Debian is a desktop operating system for human persons who are responsible for their computers. Red Hat is a enterprise operating system for corporate persons where the human persons using their computers are not responsible or in control of their computers. It's apples and oranges.
These aren't "attack surfaces left exposed" this is "users allowed to control their own computer and decide for themselves". And I notice the vast majority of this complaint about insecurity is not about running applications on Debian or RHEL, but instead about the systems built up for running things containerized and trying to mitigate all the problems that causes. Debian concentrates more on actually having an OS you can run applications on rather than a system for deploying containers.
>In the end, the choice between Debian and Red Hat isn’t just about corporate influence versus community-driven development. It’s also a choice between a system that assumes the best and one that prepares for the worst. Unfortunately in today’s highly connected world, pessimism is a necessity.
In the end it's about weather you think you should control your computer or weather someone else will control your computer. Pick appropriately for context.
I suspect Debian is used on more server installs than desktop ones. While it doesn't come with enterprise support options like RedHat it is most certainly used on servers, many of which are in corporate environments and are running multiple services (in containers often) or are otherwise multi-user.
That may be true for Debian itself (although I know a lot of people who have been running it for years as their daily system and still are to this day, including myself for 15+ years and counting), but Debian is also the base for many other distributions, including Ubuntu and its derivatives (like Mint), which are mostly used on desktops rather than servers.
If someone means “Debian and derivatives” then they should say “Debian and derivatives” not just “Debian” IMO, particularly when comparing to RedHat which also has a number of significant derivatives.
TBH I've always considered Ubuntu (and by inference its derivatives) more of an “inspired by” in relation to Debian, given it is generally closer to Testing then Stable and has many notable changes on top, more so as bigger changes have increased over time (snaps being so ingrained that they are almost required, for one).
These aren't "attack surfaces left exposed" this is "users allowed to control their own computer and decide for themselves". And I notice the vast majority of this complaint about insecurity is not about running applications on Debian or RHEL, but instead about the systems built up for running things containerized and trying to mitigate all the problems that causes. Debian concentrates more on actually having an OS you can run applications on rather than a system for deploying containers.
>In the end, the choice between Debian and Red Hat isn’t just about corporate influence versus community-driven development. It’s also a choice between a system that assumes the best and one that prepares for the worst. Unfortunately in today’s highly connected world, pessimism is a necessity.
In the end it's about weather you think you should control your computer or weather someone else will control your computer. Pick appropriately for context.