If you want Debian with more frequent updates, consider going Debian sid. Base Debian is also fine, maybe with Flatpaks for more up-to-date applications where needed.

If by backup notebook you mean a notebook that you use in case your main notebook breaks or something similar, I’d install the same OS and software on it.

If by backup notebook you mean that you want to use it as a server where you store backups on, I’d use either Debian or AlmaLinux.

Not much use to go Ubuntu or Mint, unless you have specific issues with Debian that don’t happen with those. Even then, it may be one apt install away from a fix.

If you want to try out BSD, power to you. I wouldn’t experiment on a backup computer though, unless by backup you just mean you want to have the spare hardware and will format it with Debian if you ever need to make it your main computer anyway.

Otherwise, just run Debian!

I would recommend Linux Mint. Yes it’s faster to update than Debian, but it doesn’t push the envelope nearly as fast as Fedora or Arch based distros.

Linux mint is just super easy, user friendly, you could use Mint without ever touching a terminal if you wanted. BSD would be a great pet project to fiddle with, but if you’re looking for a rock solid backup machine with zero fuss, Mint is perfect for that.

Do not daily drive BSD on a laptop. Userland is just not there yet and probably won’t be within our lifetimes.

Usually, I’d say silverblue but it sounds like you want to stay in the debian environment which is why I’ll recommend vanillaos. Just download the live image and check it out https://vanillaos.org/

You should give FreeBSD a shot sometime but it is probably not the best choice for a laptop honestly. If you do want to try it, maybe give one of the desktop FreeBSD distros like GhostBSD a try.

If you already like Debian, why not stick with that? If you want to try Mint, maybe Debian Edition ( LMDE ) would be a nice compromise.

is there anything which actually bothers you about Debian? what impedes your workflow? what edge cases with hardware and updating affect you?

is there really a reason to switch? do you care about unburdening developers from dealing with systemD?

Go for FreeBSD: this might require a learning curve, because this is an OS I’ve never used. Are commands that different from debian?

Both of them are, at the very least, unix-like, so the core command set is mostly the same, albeit with sometimes large functional differences.

Simply install debian 12.5 again, the easiest choice.

You are familiar with Debian. This is probably the choice I’d go with.

Kernels are also updated more often than with debian as far as I know.

That’s why Debian has backports.

I use Debian and rhel. That’s basically the two things you’ll see in the world and the two toolsets that familiarity with is useful.

There’s some little computers running weird shit like 9front or gentoo but if you wanna branch out from Debian stable but not get weird I recommend learning rhel.

Of course, if your backup laptop is really a backup, install stable on it and be done.

@merompetehla If you want to go down the #FreeBSD rabbithole and are afraid of the initial learning curve you can check GhostBSD, nomad BSD or hello system if it suits your needs and your hardware is supported.

looking into the *BSDs was definitely worth it for me. Using it as a stable daily driver for awhile now. But ymmv.

MX or antix.

Linux Mint

what linux OS should I install on a backup notebook if my main one is debian?

It depends:

• If your backup notebook will only rarely be used, then just make it Debian as well. I can’t think of a reason why you’d make it harder on yourself for those spare times you’d have to rely on the backup notebook. (As a side note, if your main system was on a rolling release (like e.g. Arch), then there would be merit in going for a different (i.e. more stable^[1]) distro (like e.g. Debian Stable) on the rarely used backup. This is tied to the fact that rolling release distros somewhat require you to update every so often for proper functioning. This hassle is simply absent on distros like Debian Stable etc.)
• However, if the backup notebook will be used as a second system of sorts for all kinds of needs and does not have to be reliable per say, then please be my guest and quench your distrohopping thirst to your hearts content.

Install linux mint, so I get ubuntu but without them throwing their subscription services down my throat.

Linux Mint does indeed provide you some Ubuntu goodies without its associated negatives. But, perhaps it’s worth mentioning LMDE; i.e. Linux Mint Debian Edition.

I’m unsure about other advantages

Linux Mint does a lot of heavy lifting to provide a seamless and polished experience. This does come with being more opinionated than either Debian or Ubuntu is. However, one might argue that they’re just offering the bare minimum that your average Linux user would want on their systems anyway. Hence, it’s unsurprising that Linux Mint has become the go-to distro for many newbie and veteran Linux users alike. You don’t know what you’re missing if you’re unsure of other advantages…

maybe the more frequent program updates? Kernels are also updated more often than with debian as far as I know.

FWIW, Debian also has its testing and unstable releases.

Do you know of other advantages?

As has been previously alluded, Debian is pretty bare-bones compared to Linux Mint. So, if you’re mostly interested in setting up things exactly as you’d want to, then you should go for Debian and build it up as you go. However, if you’re more in favor of sane and opinionated (albeit bloated to some) defaults, then Linux Mint takes the cake. Ultimately, you’d have to experience it for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

Go for FreeBSD

😅

this might require a learning curve, because this is an OS I’ve never used.

Yup.

Are commands that different from debian?

Debian (and its commands) are more similar to Arch, Fedora or any Linux distro for that matter than it is to FreeBSD. Like, it’s a pretty significant departure. And one, I’d argue, you’re simply not equipped for (yet).

Overall, I think making the move to FreeBSD doesn’t seem like the logical next move for ya. Its ecosystem (unfortunately) is a lot less developed compared to Linux. And while there are definitely some pros and cons to it, I just can’t fathom why your average user would use it without properly knowing what they’re getting into and why they’re deliberately and consciously making that choice. If you allow me, may I ask you where this interest to FreeBSD stems from?

other more niche linux OSs seem too much a hassle and I guess won’t be as supported as the main ones.

Do Arch, Fedora or openSUSE (to name a few) fall under “other more niche linux OSs”? Furthermore, do you think that FreeBSD will be less of a hassle compared to “other more niche linux OSs”?

---

1. The term “stable” is used here to mean slow cadence of change which manifests most commonly as little to no updates in-between point releases. These point-releases occur annually/biennially and come with big updates/changes. As you might expect, a distro with a release cycle as such comes with the added benefit that (little to) no breakage should occur until the next point release. Hence, these distros are (rightfully) associated with providing reliable and robust experiences. Though, this does not mean that they have a monopoly on this. When used responsibly, all (if not most) mainstream/popular distros are able to provide reliability and robustness.–

I use Debian on nearly everything that isn’t a “testing machine”…it’s just what I’m familiar with. Used to be like this with Fedora. If you are looking to just use it as a regular end user and don’t really need anything different or particularly want some new scenery, you might as well just install Debian again.