Ubuntu vs Debian

[Uncle Spellbinder]

Nearly all Ubuntu and Debian users are probably aware that without Debian, there would be no Ubuntu. Debian is the father and Ubuntu is the son. But I've noticed that there are numerous Debian users in the blogosphere that seem to consider Ubuntu the unwanted illegitimate son. Slamming Ubuntu whenever they get a chance. Not necessarily here on these forums, but I've seen many highly negative statements by Debian users regarding Ubuntu on other forums and blogs.

I guess my question is Why? If you're a Debian user who does not like Ubuntu, explain. I'm genuinely curious about the Ubuntu hate I've seen lately. After all, were all Linux users whether it be Debian, Ubuntu, Arch, Slackware, Fedora or whatever.

[Dayofswords]

debian is more for servers and long time linux users

ubuntu changed that and made it for desktop and new users

could be why they dont think so highly of ubuntu

honestly, they are both good, but for different things

[earthpigg]

fanboys and culture clash between new and old.

"if anyone can use linux, i dont get to feel elite any more!"

[lykwydchykyn]

I don't know if this is the best forum to get an objective, two-sided answer to that, but as I've interacted with a folks in Debian and other-distro circles I've heard different sides to the situation.

- Obviously, a certain amount of people are just immature, distro fanboys with a l33t3r-th4n-th0u attitude. As the joke goes, "Ubuntu is an African word for 'couldn't install Debian'" or something like that.

- Others are just envious that their distro isn't in the limelight.

Leaving this set aside, here are common criticisms I've heard:

DISCLAIMER: THESE ARE THINGS I'VE HEARD FROM USERS AND DEVELOPERS OF OTHER DISTROS. I DO NOT SUBMIT ANY OF THEM AS TRUE OR AS MY OWN OPINIONS.

So don't start flaming me for them.

- Originally Ubuntu was binary compatible with Debian, and I think a lot of people saw it as "Debian with corporate support". Later, they changed policy and broke binary compatibility with Debian, which made it more of a Debian fork. Forks tend to cause bad feelings because they divide the community, cause duplication of effort, make bug tracking harder, etc.

- Ubuntu was very bad about working with upstream development originally. This has improved greatly, as I understand it.

- Debian is a non-profit, based around strong FOSS ideology (the open source definition was derived from the Debian free software guidelines). Ubuntu has close ties with Canonical, a for-profit company, and has been more lax about proprietary drivers/firmware/software at times.

- Ubuntu's development cycle is time-based, meaning they release every six months (with one exception: Dapper) regardless of what's going on with the distro. Debian releases "when it's ready", which basically means when all bugs marked "release-critical" are resolved. This means Debian arrives with older packages, but quite stable (generally speaking). Ubuntu, on the other hand, arrives with newer packages but is comparatively buggy (GENERALLY SPEAKING).

That means that with Ubuntu taking center stage and representing "Desktop Linux" in a lot of instances, people get frustrated seeing "Linux" get slagged for problems unique to Ubuntu. I can appreciate this even as a Kubuntu user, when I hear people talk about "Linux can't do blah blah blah" and it's just a limitation or design flaw of GNOME.

Anyway, there are other little niche issues, like Mark Shuttleworth wanting everyone to get on regular release cycles, or whatnot. But not everyone has the same beef.

I won't go on, because I'm tired.

[chessnerd]

I think lykwydchykyn did a pretty good job of summing that up. Whenever I've read any complaints from Debian users it's usually for one of the reasons he gave.

Honestly though, it's like comparing apples and oranges. Debian was designed in 1993 when Linux was young and it has always focused on stability. Ubuntu was designed in 2004 and has tried to find a balance between stability and features. Debian was designed to be a solid, powerful, free-as-in-freedom Linux version. Ubuntu was designed to be a user-friendly, simple, free-as-in-beer Linux distro. While they have a similar code-base, the two systems were not designed for the same thing and, therefore, are not the same thing.

(Speaking of apples and oranges, lykwydchykyn, that "An apple guy branches out..." link in your sig is a brilliant and hilarious analogy. I'm still smiling. :))

[caravel]

I think lykwydchykyn did a pretty good job of summing that up.

+1

As a Debian user for the last two years, I know that there are some Debian users that do dislike Ubuntu - but for the most part they are the n00bish fanboy types that embrace the "distro vs distro" mentality and are a minority. Most Debian users that I've come across don't really care about Ubuntu or other Debian derivatives either way.

Also the myth about Debian being more difficult to install, set up or use is nonsense. If you want to install a proprietary driver it may not be a single click visit to the "hardware drivers" menu, but it's usually as easy as copy and paste terminal stuff from any of the numerous howtos available. I can generally go from a clean debian install to ATI proprietary drivers, compiz, latest firefox and several other common programs in just over an hour.

Personally I don't see the advantage of Ubuntu - though I do understand that many prefer it. I can install Debian Squeeze and get much the same thing in a far more stable state - it just takes a bit more work installing what I want and customising. IMVHO Ubuntu is a good OS (I've never really had much trouble with Ubuntu that I haven't also had with other Linux distros), but it's mainly the marketing that makes it.

[Dayofswords]

That means that with Ubuntu taking center stage and representing "Desktop Linux" in a lot of instances, people get frustrated seeing "Linux" get slagged for problems unique to Ubuntu. I can appreciate this even as a Kubuntu user, when I hear people talk about "Linux can't do blah blah blah" and it's just a limitation or design flaw of GNOME.
i've never heard problems with interface, i normally just hear problems with hardware and running windows programs "my WOW wont install, it keeps opening a folder when i click the .exe!"(ok, bit exaggerated)

[Zoot7]

TBH I've found with Debian Testing, some apt-pinning and pulling the odd package in from Unstable (sometimes even Experimental) I've a much more stable system than Ubuntu, and hands on system than Ubuntu.

I much rather Debian's more conservative way of doing things, for instance Debian is very good at not introducing core components until they work without issues - case in point Pulseaudio (which was the final straw for me with Ubuntu).

Debian also has a lot more going for it in terms of installation options. For instance you can install the whole works (DE and all) much like you do with Ubuntu, or you can just install the base system and add to it in bits and pieces customizing as you go, much like Arch.

The only problems are you can run into issues such as Politics with Debian at times. For instance I have to install a Package of non-free firmware to get my wireless to work, whereas it's already included in most other distros.

[Uncle Spellbinder]

...I much rather Debian's more conservative way of doing things, for instance Debian is very good at not introducing core components until they work without issues - case in point Pulseaudio (which was the final straw for me with Ubuntu)...

On this, we can agree. Pulseaudio my be the single biggest mistake Ubuntu has made. Still, not big enough for me to abandon Ubuntu, though.

Having said that, not having tried Debian since 2007, I'm seriously considering installing again. Not a fan of the Debian 'stable' in any way though. The lack of up-to-date apps is a total show-stopper for me. Out of curiosity, Are there PPA repos for Debian? In any event, sounds like 'testing' or 'unstable' would be more up my alley. Might give it a shot this weekend.

[lykwydchykyn]

Having said that, not having tried Debian since 2007, I'm seriously considering installing again. Not a fan of the Debian 'stable' in any way though. The lack of up-to-date apps is a total show-stopper for me. Out of curiosity, Are there PPA repos for Debian? In any event, sounds like 'testing' or 'unstable' would be more up my alley. Might give it a shot this weekend.

Most debian users you talk to run testing or unstable on the desktop. I use stable for servers and kiosks.

Then, of course, there are things like Sidux that try to tame unstable, or MEPIS which tries to update stable with newer apps.

[skymera]

I tried Debian Squeeze a few days ago, hoping that it would be better than Etch i tried a long time ago.

I liked the Expert Install and the netinstall was really simple.
During install i chose to have my user to use Sudo and i wasn't required to make a root password. Which i prefer.

- I had troubles with internet, couldn't connect to anything. I had to use wired Ethernet. My network card has worked ever since i've used Linux (Kernel 2.6.17)

- When i tried to open Network Manager in System > Administration I had to enter a ROOT password to use it. But during install, i chose to set myself as a sudo user. So why was this asking for a root password?

- Had to install Nvidia drivers manually which encountered problems with modules.

- It was slow.

I might also add, this Debian install lasted less than an hour before i got so P'd off i threw in a Lucid disc.

[Simian Man]

Another reason is that non-Ubuntu users are sick of reading how Ubuntu "made Linux a success on the desktop" when, first off they didn't really do anything new at all, and secondly many of us have been running Linux just fine on the dektop before Ubuntu even existed. Ubuntu got to be where it is on the work of others + good timing + good marketing.

That applies to other distros besides Debain though.

[snowpine]

For the same reason Ubuntu users are sick of hearing how great Arch is. :)

[MisfitI38]

Personally, I have always found Debian to be stable, predictable and to consistently offer high quality on a dozen machines of varying architecture and era. My experience with every version of Ubuntu has invariably been the exact opposite.
From my experience (and perhaps others who choose not to use Ubuntu for similar reasons) I must conclude that Debian is reliable and provides an excellent distribution, whereas Ubuntu is lacking quality and represents disappointment..even though it is based on a great distro.

On a side note, my perception has been that distros which are 'based-on' or even 'based-on, based-on, based-on' types seem to command a bit less respect from long time GNU/Linux users.

[MaindotC]

There's a moderator on howardforums.com named Aurora who's a Gentoo user and he says he doesn't like Ubuntu because it's too much hand-holding for him. I think that's the same mentality for Debian users viewing Ubuntu. When you make things easier, you sacrifice the user's ability to utilise the fully configure and utilise the operating system, or engineer solutions to their problems. I think that's part of contemporary Debian thought on Ubuntu. Can you imagine a bunch Debian administrators getting together, and they run into a guy who's like "oh I use Linux too - Ubuntu!" and they all grin at each other?

[Zoot7]

Are there PPA repos for Debian?
Here's a good read on how to set up and maintain a mixed Unstable/Testing system.
http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?t=15612

There's also a sample sources.list file provided there, and the repositories cited there largely contain absolutely everything one could want. (I think 30000 packages is the figure Debian touts having in it's repos)

What's also worth reading aswell is the Debian FAQ, there's a waft of useful information there.
http://www.debian.org/doc/FAQ/

[Uncle Spellbinder]

Thanks,Zoot. ;)

[NightwishFan]

I like using Ubuntu because they package and incorporate many of the tools I use in an efficient way. Such as DKMS default for Nvidia drivers, which allows me to have multiple kernels (like RT) managed easily. EDIT: I am not saying Debian cannot do so, but Ubuntu seems to default things just as I would like them.

I use Debian for lower end PCs with 256mb of RAM or so, because it seems to have a more sensible setup for such hardware, but more features than something like Puppy.

I like both, and would like to see cooperation between them for a long time to come.

EDIT: I do not think most Ubuntu users are elitists even though it is a highly used distro. It can become customized, but does not have to be.

[caravel]

I tried Debian Squeeze a few days ago, hoping that it would be better than Etch i tried a long time ago.

I liked the Expert Install and the netinstall was really simple.
During install i chose to have my user to use Sudo and i wasn't required to make a root password. Which i prefer.
You're better off with a root password. Sudo is only designed so that admins can allow certain users to perform specific administrative tasks. In Debian you can just go to the menu and open a root terminal. Gksu will prompt you for the root password and that's it. No need for sudo.

- I had troubles with internet, couldn't connect to anything. I had to use wired Ethernet. My network card has worked ever since i've used Linux (Kernel 2.6.17)
If you usually have to install a proprietary driver in Ubuntu then you will have to in Debian, but not so simple.

- When i tried to open Network Manager in System > Administration I had to enter a ROOT password to use it. But during install, i chose to set myself as a sudo user. So why was this asking for a root password?
Bug. I don't think network manager actually manages the LAN by default at the moment (it is still in the testing phase). You can fix this:

http://wiki.debian.org/NetworkManager

(It has happened to me on clean installs)

- Had to install Nvidia drivers manually which encountered problems with modules.
Another 'bug', I had the same problem last week, I don't think the current driver in the repos is built for the latest kernel (but don't quote me on that). Should be resolved soon. Did you aptitude update and aptitiude safe-upgrade before trying to compile and install the kernel modules?

- It was slow.
Strange, on the old (and crap) Celeron 3.0GHz box with 512MB of RAM that installed it on recently it was very fast and snappy.

I might also add, this Debian install lasted less than an hour before i got so P'd off i threw in a Lucid disc.
Lucid is based on Squeeze anyway...

[Zoot7]

Thanks,Zoot. ;)
No Problem! :)

Another 'bug', I had the same problem last week, I don't think the current driver in the repos is built for the latest kernel (but don't quote me on that). Should be resolved soon. Did you aptitude update and aptitiude safe-upgrade before trying to compile and install the kernel modules?
I think that is indeed the case. I'd the same problem with the driver in the repos for my current Squeeze install (which I installed about 2 months ago). I ended up having to install the 190.53 version of the Nvidia driver manually.

[s3a]

To make debian ask for sudo, you need to open a terminal and run alacarte (if it's GNOME) and then go to properties and change gksu to gksudo, etc.

[RedSquirrel]

Debian also has a lot more going for it in terms of installation options. For instance you can install the whole works (DE and all) much like you do with Ubuntu, or you can just install the base system and add to it in bits and pieces customizing as you go, much like Arch.

You can install a base (command-line) Ubuntu system. The Minimal CD (https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Installation/MinimalCD) is ideal for this. After the base is installed, you can add whatever you want.

In addition to the Minimal CD, I believe the Ubuntu alternate CD still has an option to install a command-line system.


Edit: I just wanted to add that the last time I tried the Karmic Minimal CD (October), installing the command-line system pulled in a package that no command-line system should be without: openoffice.org. :lol:

Bug #443167 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/debian-installer/+bug/443167)

[Hagar Delest]

Have first discovered GNU/Linux with Debian Woody some years ago. Then switched to Mepis and SimplyMepis. Once they got hooked with Ubuntu, I tried it by curiosity and have kept xubuntu.

Basically, I like the Debian philosophy but it goes too far (IMHO). I've tried recently the latest Debian flavor and got problems with wifi and even sound whereas it's so simple with Ubuntu.

If you want GNU/Linux to develop, you've to increase the installed base with distros that are easy to use, nice (look and feel) and that evolves quickly also, at the same rate than the applications (even OOo can't be upgraded on Ubuntu without upgrading the distro. I know about the ppa reps but I only like the Sun version in fact).

[2handband]

Why Debian? Because if I can crash something it's crap. Period. In this day and age there is NO excuse for an OS to be full of bugs that are bad enough to crash the OS. Ubuntu is not stable. Not even close.

[earthpigg]

is that a troll post, or serious? either way, necrophilia.

[Arijan]

This all might sound dull - but I'm fed up with all blabla expert arguments, specifications and technical stuff, one against another. This is a human response to the subject - not a droid's infinite loop:

Ubuntu was a revelation for me when I met it. Than, from version 9 it started to let me down. I had a constant feeling that something works behind my back (especially on 10 versions).

Suse is a pain in the *** with the too serious Yast, and services - too many options I really don't need.
Fedora was a perfect stranger to me - like I talk to someone wise who is not listening.

Debian is a quiet master, and it is my choice. Once I configure it, I'm done with doubts and questions - I just relax and work in peace.

You see, it's all about personal feeling. Take the os you really like, and that fit your needs, don't waste your brain on too many questions - 'cause no os is perfect, and do your stuff.

[MarcusW]

I think some Debian users feel that Ubuntu gets more credit than deserved, when the Debian devs are the ones doing most of the work. I use Debian on all my computers, but I really love how easy Ubuntu is to set up, canonical is obviously doing something right.

Ubuntu isn't for everyone, and Debian isn't for everyone. :) I guess it's just natural for some people to bash "the other side".

[asifnaz]

OP you are right saying that People on Debian forums don't like Ubuntu . Ubuntu introduced me to the Linux . I am using debian right now I must say Debian is the most stable OS you could imagine .

I know people are going to flame me for this , I don't like Ubuntu because it is bit too easy .

[areteichi]

I really love how easy Ubuntu is to set up, canonical is obviously doing something right.

My opinion exactly. I too often see Debian advocates say "Debian is no more difficult than Ubuntu", but I can testify that such a statement is quite inaccurate.

Since I prefer Debian's free software principles than Ubuntu's more pragmatic approaches, I've actually tried to learn how to use Debian. But my experiences with Debian have not been as satisfying and stress-free as they are with Ubuntu.

One thing that I'm really frustrated about is the way Debian installs the desktop environment. If you check 'desktop environment' during the setup, it will install the full Gnome environment that includes all of the unnecessary components (much more bloated than Ubuntu). If you take the minimal installation approach and start installing Gnome from scratch, I have to figure out package by package what I needed from Ubuntu in order to get the same experience (which I could never figure out in the end).

As much as I like Debian's ideology, I can consider using it only if they start customizing the desktop environment to suit the needs of the desktop users. As far as I can see, it's mainly aimed at the server and not the desktop.

[Spice Weasel]

I have to figure out package by package what I needed from Ubuntu in order to get the same experience (which I could never figure out in the end).

gnome-core

[asifnaz]

. As far as I can see, it's mainly aimed at the server and not the desktop.

No it is only because Debian has a very slow release cycle

[areteichi]

gnome-core

I know that. What I was describing was what I need to do afterwards.
Gnome-core doesn't turn Debian into Ubuntu does it?

[areteichi]

No it is only because Debian has a very slow release cycle

I don't really understand what you mean.

[snowpine]

I don't really understand what you mean.

Debian releases approximately every 2 years, as opposed to exactly 6 months for Ubuntu.

[laurasp]

+1 Ubuntu

[areteichi]

Debian releases approximately every 2 years, as opposed to exactly 6 months for Ubuntu.

Yeah I'm quite aware of that.
I just don't understand what you were disagreeing about with regards to what I wrote above. Can't we simply think that Debian maintains their release policy partly because they have as their aim the servers and not the desktops?

I honestly don't think I stated anything that goes against your point about the release policies of Debian and Ubuntu.

[CharlesA]

My opinion exactly. I too often see Debian advocates say "Debian is no more difficult than Ubuntu", but I can testify that such a statement is quite inaccurate.

I did a netinstall of Debian Stable a while ago and the install process wasn't all that different from Ubuntu's. The only difference I saw was that debian has you set a root password and that I had to deselect which packages I didn't wanted to have installed during the initial install. Stuff that Ubuntu doesn't install by default.

That being said, I was setting that machine up as a server, not a desktop.

Different strokes for different folks. :)

[snowpine]

Yeah I'm quite aware of that.
I just don't understand what you were disagreeing about with regards to what I wrote above. Can't we simply think that Debian maintains their release policy partly because they have as their aim the servers and not the desktops?

I honestly don't think I stated anything that goes against your point about the release policies of Debian and Ubuntu.

I think you may be confusing me with a different poster :( but since you are asking me directly, in my opinion Debian is a wonderful desktop distro. Debian has the full spectrum of Gnome/KDE/Xfce/LXDE desktop releases just like U/K/X/Lubuntu. If you check out their website (http://debian.org) you'll see their motto is not "the server operating system" but in fact "the universal operating system."

Furthermore I would counter-argue that Ubuntu is not just for desktops, but in fact has a strong server release as well. Therefore "Ubuntu for desktops, Debian for servers" simply isn't true. ;)

As regards the release cycles of the two distros, in truth Debian existed for years before Ubuntu, so the question should not be "why does Debian release so slow?" but "why does Ubuntu release so fast?"

[areteichi]

I think you may be confusing me with a different poster

Sorry, you're right. I did get confused. My apologies :?

Not to make an excuse, but I was misled because I wasn't asking asifnaz (to whom I initially replied "I don't really understand...") what the release policies for Debian and Ubuntu were. Rather, I was asking why he replied by saying No to the comment I made previously.

Debian has the full spectrum of Gnome/KDE/Xfce/LXDE desktop releases just like U/K/X/Lubuntu. If you check out their website (http://debian.org) you'll see their motto is not "the server operating system" but in fact "the universal operating system."

Furthermore I would counter-argue that Ubuntu is not just for desktops, but in fact has a strong server release as well. Therefore "Ubuntu for desktops, Debian for servers" simply isn't true. ;)

As regards the release cycles of the two distros, in truth Debian existed for years before Ubuntu, so the question should not be "why does Debian release so slow?" but "why does Ubuntu release so fast?"

I don't think what the distro claims itself to be defines the purpose it serves in practice. For most people, using Debian Stable will not cut it. Surely, you can suggest that one should instead use Testing or Sid. But insofar as Stable is Debian's 'official' release, their 'official' aim consists in developing and maintaining the Stable release.

But what's even more important is the simple observation of how desktop users tend to behave. If Debian, as you say, is really as easy to use as Ubuntu, then why aren't more people switching to Debian? (especially with the reason of being "just as easy") I'd imagine that we've been seeing a good number of people switching from Ubuntu to Mint precisely because Mint is even easier to use than Ubuntu. I don't see why what has happened to Mint didn't happen to Debian if the difference in their usability is so negligible. I think that should explain the point I was trying to make. Debian is not trying to make things easier for the desktop users, at least not to the extent of Ubuntu and Mint. Even if Debian users think there is no difference in usability, some people may find a difference and that could be a huge one.

My point was simply to say that because Debian does not customize its desktop environment installation, it is making the setup process difficult for some, or perhaps many, desktop users. If you're just starting out using Linux for the first time, how would you know what to install in addition to xorg, gdm, and gnome-core? Or is one expected to use fully packed Gnome?

One can make all the statements about Ubuntu being used as a server and Debian as a desktop but they don't mean very much. Of course they are. I never intended my claims to be denying such obvious facts. They were rather a simple generalization that Ubuntu is relatively easier to use than Debian is. From such a rough generalization, I then inferred that "Debian is more for servers." You can certainly disagree with this last point, but that obviously wasn't what I was mainly concerned with.

[snowpine]

Sorry, you're right. I did get confused. My apologies :?

No worries. :)

For most people, using Debian Stable will not cut it.

Why not? What's wrong with Debian Stable?

I think that should explain the point I was trying to make. Debian is not trying to make things easier for the desktop users, at least not to the extent of Ubuntu and Mint. Even if Debian users think there is no difference in usability, some people may find a difference and that could be a huge one.

I disagree because I think different distros try "to make things easier for the desktop users" in different ways. Debian tries to make things easy for desktop (and server) users by releasing a super-stable distro with as few bugs as possible.

If Distro A is ultra-reliable and requires a minimum of upkeep over time, then I would define that distro as "easy" from a certain perspective. Conversely, if a Distro B is super-easy for Grandma to install, but crashes constantly and requires frequent updates, then is that distro truly "easy?"

My point was simply to say that because Debian does not customize its desktop environment installation, it is making the setup process difficult for some, or perhaps many, desktop users. If you're just starting out using Linux for the first time, how would you know what to install in addition to xorg, gdm, and gnome-core? Or is one expected to use fully packed Gnome?

I see your argument here, but you are falsely equating "shallow learning curve" with "desktop" and "steep learning curve" with "server." If somebody has a really easy time setting up Ubuntu Server, that doesn't make Ubuntu Server a "desktop distro," and conversely if an advanced user installs Gentoo on his gaming desktop, that doesn't make Gentoo a "server distro."

An analogy is automatic vs. manual transmission. Driving stick shift may have a steeper learning curve for the average beginning driver, but does that mean "manual transmission is designed for the race track, not the road?" Of course not.

Apart from your misuse of the words "server" and "desktop," however, I would have to agree with you that, yes, some distributions are easier than others for certain types of user, and Ubuntu is among the easiest of all. I don't think I ever contested that (again, you may be confusing me with another poster).

[areteichi]

Yeah, you're right to point out that my use of 'server' and 'desktop' wasn't very appropriate. We can just drop that distinction.

I was really only expressing my opinion that Debian wasn't as 'easy' as Ubuntu (in terms of simplicity of installation) based on my past experiences with using both. I was therefore suggesting that it might perhaps be more helpful for novice users if Debian users admit its relative difficulty rather than just saying "Debian is no more difficult than Ubuntu."

Given that I'm usually considered quite competent with computers among my friends, I don't think it's just a few grandmas who find Ubuntu easier than Debian :D

[snowpine]

I was really only expressing my opinion that Debian wasn't as 'easy' as Ubuntu (in terms of simplicity of installation) based on my past experiences with using both. I was therefore suggesting that it might perhaps be more helpful for novice users if Debian users admit its relative difficulty rather than just saying "Debian is no more difficult than Ubuntu."

Your opinion is valid, but you have to understand that the opinion of Debian users is equally valid. Not everybody has a positive experience with Ubuntu, and what comes easily to you might be difficult for someone else. :)

[Hur Dur]

I know people are going to flame me for this , I don't like Ubuntu because it is bit too easy .

So is Debian. The net install is extremely straightforward, even my cousin who can barely use Windows properly got through the install with no problems. Ubuntu can be as easy or as hard as you want it to be. Too easy for you? Use CLI.

I do agree on Debian being much more stable.

On Topic: I prefer Debian for stability, and how light it is. Ubuntu is a much younger distro, so it has a lot more bugs than Debian. That is not to say that Debian does not have bugs, or doesn't crash, but it is not a regular occurrence. I was using Debian for about a year, and it only crashed one. Even then, it was just the X server. Debian can run well on 64mb RAM, try doing that with Ubuntu. Even a custom Ubuntu install will not run well on 64mb RAM. Also the fact that it has large repositories, and a huge community. I would like to add that I do not hate Ubuntu, I just choose to not use it until they remove some of the bloat and fix bugs.

[NightwishFan]

So is Debian. The net install is extremely straightforward,

Agreed

Ubuntu can be as easy or as hard as you want it to be. Too easy for you? Use CLI.

I also agree, and do not understand why people say Ubuntu is too easy.

I do agree on Debian being much more stable.

Stable in the Debian way means "unchanging". By that definition most Ubuntu releases can be fairly stable as well. All software has bugs.

On Topic: I prefer Debian for stability, and how light it is. Ubuntu is a much younger distro, so it has a lot more bugs than Debian.

Ubuntu non-lts releases are designed to have newer (always slightly more experimental) features. Same for Debian Testing and Sid, which from my generally match that of Ubuntu. (I would say the volume of visible bugs may be lower, but also the features to match it). Debian Stable I do agree is carefully designed to be a lot more reliable, which is admirable.

That is not to say that Debian does not have bugs, or doesn't crash, but it is not a regular occurrence. I was using Debian for about a year, and it only crashed one.

I can say the same for most Ubuntu releases. It is all what you do, and what hardware you have.

Debian can run well on 64mb RAM, try doing that with Ubuntu. Even a custom Ubuntu install will not run well on 64mb RAM.

I disagree. Certainly Debian does have a more minimal full install. However I found that they perform about the same on low end hardware, and confirmed in Virtualbox. (Xorg with vesa and fluxbox on 64mb ram)

I would like to add that I do not hate Ubuntu, I just choose to not use it until they remove some of the bloat and fix bugs.

Well I am glad you do no hate Ubuntu. Not everything is for everyone. On the contrary I do not hate Debian and use it as well. Especially I am looking forward to the Freebsd port.

Though about the "bloat" Debian's Gnome install probably has more packages than Ubuntu's. It is just Ubuntu has some features that you yourself might not want or use like Ubuntu One. I would have to agree this is a concern of mine as well, but not a pressing one, and not certainly vulgar enough to be labeled as bloat in my humble opinion.

I really just answer as one that uses both and has chosen Ubuntu because they focus on the little things where I like a distro to control. Debian on the other hand packages software in a more flexible way. So it is always hard to choose what to rely on. :)

[areteichi]

Your opinion is valid, but you have to understand that the opinion of Debian users is equally valid. Not everybody has a positive experience with Ubuntu, and what comes easily to you might be difficult for someone else. :)

Well I'm suggesting that it is in fact Debian users who aren't trying to understand those who didn't find their attempt as easy as they were initially told. Instead of merely clinging to one's own experience, one should also listen to the experiences of others.

And please don't accuse me of what I have just said. I first read about Debian and believed that it isn't much more difficult than Ubuntu. After trying, however, I found out that that wasn't really the case. So I had to change my opinion about Debian. My opinion is based on the experiences other users as well as mine, whereas the opinion of Debian users seems to be confined to their own and does not try to account for the ones like mine.

Again, some people could obviously find their experience completely the opposite, where Debian was easier for them than Ubuntu. But what I'm asking of Debian users is simply to observe why people choose to use Ubuntu or Mint instead of Debian.

I'm not here to debate whether "manual transmission is more difficult than the automatic transmission" on absolute terms. Rather, all I'm saying is "manual transmission is generally considered to be more difficult than automatic". I'm generalizing on the reasonable grounds, and stating my case that we don't need people saying "manual transmission is no more difficult than automatic".

As you say, people probably do have mixed and varied experience with a distro. But such extreme relativism doesn't help the new user. I think Debian users are being either dishonest or blind to Debian's higher learning curve.

By not altering their opinion from hearing stories like mine, Debian users seem to be clinging to their own view about what Debian must be. (Again, I'm not denying the possibility that manual transmission can be 'easier' for some. But I'm merely generalizing based on observation and common sense.)

The least they can say is, "I didn't find Debian any more difficult than Ubuntu, but some people apparently found it more difficult. So if you're going to try Debian, it might be a good idea to do a bit of research before actually installing it."

[malspa]

I'm one of those folks who regularly uses both Ubuntu and Debian (and other distros). I don't think either one is "better" than the other; just different. There are pros and cons on each side, but they both work out very well here.

[asifnaz]

I don't really understand what you mean.

I was just pointing that Debian installation was a bit out-dated thus you felt it was built for servers .

[snowpine]

Hope you don't mind if I highlight few comments that struck me:

Well I'm suggesting that it is in fact Debian users who aren't trying to understand those who didn't find their attempt as easy as they were initially told. Instead of merely clinging to one's own experience, one should also listen to the experiences of others... the opinion of Debian users seems to be confined to their own and does not try to account for the ones like mine... what I'm asking of Debian users is simply to observe why people choose to use Ubuntu or Mint instead of Debian... Debian users are being either dishonest or blind to Debian's higher learning curve... By not altering their opinion from hearing stories like mine, Debian users seem to be clinging to their own view about what Debian must be... The least they can say is, "I didn't find Debian any more difficult than Ubuntu, but some people apparently found it more difficult. So if you're going to try Debian, it might be a good idea to do a bit of research before actually installing it."

My experience is the opposite, that Debian users are in fact quite a diverse bunch and have a broad range of opinions. Granted, there a few jerks on the Debian Forums, but there are also a lot of helpful, open-minded people as well.

I am only responsible for my own opinions, so I am not going to defend someone else's opinion by proxy, nor do I claim to speak for all "Ubuntu users" or all "Debian users." (I have extensive experience with each, consider them both to be "easy," and refuse to take sides in a non-existent debate.)

If you feel an individual Debian user gave you bad advice, I'd suggest taking that up personally on the correct forum. Sweeping generalizations about Debian users on an Ubuntu forum aren't likely to change the behaviour of the persons whose behaviour you're trying to change.

[I'mGeorge]

Personally I use both. I find Ubuntu ideal for portable devices like laptops and netbooks while Debian it's more appropriate to use as an OS on fix stations like servers or a PC

[TobiSGD]

I can't hear it anymore that this distro is more user-friendly, or that distro. No single distro can be more user-friendly than the other, because it just depends on the type of user.
I personally use Debian Unstable, and had used Ubuntu before (from 8.04 to 9.10). I don't think that Ubuntu is more user-friendly, and I also don't think that Debian is more user-friendly. There can be no more user-friendly distro than that that fits perfectly my personal needs. I configured Debian so, that it simply does that. I could also have done that with Ubuntu (or any other distro out there), but Ubuntu doesn't fit my needs when it comes to other things.

I think what most people confuse is the difference between user-friendly and newbie-friendly. Of course more people, that are new to Linux, use Ubuntu and Mint, just because these distros were recommended to them as very user-friendly (and here again, I think, in reality newbie-friendly was meant, or "simpler for people that change from Windows"). And having said this, yes I think that Debian is not as newbie-friendly as Ubuntu, just because the newbie wants a GUI for everything, like he is used to from Windows. That in no way means that there are no experienced Ubuntu users, the same as it doesn't mean that there are no newbies using Debian.

What also some people seem to forget is that Debian is not Ubuntu, and vice versa. As Ubuntu-user you can not throw the Debian disc into your drive, install it and than just be as good in it as you were before in Ubuntu, and as Debian user it is the same with Ubuntu. Things are different.
When I then hear "I gave it half an hour, then I threw my Lucid-CD back in" than I personally think that it is not the distro, but the user who failed here. It sounds for me the same like "I gave Linux half an hour, than I threw my Windows-CD back in".
OK, there is more in common between Debian and Ubuntu than Linux and Windows, but they simply are not the same, so don't expect you to successfully handle both equally good, if you are used to only one of the both.

By the way, is there any proof out there that more people change from Ubuntu to Mint than to any other distro?

[Arijan]

I guess this'll not get over soon, won't it?!

Don't say Debian is hard to configure, and Ubuntu isn't. Those who say so, might not have spent the same time with both distros. All of U, remember your beginnings with Windows. I am sure a huge percent of users here had been introduced to computers through the Windows os. So, was it difficult to configure and to learn windows at that time? Was it out of the box?
The major things (and usually all the things) I have to do differently when dealing with Debian are:

1. Configure fstab if non Linux partitions are present (even if U press F1, U'll find enough info on how to do that)
2. Add extra sources (internet is full of Debian sources, and now is the same process on Ubuntu with ppa - U have to add it manually right?)
3. Install graphic proprietary drivers (Who is that man who uses computer and doesn't know the graphic card he bought? If U know the card, than U know the supported driver version - and U find it on the repository. I know, Ubuntu has it's one-click way, so U don't bother - I say out of subjectivity that it is diabolic - sorry but I don't expect of my os to wipe my as* for me).

And that's it for the major stuff, all other things are really the same for both distros in my case - I cannot call Debian difficult just for these 3 things, that one should learn by default when encountering Linux. And what do I get with it: faster, much responsive an more stable os.

OK, there are some cases where Debian won't recognize some hardware no matter what U do, and it can happen to Ubuntu also. But that is quite rare for both.

Ubuntu IS Debian with a heavy makeup. Get over it.

[NightwishFan]

First of all "U" mean "you". Second of all no it is not, they are closely related but generally incompatible. I obviously will not deny the Debian roots. I am glad you like Debian, but you are blinding yourself. I am a Debian user as well I know how both projects work.

[Arijan]

First of all "U" mean "you". Second of all no it is not, they are closely related but generally incompatible. I obviously will not deny the Debian roots. I am glad you like Debian, but you are blinding yourself. I am a Debian user as well I know how both projects work.

You misread my words, and I specifically pointed out (in previous reply) the subjective nature of the post. I posted MY experience, and spoke on MY behalf. My opinion is that only developers are in position to discuss matters as they are; we are users, so we cannot be objective enough (also, all 'this vs that' thing is complete mainstream gibberish). And I wasn't talking about compatibility, but about configuration. I am sure you are a high experienced Debian/Ubuntu user, but your sharp, stingy comments are really unnecessary.


And yes, 'U' means 'You', '@' means 'At', 'D' means 'The'. Am I D only one who uses shortcuts, so U have to clear it out and translate for everyone?

[CharlesA]

And yes, 'U' means 'You', '@' means 'At', 'D' means 'The'. Am I D only one who uses shortcuts, so U have to clear it out and translate for everyone?
Please refrain from using "shorthand" as it makes it hard to understand. Not everyone is a native English speaker.

See here (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy), section 2:

10. Do not shorten your words to acronyms or abbreviations or use URL-shortening services, as is often done when texting or in a Twitter-style update. It is very difficult to read and understand and you are not limited to a small number of characters.

[Arijan]

Please refrain from using "shorthand" as it makes it hard to understand. Not everyone is a native English speaker.

See here (http://ubuntuforums.org/index.php?page=policy), section 2:

Ah, yes! Sorry about that; no problem at all.