For those rare people who don’t know, Canonical’s Ubuntu distribution is basically Debian Sid (the unstable version) plus a few GUI apps and modifications. Debian is one of the most successful community-based distributions.
Don’t get me wrong, I use both Debian and Ubuntu, and they both perform well, but here are some reasons to choose Debian over Ubuntu:
1) Stability and Security
Debian has a slow release cycle, because of heavy stability and security testing. No wonder sites like Digg use Debian (not 100%) for a server. Of course, Ubuntu is becoming very popular on the server, but I’m already hearing some complaints, so for server people I recommend Debian until Ubuntu gets their problems fixed.With Debian, you probably won’t get the bleeding edge, but expect it to work extremely well. If you want to get the newer stuff, just use the testing or experimental repos and you’re up and going in no time.
2) Strictly Free Software
Debian adheres very strictly to free software philosophies. It is composed entirely of Free Software, even to that extent, that they re-branded Firefox to Iceweasel because a certain part of it was copyrighted (artwork.
3) If you’re using a Special Computer Architecture
Debian now runs on eleven different computer architectures, and these ports are still in active development, so your’e sure yo’ll get something good. x86-32, x86-64, PowerPC, SPARC, DEC Alpha, ARM, MIPS, HPPA, S390, IA-64 are currently supported architectures.
4) If you don’t like companies
Canonical is a company. I don’t know about you, but I never trusted companies, even if they’re just the sponsor. The Debian Project is run by a non-profit Foundation. I like that.
5) Simpler
In the standard Debian distro, you get just what you need and it gives you more config options on its ncurses based installer (just like an Ubuntu alternative install). No fancy stuff, just the rock solid basic Debian, with everything you’ll need to get you started.
What do you prefer? Debian or Ubuntu?
July 30th, 2008 at 21:06
Easy.. Debian, of course. It is the best distro out there.
July 30th, 2008 at 21:10
One other thing - stay away from Experimental. Use Testing for leading edge or Sid for bleeding edge. Or combine testing/sid. You have a plethora of choices with Debian.
July 30th, 2008 at 21:16
Very nice post, and I’m Debian has it’s uses of course. But for me…
1) I’m on a laptop, and I don’t have issues with either stability or security in ubuntu
2) Yeeah. I like my ETQW with nvidia drivers, thanks
3) 64bit works okay here, flash is really easy to install
4) Got no issues with a company at all. All 3 major Linux distributions are backed by companies
5) Ehm. I’m a normal human.
But you know, I won’t be on Ubuntu without Debian at the end of the day too =)
July 30th, 2008 at 21:46
I work for a company; does this make me evil? Oh no, oh no! So scary.
July 30th, 2008 at 22:20
I never said companies were evil. It’s just that companies are focused on making money.
July 30th, 2008 at 22:44
I’m thinking of running Debian on some of the servers that I administer that currently run Fedora. Looking for a distribution that can be updated easily, has good package management and a small footprint.
I think Debian fits this pretty well.
July 30th, 2008 at 23:22
I cant stand ubuntu as Ive always found it restrictive and somewhat buggy. Ive found many of the ubuntu and even other Debian derivitive distros very visually pleasing. However many shared the same bugs so I wonder if the problems come from the Debian base rather than the specific distros themselves. Ive never installed Debian on my systems because of the “free software only” mentality. I can respect the ideals but personally I want my computer to be fully functional at install without having to spend days trying to get the basic functionality most distros supply out of the box. Also that whole Iceweasel thing just seems silly.
July 30th, 2008 at 23:53
I agree with you on the iceweasel thing, but debian allows you to load non-free components without any problems. It’s also got a great package management system to do the job
July 31st, 2008 at 00:39
I think Debian is more suitable for server use rather than desktop. For your desktop you want to watch divX movies, be able to use your graphic card fully, listen to mp3, etc. The “free software only” mentality, like most idealisms, is maybe good looking but not very practical. Besides, codecs and Nvidia drivers (for example) are freeware, even if they’re not open-source, so what’s the big deal?
As for being sponsored by a company, that doesn’t bother me. After all, it is an excellent solution to the end of writing open-source software and still get paid. Rich people can afford being philanthropists but the rest of us need to get paid for the work we do.
July 31st, 2008 at 01:28
@Saverio
Debian’s repos are full on non-free software, you simply need to enable the non-free repository. Debian out of the box only comes with free software but after you install it, you can install anything and everything you want on it.
July 31st, 2008 at 06:07
Debian and only Debian.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:34
@Nick
Yeah, I know. However, I use Mint, which in short is Hardy Heron WITHOUT the bugs!
July 31st, 2008 at 13:32
@Vadim P
> Got no issues with a company at all. All 3 major Linux
> distributions are backed by companies.
With the result that, whether they’re upstream betas (Fedora & openSUSE) or distros in their own right (Ubuntu) they’re tied to an inflexible release cycle and have significant bug issues within the first six to eight weeks of release.
Whatever Debian Stable’s other issues, premature releases isn’t one of them.
July 31st, 2008 at 14:55
What about the idea that you set your repositories to ‘testing’ andf you’ll have an endless supply of updates to your system? That is just too nice; the upgrade experience in Kubuntu always left me with a dead OS.
July 31st, 2008 at 15:06
“inflexible”? I count it as “stable” in my book - there are set release dates around which I can make plans. Not “ohai. We’re gonna release in 2 months, have fun!”
July 31st, 2008 at 15:25
@lefty.crupps
Testing’s actually one of the more popular options among people using Debian as a desktop OS.
Its main problem is mediocre support for security updates: the Debian Testing Security Team works to expedite the transfer of packages from unstable when a vulnerability arises, though they often fall back on temporarily *removing* rather than patching vulnerable packages from Testing.
Furthermore, they advise against using the Testing kernel — they simply don’t have the manpower to patch it against vulnerabilities and suggest using the Stable or Unstable kernel instead.
July 31st, 2008 at 16:25
@Vadim P.
> “inflexible”? I count it as “stable” in my book
Stable in my book means without significant regressions. The farce over the introduction of PulseAudio in Hardy and its implications for people reliant on, for example, ALSA-based applications suggests Shuttleworth and his cohorts were more interested in new features for their own sake over their correct and rigorous implementation.
By contrast Debian Stable (or for that matter Slackware) is only deemed ready for release when it actually *is* ready.
July 31st, 2008 at 16:32
That’s great, if you only intend to use it personally. But a business certainly wouldn’t like to sit and keep guessing when the next release of the OS would be.
July 31st, 2008 at 16:47
Then deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux which combines long but predictable release cycles with a (comparatively speaking) conservative development policy.
Personally speaking, unless Ubuntu reverts to its original policy with respect to Long Term Support releases (i.e. releases that were supposed to concentrate on mopping up the bugs of the previous release and keep “innovation” to a minimum) I’ll think twice before recommending it to a business acquaintance.
July 31st, 2008 at 16:50
This is Ubuntu vs. Debian
July 31st, 2008 at 16:59
Yeah, but I don’t want a gaping vulnerability in my version of OpenSSH that’s gone undetected since 2006
July 31st, 2008 at 17:02
Heh, nice one, but it’s already been fixed and patched (within 24h, and all launchpad.net keys that were suspectible were cleared).
July 31st, 2008 at 17:27
I use Debian on my desktop for a reason that no one here has mentioned. I have had trouble with Ubuntu when it came time for a major version upgrade. It was often not smooth, and involved removing everything but /home and doing a fresh install.
July 31st, 2008 at 17:36
Here is what I have to say abt this debate - some people believe that ubuntu is just an ugly paint job on debian. Off late ubuntu has shown some signs of lack of innovation and instability in their LTS release - by far Gutsy Gibbon was their best release…rock solid as ever and I personally upgraded to Hardy and then went back to Gutsy because Hardy was bit too buggy for my taste. I have never used debian directly. But looks like I should. But when it comes to only free software - things often get impractical…my ubuntu machine rocks … but when I run the same videos in Windows XP I get sound and video quality thats unmatched … thanks to the codecs and drivers!! So i think its time that we linux lovers take a practical stand and not blind ourselves with stupid idealism!!!
July 31st, 2008 at 19:36
Debian has been my only choice for years and that is not
going to change any time soon.
Thanks for the wonderful article.
Ed
July 31st, 2008 at 19:41
> but when I run the same videos in Windows XP I get
> sound and video quality thats unmatched … thanks to
> the codecs and drivers!!
If your closed- and open-source Linux video drivers are inadequate to the task, blame the manufacturers for refusing to release free code and documentation.
With the sole exception of the RealMedia video codec, I can’t think of a single format that isn’t covered by perfectly adequate reverse-engineered codecs.
> So i think its time that we linux lovers take a
> practical stand and not blind ourselves with stupid
> idealism!!!
That’ll be the steadfast refusal to proprietize code that brought you Linux and the BSDs in the first place then, Sando?
July 31st, 2008 at 22:54
I started using debian because of my ubuntu problems with pppoe connection and I’m very satisfied.Debian is fast,responsive,stable.Sometimes I get problems but they’re caused by my linux bent.
regards for you
August 1st, 2008 at 00:08
I use Debian. I’m not a “normal” user, and I know it. I spend as much time in console text mode as I do in X. I use Fluxbox as my windowmanager and don’t run any desktop environment. Most of my X usage is split: applications running on different machines than the display, something Ubuntu apparently doesn’t consider useful.
For my uses, Debian (or something like LFS) is the only reasonable choice, and Ubuntu contains exactly the types of stuff that gets in my way.
I don’t expect everyone to use their computer like I do. I just wish others would accord me a similar respect.
August 1st, 2008 at 00:21
Ubuntu.
August 1st, 2008 at 00:24
[...] 5 Reasons to Choose Debian Linux Over Ubuntu Linux For those rare people who don’t know, Canonical’s Ubuntu distribution is basically Debian Sid (the unstable version) plus a few GUI apps and modifications. Debian is one of the most successful community-based distributions. [...]
August 1st, 2008 at 02:46
Newer Debian derivatives don’t support my rugged old AMD K2-500/ASUS P5-AB PC but Debian Lenny installs using an older kernel option.
Adding an old version of Skype plus the latest Opera browser/mail with K3B keeps this old timer useful for always-on web-phone, IM, e-mail, downloading-burning and as a visitors’ and back-up PC.
Otherwise it would soon be unwanted land-fill. My thanks and admiration go to the Debian community.
August 1st, 2008 at 06:15
There are a few reasons that I wasn’t fond of Ubuntu
1. 8.04 is too heavy for me to run. I don’t think my computer is that old (not even 2 years), but my computer doesn’t have the memory to handle it.
2. Another reason that I don’t like 8.04 is because a lot of it just feels like a pitch to the general public for mass adoption. While it’s not a bad thing, I choose Linux as an enthusiast, not just as a solution, so I find Debian more suitable.
3. Debian is slightly more advanced so I have a better chance to learn more about how the OS works, whereas with Ubuntu, a lot of things are hidden by default (though if you want to find them, there’s always a way).
I think it’s just that Canonical’s vision and my interests are conflicting on this point. I still wish the best for the Ubuntu and hope that they do a good job of eating up some market share. But choices are what make Linux great
August 1st, 2008 at 11:55
NO DOUBT ! Just plain Debian,
I started with Ubuntu 6.06 and then after 7.04 moved to Debian.
Since I am kind of local linux guru, I installed on many of my friends systems Ubuntu, but when ever I need to fix something in their computer, I use the opportunity to migrate them to Debian. So far I didn’t hear any complaints.
But still, I give lots of credit and respect to Ubuntu.
August 5th, 2008 at 21:44
Imagine what open source software would look like if all the companies stopped paying the developers working on it… #4 is pretty naive thinking.
August 5th, 2008 at 22:20
It’s more a question of overall control of the development process though, isn’t it? Hewlett-Packard has been sponsoring Debian for years, precisely because it knows such funding doesn’t afford them (or for that matter, any other commercial concern) undue influence over the development process, because Debian’s constitution means that it’s only answerable to itself. Quoting from a 2002 Linux Magazine article:
Hewlett-Packard has been careful to say that its support of Debian is really designed to focus attention on Linux standards. HP’s General Manager of Linux Systems Martin Fink says that Debian is like the conscience of Linux. “There’s some concern out there about things like kernel-forking and incompatible Linux versions,” he says. With Debian as a vendor-neutral point of reference, it can play, “the arbiter role,” he adds, “to make sure that everybody plays nice.”
August 5th, 2008 at 23:00
You are a moron. Ubuntu managed to do what debian did not:
- Release Management
- Paid developer who care (still too few, but it’s a start)
- Simple installation and ready to use desktop
- Collaboration with hardware makers (at least with Dell)
They still fail to provide a competitive user experience, but it’s much better imho then ubuntu.
August 6th, 2008 at 03:22
@saverio
that is why you got debian-multimedia and the fabulous sidux dsitro, fully debian unstable….
August 6th, 2008 at 05:04
[...] Five reasons to choose Debian over Ubuntu. Umm. Umm. Sir? First of all, I believe that is Debian GNU/Linux? And secondly: 4) If you don’t like companiesCanonical is a company. I don’t know about you, but I never trusted companies, even if they’re just the sponsor. The Debian Project is run by a non-profit Foundation. I like that. [...]
August 6th, 2008 at 12:23
“Debian has a slow release cycle, because of heavy stability and security testing. No wonder sites like Digg use Debian (not 100%) for a server.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example
“Of course, Ubuntu is becoming very popular on the server, but I’m already hearing some complaints, so for server people I recommend Debian until Ubuntu gets their problems fixed.”
What complaints? Which problems? Of course, no need for specifics. We’ll take your word for those mysteries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bare_assertion_fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
August 6th, 2008 at 18:33
[...] o comentário do EPx sobre os 68s e 99s, eu acabei encontrando um texto interessante chamado “5 reasons to Choose Debian Linux over Ubuntu Linux” que lista como quarta das cinco razões: A Canonical é uma empresa. Não sei quanto a [...]
August 6th, 2008 at 23:43
Ubuntu is more than Debian Sid; there is a lot of added-value in configuration optimisation, particularly for laptops. Installing Ubuntu saves time. On stabilty, Debian stable is always going to be better, but Hardy for laptop use has surprised me by how good it is. But watch the updates; Ubuntu doesn’t test them anywhere near as thoroughly as Debian does.
August 15th, 2008 at 01:28
I just came across your blog on a google search for ‘going back to debian’ — precisely because I have been considering just that.
I have been having crazy problems recently on my Lenovo X60 which worked like a charm in previous Ubuntu releases. All of these things worked with Hardy initially but are now broken:
* About 1-3 times a day, while hacking away in emacs my (external) MS natural keyboard will just stop working completely. I can still use the mouse — but I can’t move windows (weird). The only way to fix it is to blow my entire mental stack and CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE. I want to smash something when this happens.
* I use xrandr to hook up a second screen when I am at work. For some reason my panel buttons and applets get TOTALLY rearranged so that my clock and menu end up on different sides when I disconnect the monitor. This bug could not be more annoying (I am pretty sure it is already an official bug — though I haven’t seen any development on it)
* When I am in single screen mode, Firefox for some reason wants to take up the whole 1024×768 screen when I start it — it looks like it is in full screen, but really the window is maximized so greatly that I can’t see any of the window decorations! This is annoying too. I don’t know if this one is an official bug.
If these things are not fixed by the end of the month I will gladly return to the one distro that has never failed me: Debian.
(That was a rant. As a software developer I know how tricky doing software updates can be. However, Debian seems to get this right. If it slows them down, so be it.)
August 15th, 2008 at 04:18
Debian is definitely more stable, if you use testing or stable. Debian is also more flexible. Using Ubuntu is a bit like having a teenager in the house: you keep up to date on the latest trends. I have swapped Ubuntu 8.04 for Debian because Ubuntu breaks (the last three proposed backport modules crash laptops with intel wireless when suspending) and when it does, it’s difficult to fix because the next version is in early development. With Debian, a skilled user can mix packages from unstable, or even experimental, to keep up to date in some areas but a stable core. I have testing + unstable kernel + experimental gnome-panel because I love the gnome 2.22 clock with multiple time zones; I only learnt about that by using Ubuntu. Debian is amazing. No wonder Ubuntu chose to use it as the base distribution.
October 15th, 2008 at 12:13
Nah, for server OS, the best option is the BSD flavour,
such as FreeBSD etc. But indeed, if You choose Linux,
debian is the way to go.
October 16th, 2008 at 02:15
I’m cheating because this is my second post on this thread. I just moved my last Ubuntu 8.04 machine to Debian lenny. The process was easy. It was a desktop, so almost no work was needed post-install, and unlike Ubuntu, the machine now suspends and hibernates properly, which alone was worth it. I installed the non-free Nvidia drivers, and you need to enable the “sid” repository to do that. So I admit that Debian does require more technical skill than Ubuntu. You get advantages though: Debian is much, much more flexible. You can in my experience easily mix the latest software in “sid” with a mainly “testing” system: for example, upgrading to the latest kernel. In Unbuntu, that’s almost impossible (try putting the Intrepid kernel into Hardy; it doesn’t work). That’s a trade-off: Ubuntu tries to make a release which just works; Debian errs on the side of flexibility. I think a power-user will benefit more from Debian once they learn about it. Certainly, I have. On a laptop, I tried pulse-audio, didn’t like it so went back to a pure alsa system. It’s like operating-system lego. Which is why so many distributions build-off Debian.
However, I have realised recently that you should not make a decision to use Debian purely on technical merits. If you want to use Debian, you need to “sign-up” to the objectives of the Debian project. They are different to Ubuntu. If you understand the objectives of the Debian project, some things will make a lot more sense. If you think that Debian is simply Ubuntu with more emphasis on stability, you might get puzzled and frustrated by some things that happen in Debian.
November 1st, 2008 at 10:38
[...] 5 Reasons to Choose Debian Linux Over Ubuntu Linux [...]
December 1st, 2008 at 06:06
For a Server: Debian Stable (4.0 in this case) may be a better choice. Is not advisable to use Testing (Lenny) it have some stability issues, cause of course the software use in that distro is in a process of testing. Besides in Lenny you may get kernel and gcc updates regularly, if you this would be a server you would have to recompile any custom software you have… The kernel & compiler shouldn’t be change in OS unless there’s a security issue, cause if not you get another OS.
For Desktop/Laptop: I’ve been using Debian Lenny for a couple of years but I’ve had some issues, especially in the actual lenny (future 5.0) with iceweasel, icedove, samba. Lately I’ve been trying Ubuntu 8.04 LTS, and I’ve found it a good os between debian lenny and debian etch. Cause it’s stable (probably more than Lenny, in my opinion), the kernel doesn´t change as well as the compiler (this makes 3rd party developers being able to develop pre-compiled apps. and a longer period of kernel testing), firefox and thunderbird run way faster than the customized Iceweasel and Icedove (I supposed they should be the same teorically speaking, though Debian took the mozilla sources and made a brandless version, but in practice they don’t. Iceweasel in Lenny freezes a lot, specially with Adobe Flash plug in), smoother graphic interface and it’s much more easy to use.
And OS should meddle between hardware and user, manage the resources and software applications, being as stable as possible and making things easy to the user. Ubuntu accomplish all those things…
What I cannot understand of Ubuntu, is the software development model they have choosen. It seems the are using an evolutional model (in spiral), deploying a new increment every 6 months. This is way to fast to make a high quality software and besides regular people doesn’t want to go over an OS migration twice a year. We’re not talking about an application, this a base software which every other application will rely on. If someone knows the reason and can explain it, I would be very grateful.
Sorry for the extense post!!