> I’ve found developers frowning up Ubuntu and preaching for folks to use NixOS, Arch, Debian or other distros.
My setup is mostly one VM per project group / online identity. Most of them using Ubuntu. The problem is when I want to work on an old project to check how it likes new technology I tend to stumble into the "you should have kept the OS up to date" problem. Ubuntu does not make it easy to upgrade if you miss more than a year of update.
And even if you keep up to date, they tend to break things often (loved the X11 to weyland switch when working with screen capture libraries) so new VMs are using debian.
Don't you get the same problem with upgrades with Debian? As for Wayland, seeing the progress over the last 17 years, I estimate it will be ready for regular use sometime during the 41st millennium.
With debian, is you develop on stable, you only need to do the upgrade song and dance every year and a half or so and upgrades rarely break anything. If you develop on unstable, you can use the snapshot archive to either upgrade 6 months at a time or move back to the next stable and then walk through stable releases.
> Don't you get the same problem with upgrades with Debian?
I don't think you have to do some manual configuration to upgrade your distribution because it is a couple years old and current scripts don't support that (like going from a 22.10 to 24.04 is a fun game).
My setup is mostly one VM per project group / online identity. Most of them using Ubuntu. The problem is when I want to work on an old project to check how it likes new technology I tend to stumble into the "you should have kept the OS up to date" problem. Ubuntu does not make it easy to upgrade if you miss more than a year of update.
And even if you keep up to date, they tend to break things often (loved the X11 to weyland switch when working with screen capture libraries) so new VMs are using debian.