Debian 3.1 (stable) better than Ubuntu 5.04?

[DutchLau]

Will Debian 3.1 be better than Ubuntu 5.04? I understand that there will be many improvements in the new version of Debian, but will it beat Ubuntu? What are some of the pros and cons of both? What can Debian 3.1 do that Ubuntu can't? Does it automount, auto install etc.?

What does everyone else think about this? Will Debian 3.1 be better than Ubuntu 5.04?

Cheers,

DutchLau

[JonahRowley]

Ubuntu is all about polish. Everything works smoothly in Ubuntu, Debian is much more "raw". Ubuntu has limited uses though, it's not very good for anything but a desktop system. Debian will be more flexible, but less focused. It all depends on your needs.

[machiner]

Nothing "raw" about Debian.

[JonahRowley]

Nothing "raw" about Debian.

By "raw", I meant there is no focus. It's not a purely server distro, it's not a purely desktop distro. The efforts of the developers and package maintainers are to make the best possible generic distro. Perhaps "raw" wasn't the best word to use..

[Velvet Elvis]

Nothing "raw" about Debian.

Aye. By the time anythign reaches stable in debian, it's quite overcooked.

I'd use debian stable for mission critical servers. Well. Actualy I'd use *bsd. I don't see the point of deb stable for anything other than mission critical aps.

[DutchLau]

I like playing games on my PC. Will I get better performance with Debian? Or should I stay with the tried and trusted Ubuntu?

[WildTangent]

I like playing games on my PC. Will I get better performance with Debian? Or should I stay with the tried and trusted Ubuntu?
if it aint broke, dont fix it. id say youd best stick with ubuntu

-Wild

[DutchLau]

LoL I said that! :razz:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=169549&postcount=12

I just want to get some opinions. I will definately not throw Ubuntu off for quite a while. I just want to dirty my hands with something else, and I have a 15 GB partition of free space just waiting to be dirtied up! Considering I've fallen in love with apt, I was thinking about tinkering with Debian, but is it really different from Ubuntu? Isn't Ubuntu Debian based? So what are the real differences?

[jdong]

If you're gonna switch to Debian 3.1, you're gonna be using the same version packages for 3-5 years (imagine: Firefox 1.0.4 in year 2010... ;) ).

[sonny]

If you're gonna switch to Debian 3.1, you're gonna be using the same version packages for 3-5 years (imagine: Firefox 1.0.4 in year 2010... ;) ).

Hehehehehehehehehehehe... I completly agree with you jdong

[GarySaved]

I made the mistake of downloading the current .iso for Debian, and installed it yesterday. It installed O.K., but it is pretty much as it always was. I had to manually search to get the correct mix of drivers for my printer, and got it to work from some apps, but not all. I got sound to work, but not from everywhere.

As far as I can see, it still need quite a bit of work, before it will come close to working as well as Ubuntu.

Gary

[XDevHald]

I made the mistake of downloading the current .iso for Debian, and installed it yesterday. It installed O.K., but it is pretty much as it always was. I had to manually search to get the correct mix of drivers for my printer, and got it to work from some apps, but not all. I got sound to work, but not from everywhere.

As far as I can see, it still need quite a bit of work, before it will come close to working as well as Ubuntu.

Gary
Enjoy, but do note that jdong did say,


you're gonna be using the same version packages for 3-5 years (imagine: Firefox 1.0.4 in year 2010... ;) )

Debian is great, but Ubuntu pulls through with more development than Debian does, not that it's bad, but it keeps the users going with enjoying Ubuntu and the OS running smoother each time ;)

[GarySaved]

I'm sorry: I spent a couple hours downloading the install disk, then 5 hours downloading the complete system. Tried configuring it for about 4 hours. Never did get Debian to work correctly.

I stuck the Ubuntu install disk in, and an hour later I was up and running at 100% (Completly updated, with Java and everything set)

I am sticking with Ubuntu! \\:D//

Gary

[XDevHald]

I'm sorry: I spent a couple hours downloading the install disk, then 5 hours downloading the complete system. Tried configuring it for about 4 hours. Never did get Debian to work correctly.

I stuck the Ubuntu install disk in, and an hour later I was up and running at 100% (Completly updated, with Java and everything set)

I am sticking with Ubuntu! \\:D//

Gary
Ah, now there's good news, we saved another man over board! :D

Glad to have you back Gary!

[fng]

I even use ubuntu for our development servers here @ work :)
Debian stable has too many outdated packages, heck, there isn't even subversion in it (not including the debian backports project).

[mirtux]

Hi,
sorry but you can't compare Debian stable with Ubuntu which is based on Debian unstable... it's not fair, especially if you make this comparison

you're gonna be using the same version packages for 3-5 years (imagine: Firefox 1.0.4 in year 2010... ;) ) .It would be better to discuss with this last one.

Regards,
MC

[nocturn]

Hi,
sorry but you can't compare Debian stable with Ubuntu which is based on Debian unstable... it's not fair, especially if you make this comparison
.It would be better to discuss with this last one.

Regards,
MC

It sort of is, Ubuntu made the choice to release a stable version every six months.
Debian chooses not to do that.

Comparing Hoary to Unstable is also unfair, because Hoary has security tracking, unstable does not.

[pdk001]

debian < ubuntu

[ssam]

for some task it would be quite important to still be using the same versions (plus security fixes) in 2010.

you don't want a new version of apache or php to break you website. you dont want the chance that a new kernel might remove some obscure drive that you need. if you'r doing coporate desktops, you dont want to retrain staff.

the deep level and server side of linux is pretty mature and not moving too fast. for those things you dont gain much from a 6 month upgrade cycle.

the linux desktop is moving very fast at the moment, lots of new ideas are coming in. in 6 months the cutting edge desktop will have big improvements over how it is now.

so it depends what you want.

[jdong]

the deep level and server side of linux is pretty mature and not moving too fast. for those things you dont gain much from a 6 month upgrade cycle..
Hmm, I'll have to disagree with this.


If a customer wants PHP and you give them version 4.0.12, they won't be too pleased.

If a customer wants Python and you give them 2.1.x, they won't be too thrilled either.


The server world moves just as fast as the desktop world, and 5 years simply doesn't cut it.

[jobezone]

Regarding that Debian Sarge will be using the same packages for 2 years, well, that's nonsense and smells a bit of FUD.

The release previous to Sarge has been out for 2 years, yes, but the debian developers are not happy with this either, and Intend to not let this happen again for the next release.

Also, there is a project for backports in Debian:
http://www.backports.org/

"Backports are recompiled packages from testing (mostly) and unstable (in a few cases only, e.g. security updates), so they will run without new libraries (wherever it is possible) on a stable Debian distribution."

[jobezone]

but Ubuntu pulls through with more development than Debian does, not that it's bad, but it keeps the users going with enjoying Ubuntu and the OS running smoother each time

Excuse me? Ubuntu takes out a snapshot of "sid" from Debian when starting a new version, and as good as the development made by the Ubuntu guys is, that's because of all the previous development done by the Debian guys.
There are over 1000 debian developers in the world, and it's because of this that a small group of motivated developers managed to create Ubuntu out of the Debian distro.

[jobezone]

I recommend the reading of:
http://www.ubuntulinux.org/ubuntu/relationship/document_view
"Debian and Ubuntu"