I’ve been getting more into self hosting lately, grabbed an optiplex 3050 for everything and I’m running Mint currently. Looking more into things though, I saw Debian come up as a more barebones distro and now I’m wondering if there is a lot of benefit to going more barebones. I’m not having any issues with my current setup but now I can’t stop thinking about it. I am newer to Linux but having to learn new things doesn’t wig me out much if there is a lot more involvement with Debian
Edit: I appreciate the responses. I do see where I could just end up creating problems that don’t exist by experimenting with it more. Debian does sound enticing so it’s definitely something I’ll mess about with virtually for now and see how I like it in comparison. But I definitely have to agree on the “don’t mess with a good thing” if it’s working for me. All your answers have definitely given me something to play with now as well, I want the problems to solve but doing it in a separate environment would suit me better to learn a few things. This community rocks.
You must log in or # to comment.
If your current setup is satisfying your needs don’t change it. Linux Mint is quite similar to Debian when it comes to the base.
If you want to try and learn new thing maybe look into Bash scripting or Docker. Think of something useful you would like to have and try creating it.My recommendation is Debian for a server (real or virtual), or Proxmox. The former is perfectly reasonable and excellent experience; the latter is more flexible and more complex.
Debian is the parent distro of numerous Linux flavours (including *buntu, which aren’t suitable as a server OS, IMHO), so administration and services are all common (apt, etc). No need to learn dnf, pacman/yay, etc.
It’s still my preferred server OS, despite other options and being experienced.
Though I do also have a NUC running Proxmox (for VMs and LXCs), and both a NAS and RasPi running Docker. 🤷♂️ My Debian server is a VM inside one of them.
Proxmox, ironically, is also based on Debian.
It’s Debian all the way down
My personal journey:
- arch is annoying to maintain and whil it is mostly stable, you do get some breaking updates here and there. It’s not a bad choice, it just doesn’t makeuch sense for a headless server.
- Ubuntu server, just why? Works fine but why?
- a not headless fedora, worked fine but still annoyed me sometimes
- proxmox (debian based) works great, annoyed me to manage vm resources.
- headless debian. Just works, I rarely if ever encounter OS issues. The only downside is that not everything can be found in the debian repos, but there is almost always an option to add a repo for whatever you want.
My setup is mostly dockers so keep that in mind.
But really, if something works for you go with it. If you are looking to change, I would recommend debian.
Debian is good choice. Another option could be open media vault. Which is Debian with a built in web interface.
You probably know this, but Mint is kind of just Debian with extra stuff (some might call it bloat, but that’s a matter of use case). So a switch to Debian from Mint should be very straightforward, if not seamless. The package manager is the same, and that’s usually the biggest part of switching distros. Debian is also ideal for hosting specifically; many, many production servers run on Debian. It’s also arguably the best-supported distro out there, so whatever question you have had probably already been answered.
TL;DR you should totally try Debian out (especially a headless version). It mostly like won’t be an issue.
You could also try Mint DE (Debian Edition) and get closer to the source (and ditch any of that Ubuntu crap).
Don’t tear down your server just to have fun - setup a vm (or get one of those minipcs), call i “playground” and have fun there.
Redo your server after you’ve tried different things, and only if you feel like you found something that is worth it.
Experimenting with different distros can teach you a lot (especially if you try very different ones - mint and debian aren’t that much different) and I do recommend you do it, just don’t do it in production :)
Mint is based on Ubuntu which is based on Debian. If you were spinning up a new server from scratch, I would definitely recommend Debian over Mint, but realistically if you’re not currently having any issues there’s no reason to rearchitect your whole server just for that.
lights fuse* Proxmox! runs*
Consider Debian without a GUI (i.e. “headless”) if you are setting up a new device in the future. There’s no reason you can’t run mint or mint DE for a server, and the presence of a GUI on the install is not significant for self hosting unless you are pushing the limits of your hardware. The differences between mint and Debian when it comes to how all the kernel bits and service configurations are set up aren’t going to be significant for most casual self hosting situations.
But for now, just keep doing what you are doing. Make changes when you move hardware, that way you can test some stuff out on the new hardware while keeping your current setup running.
I’m not having any issues with my current setup
I’m lazy. I just want things to work. So in your shoes, I wouldn’t go trying to create work if things work fine.
I run Debian on my home server and my VPS, but I chose it for familiarity and stability. I wouldn’t say Debian is inherently barebones; you can add/build whatever you want. It is a longstanding, capable distro that is the base of many other distros. It’s a solid choice that favors stability. And if things are working with Mint, why break them?
By contrast, I run CachyOS on my laptop because it’s a newer laptop and the rolling release model of CachyOS (and Arch, which it’s built on) gets the updates and hardware support I need to make my laptop work. It’s simpler, better, and less work, and significantly more functional than it’s be with Debian, because the rolling release distro moves fast. My home server is 10 year old hardware, so the more stable Debian is fine.
If it works on mint, it’ll most likely work on debian, with the caveat that debian is a lot more CLI and a lot less handholding. Depending on your setup, debian might be a better choice for you, as Mint is desktop oriented.
But don’t fix something that already works. If there’s no issues with your Mint setup, I’d say keep it. Next time you set up a server, you can go for debian instead.
Source: I use both extensively. Mint on desktop, debian on headless stuff.
Start playing with nixos in a VM
You’ll get the idea I’m sure
I really love the idea of Nix. But not a fan of the scripting language.
I do need to test it more.
I do find it hard to update though. I’m not sure if they have released a GUI based interface to make it easier.
NixOS for self hosted is awesome! A few lines of code and you have set up a service on bare metal, without needing to think about dependencies. Just look at this beauty, OP:
services.immich = { enable = true; host = "0.0.0.0"; port = 2283; openFirewall = true; };
Debian is fine, but if you have technical troubles you don’t want to deal with, then go straight to Ubuntu. Either Kubuntu (Ubuntu with KDE), Ubuntu, or some other Ubuntu variation.
As a new Linux user, I would recommend Ubuntu over Debian. It is easier to setup, has a lot more online documentation, provides various apps to make life a bit simplier like integrations and AppStore (even though you should try to away from Linux app store because of broken apps)
Arch is really the king diamond in desktop Linux in my opinion, due to their rolling releases (I love new stuff even if it may break things), but especially because for the Arch Wiki (which is good for other OS users to read too) and the Arch AUR. If going Arch, I recommend using
arch-installto make installing it much easier. Update the default arch-install after bootingpacman -Ss arch-installthen just run.Also as a new or intermediate Linux user, I strongly recommend LTS (Long Term Support) versions. For example, Ubuntus latest version is not LTS, and has been out for multiple months, and there are still a huge amount of apps not ready to easily install – and you either have to spend a lot of time to figure it out yourself, or lose the chance to use some apps.
All the kids here seem to get really annoyed whenever anyone suggests Ubuntu for “new to Linux” people. My story in particular seems to draw out the trolls, the know-it-alls, and the ricers. I had the same questions as OP 26 years ago, I made the choice you’re recommending (and getting down voted for), I’d do it again, and I have no regrets. Here’s my story anyway in case it resonates with someone.
I picked Ubuntu for my “mostly a server, but sometimes a workstation, sometimes a multimedia PC” before Mint or Arch were even a thing. I knew about and tried Debian, but support for games and hardware at the time wasn’t there for me. Back when we used BitTorrent to literally mostly download Linux ISOs, I was a relatively new Linux user. I’d tried Debian, Slackware, Corel, SUSE, Redhat, etc. Played around distro hopping. But when it came time to build my next machine I landed on Ubuntu LTS mostly because a few important pieces of software I needed to run (paid real money for and needed for university) ONLY came packaged as Deb. Ubuntu turned out to be well documented, well supported, easy to learn, and stable enough that after a decade it was the hardware that failed me, not the operating system. Then, there was the Unity debacle. Then, there were snaps. But, by that time those issues were meaningless to me because I knew I could easily avoid snaps and unity altogether if they bothered me. I never even touched the app store. I guess I stopped caring about the desktop because by that point I was mostly only accessing the CLI remotely or tunneling individual X apps over ssh. When I rebuilt that machine, I considered other options, but ultimately all the choices had mostly insignificant differences except for my familiarity with them. So, I picked Ubuntu LTS again, and it’s been trucking along without getting in my way for nearly another decade.
Arch and those other new distros are interesting. I can see the benefits of that kind of system. But it’s not for everyone. It’s not for me. 99% of users are not going to benefit from bleeding edge software updates. Moreover, there seems to be this widespread misinterpretation that stable and long term release cycles don’t get security updates. These days with snaps, flatpacks, docker, and VMs, running a flashy new bit of bleeding edge software on a long term or stable release cycle distro is easier than it ever has been. It may be slightly difficult for a new user, but it’s still easier than reinstalling and setting up a new distro with a host of undocumented bugs. I can’t even begin to imagine how awful it would be to try to learn about Linux and troubleshoot an issue as a noob in this post-search AI slop wasteland that is the dead Internet.
Anyway, I guess the point I’m getting at is that I chose Ubuntu because it was easy, I chose it again because it continued to be easy, and now that I’ve been using it for a couple decades I’d choose it again because I care more about using my machine than tinkering with my machine. And ultimately, the choice of distro matters a whole lot less when you’re not new to Linux.
Like everyone else said, didn’t fix it, if not broken. Admins like distros like Debian and Arch(sorry) because you have more initial control of what’s on them. Why have a GUI, if you didn’t need it? Mix that with a little OCD and next thing you’re doing is recompiling the kernel. Fun stuff 😀
Debian is what you make of it, definitely. But it is also inanely stability focused to the point of being a detriment. It takes many months for simple package updates to hit Debian repos and it leads to frustration when stuff I expect to be updated is still very much not. As a server distro I recommend it, but as a play around distro it’s a bit more annoying and you have to do a ton more self maintenance on packages to get the latest and greatest.
That’s what I use, but it’s all preference. If your setup is working the way you want it, I wouldn’t fuck with it.
