Debian VS Ubuntu

Please compose all posts in Emacs.

Moderators: phlip, Moderators General, Prelates

Which do you prefer, Debian or Ubuntu?

Debian
37
61%
Ubuntu
24
39%
 
Total votes: 61

User avatar
poochyena
Posts: 186
Joined: Fri May 20, 2011 2:02 pm UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby poochyena » Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:19 am UTC

well, decided to start up Ubuntu for the first time after about a month, i had a few issues before.. but this time.....
I booted it up, error message, error message, error message, this program has stopped working, error message, ect.
about 10 error messages in a row, with one program managing to stop working 3 times without me even relaunching it.
then, i tried to turn my laptop off, 10minutes later, still trying to shut off, so i had to hold the power button down.

maybe i'll give Debian a try.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Copper Bezel » Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:57 am UTC

I usually have to disable apport entirely. It seems to exist to throw up a dialog window to interrupt your workflow every time a process otherwise encounters an error, silently terminates, and restarts where it was. It's infuriating. If I could just set it to send crash reports silently, I'd do so in a heartbeat.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

Iranon
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:30 am UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Iranon » Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:50 am UTC

Debian is a large community project focused on its "Stable" branch - sensible if conservative with a long release cycle, "done when it's done". Quite user-friendly (automagical configuration whereever that makes sense, user review for potentially problematic things) and little should go wrong because quality control is well above average. The "Unstable" and "Testing" branches are part of the quality control process more than attempts to be the best up-to-date Linux distros - good enough for everyday use, but imo they don't beat distros dedicated to cutting-edge software at their own game.
Debian also stresses software freedom more than most mainstream distributions.

Ubuntu is a snapshot of Debian's Unstable branch, with alterations by Canonical Ltd to give a good consumer-focused user experience including easy access to some proprietary software.
This isn't always handled well conceptually (too many package management systems that don't always work well with one another, privacy concerns and some less than classy monetisation methods, making the underlying system more complicated and error-prone for superficial user-friendliness).
Also, Canonical's own stuff is often developed quite selfishly with little regard for being a glood FLOSS citizen.
Of the major Linux distros, it's the one I have the least respect for... but if you want a consumer-centric distro with little setup required and all modern consumer-centric follies out of the box, it's an expedient option.
LEGO won't be ready for the average user until it comes pre-assembled, in a single unified theme, and glued together so it doesn't come apart.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Dec 30, 2013 3:36 am UTC

I like that usability is a "consumer-centric folly." = P

I still don't understand the complaint that Canonical doesn't contribute. They write code, and the code is FOSS. If other developers aren't interested in those projects - despite the fact that a lot of users clearly are - I don't see how that's Ubuntu's or Canonical's failing. There are several Ayatana features that should have been adopted by Gnome (like the appindicator spec) and weren't for largely political reasons. (So every time Gnome exits the overview and presents a standard application-drawn menu from the notification tray, or requires you to right-click on a notification tray item to get to a menu when left-click is ostensibly standard, a kitten making the argument that Canonical doesn't offer anything to the FOSS community dies.)
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Copper Bezel » Mon Dec 30, 2013 11:04 pm UTC

Oh, hey, Iranon, what did you mean by too many package management systems? Right now, it's Ubuntu Software Center with apt as a backend, itself a front-end for dpkg. Some users use Synaptic, but it's not a part of the default software, nor is it needed due to USC finally catching up with all of the important bits of its feature set. In the future, Click Packages will be introduced, which use a different backend, but the whole point of Click Packages is that they're dependency-free, and they're still handled by USC.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

Iranon
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 6:30 am UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Iranon » Tue Dec 31, 2013 10:48 am UTC

I have certain expectation of free software - ideally, it's open-ended, modular, expandable, repurposable. Deliberately made useful for downstream projects.
Canonical makes their creations available under a liberal license, one can theoretically re-use it... but there's a difference between "software to do x on Ubuntu", "software to do x, developed for Ubuntu" and "software to do x, used by Ubuntu and development assisted by Canonical". Canonical is more insular there than the other major Linux players.

Usability is important, but "Usability!" is the battlecry of those forcing unusable crud down users' throats - applies to both Gnome and Unity (although I like some of their ideas enough to implement them in something else).
Software needs to fall between "too nerdy to be useful" and "too dumbed down to be useful". However, software tending towards the first is often good in its own right (sometimes just seeming scarier than it is or lacking pleasant defaults) while software tending towards the second is often fundamentally broken. Perfect in every way would be nice, but I'll take "designed by engineers" over "engineered by designers".

Still: I was thinking more along the lines of e-commerce integration into the OS, content delivery complete with advertising, a set of branded services... and perhaps soon further concessions to unify the experience across different form factors.
I.e., "here's our complete consumer platform, with our official brand experience" rather than "here's an OS, plus a fairly neutral set of tools for common tasks".

*

Re above: Mostly the situation you described. To my knowledge, people still see reasons to use Synaptic (and perhaps aptitude...).
Also, the sheer amount of distro-specific patching makes it problematic to use stuff from third-party sources. To be fair, Debian isn't all that much better there and the distros that are require you to get your hands dirty.
LEGO won't be ready for the average user until it comes pre-assembled, in a single unified theme, and glued together so it doesn't come apart.

User avatar
Copper Bezel
Posts: 2416
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:35 am UTC
Location: Web exclusive!

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Copper Bezel » Wed Jan 01, 2014 1:33 am UTC

Yeah, I see what you mean for the most part, then. I disagree completely about the package management - I've not found any task Synaptic was required for that wasn't more simply done either through USC or from the terminal. I don't care for the apt / aptitude confusion, obviously, and aptitude is obviously the smarter of the two, so it's unfortunate that Ubuntu favors apt, but I really don't have any complaints. And as I said, Click Packages haven't been implemented yet and can't really add any complexity to the system, so I don't think they enter into that problem.

Obviously, we've talked about modularity before, and I have some reservations about Ubuntu's approach in that area. I'm not sure what Ubuntu's responsibilities to downstream really are, though. Much of the Unity desktop is designed to work as a set (beyond just "Unity" itself, I mean) and designed toward Ubuntu's goals. When they've offered work back to upstream Gnome, it's been rejected, but I think that development work is more in keeping with how Ubuntu sees itself as a project than offering Unity as a package for other distributions. Sure, you can install Unity on Arch or Debian, but I don't think Canonical, Arch, or Debian actually cares. Whether other distros want it or not, that's what Ubuntu is actually developing.

That arm of the work is as a desktop interface development project, not as a distro maintainer, though, which means comparisons to Gnome or KDE would be more relevant than comparisons to Red Hat or Debian. I've certainly not seen any evidence that Ubuntu is any more insular than the Gnome project. The only difference between the two projects to my eye is that Ubuntu actually has well-defined goals and internal guidelines, which seems to make some people jumpy by itself. But Gnome is already infamous for a "not created here" mentality, so just about anyone looks favorable by comparison.

Obviously, in its role as a distro maintainer, Ubuntu does have a downstream in respins like Kubuntu or Goobuntu, and I think they're relatively supportive in that role, despite some feelings to the contrary.

I'm not really sure what qualifies as "too dumbed down to be useful." Gnome and Unity require deep hacking to work the way I want them to work. Most of KDE certainly sends off signals of "too nerdy to be useful," and I guess I'm just more likely to find myself on that side of the argument. Canonical's approach seems to be to take the work of engineers and implement some design, so I think it shakes out. Eventually. (The Software Center was basically unusable for the early years of its life, and it seemed like a semi-functional mockup. There seems to be a lot of that in Ubuntu. At least with Ubuntu Touch, they've been open about its status as a semi-functional mockup at this stage.)

I do think content delivery has an important role in modern PCs. E-commerce sounds like a reference to that awful shopping lens dreck, and I can't say I'm a fan; I think the worst thing is how it obscures the functionality of the Dash itself, which is easily the most impressive desktop search tool on the market once it's properly configured.
So much depends upon a red wheel barrow (>= XXII) but it is not going to be installed.

she / her / her

Foxical
Posts: 0
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:47 am UTC
Location: Somewhere

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Foxical » Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:28 pm UTC

I use Ubuntu purely for the convenience, but I voted Debian due to personal ideology.

User avatar
Xenomortis
Not actually a special flower.
Posts: 1420
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:47 am UTC

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby Xenomortis » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:28 am UTC

Just installed Debian again.
Only took me an hour to get the wireless drives working this time.
Image

User avatar
yimyam
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 1:56 pm UTC
Location: Under your bed
Contact:

Re: Debian VS Ubuntu

Postby yimyam » Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:27 pm UTC

Debian for me, though my Macbook runs Ubuntu because the drivers came with it. Aside from the non-free WiFi drivers, it can pass vRMS. And, of course, that includes every other device I own running Debian. That includes my [url="http://www.skankingskunks.net/?p=13]cell phone[/url]. My vote goes to Debian.
Current PC rig: toaster with Debian CD duct taped to the side. 4GB RAM.


Return to “Religious Wars”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests