[Discuss] Is there a BLU recommended distro?

[Kent Borg]

On 7/17/26 8:24 AM, Randall Rose wrote:
> Just as a factual matter, I've noticed that developers who don't have much Linux coverage sometimes choose to focus solely on making their software work on Ubuntu.  Not that this is what I'd recommend them doing, it's just what they do.  As a result Ubuntu may have more software that is tested enough on it that it would be clearly expected to work out of the box.  But that's only one factor among many.

I was an early Ubuntu fan. It was Debian made easy. But I switched to 
real Debian when they started making changes I found annoying. But 
Debian is still quite close to Ubuntu, as far as I know software for 
Ubuntu tends to run on Debian, too.

Debian is an important server distribution, and not being obscure has 
real value, important software is in the distribution, patches come out 
promptly, it works, etc.. I use it both as a headless server OS and as a 
graphical OS, using the MATE desktop. (MATE is a fork of Gnome from 
before Gnome was ruined by "tablet envy" that meant we were no longer 
allowed to have things like menubars.)


-kb