why do people shift to debian?

[arnab_das]

i was just wondering why most experienced users shift to debian from conventional linux OSes?

(p.s. i havent used debian, i do understand that ubuntu is based on debian and that it uses its packages)

[descendent87]

For a start I've found it's a lot faster than Ubuntu

[dragos240]

I think it has something to do with "stable packages".

[Cracauer]

Myself, I used to use 32 bit Ubuntu and 64 bit Debian. Mainly to be able to help newish Linux people who, so I thought at the time, should use Ubuntu.

Unfortunately Ubuntu has decided to go radical towards a system that only relies on klickibuntu programs to do anything and actively work against what more professional Unix user use. An example is the bug report I raised about permissions for USB devices being changed so that you couldn't eject them based on group ownership anymore. I filed a formal bug report and it was closed based on "use GNOME programs".

I will not, ever, use setuid root programs, much less setuid root graphical programs, much less setuid root GNOME programs, to eject a USB drive when a non-setuid eject(1) commandline program in combination with the right permissions (have a group for people who can eject things) will do.

Don't get me wrong. Of course I didn't quit over this alone and if I wanted I could fix it with a couple udev rules. But it was an official move. I don't use an OS that makes such moves.

Not that Debian's udev rule changes don't put arrows in my back every second upgrade, too, but at least it's not by design.

[steev182]

Some would say Debian is more 'conventional' a Linux os than others...

[ibuclaw]

And is alot easier to make your own Debian respin, than an Ubuntu respin (which is a constant rat race) - also, your Debian respin will be supported for a *MUCH* longer time than what Ubuntu is supported for.

[J_Stanton]

it makes them feel like more of a geek i guess. to be honest, debian isn't really all that hard to set up. i'm geek enough to do pretty much anything i want in linux, but prefer ubuntu. to me, using debian would be like downgrading, but for other people it is like "graduating". makes me laugh. kind of like,"look at me mommy, i'm using the big boy potty now!"

[blur xc]

i was just wondering why most experienced users shift to debian from conventional linux OSes?

(p.s. i havent used debian, i do understand that ubuntu is based on debian and that it uses its packages)

I'm curious what your definitions are for a convetional and unconventional linux os is?

BM

[days_of_ruin]

Why do people beat dogs?

[cariboo]

I would say of the two Ubuntu is the more unconventional one, whereas Debian is as conventional as you can get, it's boring, but it just plain works.

[arnab_das]

I'm curious what your definitions are for a convetional and unconventional linux os is?

BM

by conventional i mean OSes used by most people. say eg. ubuntu.

[snowpine]

It's like if you had pizza for the first time in your life, with ham and pineapple. You really like ham & pineapple pizza, yum! and you eat it all the time. But then one day, you say "I wonder what plain cheese pizza tastes like."

[urukrama]

Some of the reasons why I moved from Ubuntu to Debian:


It is lighter. A minimal Debian install contains less packages than a minimal Ubuntu install. As I work with old hardware, this means that Debian runs better on my computers, and also allows me to easily build up a system the way I like it.

Debian has a longer release cycle than Ubuntu. I don't want to update every six months, but neither want to be stuck with 3 year old packages if you use LTS releases. Debian Testing is as good as a rolling release if you want it to be.

Debian is more stable. Debian Stable is meant to be very stable, but Debian Testing is (in my experience) very stable too. Debian's main concern is not the latest or greatest, or a great design, but stability. I like a distro who has that as its main focus. Ubuntu's main focus with LTS releases is also not stability, just a longer support cycle (contrary to what is often thought).

I don't use Gnome, so most of the innovations Ubuntu offers are irrelevant to me, as they affect Gnome and sometimes very little else. And some of the innovations that do affect non-Gnome users I really don't like.


I don't have any ill feelings towards Ubuntu. I just realised Debian was a lot closer to what I wanted my OS to be.

[sisco311]

I don't have any ill feelings towards Ubuntu. I just realised <insert any OS here> was a lot closer to what I wanted my OS to be.

this

[doorknob60]

Stability, more customizablity (kinda, Ubuntu chooses defaults for you, Debian lets you choose them. Not that you can't in Ubuntu of course). I don't know, it's more of a build from the ground up distro than Ubuntu, though you can do that in Ubuntu too, it's just Debian is designed more with that in mind. Also, why not? It's fun to try out different distros and see what ones you like. They're both similar, but appeal to different people.

[detroit/zero]

Debian is more stable. Debian Stable is meant to be very stable, but Debian Testing is (in my experience) very stable too.


From my experience, Unstable is more stable than Testing.

[Psumi]

Faster, more stable, etc.

Even the testing version (Squeeze as of now.)

[witeshark17]

Hmm, gonna watch this thread. So far, I'm very happy with Ubuntu :popcorn:

[Psumi]

Hmm, gonna watch this thread. So far, I'm very happy with Ubuntu :popcorn:

We don't care. :| Debian users don't usually care either. if you like a distro other than Debian, fine, go for it.

[swoll1980]

Cause uboontoo iz 4 noobz!!!oneone

[swoll1980]

Faster, more stable, etc.

Even the testing version (Squeeze as of now.)

It's only faster on really crappy computers. I've never had a crash on Ubuntu outside of a development release. You're generalizing.

[beastrace91]

I just recently got done with a week long trip to Debian. It took me nearly a full day to get all my hardware working under Debian - and then it was a pain to get anything recent working under Stable and then Squeeze ended up blowing up on me after a few days... Just my personal experience, but I all not be going back to it any time soon.

That being said - yes I have noticed for gaming at the very least that Ubuntu is slower than most other distros actually. Considering jumping back over to Fedora actually...

~Jeff

[Psumi]

It's only faster on really crappy computers. I've never had a crash on Ubuntu outside of a development release. You're generalizing.

Mine is really crappy, believe me.

[Warpnow]

I use debian stable in a work environment because the packages are just that- stable, and frozen. I don't get an update which might break my system well...hardly ever...

There's a downside, but I'm not looking for bleeding edge on that machine. If it doesn't work when I boot it in the morning, I have roughly one hour to fix it or I fail to do my job. Job has a time limit and if a random update stops my video driver working, the 30 minutes I fix it 1) could stop me from completing my job and 2) Is time I would rather spend not working.

[Warpnow]

It's only faster on really crappy computers. I've never had a crash on Ubuntu outside of a development release. You're generalizing.

Stability is not related to crashing, at least not solely. Ubuntu is a less stable operating system because it changes at greater intervals, thereby increasing the chance of bugs or errors. Debian freezes applications at a much earlier stage and they are more stable for that reason. More tested and "vetted" versions.

[juancarlospaco]

Why not...?

[NightwishFan]

Oddly enough Ubuntu and Debian perform nearly the same on older hardware. (For me, I expected Debian to really rock Ubuntu). I was going to switch over to Debian, I do like the way it is released and the easy way to set up a rolling release. Ubuntu is a bit less hassle and a has some more out of the box polish. I have used Ubuntu for so long, I am not going to switch until I have a real reason to.

May Debian continue to thrive.

[Cracauer]

What speed difference, specifically, do people see between Debian and Ubuntu?

Given same kernel, no messing with parameters and same whatever desktop you use it should feel mostly the same, no?

[cascade9]

i was just wondering why most experienced users shift to debian from conventional linux OSes?

(p.s. i havent used debian, i do understand that ubuntu is based on debian and that it uses its packages)

Personally, I dont think that debian is 'uncoventional'. IMOthat would be LFS (linux from scratch), or one of the sorcerer variants (lunar linux, etc)


Some of the reasons why I moved from Ubuntu to Debian:


It is lighter. A minimal Debian install contains less packages than a minimal Ubuntu install. As I work with old hardware, this means that Debian runs better on my computers, and also allows me to easily build up a system the way I like it.
Debian has a longer release cycle than Ubuntu. I don't want to update every six months, but neither want to be stuck with 3 year old packages if you use LTS releases. Debian Testing is as good as a rolling release if you want it to be.
Debian is more stable. Debian Stable is meant to be very stable, but Debian Testing is (in my experience) very stable too. Debian's main concern is not the latest or greatest, or a great design, but stability. I like a distro who has that as its main focus. Ubuntu's main focus with LTS releases is also not stability, just a longer support cycle (contrary to what is often thought).
I don't use Gnome, so most of the innovations Ubuntu offers are irrelevant to me, as they affect Gnome and sometimes very little else. And some of the innovations that do affect non-Gnome users I really don't like.


I don't have any ill feelings towards Ubuntu. I just realised Debian was a lot closer to what I wanted my OS to be.

+1. To everything. :)




Faster, more stable, etc.

Even the testing version (Squeeze as of now.)
It's only faster on really crappy computers. I've never had a crash on Ubuntu outside of a development release. You're generalizing.

Umm.....no, he isnt. If debian is faster on 'crappy computers' its also faster on newer boxen. Just because you dont feel doesnt mean that other people dont.


What speed difference, specifically, do people see between Debian and Ubuntu?

Given same kernel, no messing with parameters and same whatever desktop you use it should feel mostly the same, no?

Its not just a kernel/desktop thing. The amount of packages makes a difference. I kniow, this isnt exactly 'fair' comparison becuase of Xfce not gnome, but I dont use gnome..ever...so I dont know the figures as well.

A normal xubuntu install runs at about 1100 packages, and with debian Xfce running at about 800 or so. It makes a difference.

In the defence of both parties, the 'doesnt make a difference' and 'yes it does' what one person might notice another will not. Eg- I upgraded my mums computer (XP- yes I know) from P3 800/512MB to AMD 2200+/1GB. I asked her if it ran any better, and she thought about it for a while..."no, not really- maybe a little bit faster to start GIMP" (yes, I'm trying to move her over LOL). Same thing goes for my housemate- from an Athlon 1200/512MB to an Athlon 2100+/1GB- "nope, I see no difference".

In both cases the upgrade felt A Heck Of A Lot Faster to me. Benchmarked faster well. Did they notice? Nope. Would I? Yes.

[Psumi]

Oddly enough Ubuntu and Debian perform nearly the same on older hardware. (For me, I expected Debian to really rock Ubuntu). I was going to switch over to Debian, I do like the way it is released and the easy way to set up a rolling release. Ubuntu is a bit less hassle and a has some more out of the box polish. I have used Ubuntu for so long, I am not going to switch until I have a real reason to.

May Debian continue to thrive.

I love your sig.

[kevCast]

It's better.

[fela]

from conventional linux OSes?

what like Gentoo...Red Hat...Debian...

[malspa]

I started using Debian because I thought it was going to be a huge challenge. Also, since I had been using other Debian-based distros, I wanted to see what the real thing looked like.

I didn't switch to Debian, I just added it to my multi-boot set-up.

For me, it's gotten to the point where any of several distros would be fine for me. There are pros and cons no matter which distro you choose.

I like either Debian Stable or Ubuntu LTS for the long-term. It doesn't really matter. But if I need to do a quick installation, I prefer to use Mepis or Mint.

[Zoot7]

It's better.
Agreed. :)

[arnab_das]

For me, it's gotten to the point where any of several distros would be fine for me.


i would love to be able to say that some day. :)

[NightwishFan]

I love your sig.

It can be removed at your request. Personally I feel advocating Debian is a good thing. It seemed to me like it is hard pressed to find users and volunteers.

[Psumi]

It can be removed at your request. Personally I feel advocating Debian is a good thing. It seemed to me like it is hard pressed to find users and volunteers.

Yeah, take a look at the Debian User forums: http://forums.debian.net

Like a ghost town in comparison to UF.

[yester64]

From what i read on heise.de, Debian is more popular over in germany then in the US.
Especially in the business rather than the desktop market.
Ubuntu seems to be the most popular choice on the desktop.
Not sure really how i can see that. Never tried Debian myself, but i am tempted to do so. But debian seems to have a longer schedule of releases in comparison to ubuntu.

[NightwishFan]

I am a member of Debian forums as well. I go by the user name vbrummond. I post there occasionally but not lately as there is not much discussion.

[Psumi]

But debian seems to have a longer schedule of releases in comparison to ubuntu.

Originally--instead of the current "Two-Year" release schedule--it was released "Whenever it was ready."

[Zoot7]

Originally--instead of the current "Two-Year" release schedule--it was released "Whenever it was ready."
http://mdzlog.alcor.net/2009/07/29/debian-is-not-switching-to-time-based-releases/

The freeze date is to be set in advance, that's all.

[cascade9]

Never tried Debian myself, but i am tempted to do so. But debian seems to have a longer schedule of releases in comparison to ubuntu.

Debian stable is comparable to the Ubuntu LTS versions. Testing is rolling, untill it goes into a 'freeze'. Once the bugs are worked out, the testing version becomes the next stable. Ustable is always rolling.


Originally--instead of the current "Two-Year" release schedule--it was released "Whenever it was ready."

It still is 'whenever its ready'. AFAIK anyway.

[Laxman_prodigy]

I was introduced to linux through Ubuntu and I loved it. No, I still love it.
I can get Ubuntu up and running in almost 1 hour. Ubuntuforums is all I need; while Debianforums is almost like a silent lake.

I installed Debian lenny yesterday and now I am struggling to well:
1) Get my 4.1 Creative sound box to work with my soundblaster. Though I have posted in the Debianforums today. Lets see.

2) I can't play those Apple movies trailers. In Ubuntu, geckomedia player would do; while I don't understand what to do in Debian.

3)I wonder from where I could get those desktop effects to work.


If anybody could help me.

[NightwishFan]

You will struggle a little with compiz. You have to start it manually from the run dialog (or add it to the startup scripts), and none of the plugins are enabled by default, so you need to add them in CCSM.
http://wiki.debian.org/Compiz

As for multimedia, add this repository.
http://debian-multimedia.org/

[cascade9]

1) Get my 4.1 Creative sound box to work with my soundblaster. Though I have posted in the Debianforums today. Lets see.

2) I can't play those Apple movies trailers. In Ubuntu, geckomedia player would do; while I don't understand what to do in Debian.

3)I wonder from where I could get those desktop effects to work.


1- I'm pretty sure I ave to actually go into the mixer and adjust the levels on 'surround' and 'lfe' (and centre for 5.1) to make them work.

If your using lenny, the sound is much more of a pain to get going than it is with squeeze/sid in my expereince. With lenny I have to d/l the drivers from realtek, but with squeeze I dont have to ;)

2- For quicktime files? su-> apt-get install quicktime-utils. I think. I avoid formats like quicktime if at all possible.

3- No idea, I dont use gnome, or compiz. This might help-

http://www.pendrivelinux.com/how-to-install-compiz-fusion-on-debian-lenny/

[Laxman_prodigy]

You will struggle a little with compiz. You have to start it manually from the run dialog (or add it to the startup scripts), and none of the plugins are enabled by default, so you need to add them in CCSM.
http://wiki.debian.org/Compiz

As for multimedia, add this repository.
http://debian-multimedia.org/


Oh, thanks NightwishFan.

I will see about that. Could you help me with configuring the sound as well?

[Frak]

I can run Debian in a VM within Windows and it won't bog down my system as hard as Ubuntu does.

[HermanAB]

Hmm, the first thing I do after installing any version of Linux, is to shut down all the services I don't need running. After that cul, there should be no speed difference between Ubuntu and Debian.

[NightwishFan]

I can only say to try my normal spiel with sound.

Check your mixers with this command for anything too low.

alsamixer -c0

Perhaps update to a newer release like testing, your card might just not be supported.

[Simian Man]

Why do so many Ubuntu users have this idea that somehow Ubuntu is the "default" distribution? It wasn't the first distro by a long shot, and it isn't really all that different from other ones.

Yet many of you ask users of other distros have to explain why they don't just use Ubuntu. I have on several occasions (in real life) told people I use Fedora and the first thing they say is "Why not Ubuntu?".

[Psumi]

while Debianforums is almost like a silent lake.

You're going to the wrong forums.

it's forums.debian.net

[Laxman_prodigy]

You're going to the wrong forums.

it's forums.debian.net


Ah. I was actually talking about this one.:)

[yester64]

You will struggle a little with compiz. You have to start it manually from the run dialog (or add it to the startup scripts), and none of the plugins are enabled by default, so you need to add them in CCSM.
http://wiki.debian.org/Compiz

As for multimedia, add this repository.
http://debian-multimedia.org/

Is that the difference between Ubuntu and Debian? I mean that services are disabled at default?
I still don't comprehend the difference really. They only thing that makes sense to me so far, is that debian is the mother and everything else are children. Well kinda like that.
What would i gain if i run debian?

[Laxman_prodigy]

I can only say to try my normal spiel with sound.

Check your mixers with this command for anything too low.

alsamixer -c0Perhaps update to a newer release like testing, your card might just not be supported.


But I can't get my 4.1 to work with my integrated sigmatel too.

[NightwishFan]

Debian is a community based distro. It is also designed to be universal running on more processor architectures than many other linux systems. It also runs on more than one kernel.

http://www.debian.org/intro/about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian

Overall the goals of the project appeal to me more than Ubuntu's however I am concerned about the here and now. Ubuntu has a consistent full Gnome desktop where Debian still relies on the command line to get it working your way at times. Once you get it installed and working it is great, and very flexible. It is not "difficult" but for example if you install Debian from the Testing CD 1, there is no network manager and no cpu frequency scaling on the disk. A new person might not know how to manage the network to get wireless working to install them. Ethernet should 'just work' though. Mostly issues like that keep me from Debian full time. I would rather have my system cover all the bases for me without having to think about it.

[Luke has no name]

Debian is a community based distro. It is also designed to be universal running on more processor architectures than any other operating system in the world (I think).

http://www.debian.org/intro/about
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian


NetBSD runs on more platforms than Debian.

[NightwishFan]

Yes, you are correct, I will edit my post.

[richs-lxh]

I think it's the average Linux user's intuition to seek clean, pure and organized, and more freedom/control. That's why they use Linux in the first place. It stands to reason that the journey will go through phases as experience increases, gradually getting more minimal in the search for "purity".
ie Ubuntu > Debian > Arch > Bsd/LFS
ie Gnome > Xfce > Fluxbox > Console only

[RedSquirrel]

Personally I feel advocating Debian is a good thing. It seemed to me like it is hard pressed to find users and volunteers.

How did you come to that conclusion? The last time I read anything about the topic, Debian claimed to have 1000 developers. It's my impression the community is reasonably healthy.




Yeah, take a look at the Debian User forums: http://forums.debian.net

Like a ghost town in comparison to UF.

I'm fairly certain that site is unofficial. Otherwise, it would would be forums.debian.org. It's my understanding that most of the discussion takes place on Debian's mailing lists.

I suppose many OS fora will feel somewhat deserted compared to UF (or possibly linuxquestions.org). :)

[NightwishFan]

Compared to others it is a healthy amount. However they always are seeking help with things. Debian has to be a lot of work.

[Psumi]

HI'm fairly certain that site is unofficial. Otherwise, it would would be forums.debian.org. It's my understanding that most of the discussion takes place on Debian's mailing lists.

I suppose many OS fora will feel somewhat deserted compared to UF (or possibly linuxquestions.org). :)

http://www.debian.net redirects to http://www.debian.org

Just so you know.

[RedSquirrel]

http://www.debian.net redirects to http://www.debian.org

Just so you know.
Try: http://forums.debian.org

[Psumi]

Try: http://forums.debian.org

As long as the TLD redirects, I'll assume it's official.

[Zoot7]

I'm fairly certain that site is unofficial. Otherwise, it would would be forums.debian.org. It's my understanding that most of the discussion takes place on Debian's mailing lists.
My understanding is that it is indeed unofficial.

[Cracauer]

Its not just a kernel/desktop thing. The amount of packages makes a difference. I kniow, this isnt exactly 'fair' comparison becuase of Xfce not gnome, but I dont use gnome..ever...so I dont know the figures as well.


I really don't think so. Can you be more specific?

Of course package management itself slows down, and opening a GNOME klickbunti that loads up lots of modules you have installed extra will. But in general? Why would e.g. your web browser or your media encoding be slower?

There could be differences in kernel parameter tuning (namely swappyness) or in what minimum CPU is assumed during compilation, the latter definitely affecting media encoding. But as is I really don't buy it.

[Cracauer]

Yeah, take a look at the Debian User forums: http://forums.debian.net

Like a ghost town in comparison to UF.

Yeah but the tendency isn't in ubuntuforum's favor.

One of the major reason why I started posting on uf regularly is the excellent programming section. There were good, well-informed threads for all levels of programming and for a variety of techniques, languages etc.

This did definitely stop being the case recently, there is a lack of advanced topics. Myself, I attribute this change to what I see as seasoned Unix people (which have a big overlap with experienced programmers) leaving Ubuntu for the same reasons I left it for - trying to force us to use so-called user-friendly complicated gimmicks with questionable security, disabling "old ways" of doing things.

It's not that the music is now playing elsewhere. There is no other place where beginners and advanced users mix as well as with Ubuntu a couple releases back. Ubuntu made the choice to only serve one half of the mix. No more mix. No more force multiplication like they say in the military. Force multiplication beats force addition any day.

[RandomJoe]

I still like Ubuntu, although there are some choices the devs have made in recent versions that I'm not overly fond of. However, I'm no longer using it on my servers.

There were two reasons:

First, my PowerEdge 600SC server flat won't boot the last couple versions' install discs. Discs are fine, and it will boot other distros just fine. Just doesn't like something about the Ubuntu kernel and dies.

Second, Ubuntu dropped ARM5 support just as I bought a couple of ARM5 (Sheeva) based SBCs. Didn't want to be stuck on an old version, so went with Debian.

After starting with it on the SBCs I liked it so much I put it on all the others. (Now running ARM5, PPC and Intel systems.)

[yester64]

I am not sure why or on what facts the question of the topic is based. I can not find any sources for that.
Anyway, from what i gather Debian tends to be more stable but lags periodical releases (stable). Of course you can run testing, but that includes bugs etc..
So in essence. If you like to have a stable system you would run Debian as your first choice.
Since i never installed it, i do not know from first hand experience.

To me, Ubuntu is still the best Linux distro for daily use.

[snowpine]

If I had to use a computer for 1 day, I would install Ubuntu.
If I had to use a computer for 5 years, I would install Debian.

Ubuntu is plug and play, it "just works." But dealing with changes every 6 months gets old.

[Cracauer]

Anyway, from what i gather Debian tends to be more stable but lags periodical releases (stable). Of course you can run testing, but that includes bugs etc..

No, as has been pointed out, Debian-stable actually works out better
than Ubuntu LTS. They are both about even in the "don't break my stuff"
department, but running Debian-stable gives you much less outdated
packages at any average time of the lifespan.

As has also been pointed out, while -testing is more spotty, it and
even -unstable turn out surprisingly usable in practice. Much more so
than Ubuntu betas.

[Psumi]

No, as has been pointed out, Debian-stable actually works out better
than Ubuntu LTS. They are both about even in the "don't break my stuff"
department, but running Debian-stable gives you much less outdated
packages at any average time of the lifespan.

As has also been pointed out, while -testing is more spotty, it and
even -unstable turn out surprisingly usable in practice. Much more so
than Ubuntu betas.

Debian-testing is pretty stable though.

[NightwishFan]

I use sid on any machine I interact with. I install stable on my number crunchers.

[MisfitI38]

i was just wondering why most experienced users shift to debian..
They don't. Your conclusion is flawed.

[Psumi]

They don't. Your conclusion is flawed.

:lolflag:

[ubunterooster]

They don't. Your conclusion is flawed.

I differ. I found from the start Debian-based distros were the simplest. I chose Ubuntu because it had a large community that I knew I would likely need to help me. In another two years, we will likely have no Ubuntu [the Mint on my older sister's PC probably will remain] as we switch to Debian. I do plan to remain on this forum, though.


Many of us want to go back to the basics; naturally Debian.

[exploder]

I see more people and distributions switching to Debian. Ubuntu is alright but it just isn't quite what people really want. Let me explain, people want new versions of Firefox, OpenOffice etc, with Ubuntu you have to wait until the next release to have new applications. Yes, I know there are ppa repos and GetDeb but most people want these as regular updates.

Debian is so flexible that you can easily have stability and current applications effortlessly. Who really wants to reinstall their operating system every 6 months? What value does an LTS release that is frozen in time have? Do you really need to have 3 package managers installed by default?

These are just a few reasons why someone would switch to Debian.

[NightwishFan]

True, there is much flexibility in how Debian can be deployed. It is amazing. I consider it a true and great alternative for any task. I plan on getting some more use out of it on all my desktops. I might adopt it as my sole server OS and finally finish my squid proxy setup.

[ubunterooster]

Yes, all the different package managers made me get a fourth to get things organized

[prodigy_]

Must be out of masochism. Or out of nostalgia for '90s. Or both.

[stmiller]

Debian supports a ton of architectures. Debian stable is pretty amazingly stable. Almost boringly stable. :)

It boots in half the time of Ubuntu on most machines.

[prodigy_]

It boots in half the time of Ubuntu on most machines.
I've yet to see something that boots faster than 10.04 with Plymouth uninstalled. ;-)

[NightwishFan]

Jaunty had epic boot times on my desktop. From Loading Grub.. to GDM was around 7 seconds. Karmic regressed and Lucid may be fast but it sure feels slow. It will probably work nice when released I shall have faith.

[ubunterooster]

@prodigy: "Nostolgia"?!? Sure Debian may be 90's, but ubuntu is 70's
"Masochism", no. Stable experimentationalism, yes.

[uljanow]

Ubuntu seems to introduces some regressions [1]. Import bugfixes that are in Debian haven't made it into lucid yet which will be released in few weeks.



[1] http://qa.ubuntuwire.org/bugs/rcbugs/

[PryGuy]

For a start I've found it's a lot faster than Ubuntu+1 here

[Linuxforall]

If speed is what you are after in a Debian based distro, try out sidux which is the fastest among debian based distros out there.

[hhh]

Let me explain, people want new versions of Firefox...
Although it's easy enough to install Fx on a Debian system, Firefox in the Debian repos is officially rebranded as Iceweasel due to restrictions on the artwork...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_Debi an_project
...so you can't get the latest Fx through Debain. And Iceweasel is only at version 3.5 something, even in sid.

[ubunterooster]

Although it's easy enough to install Fx on a Debian system, Firefox in the Debian repos is officially rebranded as Iceweasel due to restrictions on the artwork...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Corporation_software_rebranded_by_the_Debi an_project
...so you can't get the latest Fx through Debain. And Iceweasel is only at version 3.5 something, even in sid.

Source code compilation is not that difficult

[Zoot7]

Source code compilation is not that difficult
And in the case of Firefox its unnecessary.

wget http://3347-mozilla.voxcdn.com/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.6.3/linux-i686/en-GB/firefox-3.6.3.tar.bz2 && mv firefox-3.6.3.tar.bz2 /opt
cd !$ && tar xvf firefox-3.6.3.tar.bz2 && rm firefox-3.6.3.tar.bz2

Then make yourself the owner of that directory and create a launcher pointing to /opt/firefox/firefox. Then you can just check for updates using the "Check for Updates" option like on Windows.

[ibuclaw]

For Debian, I recommend Icecat (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnuzilla/). Much better than Iceweasel IMO. :)

[ubunterooster]

thx, Zoot. I did not try it that way. :D
Eceryday I learn something...

[blueturtl]

i was just wondering why most experienced users shift to debian from conventional linux OSes?

(p.s. i havent used debian, i do understand that ubuntu is based on debian and that it uses its packages)

Debian and Ubuntu are two sides of the same coin:

Debian:
+ less buggy and therefore less crashy
+ consistently configured, therefore polished
- long release cycle means included software lags a version or two

Ubuntu:
+ better marketing focus and flare
+ always the latest and greatest applications
- short release cycle means releases are often quite buggy

I find Ubuntu and Debian complement each other in an awesome way. I use both depending on which works better in each case.

[cascade9]

I really don't think so. Can you be more specific?

Of course package management itself slows down, and opening a GNOME klickbunti that loads up lots of modules you have installed extra will. But in general? Why would e.g. your web browser or your media encoding be slower?

There could be differences in kernel parameter tuning (namely swappyness) or in what minimum CPU is assumed during compilation, the latter definitely affecting media encoding. But as is I really don't buy it.

O.K., I should have worded what I said better in some ways.....and to be honest I'm not sure if linux distros in general have the same 'install more, it goes slower' like windows (if you or anybody else has any hard data on that then I'd like to see it).

Maybe I should have said 'loaded modules' or something like that.

Yes, the way that the kernel is complied/parameters will make a difference as well.

Anyway, besides being my experience that there is a big difference between Debian Xfce and Xubuntu, its not just me-


The overall system feels much more stable than the Xubuntu 9.04 I installed, but the Xubuntu system provided more functionality for new users, like the ability to easily install proprietary drivers. Debian was also faster and more lightweight than Xubuntu and, as a result, ran much better on this older hardware. Compared to Debian, Xubuntu was slow and sluggish, even to the point of being frustrating. Debian, on the other hand, remained snappy and responsive.http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090427#feature

I noticed the difference even on hardware that wasn't exactly 'low-end', but its much more noticeable on low end hardware- on my P3/866, 384MB (376MB usable), Intel i810 graphics, sound and network- Xubuntu 9.04 felt very slow and unresponsive, Debian Xfce felt a lot faster. It wasnt a running out of RAM issue, as it would happen with plenty of free RAM.

I accept that Xubuntu 9.04 uses a different kernel, different version of Xfce, different Xorg, etc.. All newer versions on Xubntu IIRC. The same box with Sidux (current) is faster than Xubuntu 9.04- and its got newer versions of all the above.

It did make a difference to web browsing, for sure. I never tried encoding anything on any of the OSes I've tried on that tired old computer, I've got a decent one that I do my ripping on- that computer is a 'tester' and when its not testing stuff, it sits downstairs in my, heh heh, chillout room ;)

BTW, there is a follow up to the article listed above, using a minimal install of Xubuntu 9.04-

http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090504

*Edit- I also admit to beign wrong about the default number of packages install on both Debian XFce and Xubuntu. Not that it really changes my point ;)

[XubuRoxMySox]

It really depends on what you need. If stability is the absolute priority above all else, Debian offers the best of it in Debian Stable (currently "Lenny," soon "Squeeze"). It also offers a Testing branch which I (and alot of other users) find equally stable, but newer apps), then the Unstable branch ("Sid") from which Ubuntu takes the majority of its stuff - except for 10.04, which for the first time in Ubuntu history as far as I know, is being built on Debian Testing). There's even an Experimental branch for the really high risk fun.

It has its pros and cons, though, no matter which Debian branch you use:

Pros: Lighter weight, greater stability even in Sid than Ubuntu (IMO), hyoooge repositories, community-based (much more so than Ubuntu), can be easily made rolling release if you want it, build-your-own (but you have to know what you want and need ahead of time).

Cons: No proprietary drivers (you can get them, but you have to look around for them, add repositories, etc), not as likely to "just work" right out of the box without alot more tweaking and Googling and configuring.

For newbies (and kinda-sorta newbies like me) it's nice to have most of that mysterious unknown stuff done for me "in advance." That's the beauty - and the danger - of Ubuntu. Updates are at least as likely to b0rk a working system in Ubuntu as they might be in Debian Sid or Experimental. An Update Manager that lets you "filter out" the bad updates and accept only the safest ones is the only way to go for newbies and kinda-sorta newbies. IMO, Linux Mint's Updater fits that bill perfectly, by assigning levels to available updates and giving the user the choice of whether or not to install the riskier ones.

I've read that lately it's getting harder and harder to fork Ubuntu. I think alot of developers are switching to a Debian base because it's alot easier to build from.

Still so much to learn, but enjoying the ride,
Robin

[kaivalagi]

Do the majority really switch to Debian? I'm not being sarcastic, it's just a question of proof? Is it assumed because of posts in this forum? Many Ubuntu->Debian users will stay on these forums because of the common ground, maybe that makes it seem this way?

I switched to Arch...for speed, cutting edge and rolling release reasons...and I know plenty of others that switched from Ubuntu also.

The reason for users switching to Debian however would be more about stability, not the latest risky packages, a truly open source distro etc.

I think this discussion should really be more about what people have left behind and why rather than where they've headed to...

Just my 2 pence

[hhh]

@kaivalagi, my guess would be that Ubuntu users would seek out Debian rather than another distro first because of familiarity, especially with package management.

Ditto with you though that rolling releases is a big, big reason for some, myself included. I decided I'd rather work out the kinks of a new OS once and then update packages periodically rather than go through the SNAFU of working out the kinks every six months if I wanted to stay current with Ubuntu. (I went with sidux rather than Arch simply because I discovered that my wireless adapter runs faster using sidux, if speakeasy.net/speedtest is to be believed. Familiar package management via apt was a bonus. The sidux devs do a great job at keeping sid stable.)

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been moved to recurring discussions.

[snowpine]

Arch is popular too, no doubt about it. :) I think a lot of Arch converts have been made to feel unwelcome here on Ubuntu Forums lately :( whereas Debian people are better tolerated due to the common ground.

There is a big difference between using Arch as a rolling release vs. Debian Sid/Testing as rolling release: Arch exists only as a rolling release. It is designed to be stable and usable as a "pure" rolling release distro, end of story. It's possible to use Debian as a rolling release, too, but the "purpose" of Sid--and especially Testing--is to eventually produce the next Stable release. So the rolling release people are a fragment of the community, instead of the entire community as with Arch. There is a perception (right or wrong) that Sid is supposed to break from time to time (it is named after the kid in Toy Story who breaks his toys), while Arch is not supposed to break, even though in many cases its packages are newer.

Neither approach is better in my opinion, just a difference to be aware of if you're trying to decide which to choose. :)

[kaivalagi]

So that's 3 totally different reasons people switch from Ubuntu so far...then there's Gentoo for the nutters who have waaaay too much time on their hands and want the ordeal of overlays (kidding gentoo users, we all love you!) and more...

edit: I always feel welcome here, I like the community (for the most part)...why have some Arch users been made to feel unwelcome do you think? I must admit some arch users on the arch forums can be a little egotistical but that can also be a general Linux/Mac user trait too...

[Frak]

I've been using Debian over Ubuntu for political reasons, mostly. Sure the rolling release is great, but I'm tired of hearing "LTS is stable" and then when people say "LTS isn't stable" the people who stated the former come back and say "We never said it was stable". Same thing with the "We're democratic" and then come back with "This isn't a vote".

[NightwishFan]

I like using Ubuntu because it is more like a finished product, however I think I will give Debian a go on my laptop. One thing is audio, even if it is easy I would rather not have to configure pulse. ;)

I could use Alsa, but pulse has the "150%" volume feature that is helpful for my laptop speakers.

Also, say I wanted to use compiz, there is no GUI to turn it on. (That I know of). I am quite capable of manually using it, but why should it have to? Things like that keep me off of it for desktop use. Today the command line should be a tool, not a requirement. Best of both worlds.

In case anyone is wondering, the software center is ported to Debian, which is interesting.

Edit: I could use KDE which is more GUI centric, but there is no good QT package managers.

[ubunterooster]

Political reasons also have me wondering whether to switch to Gobuntu or Debian in the coming months. Here's how I view the main branches:
Fedora/Red Hat group. NSA helped (instant creep-out)

Mandriva. All distros coming from it feel like plastic for some reason.

SUSE. Simply put, I HATED YAST THE FIRST (and every) TIME I TOUCHED IT!

Slackware/Gentoo like distros. And how am I going to convert others like this? "First this is CLI. He's going to know you better than your mother.... Wait, come back!" Riiight.

Debian. Synaptic helps with dependencies. That, along with the GUI, won me.

[kaivalagi]

Political reasons also have me wondering whether to switch to Gobuntu or Debian in the coming months. Here's how I view the main branches:
Fedora/Red Hat group. NSA helped (instant creep-out)

Mandriva. All distros coming from it feel like plastic for some reason.

SUSE. Simply put, I HATED YAST THE FIRST (and every) TIME I TOUCHED IT!

Slackware/Gentoo like distros. And how am I going to convert others like this? "First this is CLI. He's going to know you better than your mother.... Wait, come back!" Riiight.

Debian. Synaptic helps with dependencies. That, along with the GUI, won me.

Seriously give Arch a look, have a read of the beginners guide in the Arch wiki to see what would be entailed...the wiki and the forums are of great help too once you have a working system. Once your system is the way you want it's all a breeze and you'll have no 6 monthly headaches :)

[ubunterooster]

I will. Arch itself I have never tried yet. [I've tried 38 different distros]

[FuturePilot]

Because people don't like "the direction" Ubuntu is headed, whatever that means. Watch when 10.04 is released, there will be a ton of threads like "I don't like the window button placement, I'm switching to Debian!!!":rolleyes:

[gnupipe]

I don't use debian because it's not better than ubuntu.

[Frak]

Political reasons also have me wondering whether to switch to Gobuntu or Debian in the coming months. Here's how I view the main branches:
Fedora/Red Hat group. NSA helped (instant creep-out)

Those NSA packages are part of the core of just about every Linux distribution (except the ones built to be un-safe for security learning purposes).

I would still say Fedora and then OpenSUSE. They're both developed by good corporations (that make a profit). I don't know what's not to like about OpenSUSE. Besides that, the RPM system used by Fedora and OpenSUSE are years ahead of anything apt or aptitude has to offer.

[ubunterooster]

I hate the purple, the Macification, stuff like that. They change too much.

[ubunterooster]

Those NSA packages are part of the core of just about every Linux distribution (except the ones built to be un-safe for security learning purposes).

I would still say Fedora and then OpenSUSE. They're both developed by good corporations (that make a profit). I don't know what's not to like about OpenSUSE. Besides that, the RPM system used by Fedora and OpenSUSE are years ahead of anything apt or aptitude has to offer.
I was referring to the NSA built firewall. I prefer that which is not done by government; not that all is bad. BTW,I have met those who want me to make a derivative w/ ALL gov parts removed

I don't use debian because it's not better than ubuntu.
Not very descriptive. Have you tried Debian?

[Frak]

BTW,I have met those who want me to make a derivative w/ ALL gov parts removed

You'd have the most insecure distribution ever. Just so you know, the source code for the parts ARE NOT OBFUSCATED and ARE OPEN SOURCE. There is nothing wrong with the firewall, as it has been audited many times over.

Plus, if you wanted to remove all the government parts, you'd be removing the Linux kernel itself.

[kaivalagi]

Besides that, the RPM system used by Fedora and OpenSUSE are years ahead of anything apt or aptitude has to offer.
Please explain your reasoning...I am unbiased, I prefer pacman and the AUR in Arch :)

[DrMelon]

The secret is that the installer progress bar is pinky-red.

[gnupipe]

I was referring to the NSA built firewall. I prefer that which is not done by government; not that all is bad. BTW,I have met those who want me to make a derivative w/ ALL gov parts removed

Not very descriptive. Have you tried Debian?

I have tried Debian (latest stable version) about one month ago and it was buggier than ubuntu.

[Frak]

Please explain your reasoning...I am unbiased, I prefer pacman and the AUR in Arch :)
Custom dependencies without repackages, doesn't lock when dependencies aren't met, supports delta patches (imagine installing an update to the Linux kernel where the entire update was only 117KB in size), and doesn't read the database every time it installs a single package.

Of course, that isn't everything. Everything I listed is something apt does not offer. IMHO those are very important, and it makes DPMS look old.

[mthei]

To be clear, and unless I've been misunderstanding all these years, it is SELinux that has been developed by the NSA, not the firewall. SELinux can be easily disabled and/or removed.

The firewall that appears in Red Hat/Fedora is only a graphical front end to control netfilter/iptables. It's not different than Firestarter or Guarddog (aside from the appearance and some features, obviously).


I don't have much to say about preferring Debian over Ubuntu. I've used both, but prefer Debian, although I'd have no issue against using Ubuntu again.


Edit: I clearly took too long to finish this reply, but the first two semi-paragraphs were in response to something mentioned on the previous page.

[Frak]

To be clear, and unless I've been misunderstanding all these years, it is SELinux that has been developed by the NSA, not the firewall. SELinux can be easily disabled and/or removed.

The firewall that appears in Red Hat/Fedora is only a graphical front end to control netfilter/iptables. It's not different than Firestarter or Guarddog (aside from the appearance and some features, obviously).

This is correct. SELinux can be disabled, not removed, but the process is simple enough.

[Laxman_prodigy]

I have tried Debian (latest stable version) about one month ago and it was buggier than ubuntu.


Then, I am sure you are lying.:lolflag:

[Simian Man]

I'd rather have the security bits in my OS developed by people who work for the NSA and know what the hell they are doing than some random Debian packager hacking around (http://digitaloffense.net/tools/debian-openssl/) with code they don't understand.

But maybe that's just me.

[kaivalagi]

Custom dependencies without repackages, doesn't lock when dependencies aren't met, supports delta patches (imagine installing an update to the Linux kernel where the entire update was only 117KB in size), and doesn't read the database every time it installs a single package.

Of course, that isn't everything. Everything I listed is something apt does not offer. IMHO those are very important, and it makes DPMS look old.

I see, package patching is very nice! Is there a rolling release redhat/suse derivative by any chance? Just curious...

[kaivalagi]

I'd rather have the security bits in my OS developed by people who work for the NSA and know what the hell they are doing than some random Debian packager hacking around (http://digitaloffense.net/tools/debian-openssl/) with code they don't understand.

But maybe that's just me.

I remember that, it caused major panic if I remember rightly :)

Still one developer can't be blamed, surely there should be a QA/vetting process too...

[Frak]

I see, package patching is very nice! Is there a rolling release redhat/suse derivative by any chance? Just curious...
Fedora is fairly rolling release. It's cutting edge without being rolling release. They ship when they believe the package is stable enough, so for instance, Firefox 3.6 shipped about 3 days after released. Fedora itself is heavily updated, receiving several updates per day (the average for this last week was 7 per day for me).

[techunit]

I think they crave a new challenge, a new OS that they have to work on to get working correctly.

[Psumi]

I think they crave a new challenge, a new OS that they have to work on to get working correctly.

I have to work to get it working correctly? I have to work just as hard as I have to with ubuntu's mini.iso with debian's mini.iso. :|

[kaivalagi]

Fedora is fairly rolling release. It's cutting edge without being rolling release. They ship when they believe the package is stable enough, so for instance, Firefox 3.6 shipped about 3 days after released. Fedora itself is heavily updated, receiving several updates per day (the average for this last week was 7 per day for me).

I assume though that every 6 months or so there is a whopper of an upgrade? I don't wont any upgrade "bumps" other than the necessary ones for kernel updates if that makes sense, hence using Arch right now....

[haddog]

I almost bit the bullet and installed the latest Debian Server but I decided to go with Ubuntu Server 10.04 because I really like ubuntu.

[snowpine]

Move 'em out, round 'em up, Rawhide (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Rawhide)!

[NightwishFan]

RPM is interesting but Debian packages seem (to me) to be easier to just slap on a full upgrade and keep everything going. I really do not 'prefer' either though. I just look for a polished distro.

[impert]

To get away from futile threads in the Ubuntu forums?

[Psumi]

to get away from futile threads in the ubuntu forums?

+9001

[ophion]

To get away from futile threads in the Ubuntu forums?

We have a winner!

[Cracauer]

Do the majority really switch to Debian? I'm not being sarcastic, it's just a question of proof? Is it assumed because of posts in this forum? Many Ubuntu->Debian users will stay on these forums because of the common ground, maybe that makes it seem this way?


Myself I base this mainly on a medium-size group I observe myself, which was mostly Ubuntu and is now all Debian. And I am on a whole bunch of Internet forums where "which Linux?" or "which OS?" comes up often. Two years ago everybody was recommending Ubuntu. Not anymore. We are back to random recommendations and a lot of people specifically mention that they used to recommend Ubuntu but don't anymore.

I think there is no doubt that those who converted from Ubuntu to Debian stay here and continue to post. Of course they don't spend all day bashing Ubuntu.

[lemuriaX]

My thought is: if you really like a distro and you know that it is built upon another distro, isn't it logical for folks who are curious to explore the parent distro at some point?

I've learned a lot about Ubuntu from experimenting with Debian, but I still mostly use Ubuntu right now.

[teh603]

I think they crave a new challenge, a new OS that they have to work on to get working correctly.Gotta second this one. I've had people tell me that Ubuntu is too much like Vista or Win7 in that too much hardware works when you first install it.

[ubunterooster]

@nightwish: RPMs could be made to be as simple as .DEBs but I read that there may be reasons in which you do not want to fulfill all dependencies. Confusing. Maybe it has something to do with proprietary pakages?

[Artemis3]

Fear not, there is always people like me who ditched Debian for Ubuntu ^_^

[NightwishFan]

For example in OpenSUSE nearly everything in Gnome depends on beagle, and I think you could safely remove beagle and leave everything, even though it is dependent on it. I have not used RPM based distros too much. I do know they have a cool upgrade system where you can download only the changes in a package.

[Frak]

@nightwish: RPMs could be made to be as simple as .DEBs but I read that there may be reasons in which you do not want to fulfill all dependencies. Confusing. Maybe it has something to do with proprietary pakages?
RPMs are a billion times easier to create than a DEB. RPMs just need a single SPEC file, while DEBs require endless levels of directories full of example files and shortcuts to ease the process. RPMs are superior in simplicity.

The reasons you do not always need to fulfill the dependencies are when:
1) The dependency hasn't been packaged yet, has been installed manually, or is not available at all, but is not a required part of the application.

2) To reduce library bloat on an application.

3) To avoid dependency hell. You can choose to download all available dependencies, and then continue installation, ignoring cyclic dependencies.

[ibuclaw]

RPMs are a billion times easier to create than a DEB. RPMs just need a single SPEC file, while DEBs require endless levels of directories full of example files and shortcuts to ease the process. RPMs are superior in simplicity.


I wouldn't exactly say endless - the bare minimum you need is a changelog, control, and a rules file. The rest is either part of the debian standards policy, or optional.

[ubunterooster]

Thanks, ibuclaw and Frak

[J_Stanton]

I've had people tell me that Ubuntu is too much like Vista or Win7 in that too much hardware works when you first install it.

we can't have that now, can we? after all, if your stuff just works, then it's not worth using.

[J_Stanton]

Fear not, there is always people like me who ditched Debian for Ubuntu ^_^

nothing wrong with that. i could do linux from scratch if i wanted, but choose ubuntu because of everything about it.

[ubunterooster]

It is expected not to stay in one place. My question: how long do they stay with Debian? :popcorn

[haddog]

My thought is: if you really like a distro and you know that it is built upon another distro, isn't it logical for folks who are curious to explore the parent distro at some point?

I've learned a lot about Ubuntu from experimenting with Debian, but I still mostly use Ubuntu right now.

Good comments. I agree. I would say I have more in common on forums with Debian users than say Fedora or Suse users.

[kaivalagi]

I think there is no doubt that those who converted from Ubuntu to Debian stay here and continue to post. Of course they don't spend all day bashing Ubuntu.

I don't bash Ubuntu and I'm now using Arch, Ubuntu is a great distro, it got me back in Linux after a few years away...

Ubuntu just isn't my thing anymore....just like a lot of Debian users think but for difference reasons.

With so many distros no one can say one is better than the other, all have pros and cons which attract different users and their wants and needs.

But personally I think Arch is excellent :p

[Berk]

I now use Debian because Crunchbang has gone to Debian.
To be honest, I've not noticed much difference really, it's just better than my bodged together openbox install on Ubuntu. :D
I'm also still using Ubuntu on my main laptop.

[ibuclaw]

I now use Debian because Crunchbang has gone to Debian.
To be honest, I've not noticed much difference really, it's just better than my bodged together openbox install on Ubuntu. :D
I'm also still using Ubuntu on my main laptop.

I'm currently bodging together an openbox install on Ubuntu for Zenix. :)

What do you think?

[Psumi]

I'm currently bodging together an openbox install on Ubuntu for Zenix. :)

What do you think?

Toss the panel.

Openbox doesn't need one to be honest, if you have menu package installed.

If you're using Nitrogen, I'm assuming you aren't using PCManFM to manage the desktop, I suggest not doing that, as PCManFM does a good job as is.

[Penguin Guy]

One reason would be that Ubuntu makes a new release every six months, even if the new release is still buggy. Debian, on the other hand, only makes a release once it's ready - this obviously provides a lot more stability for users.

[koenn]

I wouldn't exactly say endless - the bare minimum you need is a changelog, control, and a rules file. The rest is either part of the debian standards policy, or optional.

the absolute bare minimum is just a control file (and a tree with the files you're going to install, if any).

[koenn]

The reasons you do not always need to fulfill the dependencies are when:
1) The dependency hasn't been packaged yet, has been installed manually, or is not available at all, but is not a required part of the application.

2) To reduce library bloat on an application.

3) To avoid dependency hell. You can choose to download all available dependencies, and then continue installation, ignoring cyclic dependencies.
That sounds kinda wrong.

if a dependency is not a required part of the application, is mere bloat, or if the dependency is not available at all, a package shouldn't depend on it.
If such cases actually exist, I'd think this is an error on the part of the packager or a weird policy on the part of the distribution, rather than a "flaw" in the package management software.

If a dependency is already available because it has been installed manually, you can make the package management system aware of this so it can recognize the dependency as satisfied.

Besides that, it is possible to ignore missing dependencies and force the installation of a package no matter what. You do this by using dpkg directly, which offers a number of extra options that are not accessible through its front-ends, apt, aptitude, etc.

That's also how you fix that so-called dependency hell, although in my experience, both on debian and ubuntu, you only run into this sort of thing if you're trying to install from repos other (newer) than the release you're running, or something equally unsupported.

[urukrama]

if a dependency is not a required part of the application, is mere bloat, or if the dependency is not available at all, a package shouldn't depend on it.

Indeed. I think a lot of people mistake the "recommended" packages (in aptitude and Synaptic) for dependencies, possibly because in some distributions, like Ubuntu, Synaptic is configured by default to install the recommended packages automatically, which gives the impression that on that distro those applications are packaged with a lot more dependencies than on other distros.

[ibuclaw]

Toss the panel.

Openbox doesn't need one to be honest, if you have menu package installed.

Panel is more out of convenience for me when working with maximised applications. (The icon in the bottom right is an area that forwards mouse events to the window manager, much like how tint2's wm_menu works, and the desktop switcher is capable of switching desktops using scroll wheel).


If you're using Nitrogen, I'm assuming you aren't using PCManFM to manage the desktop, I suggest not doing that, as PCManFM does a good job as is.

Ah, cheers, didn't know PCManFM could do that... that gains back 20MB of disk space loosing thunar + nitrogen. :)

Still wondering why HAL isn't working... though I guess it's got something to do with Ubuntu turning it off.

(edit): /etc/rc.local ftw, but I still find it to be rather silly.

[Zoot7]

Besides that, it is possible to ignore missing dependencies and force the installation of a package no matter what. You do this by using dpkg directly, which offers a number of extra options that are not accessible through its front-ends, apt, aptitude, etc.
What's a VERY useful command in that regard is aptitude keep-all. What this does is reset the status of packages that are tagged for removal, upgrade etc.
Take an example - metapackages, the most annoying type of package with apt. Say you install the metapackage to install the whole of gnome with a single command, this is great in the sense that its convenient but it pulls in a whole pile of crud that everybody might not need such as evolution, gnome-games etc.
Then if you remove something like gnome-games or indeed evolution, apt wants to pull the whole desktop environment out along with it thanks to the metapackage. Solution, run apt-get remove gnome to "surgically" remove the metapackage, and then when it complains tellling you the whole desktop environment is "no longer required" run aptitude keep-all. The meta package is gone and the rest of the stuff that you actually want in the case of gnome is left untouched, then you can pull out the stuff you don't want. Or alternatively, avoid metapackages like gnome or gnome-desktop-environment in the first place.
You can also tell it to "ignore" broken packages with aptitude keep <package name> afaik.


Indeed. I think a lot of people mistake the "recommended" packages (in aptitude and Synaptic) for dependencies, possibly because in some distributions, like Ubuntu, Synaptic is configured by default to install the recommended packages automatically, which gives the impression that on that distro those applications are packaged with a lot more dependencies than on other distros.
That can be easily rectified by putting the following in /etc/apt/apt.conf.

APT::Install-Recommends "false";
APT::Install-Suggests "false";

With those two tricks in mind, I don't think apt is *that* bad. However it's still slower than the likes of say yum or pacman. And there's also the problem if you want to install App X which says it wants dependency Y, but you know Y isn't required, and thus don't want to install it. There's a convoluted way around that, but it's not as easy as it is with other package managers like pacman.

[Frak]

That sounds kinda wrong.

if a dependency is not a required part of the application, is mere bloat, or if the dependency is not available at all, a package shouldn't depend on it.
If such cases actually exist, I'd think this is an error on the part of the packager or a weird policy on the part of the distribution, rather than a "flaw" in the package management software.

If a dependency is already available because it has been installed manually, you can make the package management system aware of this so it can recognize the dependency as satisfied.

Besides that, it is possible to ignore missing dependencies and force the installation of a package no matter what. You do this by using dpkg directly, which offers a number of extra options that are not accessible through its front-ends, apt, aptitude, etc.

That's also how you fix that so-called dependency hell, although in my experience, both on debian and ubuntu, you only run into this sort of thing if you're trying to install from repos other (newer) than the release you're running, or something equally unsupported.


Indeed. I think a lot of people mistake the "recommended" packages (in aptitude and Synaptic) for dependencies, possibly because in some distributions, like Ubuntu, Synaptic is configured by default to install the recommended packages automatically, which gives the impression that on that distro those applications are packaged with a lot more dependencies than on other distros.

I would love to say that you are both right, but many Ubuntu packages list what should be "recommended" as "required". The classic example is Wine. Wine does not require any of the dependencies Ubuntu lists as requirements. If you try to install it without dependencies, dpkg will lock the application database and gripe that a package is broken. While this can be fixed, you must jump through way more hoops than if you just made "ignore depends" an option.

[koenn]

I would love to say that you are both right, but many Ubuntu packages list what should be "recommended" as "required". The classic example is Wine. Wine does not require any of the dependencies Ubuntu lists as requirements. ...

You'd have to read that post of mine in the context of what you said earlier:

the RPM system used by Fedora and OpenSUSE are years ahead of anything apt or aptitude has to offer.
My point remains that "unnecessary dependencies" are an error on the part of the packager or a weird policy on the part of the distribution, rather than a "flaw" in the package management software.

So if Ubuntu packages Wine with a load of dependencies it doesn't need, that's hardly an 'apt' problem, that's a decision by the maintainer. But I'll agree that I've seen similar things in other Ubuntu packages.

[koenn]

Then if you remove something like gnome-games or indeed evolution, apt wants to pull the whole desktop environment out along with it thanks to the metapackage. ... tellling you the whole desktop environment is "no longer required" ...
That would only be the case when you do "autoremove", right ? cause removing a package would normally not remove the packages it depends on.

But yes, metapackages do have their downsides, and they are too often used to automatically install a collection of packages, where tasks would probably be a more appropriate solution.

[urukrama]

The classic example is Wine. Wine does not require any of the dependencies Ubuntu lists as requirements.

This is a bit of a false example, I believe. "Wine" is a metapackage that pulls in a few other things, including the actual wine executable, called "wine-bin", which does not have all those added dependencies. The Debian package description (http://packages.debian.org/squeeze/wine) mentions this: "This is a dummy package that depends on the standard Wine components."

You could run wine without all the extras if you desire, but then you need to install a different package. This has nothing to do with apt, but with the choice of the developers who packaged these applications (and Debian devs often make different choices when it comes to packaging).

[Zoot7]

That would only be the case when you do "autoremove", right ? cause removing a package would normally not remove the packages it depends on.
In the case of using apt-get yes. However aptitude due to the fact that it removes dependencies aswell will pull the whole shebang out with it.


I would love to say that you are both right, but many Ubuntu packages list what should be "recommended" as "required". The classic example is Wine. Wine does not require any of the dependencies Ubuntu lists as requirements. If you try to install it without dependencies, dpkg will lock the application database and gripe that a package is broken. While this can be fixed, you must jump through way more hoops than if you just made "ignore depends" an option.
Wine is definitely a great example. AFAIK an aptitude keep-all will sort out that for you after forcing the install of it. But definitely in general, a --no-depends like option or its equilivent is something apt could really do with.

[koenn]

But definitely in general, a --no-depends like option or its equilivent is something apt could really do with.
apt is just a front-end that gets files from repos and such. It runs dpkg to actually install and configure the software. and dpkg has, amongst others,
dpkg --force-depends Turn all dependency problems into warnings


An other way of looking at it : apt is your interface to the repo's. Having consistent repo's has always been one of the goals in Debian. If there are dependency-related problems, they should be fixed in the repository (and meanwhile, you use dpkg to troubleshoot).
IIRC, rpm is much more an installer for "any rpm" and far less repo-oriented.

If you just want to unpack a .deb file, you shouldn't use apt, you can do that with ar (or that GUI archive manager).

[Zoot7]

apt is just a front-end that gets files from repos and such. It runs dpkg to actually install and configure the software. and dpkg has, amongst others,
dpkg --force-depends Turn all dependency problems into warnings


An other way of looking at it : apt is your interface to the repo's. Having consistent repo's has always been one of the goals in Debian. If there are dependency-related problems, they should be fixed in the repository (and meanwhile, you use dpkg to troubleshoot).
What I meant was an install with no dependency option with either apt-get or aptitude would not go astray. For instance say if, on Arch you want to install and forgoe the dependencies. It's just a simple case of running something like pacman -Sd <package name>. Feel free to prove me wrong here; I'm not promising that's the exact combination, as it's been quite a while since I've used Arch, but it's something not too dissimilar.

It'd definitely be quite nice if one could run say aptitude install --no-depends or something similar in a Debian system.

[sisco311]

how about <insert magic words here> install <read my mind here>

[Zoot7]

how about <insert magic words here> install <read my mind here>
Haha, now THAT would be awesome! :)

[koenn]

It'd definitely be quite nice if one could run say aptitude install --no-depends or something similar in a Debian system.
That should be trivial to implement, because all it would have to do is call dpkg with a force option.
But given that "depends" means that the depended-on package is required for the depending package to provide a significant amount of functionality, I hardly see why you'd want to install something without fulfilling its dependencies. In the exceptional circumstances that you do want this, there's dpkg.

[23meg]

how about <insert magic words here> install <read my mind here>

That would be bloated.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

I switched to Debian Testing because I got tired of waiting 6 months to update my packages. Besides that, I didn't have a problem with Ubuntu.

[Raffles10]

Ubuntu is a newbies distro', new users, typically Windows users start here and people who are only interested in Linux get fed up with all the kids posting "Windows 7 is great" threads and they start to move on, looking for new forums and new distro's. It's a natural progression.

[nmccrina]

Ubuntu is a newbies distro', new users, typically Windows users start here and people who are only interested in Linux get fed up with all the kids posting "Windows 7 is great" threads and they start to move on, looking for new forums and new distro's. It's a natural progression.

That's a little harsh; I haven't seen a "Windows 7 is great" thread around here for almost 5 minutes. :p

[yester64]

Ubuntu is a newbies distro', new users, typically Windows users start here and people who are only interested in Linux get fed up with all the kids posting "Windows 7 is great" threads and they start to move on, looking for new forums and new distro's. It's a natural progression.

Newbie distro sound negativ. Negativ in the sense that is to easy. But isn't that the point of a OS. To be easy.
Besides, i never seen anyone having in his Avatar below saying 'Windows 7 testing'. I think that would be awesome.

But to the point. With Ubuntu most of the stuff works. There are some other interesting distro's out there, but i can't make up my mind.
Most likely i will try (again) Suse or so... But thats just me.
Ubuntu opend to me the world of Linux and for that i will always love Ubuntu.
Also not to forget, that it is a philosophical choice as well. May distro follow a certain believe what a distro should have or do and so do the users as well.
From that point of view, i think there is no wrong, silly or right distro.

[Psumi]

From that point of view, i think there is no wrong, silly or right distro.

Microsoft doesn't think so. (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10346669-62.html) Not only once, but twice. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnXVPwLLXHM)

[NightwishFan]

Ubuntu still follows it's Debian roots. Run the alternate installer in expert mode and you can install a system configured to your wishes, even enabling the root account. It is not merely for beginners, just has a focus on usability.

[Cracauer]

Ubuntu is a newbies distro', new users, typically Windows users start here and people who are only interested in Linux get fed up with all the kids posting "Windows 7 is great" threads and they start to move on, looking for new forums and new distro's. It's a natural progression.

The point is, whether it was geared towards newbies or not, it was something between bearable and cool for professionals - and now isn't anymore.

And that hurts the userbase because the mix of different audiences is what really counts.

[Raffles10]

The point is, whether it was geared towards newbies or not, it was something between bearable and cool for professionals - and now isn't anymore.

And that hurts the userbase because the mix of different audiences is what really counts.

....a mix of different Linux audiences is what really counts.

We really don't need all the Windows stuff in here, it's one of the things that drives people serious about Linux to go searching for other options.

[lancest]

it makes them feel like more of a geek i guess. to be honest, debian isn't really all that hard to set up. i'm geek enough to do pretty much anything i want in linux, but prefer ubuntu. to me, using debian would be like downgrading, but for other people it is like "graduating". makes me laugh. kind of like,"look at me mommy, i'm using the big boy potty now!"
+1 ditto
I do like the gritty feeling of running Arch, Debian,Fedora but can't stand plain upstream Gnome.
Also I prefer a Linux desktop with pro design efforts thrown in like 10.04 has.

[detroit/zero]

+1 ditto
I do like the gritty feeling of running Arch, Debian,Fedora but can't stand plain upstream Gnome.
Also I prefer a Linux desktop with pro design efforts thrown in like 10.04 has.
Pro design efforts?

Changing brown to purple does not a pro make.

[lancest]

Taste is a matter of opinion. Welcome to it.
But there is a whole lot of other changes in 9- 10.04 besides just changing color.
That said - I'd like to see Gnome benefit.

[haddog]

Whichever distro you use, it's all about choice. You can do as much or as little as you desire with Linux. Brown, Purple, Yello, Polk-a-dot, whatever. You can make it be what you want.

The question is not "where do you want want to go today?" but the statement "I can be whatever I want to be whenever I want to."

[orkyahaalhai]

Ubuntu is derived from debian . A river finally meets the sea .IT is all in the nature

[detroit/zero]

Ubuntu is derived from debian . A river finally meets the sea .IT is all in the nature
WTH are you talking about?

[ubunterooster]

Ubuntu is derived from debian . A river finally meets the sea .IT is all in the nature
+1

Also, soon i use big boy potty, too

[hhh]

Ubuntu is a newbies distro', new users, typically Windows users start here and people who are only interested in Linux get fed up with all the kids posting "Windows 7 is great" threads and they start to move on, looking for new forums and new distro's.
Wait, users change distros because they're looking for a new forum? Not this user.

[snowpine]

Wait, users change distros because they're looking for a new forum? Not this user.

These forums are arguably the best thing about Ubuntu. UbuntuForums is the reason I started out with Ubuntu, for sure.

When I am evaluating a new distro, the forums are one of the first things I check. If the forums are dead or unfriendly, I move on to another distro. Being able to get timely help/advice/assistance from the community is my favorite thing about a well-supported Linux distro. :)

[WinterRain]

Having used debian and ubuntu extensively, it is just a matter of personal preference. I like both. However, ubuntu is a bit more beginner friendly.

[oOarthurOo]

I like the documentation better. It's easier to figure things out and get help. They don't patch things as much as Ubuntu does, because they're not trying to be cutting edge, so when you have a problem you can even go upstream right to the source for assistance with your problem. Not always possible with Ubuntu. E.g., laptopmode tools on Karmic.

Also, Debian doesn't push changes on the users like Ubuntu. Ubuntu pushed pulse out, and users had to figure out how to get alsa back if they had problems. Then they pushed compiz out, and users had to figure out getting metacity back if they have problems. For Lucid they're pushing out indicator applets, and the forum will soon be filled with people requesting help on restoring the old behaviour.

The above isn't necessarily a bad thing. That's what being cutting edge is all about, pushing out new things. For me though, I like to be able to choose what new things I try. I can choose ext4, but it's not default. I can choose pulse, but it's not default. I can install compiz, but it's not default. And so on.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

Also, Debian doesn't push changes on the users like Ubuntu. Ubuntu pushed pulse out, and users had to figure out how to get alsa back if they had problems.
Pulse Audio had worked almost flawlessly on Ubuntu for me, and has for quite awhile. Debian Testing on the other hand, I installed it and half of my stuff isn't working. I've been meaning to fix it but I've been kind of busy lately.

[drascus]

well some people want to run debian unstable and get the latest packages. Some people think debian has better policies about choosing only free software packages. I think those are both pretty valid points.

[ubunterooster]

well some people want to run debian unstable and get the latest packages. Some people think debian has better policies about choosing only free software packages. I think those are both pretty valid points.
This is why. Well, it's a lot of *my* reasoning for preparing to use Debian [actually Xebian, but that doesn't really make a difference].

[oOarthurOo]

Pulse Audio had worked almost flawlessly on Ubuntu for me, and has for quite awhile. Debian Testing on the other hand, I installed it and half of my stuff isn't working. I've been meaning to fix it but I've been kind of busy lately.

I think the changes Ubuntu pushed out worked flawlessly for most people. In fact, pulse works better in Ubuntu for me, out of the box as it were, than in Debian.But it is a different approach.