commands following how-to guides for various things.

It really depends on the situation. Hardware support is definitely better than it used to be and everything in linux is hackable regardless of distribution if needed, but the reason I haven't switched my main tower from Arch to Debian is that fear of requiring extra work for things like gaming and music production. If you're running the newest and latest hardware you might run into an issue depending on the kernel version being used, etc.,

That being said, I use Debian every day on my thinkpad and love it. I have an interest in migrating away from Ubuntu Server and toward Debian for servers as well. I don't think I've ever heard it "not recommended", just similar caution expressed.

Because those recommendations are written for new users. A new user will be better served by a distribution which puts user-friendliness at its forefront. If you’re not a newbie you probably don’t need recommendations because you already know what distributions are available out there.

Because Mint exists and is just ”Debian configured for regular humans”. Anyone that would rather have raw Debian doesn’t need to be told that.

Personally, yeah it’s the old packages. I want to play games on my desktop and have the newest DE features. An arch based distro seems like it’ll keep up better than Debian.

For my servers though, I only use Debian.

I haven't read through the other responses in the thread, but I don't think it's the slightly old software that's the problem. I think it has more to do with using older kernels, meaning that the latest hardware won't always be supported (on the stable branch at least - there's always testing and unstable too of course which may have better hardware support).

That may have changed with recent releases though - I haven't used Debian for several years now. But if your hardware is supported then it's a pretty solid choice.

Some other people sometimes mention that Debian isn't as beginner friendly as Ubuntu or Mint, but my experiences have been similar to yours - I found Debian to more user-friendly than Ubuntu for example. Assuming that the hardware works of course - if it doesn't then it obviously is a worse choice.

While Debian is my preferred distro, I wouldn't reccomend it to others unless they are techy and don't mind fiddling with things. I absolutely wouldn't reccomend it to my grandma (I would reccomend her Mint though) and probably not to someone who just wants to play games, especially if they have an Nvidia card. I do game on Debian with a 3060, but it was cumbersome getting stuff working properly because of old drivers. I did get it working, but I think most people just want to play their games and not deal with that. I also have a nearly 10 year old laptop with Debian, and since it's so old, everything does, "just work", but I imagine most people aren't also using the same 10 year old laptop.

Why would one recommend Debian? I guess being actually community made might be worth it for some.

It's not particularly beginner friendly.

apt is kinda meh.

Using up-to-date software isn't just for the users. It's for the devs too so they don't need to deal with bug reports for long fixed issues.

I think it's a reinforcing cycle. (I) Debian gets recommended less often for home use -> (II) less people become proficient in it -> (I)