Debian has less complexityand is very stable. It has a nice wiki and a Debian system can run for a few years on unattended upgrades.

Edit: this post was originally about cost savings but that is not really a useful metric

    • Possibly linux@lemmy.zipOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Mostly Ubuntu. Comes with a ton of extras installed which add storage and ram usage along with additional complexity.

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Compared to Arch Linux then yeah you’ll save a ton of money almost guaranteed. But something like Windows? Good luck trying to calculate that.

      • PeterPoopshit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        I don’t really subscribe to Arch or Debian being better or worse than each other. I encounter issues just as frequently on both. Maybe it’s a little harder to do things in Debian because the repositories don’t update as often but the AUR is where a lot of important stuff is and that’s a pain to deal with too.

        Either way it’s better than using Windows.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        9 months ago

        The money saved on RAM, if any, is going to be insignificant compared to factors like licensing or paying staff with Linux skills.

      • marcos@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months ago

        Computing resource usage of your OS should be indistinguishable from $0 almost everywhere.

      • e_t_@kbin.pithyphrase.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        OK, and compared to what? “Less” is a comparison, but you didn’t specify what you’re comparing Debian to.
        Out-of-the-box RAM usage is a pretty specious metric because you’re not installing Debian (or any other OS) just to have sit there in its out-of-the-box condition. Do you think a Debian server running Apache with 1000 vhosts will use less RAM than a RHEL server running nginx with 10 vhosts?

      • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Debian uses like 200MBs of ram for a basic fresh install. That’s negligible.

        Unless you’re deploying 500 virtual machines on a single server, that all run a single simple basic task the base ram usage of the OS shouldn’t even be a factor.

        • fuzzzerd@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I think this is a fairly common use case. Maybe not the most common, but I’ve definitely seen this at multiple shops.

          Density of RAM on hosts is often a limiting factor for scaling. Not every app is CPU hungry. Some just need to be available, and running a whole is for isolation is the way it’s done in a lot of shops.

  • MNByChoice@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    I love it. More stable than many things. Preseeds for PXE.

    I don’t have to fuss on my fun systems.

    Work systems are different. Works great when it is a nice fit. Use mostly RHEL family there, and dislike the rolling upgrades. (Breaking changes between “minor” version changes. Rarely an issue on Debian.)