Choose Boring, Sleep Better

Here's the best technical decision I've made running a hosting business: every production server runs Debian Stable. No exceptions.

Not Ubuntu with its Snap drama. Not Rocky Linux with its "we promise we're the new CentOS" energy. Definitely not Arch, because I enjoy sleeping at night.

Just boring, reliable Debian Stable. And that's exactly the point.

Production Isn't Your Playground

Let me be blunt - if you're running Arch on production servers because "it's more efficient," you're either lying or you have too much free time. Production servers aren't where you prove how hardcore you are. They're where clients' businesses run and where downtime costs real money.

I manage over 100 production servers (mine + customers'). When something breaks at 3 AM, I'm the one fixing it. So my distro choice directly correlates to my sleep quality.

Debian Stable means I sleep well.

What "Stable" Actually Means

Stable doesn't mean "has the shiniest features." It means "has been tested so thoroughly we're confident it won't randomly explode."

Every package in Debian Stable spent months in Testing, survived a freeze period, and got beaten up by thousands of configurations. By the time it reaches Stable, the obvious bugs are long dead.

Is the software old? Sometimes. Debian 12 ships packages 6-12 months behind bleeding edge. But here's the thing - I don't need bleeding edge. I need working edge.

Your production PHP server doesn't need version 8.4 the day it drops. It needs 8.2 that's been battle-tested and won't surprise you.

The Alternatives (And Why They Disappoint)

Ubuntu LTS: Debian's cousin that can't help but add "improvements" nobody asked for. Snap packages eating disk space, Netplan randomly changing networking configs, Canonical's kernel patches creating edge cases. It's 90% as good as Debian, which means 10% more headaches.

Rocky/Alma Linux: Solid distros born from CentOS's corpse. Problem is, I already know Debian. Why learn RHEL conventions for the same functionality with a smaller package repository?

Rolling releases (Arch, Sid): For people who enjoy living dangerously or have really understanding clients. One bad update and your bootloader is toast. Hard pass.

Why Debian Wins

Predictability: Releases every ~2 years, 5 years of support per release, EOL dates announced years ahead. I can plan. No "we changed our business model" surprises.

Package management that actually works: 59,000+ packages in official repos. APT resolves dependencies correctly. Major version upgrades don't explode. Revolutionary concepts, I know.

Security without drama: Patches drop within hours of CVEs. Updates are backported - Apache 2.4.x stays 2.4.x, just with the vulnerability fixed. No surprise behavior changes, no new bugs from version jumps.

The boring philosophy: Debian doesn't chase trends. It's been around since 1993 and will outlive whatever hot new distro launches next month. Bet on boring.

Problems I've Dodged

While others dealt with:

• The CentOS 8 death march and scrambling to migrate
• Ubuntu Snap conflicts breaking container setups
• Arch updates destroying ZFS compatibility at 2 PM on a Tuesday
• Flavor-of-the-month distros that vanished two years later

My Debian servers? Still running. Still boring. Still working.

The Real Talk

Debian Stable won't impress anyone at tech conferences. You can't flex about running the latest kernel. It's not cool, not sexy, not interesting.

But it works. For years. Without drama. While you focus on building actual value instead of fighting your OS.

Ubuntu has shinier marketing. RHEL has corporate backing. Arch has... bragging rights, I guess?

Debian has something better: it just works, reliably, predictably, boringly.

That's why every server I manage runs Debian Stable. That's why when I spin up infrastructure at 3 AM, I don't think twice.

Choose boring. Your 3 AM self will thank you.

P.S. - Yes, I run Debian Testing on my laptop. No, I'd never touch production with it. Know the difference between a playground and a business.