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.
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?
Easy.. Debian, of course. It is the best distro out there.
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.
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 =)
I work for a company; does this make me evil? Oh no, oh no! So scary.
I never said companies were evil. It’s just that companies are focused on making money.
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.
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.
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
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.
@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.
Debian and only Debian.
@Nick
Yeah, I know. However, I use Mint, which in short is Hardy Heron WITHOUT the bugs!
@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.
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.
“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!”
@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.
@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.
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.
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.
This is Ubuntu vs. Debian
Yeah, but I don’t want a gaping vulnerability in my version of OpenSSH that’s gone undetected since 2006
Heh, nice one, but it’s already been fixed and patched (within 24h, and all launchpad.net keys that were suspectible were cleared).
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.
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!!!
Debian has been my only choice for years and that is not
going to change any time soon.
Thanks for the wonderful article.
Ed
> 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?
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
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.
Ubuntu.
[...] 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. [...]
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.
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
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.
Imagine what open source software would look like if all the companies stopped paying the developers working on it… #4 is pretty naive thinking.
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.â€
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.
@saverio
that is why you got debian-multimedia and the fabulous sidux dsitro, fully debian unstable….
[...] 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. [...]
“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
[...] 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 [...]
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
[...] 5 Reasons to Choose Debian Linux Over Ubuntu Linux [...]
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!!
Debian and only Debian is right. All other distros can just disappear. I don’t need eye candy and I don’t need the bleeding edge, I need to get work done. Businesses don’t need the bleeding edge every 6 months eith, to suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of understanding of business. To update your infrastructure every 6 months to the lastest version of any os would be suicide. To keep working with what works and update hardware and OS components along the way to resolve problems is good business. Most “businesses” that use Ubuntu are not using the latest release or updating every 6 months anyhow. Wikimedia is still switching to 8.04 and 8.10 is now nearly 2 months old, 1/3 of the distributions release cycle.
Ubuntu refines the whole process.
If you’re poor chances are somebody left some cd’s at starbucks and you’ll get a great os for nothing.
If it works, then it works fine.
One thing everybody needs to work on is the compatibility issues. At least dell will slap a copy of ubuntu on their laptops and fix some issues with the developers. So that’s a win for everybody.
EeePC is running some form of linux so you know that can at least run Linux.
Nice to know all those years of struggling paid off.
[...] 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 [...]
I want to try Debian, I’m currently using Ubuntu 8.10 on my laptop.
It is a new laptop, Core 2 Duo with Intel X4500 video, what Debian branch should I use for hardware support and stability?
Thanks!
Also, my laptop has Intel 5100 Wifi.
http://lwn.net/Articles/293886/
should be the same on any Debian
1. You didn’t back up your point with facts or links when you said, “I’m already hearing some complaints.”
2. The strictly free software has never been an issue for me. So, if Ubuntu Desktop wants to ship a proprietary video driver, it’s not the greatest situation, but at least it works, at least the video vendor is sort of slightly playing along, and eventually a free version will replace it, given enough time. On the server side, I’m not aware of Ubuntu Server shipping with anything but 100% non-proprietary stuff.
3. People like the company aspect of Ubuntu. They want to know they can call a vendor for tech support. However, because it’s Debian, and because the Ubuntu community is outstanding, that option is also available. This is why people choose RH or Novell SUSE — because they get a vendor to call for tech support. And with cash coming into Canonical from its support venue, they can afford to keep the distribution going for a long, long time. And that’s important to me. If Ubuntu didn’t come along, I highly doubt Debian would have lasted much longer because it had stagnated a tremendous amount. Look at how fast Debian started shipping updates once Ubuntu happened. Debian is good for Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is good for Debian.
4. Ubuntu is more simple than Debian, and has more installation options.
5. However, this is all my opinion. I like Ubuntu. You may not. That’s okay too. Go with what you like. We can get along. But I did want to say that the way this blogger’s opinion was worded here could stand some room for small dispute.
I’ve been using Debian for several years; but, the recent upgrade to Lenny caused serious xorg stability. The gui disappears without notice. So, I’m thinking of giving Ubuntu a try.
you guys are lucky, being able to use just linux.
think of me, i’m having use vista.
okay it’s not because i’m insane but i need it because i’m a flash designer, and my company….
i use ubuntu when i can
Debian is great, one of my favorite distro, but 5.0 stable with KDE is not very stable. So, I’ll try Gnome.
Anyway, my vote goes to Debian. Cheers!!!
Since 2006 Ubuntu/Canonical has gone on to bear an increasing resemblance to MS stuff. I’m not being paranoid.
I much prefer Debian, it seems ‘cleaner’ somehow. But, it needs more work to configure stuff. So, for desktop & server – yes. But, I have only managed to get broadcom wireless laptop working on ubuntu (& PClOS – but only on KDE, not gnome). If things like that take more than an hour to figure out after an install, I tend to look elsewhere. Why, if ubuntu utilises Debian’s work, is it not possible to roll some useful things back into thee main Debian repository as well? Like wireless…
I’ve been using Kubuntu since the day I first used the Live CD, mostly because of it’s sleek and customizable aqua-ish KDE interface. KDE4 is starting to piss me off a little, tho. But before considering a switch, someone answer these:
First, how customizable is Debian compared to Kubuntu? User friendliness what I like best.
Second, can I get adept to work with Debian? It’s the only way I’ll be able to download my crap.
Third, if I attempt to install Debian, can I import everything from Kubuntu before it erases my Kubuntu partition?
Mail me at ET6100@gmail.com if you feel like persuading me.
hi rack, if you have a separate partion for /home everything will be ok.
i always use 3 partions on mey desktops, / /home swap so when i install other version or other distro my home is always the same.
Father vs Son? I would definetely recommend debian as opposed to ubuntu for server use, but in the rest ubuntu wins, and Im happy with it.
(Hey, anything better than XP!)
The oppinion i have from my experience, comparing Debian Lenny with Ubuntu Jaunty (or any version of Ubuntu) is Ubuntu is hugelly easier to install and use.
I use gnu-Linux since 10 years ago, and Ubuntu 4.10 were my very first successful instalation try i got from a Debian-based distribution. Ubuntu shown me how awesome can be a Debian-based distribution, a thing i’m still very far about to see directly from Debian. It’s sad for me telling this.
Maybe Debian can be reccomended for very skilled developers, system administrators, etc., but i really don’t reccomend it to newbies, or for people has no patience to try to figure out very basic, easy and useful things are always on Ubuntu, and very missing on Debian (at least defaultly) – I never would reccomend Debian for people enjoy using Ubuntu, and even newbies – surelly newbies can be very scared about Debian when trying to use it.
But of course i recognize Debian has a very important rule on being a true multi-architecture distribution (around 15 officially?) and having a very organized repository, but only this is not enough helping me on using Debian instead of Ubuntu. Lots more are needed, and Ubuntu has almost all of what Debian lacks…
There are, on the other hand, zillions of reasons to choose Ubuntu over Debian.
Ubuntu all the way..I still havent heard or seen anything that makes debian better than ubuntu.. in my opinion, they are equal..
Ubuntu desktop FTW
oh yeah..
“x86-32, x86-64, PowerPC, SPARC, DEC Alpha, ARM, MIPS, HPPA, S390, IA-64″
So far, I havent heard or seen ANYONR running something besides x86-32, x86-64, and PowerPC.. I guess if you are running a crazy arch or something like that, then debian would be cool, but Ubuntu for everything else..
everyone always talks about the apps for debian over ubuntu.. that is funny to me, as the both actually have the same amount available in the repos (actually, last time I checked, ubuntu clocked in about 2000 packages higher..), and most of the apps have ports to debian AND ubuntu.. lol..
without debian, ubuntu doesn’t exist, the inverse is not true!
i think i’ll give debian another try
with ubuntu everything works out of the box
thats just plain boring
I suggest looking at sidux. It’s Debian unstable, but supported with a strong user-focused community and some minor but useful tweaks (sidux does its own kernel builds). It’s originally a livecd distribution so it’s easy to try. Incredibly fast livecd boot.
It’s for power users (it’s sid, afterall). However, sidux makes sid a viable day-to-day system as long as you don’t mind all the updates. The other interesting thing about sidux is they don’t support Gnome, the main focus is KDE (and some other lighter desktops).
That was a big question mark for me, but it turns out that KDE 4.3 is really good, so that’s was actually a win. KDE is gorgeous and fun, and innovative.
The sidux community is smart and savvy, and quite small. Ubuntu can seem a bit corporate at times. However, sidux is not the distribution for people who aspire to OS X. This is a linux distribution for people who prefer not to have pretty splash screens at boot.
i think ,, Debian, is totally stupid,, thing,, look at the broader side,,, nd u will seee Ubuntu,,,i have using it for 4 yrs ,, upgradin,,, but no problemm, its good ,,,Debian,, its shit
@LinuXfish: Don’t feed the troll.
well, i didn’t know weather i should install debian or ubuntu, but this convinced me. i’ll install ubuntu.
1) i’m using it no a home computer so i don’t mind if my security isn’t 100 percent
2) i don’t mind using non-free software =)
3) i don’t have a special architecture
4) i don’t see a problem with companies. i work for one.
5) i don’t want to spend two days installing extra packages, just to make my computer play mp3 and stuff :/
Ubuntu does the job for me. Debian hates every computer that I have tried it on. Even in terms of packages, ubuntu is superior to debian. Debian is estimated to have 25000 packages, and ubuntu has more than 27000 packages. Whats more are the ppa repositories. The latest version of ubuntu, karmic koala makes it even more simpler to add repositories. Also, their community support is excellent. There shouldn’t be any stability issues, unless if you upgrade it right after a new version is released. To me, ubuntu is much better than debian. I however, agree with tim. Sidux is much better compared to any other linux distro I’ve tried so far. Easy to use. Excellent kde support. Bleeding edge. Beutiful looking. However, it’s not for noobs, so don’t even think about using it as your first linux OS. If it wasn’t for a certain dependency, I would’ve sticked to it
here is my reply to your reasons:
1) True. Ubuntu’s stability is awful compared to debian. No comments on security.
2) No one really cares if the softwares are strictly free. As long as they work.
3) Yeah, but more than 60% are either amd64 or i386.
4) I don’t see a reason not to trust a company. Especially canonical. Canonical is a non-profit company. I do. however, like the reason that debian is run by community.
5) Hmm.. Really? The topic should instead be “More Customizable.” Not simpler.
Slackware for stability and full control. It is what you make it.
Rather a few errors in your article I am afraid.
Taking just one as an example, Ubuntu is run by a non-profit-making foundation and does not belong to Canonical.
Canonical is a profit-making company, owned by the guy who also heads, not only the non-profit-making foundations, but a few others as well. Including helping Africans in Southern Africa where he hails from. He sold his company at the age of 24 for $580,000,000 dollars or so, a point that makes a lot of English people
hate him. But Canonical deals with support to Corporates. This is beneficial to Ubuntu as it enables Ubuntu to become wider known. For example the French Gendarmerie have around 70,000 PCs with Ubuntu on, and I believe the Spanish Government have standardised with Ubuntu in their Educational and Schools division. When these kids grow up and enter business, they will help persuade the companies to switch.
Debian is a great system and I am not knocking it. Ubuntu is also a great system and is rapidly earning its place in the corporate market although it has a long way to go.
This may be abhorrent to some of you, but this is the only way GNU/Linux is ever going to make the mainstream. Get used to it.
Ampers.
Who cares about mainstream, I want stability. Windows is like balancing on a beach ball. Sooner or later (mostly sooner) you are going to fall off. Debian is like standing on the ground, your only going to fall if your drunk.
You pro-debian guys I understand your point of view. But could you please PROVE (screenshots, benchmarks, reviews, articles, interviews, whatever) that:
- debian is more stable than ubuntu
- debian is more secure than ubuntu
Because so far using ubuntu I’ve never had any problems with that. And I’m a business user/developer so I tweak my machine a lot.
Cheers
What is so buggy about Ubuntu? I’ve seen mostly improvements on my laptop (Compaq Presario with Celeron M), maybe you haven’t had a good experience, once? But how does that project to everyone else for all time to come? Please, to the author and commentors, please use better logic.
I think one of the most interferring new features added to Ubuntu (I forget which version) was PulseAudio, and really only because the Ubuntu developers did a poor job implementing it. However, since then it has improved and is now quite usable.
If you are concerned about stability I suggest to anyone wanting to try Ubuntu to first try out a LTS long term support release.
Debian is a fine distro too, but I really recommend it only to people who are familiar to Linux and want something to work on a server or old computer, or just as an ultra-stable desktop. However, to get the most new stuff out of Linux, you have to get the testing or unstable repositories… and then the experience will probably become more compariable to Ubuntu, however, I think Ubuntu is just much more user friendly.
The companies argument is just… weak. Are you self-employed? A rogue developer for hire that secretly despises the people who contract you for work? Are you not for making money? Or do you live in an alley and eat at a soup kitchen?
Also the Free software argument is also weak. FSF people are so hard line they can’t even stand Mozilla copyrighting it’s Firefox name and logo… let’s just throw that out and use the code that Mozilla and it’s contributors made and call it.. idk.. Iceweasel!! yay! *palm to face* I’m not some copyright everything and punish the infringers kind of guy, but I have some respect for the people (you know a company *wink* of people or maybe just one person) that create something and give some kind of terms of use.
I use Debian and Kubuntu because I like their both.
I myself use Ubuntu 10.04 on my laptop. Only distro that seems to fully support my wireless card. But i m currently setting up a Web Host and i m not sure what distro to use.
I’ccompletely down with Ubuntu. My home server runs it, my PBX runs it. And maybe my web host when i get it up and running.
I use both debian and ubuntu and ubuntu is way better for users aka laptop and desktop, and debian is more customizable and much better for a server. Ubuntu stop working easily on server only with a update due to the Nature of the system that it was built for (desktop)
Ubuntu is noobs linux, Debian is the best choice of linux distro……….For servers CentOS is the best…. by our experience ….. [ for me backtrack linux is the best ]
@PHaT BasstRD
Ubuntu works good for webserver. I’m hosting my own site on Ubuntu Hardy with Apache, MySQL, and PHP operational.
I’m using both, and usually I try many linux distros because many people do any distro with the best in mind, but ubuntu vs debian, well debian at home, ubuntu in my lap, ubuntu is really buggy, proofs, virtuoso is broken in ubuntu, not all the packages work and I mean installing from virtuoso webapp, in debian everything just fine, vsftpd in ubuntu has problems with SSL so it’s not safe, in debian it’s not a problem, again the bugs in ubuntu, +2 for debian, catalyst 10-6 26% faster in debian 4300 fps debian vs 3200 fps ubuntu, so my vote for debian, and if you wanna try something as robust as debian and as easy as ubuntu try ALTLinux one of the best distros I’ve seen. BUT DEBIAN IS MORE SECURE AND LESS BUGGY THAN UBUNTU that’s real and it’s not so bad, just it’s real, and I use debian testing and sid in different partitions to compare, debian wins on any branch, don’t get lost.
i have some very bad issues lately with debian. The config_sysfs_deprecated setting in the config file is still buggy and i think has not been solved yet. You cant install any packages even if you already upgraded the kernel and disabled the config_sysfs settings. Likewise with config_sysfs V2. Still the issue with this critical package is unsolvable.
I absolutely agryy with the author.
This is the reason why I don’t like Ubuntu.
I’m using Debian Lenny on my server and
Debian testing on my Laptop.
hi, i use ubuntu on occasion and windows xp and vista, also i,ve some workings with other programs,so you,ve guessed i,ve several compt.my comment about all the hurrah is that all systems have their ups and downs, so it all comes down to what toots your flute, the great human drama, have a good day kiddies,replys to this are not necessary, thank you, daniel.08/18/2010 /