What's the real difference between Debian and Ubuntu

Well my Vista partition screwed the pooch again and I'm basically tired of it. Second major (as in OS breaking problem) I've had with Vista in the last 6 months and while I could just reinstall and move on, I really don't feel like fixing it again and again and again.

Been meaning to install a Linux partition since I got my laptop, but I really wanted to try Windows 7. So now I'm pretty much looking at different distros to dual boot with W7.

I've used LiveCDs of Ubuntu, Mint, and Knoppix, and they all seemed pretty good - Knoppix felt alittle dated. Never tried Debian- and I get the impression Ubuntus kind of like the intro distro (rhymes ).

I'm decently computer literate so I should be able to overcome most learning curves (though I don't want to just jump into slackware ). Did some research but was looking for some honesty -

What's the real advantage to one over the other ?
Which one do you prefer and why?

 

it is more or less true that latest Ubuntu = Debian testing + fancy wallpapers. Most of the packages ubuntu team takes directly from debian, with very rare exceptions. Ubuntu refuses to fix bugs if you submit a bugreport, the best they do -- is forwarding it to debian and waiting until debian fixes it (sometimes the fix is trivial, but they don't really have resources to maintain a truely separate distro). Ubuntu community is noob oriented, and if you ask a question on ubuntu forums, many people will be sympathetic to your problem (does not always help to fix it). Bottomline: ubuntu and debian are "almost" binary compartible, but debian sid/testing is a little more up-to-date, and is less friendly to noobs (if you still decide to go with debian, go to ubuntu forums for help). If you are just starting with linux, I would suggest ubuntu, it is in no way less sophisticated.

 

Well out of curiousity what makes Ubuntu more "noob" friendly if it's so comparable with Ubuntu?

Just the help forums?

 

by default, ubuntu installer will install "everything that an average day user needs". For an experienced linux user it will be too much of unwanted software, but for a noob it is a plus, since he will not need to install and configure it. But if one wishes, it is of course possible to install ubuntu in minimal configuration, though it will not be as easy as inserting a CD and waiting when it finishes. And ubuntu noob-friendly forums are, of course, helpful.

 

I can vouch that Ubuntu is noob friendly. I never tried Ubuntu until recently with 9.04 x64. The OS literally is on automatic during the install and takes about 12-13 minutes from CD to desktop. At the desktop most apps are already installed including OpenOffice, FF, Opera, Games and a bunch of other stuff. The GUI reminds me of Mac OS 9 Classic, pretty easy to find things. If you want to install other programs you can do it from a Ubuntu install program which finds the add on programs, downloads it then installs it. OS updates are also done from a utility much like Vista WU.

The OS is setup to take away any worries as a first time Ubuntu user.

 

Differences summed up:
- Debian has a very slow release cycle, but stable packages. Ubuntu releases every 6 months, and uses bleeding edge software out-of-the-box

- Debian tends to assume the user is familiar with Linux itself, and isn't afraid to abandon you to the blackness of the command line. Ubuntu holds your hand as if you don't know the first thing about a computer, let alone Linux (on the upside, Ubuntu can also be as "advanced" as you want it to be; the machinery of the OS is not hidden away)

- Debian has slower support for laptop hardware, while Ubuntu has better support (ex; wireless cards)

 

^ hey thanks for the info..

 

please don't confuse yourself and other people. Ubuntu is 95% dependent on Debian and takes almost everything from sid/testing branch. Yes, "Debian stable" is slow to release, but sid/testing has newer packages than latest Ubuntu and testing is no less stable than Ubuntu. As for the hardware support -- it is a matter of who has the latest kernel, same thing as for software.

 

I think I'll probably start with Ubuntu. My ultimate goal is to become atleast decently proficient with Linux so we'll see how that goes
Maybe after I become more familiar I'll change to Debian.

Any suggestions on what version? I usually go for x64 version, anyone know of a reason I shouldn't?

 

not anymore.....go x64

 

don't forget to check out sidux

http://sidux.com/

 

Imho:
1. Debian: completely free with no proprietary drivers (but you can install them from special repositories) which makes things a bit harder for beginner, but if you're serious with linux its great way to learn things and also Debian treat differently access to root account - simply you can easily switch to root shell and install things

2. *buntu: is supported by Canonical company sponsored by Mark Shuttleworth, so its commercial distro (considering ubuntu servers). Canonical doesn't participate on kernel development (which is why some ppl look at them a bit angry), but is very active in development of drivers, which is good for beginners, that need everything is 'working out of box'.
Also as i said, considering installation and using root privileges, *buntu use the 'sudo' command to do these things - which is perhaps convenient for some ppl, but usually not for more skilled users (at least not for me).

As for You I'd consider what You need, what You expect. If You want to learn things, try Debian testing (you can reinstall with *buntu anytime anyway).
Also, I'd recommend trying Fedora distro. Its using different packaging system (rpm) but is also great considering Fedora is one of the most 'up-to-date' distros. Which can help a lot if you use some new hardware that is supported in newest kernel.

anyway, gl&hf

 

AT LEAST? ...almost a vast majority of the Linux distros available out there are packed with essential applications that will suit your everyday usage needs. The only exception is that depend on your palate... if you prefer visually stunning desktop or hardware/application performance, you will have to take some time to choose the right distro that fits your real personal needs.

If you're choosing a distro for your Gateway, looking at the specs, 64bit Ubuntu will fit your bill.
But what i'm concern is that, there are quite a big number of 32bit programs and applications out there, not really sure if there are those works well with 64bit environment.

 

I use Ubuntu 9.04 x64 and it works perfectly. If you wanna play some games you might have to install the 32-bit compatibility stuff from the nvidia driver if you use it but beyond that everything is cool. Even Flash works great (using the 64-bit plugin). My only complaint which may be a single instance is that from time to time part of my screen turns black when using Firefox and some other apps. The good far outweighs the bad though, and I might even find a fix for it soon.

 

Most 32-bit programs that I've seen out there work fine on a 64-bit. I've never ran across a problem when running a 32-bit program on a 64-bit operating system.

 

huh and I thought I was the only one having that problem (running Fedora 11 x64)

 

We're probably using the same gfx card and driver.

 

I'll second the x64 Ubuntu here. I'm more of a Red Hat fan, but the first Ubuntu I used was an x64 version. For the most part, I have ran into no unforseen problems.

 

rig in your sig? Nope...I'm running a Dell E4300 with the Intel 4500HD graphics.

 

Then it must be the driver. What driver are you using?

 

it's the 'intel' driver

(II) Loading /usr/lib64/xorg/modules/drivers//intel_drv.so
(II) Module intel: vendor="X.Org Foundation"
compiled for 1.6.1, module version = 2.7.0
Module class: X.Org Video Driver
ABI class: X.Org Video Driver, version 5.0

 

Well that's weird then, I'm using the Nvidia 180.51 x64 driver.

 

I was talking to a friend of mine tonight who uses Fedora 10 (I'm on 11)

He said he had a similar problem, and had to create an xorg.conf file and comment out a setting. Of course, he doesn't remember what it was now

 

Just ask him to cop his xorg and I should be able to tell which one is commented out and try it.

 

Ubuntu is not even Debian Testing based.
It's based on unstable/sid. Most things in Main are from Debian and the rest of the repo is from Ubuntu.

 

I run Ubuntu 9.04 amd64 on my Latitude E5400 and Debian stable on everything else (amd64 on my Athlon 64 X2 desktop, i686 on my Athlon XP HTPC and PIII file/print server) so I should be able to give a decent summary.

The two distributions are pretty similar under the hood as Ubuntu is basically a moderately-tweaked amalgamation of Debian testing and unstable. Ubuntu has pretty much all of the Debian tools still left in it (such as dpkg/apt/aptitude, module-assistant, etc.) The differences pretty much lie in the release schedule, specific package choices and versions, and how much customization of third-party packages they do.

Release schedule
Ubuntu releases a new version with updated packages and kernels about every six months. The releases are pretty much set and do not get a whole lot of updates for new program versions as those get rolled into the next release, for which development starts pretty much right after the stable version was officially rolled out. Canonical makes a "long-term support" release being made every couple of years for people who want to have a longer support period.

Debian releases a new version "when it's ready," which generally means they come out with a new version every 18-24 months. There are periodic large new-program-version updates to the released OSes through backports to keep the programs and kernel and such somewhat current because the OS releases are so far apart. The Debian group keeps four versions of the OS supported/developed at one time: the current stable release (stable), the previous stable release (oldstable), the going-to-be-the-next-release (testing), an updated-daily bunch of programs for developers to test out before they go into the testing branch (unstable). Debian doesn't do a long-term release as they end up supporting their stable releases for several years already.

Specific package choices and versions
Ubuntu by default installs pretty much everything you would want for a full desktop environment and applications. You can alter this somewhat by using a different install CD such as the alternate install CD or the server version. Ubuntu uses relatively up-to-date packages that have undergone some testing to ensure there aren't too many show-stopper bugs present. Stability is usually relatively decent but there are sometimes some niggling little bugs that take a month or two to get fixed with patches.

Debian's single installer allows you to pick a wide variety of package groups to install; everything from terminal-only for a server to everything and the kitchen sink like Ubuntu does. Debian uses very well-tested packages in its stable releases and they may be a little out of date but the release is extremely stable.

Customization of third-party packages
Ubuntu pretty liberally customizes the GUI in many packages, notably the window managers. XFCE under Ubuntu looks almost identical to GNOME, whereas XFCE on just about everybody else's distributions looks much different than GNOME. Ubuntu also has its trademark orange/brown themes, which you can change if you want to. Fortunately Ubuntu is pretty adherent to the Linux Standards Base (as is Debian) and the directory structures are similar to what you would find in most distributions.

Debian doesn't mess with third-party packages very much and ships pretty generic versions of third-party programs. Ubuntu looks pretty much like any other Linux distribution in this regard. The one exception is the Web browser, which is simply Mozilla Firefox by another name. Debian wanted to provide their own patches for Firefox and Mozilla said fine, but you can't use the name "Firefox" or the logo. So Debian tongue-in-cheek called their Firefox version "Iceweasel." It works identically to the actual Firefox, it just has a slightly different logo.

All in all, I prefer to run Debian if my hardware is supported by the stable version of Debian. Debian stable in my experience is more stable than the regular Ubuntu releases and I much prefer the Debian OS installer to Ubuntu's. I run Ubuntu if my hardware needs very much from Debian testing or unstable as Ubuntu is at least as up-to-date as Debian testing but much more stable (day-to-day updates don't tend to make things sometimes not work.) My Latitude has Intel's GM45 IGP onboard and requires the xorg-video-intel-2.6 driver, Xorg 1.5+, and a 2.6.28+ kernel and DRI2 to run well. Debian stable has the 2.3 Intel driver, Xorg 1.4, and kernel 2.6.26. Hacking around with testing and unstable to get those package versions resulted in an unstable mess, so I run Ubuntu on that machine.

 

I had the same problem with Lenny....went to Slackware on the rig in sig because of it, but glad I did...I think Slack and Debian are about as stable as it gets.....I'm keeping a 'buntu on my Asus, but trying the new Elive E17 Compiz I think for grins....

ps: good effort on that post

 

I have actually never used Slackware before. I have at least a little seat time in front of machines running SuSE, Fedora, Mandrake/Mandriva, Gentoo, RHEL, and some of the derivatives of those OSes, but for some reason I have never used Slackware. Slackware, FreeBSD, and Solaris are some of the *nixes that I've never tried and would like to get around to someday because they are considerably different than the ones I have used. It probably would be fun to try as I ran Gentoo for a long time and liked the amount of control you get over the OS a lot.

Thanks! I've been using Linux for a long time and have gotten a lot of help from others over the years, so I thought it would be nice to give something back.

 

NBR Linux Forum is a great place to bring newbies into the fold. Re: Slackware....you can probably find my post where I was complaining of reinventing the wheel at every turn, then shortly after that...a light came on and I understood Can't leave Slack now.

 

I'm a total noob when it comes to anything Linux but I wanted to try it out so bad so I finally did a few weeks ago (Ubuntu 9.04 32bit).

I put it on an old Dell desktop that I had lying around and installed it as a primary OS, wiping the drive clean.

I was really surprised at how user-friendly the whole thing was. I was up and running with internet right away and it loaded all the drivers for everything automatically (some needed to be downloaded but it did it on its own - it just asked for permission). Just about everything one needs to get going is already installed (Open Office, IM client, Media player etc...).

The only issue I had was with my 6-month-old Canon MFD. It was a PITA to find drivers for it. Finally I came across a post somewhere mentioning that Canon Australia has a Linux driver for it and downloaded it. It ran (with some issues) but finally got it going although I could not get the scanner to work or recognised. I went and did some reading on a few forums about related issues but most of it just went over my head, talking about a multitude of tweaks and commands under Terminal.

Apart from that, the whole experience was pretty good and I thought the OS itself was very slick.