> > Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 10:29:12 -0600 > From: Pete Daniels > To: TCLUG > Subject: [tclug-list] N00b seeks advice; Ubuntu vs. Debian > > As I've said in this space before, I've been an Ubuntu user for the entire <2 years I've been using Linux, and it's been reasonably good to me. However, in light of some recent decisions made by the Ubuntu camp (the "binary video drivers by default" announcement re: 7.04 in particular), and simply in the name of broadening my horizons, I've made the decision to strike out for greener pastures, and am planning on installing Debian Etch when it finally ships. So, my question is this: Could anyone out there help me out on some of the differences I can expect to encounter? Sorry if this is an overly broad question, I really have no specific "thing" here... > > best! > -p. > > ***************************************** > Hey Pete! If you don't mind my being verbose, and somewhat opinionated, I'd be happy to elaborate on the differences between Debian and Ubuntu. I've used both - Debian for many years actually, and more recently Ubuntu for a short time. As with all things Linux, regardless of distribution it is the same OS. The only difference is what you feel comfortable with. I hope this all helps somewhat. Ask away all you like. I'll be happy to help you find one that works for you. I've used just about every major version of Linux, some FreeBSD, Solaris, and heaven knows what else. I'll start with Debian, since in describing Debian, Ubuntu falls into place. Debian, is of course, the parent distribution of Ubuntu, so they are basically identical in most respects with a few very important differences. Firstly, Debian is not just one distribution - but it's actually three branches or versions: "stable", "testing", "unstable". Technically four if you count "experimental", but thats really just a series of extensions to unstable. Stable is the version most commonly used. It's tested and true. Great for servers, very bad for desktop machines. The reason being is that the software versions are older and not up to par with what people expect. Stable is similar to FreeBSD. The software isn't the newest version, but it's rock solid and throughly tested. Security patches are backported from newer versions of existing software as needed. On average, Debian takes 2-3 years (yes, years) between stable releases. One thing you can be sure of. Debian stable boxes are solid, and I do mean solid - like granite. Debian draws a lot of criticism because of their slow stable releases. It was really because of this that Ubuntu was born. Debian stable changes at a glacial pace. The "testing" branch is the software elected for the next version of Debian stable. In order to enter the testing tree, a package can't have any bug reports filled against it for a number of weeks. Again, the software isn't the newest version, but it's close, ususally. Testing is a bit less stable than the normal "stable" tree, but far more so than Fedora Core. Its handicap is that the closer you get to release day, the faster they commit last minute changes, and the more likely you are to get a few broken dependencies on updates, which APT package management ususally corrects for automatically. But every so often, it can snafu. The "unstable" version is the developers version. This is new stuff. This is living on the bleeding edge - much like using Fedora Core. Changes and updates are made daily, sometimes hours or even minutes apart. New versions of Ubuntu come from a snapshot of the unstable tree. The problem is that since "unstable" is so fluid - changing so rapidly, dependency breakage is common. Normally again, APT is intelligent enough to incrementally upgrade your system, and thus actually prevents breakage. But it has happened. When dependencies break you might have to resort to a few manual overrides using synaptic (gui) or aptitude (command line). I've ran unstable for months at a time with no real major problems. It's more like using Fedora. I seriously recommend you never dabble in "experimental" - the extended version of unstable. It breaks, and you get to keep the pieces. Each version of Debian is divided into different archives: main, contrib, and non-free. Debian is very, very serious about software rights and FOSS. Proprietary packages may NEVER - EVER enter the main tree. Everything must be open source and patent free or patent released. The main tree is the actual Debian distribution. You can use the main tree with supreme confidence you won't get the lawyers at your door. The contrib tree is software that requires something that Debian doesn't provide in main, or open source that depends on closed source to function. An example of this would be an open source installer to install something external like Flash or Acrobat. The "non-free" tree is Debian's answer to the closed source, patented or proprietary world. Fedora Core, for example, makes you recompile everything if you want to use NTFS to read your Windows drives. Rather than deny it exists, Debian forged a sensible compromise. All proprietary or patented, but free to use software, like NVIDIA drivers go under "non-free". In this way, you can use them if you really want to, AND be assured that they will install and work cleanly on your systems. Ubuntu, on the other hand does things differently. They use a snapshot of the Debian unstable tree as a starting point. Then they divide it up into what they will offer support for and what they won't (unlike Debian who supports every single package they maintain). In other words, Ubuntu is in effect, a subset of Debian, but since Debian is over 16,000 packages, you can't blame them. The Debian packages Ubuntu won't support are sent into the "multiverse" archive, to use at your own risk. The remaining ones are used in the Ubuntu distribution - which is then tested, patched and released every 6 months or so. About 3,000 (conservative estimate) of the 16,000+ Debian supported packages ever make it into the main part of Ubuntu. Ubuntu, unlike Debian, has no qualms about using proprietary software in the main packages, as you have noted - especially video drivers. That's basically the difference. Ubuntu is aiming for the commercial desktop experience. Debian aims to just do a good job, and provide the widest selection, most stable, best software they can on a volunteer basis with the principles for open source firmly in mind. Your next question is probably going to be: so what do you use? I use Debian stable for servers. For my own use, I use a modified version of Gentoo currently. Why you may ask? I like to play with source code. Cheers! -- T.J. ==================================================== "I believe C++ instills fear in programmers, fear that the interaction of some details causes unpredictable results. Its unmanageable complexity has spawned more fear-preventing tools than any other language, but the solution _should_ have been to create and use a language that does not overload the whole goddamn human brain with irrelevant details." -- Erik Naggum -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: tj.vcf Type: text/x-vcard Size: 117 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20070211/d176c85f/attachment-0001.vcf