Unfortunately, Debian is like Linux on desktop, always 80% there.
You just cannot trust that plain Debian will get it right, even if it works that one time you install it.
Two most recent issues that made me change to something else:
1) VLC in Debian is modified so it cannot play RTSP streams so you cannot watch video from your security camera. Windows VLC wroks. Flatpak VLC works.
2) Debian kernel update in point release broke NVIDIA driver so you cannot even see your desktop.
Debian STABLE is just Linux kernel with old software. If it doesn't work now then it will definitely not work for next 2 years and if it does work now it can break at any time.
All other Linux distros are not much better. Every update has 50% chance of breaking some software from distro repository but at least other distros fix their f-ups faster than Debian.
Linux Mint is basically what Windows should have been. An OS for productive use. Defaults are good enough that you’re almost never tempted to change them. Just install your software and do work. XP (SP3?) was it and Win7 was it too. Everything after that is fighting against you.
macOS is close too, but there’s a couple of painful points. Some basic windows management (solved by rectangle), iCloud doing too many things, and too much locking down for “security”.
Font rendering (kerning specifically) is horrific. Scaling for 4k monitors doesn't work right. Multimonitor doesn't work properly. Paddings/margins, font sizes, and icons are all over the place and lack consistency/polish.
It also doesn't have a reliable backup system included (rsync is not reliable; backups should use snapshots) and you can't roll back system updates if something breaks (which will happen). Bluetooth, audio and suspend/resume still don't work consistently.
Linux isn't all bad but if you expect things to Just Work you'll be sorely disappointed.
Linux is a power user tool and I think that's great. Linux Mint and others are trying to lower the learning curve, but they don't have the same resources that Microsoft and Apple have. But they do manage to do well.
You can create a distro that do all these things well. But that would require coordination across the board and result in something close to Android or Chromebooks.
> Bluetooth, audio and suspend/resume still don't work consistently.
That's a hardware problem. Most manufactures don't bother building drivers for linux or releasing the specifications for their devices.
You can't do rally without knowledge in cars. Linux for the most part is raw computing so having some computer knowledge is a necessity.
• The tiling is clunky, and underneath it's still GNOME, my #1 most hated Linux desktop.
• systemd-boot is clunky, does not play well with others, does not dual boot well at all, and it needs a huge ESP yet does not supply tooling to resize the ESP -- and Gparted can't resize FAT32 partitions as small as the typical ESP.
• It replaces Snap with Flatpak, which is not an improvement in any meaningful way: the only advocates who bleat that it's more open don't understand what the word means, and architecturally, OStree is a Lovecraftian horror.
• The installer is poor and could not handle using an existing `/home` partition when I first tried it (although that did get fixed). It is co-developed with Elementary, which is remarkable because the Elementary one worked better. They'd be better off learning what openness really means and working with Calamares instead.
• In summary, it shows many of the defects you'd expect from a distro designed by a hardware manufacturer: poor installation, poor handling of dual boot, poor handling of existing partitions, and poor handling of being put on an existing machine, especially an older one.
I find its advocates don't dual boot, don't use older kit, don't do complex partitioning, and so don't notice its defects and are unmoved because the problems do not affect them.
Gracefully handling interop and existing tech is one of the things Linux does best, far better than the BSDs for instance, and it is exactly where Pop OS falls down.
Generally I dedicate a drive to Linux and a separate drive to Windows, using a full disk option for Linux install. So, you are right, I'm unlikely to see a lot of the issues you mention.
I rsync my home directory, at least the subdirectories that matter to me, to my NAS and have scripts to do the inverse on a new config. A lot of what is important to me is either in my Dropbox directory, or in git(hub|lab) repositories. I don't have much else that concerns me generally on my local system.
I appreciate what Pop has done above/beyond Gnome, and looking forward to Cosmos, even if it may be a while.
OK. But as a general design principle, it's vital to understand what people actually do with your product, as opposed to what you intended them to do. See the concept of "Chesterton's fence".
> I appreciate what Pop has done above/beyond Gnome
As it happens, as far as GNOME goes, I agree with you!
I like GUIs. I like WIMPs. I am adept at managing my own windows, apps, and files, thanks. I like a desktop that makes it easy for me to manage it as I wish.
GNOME is not. GNOME is a desktop inspired by smartphones and tablets, and it hides window management and app switching as much as possible. No buttons for minimise/maximise. No visual list of windows or apps, unless summoned with a keystroke or a mysterious ambiguous keyword ("Activities") now replaced with an inscrutable symbol.
GNOME is a desktop for people who don't manage windows and who live in a few maximised ones all the time. I do not, so I don't want that.
Pop tries to take that and turn it into a tiling environment, with smart automatic window placement. I don't want that -- I know where I want my windows, thanks -- but I appreciate that they tried and I think as a result it's better than GNOME which tries to make the whole issue go away.
But I tried it, and I wouldn't use it from choice.
