Is Ubuntu better than Debian?

I'm a complete new person to this whole Linux world.

So I did some reading and researching and such, and found out that Ubuntu is a Debian derivative.

Reading some more, I read that Ubuntu has a more frequent release cycle than Debian does.

Having installed Ubuntu and gotten it up and running with everything I want, I guess my question is this:

Even though Debians release cycle is slower, wouldn't all of its parts (kernal, kde, etc.. etc... still be the latest versions? Maybe what I'm trying to figure out is what seperates one release from another?

• Pahbi

I'm a complete new person to this whole Linux world.

So I did some reading and researching and such, and found out that Ubuntu is a Debian derivative.

Reading some more, I read that Ubuntu has a more frequent release cycle than Debian does.

Having installed Ubuntu and gotten it up and running with everything I want, I guess my question is this:

Even though Debians release cycle is slower, wouldn't all of its parts (kernal, kde, etc.. etc... still be the latest versions? Maybe what I'm trying to figure out is what seperates one release from another?

• Pahbi

here is a short list of Debian derivatives:

AbulÉdu • Adamantix • AGNULA GNU/Linux Audio Distribution • Amber Linux • ANTEMIUM Linux • Arabbix • ARMA aka Omoikane GNU/Linux • ASLinux • Auditor Security Linux • Augustux • B2D Linux • BeatrIX Linux • BEERnix • Biadix • BIG LINUX • Bioknoppix • BlackRhino • Bluewall GNU/Linux • Bonzai Linux • BrlSpeak • Càtix • CensorNet • Clusterix • ClusterKNOPPIX • Condorux • Damn Small Linux • Danix • DeadCD • DebXPde • Dizinha Linux • eduKnoppix • ERPOSS • ESware • Evinux • Euronode • FAMELIX • Feather Linux • Flonix • Vital Data Forensic or Rescue Kit (FoRK) • Freeduc-cd • Freeduc-Sup • GEOLivre Linux • Gibraltar Firewall • GNIX-Vivo • Gnoppix Linux • gnuLinEx • GNU/Linux Kinneret • GNUstep Live CD • grml • Guadalinex • Helix • Hikarunix • Hiweed Linux • Impi Linux • IndLinux • Julex • K-DEMar • Kaella • Knoppix Linux Azur • Kalango Linux • KANOTIX • KlusTriX • knopILS • Knoppel • Knoppix • Knoppix 64 • Knoppix STD • KnoppiXMAME • KnoppMyth • KnoSciences • Kurumin Linux • LAMPPIX • Libranet GNU/Linux • LIIS Linux • LinEspa • Linspire • Linux Live Game Project • Linux Loco • LinuxDefender Live! CD • Linuxin • LiVux • Local Area Security Linux (L.A.S.) • Luinux • Luit Linux • MAX: Madrid_Linux • Mediainlinux • MEPIS Linux • Metadistro-Pequelin • MIKO GNYO/Linux • MoLinux • Morphix • Munjoy Linux • Nature's Linux • NordisKnoppix • OGo Knoppix • Oralux • Overclockix • Quantian • PaiPix • ParallelKnoppix • Parsix GNU/Linux • Penguin Sleuth • PHLAK • PilotLinux • Progeny Debian • Rays Linux • ROSLIMS Live CD • Salvare • Santa Fe Linux • Skolelinux • Slavix • Slix • Slo-Tech Linux • Soyombo Mongolian Linux • SphinxOS • Tablix on Morphix • Tilix Linux • TupiServer Linux • Ubuntu Linux • UserLinux • WHoppiX • X-evian • Xfld • Xandros Desktop OS • Xarnoppix • Zen Linux • ZoneCD • Zopix

Neither OS is better than the other. They are different and have different goals in mind. Debian stable is more stable than Ubuntu but it is alot harder to use and the software is pretty outdated. On the other hand Debian supports just about any architecture out there as well as having Debian BSD and Debian HURD projects in addition to Linux.

Basically they are different one is better suited for some tasks and other is better suited for others.

Even though Debians release cycle is slower, wouldn't all of its parts (kernal, kde, etc.. etc... still be the latest versions? Maybe what I'm trying to figure out is what seperates one release from another? Debian has several branches: stable, testing, experimental, unstable. The stable branch is the slow release cycle, and it's almost never the latest versions of things.

Ubuntu bases itself off of Debian unstable.

Read this for more details: http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/relationship

If you have high speed internet UBUNTU is good package and kernel is up to date

but when you do not have high speed internet DEBIAN is great you can find everything in debian CDs dependency is very good

I used debain for one year it is great It is stable high secure

sorry , my english is so bad

is alot harder to use and the software is pretty outdated

Oh come on ... sarge is neither that old nor hard to use. And if you want for instance xorg, the latest kernel, latest firefox etc, just add the backports.org repository.

The biggest difference between ubuntu and debian is that debian is a democratic, entirely community driven project that releases its stable version when it's ready.

Oh come on ... sarge is neither that old nor hard to use. And if you want for instance xorg, the latest kernel, latest firefox etc, just add the backports.org repository.

The biggest difference between ubuntu and debian is that debian is a democratic, entirely community driven project that releases its stable version when it's ready. It is older than Ubuntu and is harder to use than Ubuntu, that's a hard cold fact :) Remember simplicity is relative but in general Ubuntu will be an easier to use distribution than Debian.

Debian is more or less focused on a rock solid enterprise OS that has to be stable and secure as well as highly customizeable. Hell the site says "Universal OS". The development on it is on a slow side and the stable release tends to be behind the times for the purposes of being EXTREMELY stable and dependable.

Ubuntu on the other hand is a use friendly distribution geared mostly towards desktops and to be fairly up to date. As it is *primarily* a desktop distribution (yes I know there is a server version of Drake but the main focus is still desktops) it doesn't have to be as stable as Debian but does need to be easier to use and more up to date. Actually in many cases being more up to date means easier to use. e.g. Network-Manager.

I respect both tremendously but lets face it in ease of use department Ubuntu is quite a bit ahead of Debian. On the other hand if you need a rock solid OS that will handle your Beowulf cluster (or just about anything with a CPU in it) go with Debian.

It is older than Ubuntu and is harder to use than Ubuntu, that's a hard cold fact :) Remember simplicity is relative but in general Ubuntu will be an easier to use distribution than Debian.

Debian is more or less focused on a rock solid enterprise OS that has to be stable and secure as well as highly customizeable. Hell the site says "Universal OS". The development on it is on a slow side and the stable release tends to be behind the times for the purposes of being EXTREMELY stable and dependable.

Ubuntu on the other hand is a use friendly distribution geared mostly towards desktops and to be fairly up to date. As it is *primarily* a desktop distribution (yes I know there is a server version of Drake but the main focus is still desktops) it doesn't have to be as stable as Debian but does need to be easier to use and more up to date. Actually in many cases being more up to date means easier to use. e.g. Network-Manager.

I respect both tremendously but lets face it in ease of use department Ubuntu is quite a bit ahead of Debian. On the other hand if you need a rock solid OS that will handle your Beowulf cluster (or just about anything with a CPU in it) go with Debian.

Nobody is saying that ubuntu is not easy to use, but that does not mean that debian is "a lot harder to use". You make it sound as if it is hard to use, which it by no means is. Also, "pretty outdated" is a mean description of a distro that is only a year old, especially considering that debian stable is not the only debian version (there are also testing and unstable, which are both reasonably or very up to date) or considering the backports repository with up-to-date versions of many common software packages. Development is in no way on "the slow side" just because stable is released when ready instead of on an x-month basis.

It's cool that you enjoy ubuntu, but considering that it is a debian derivative, I don't quite see the point in putting debian down. Debian provides an excellent desktop that is and has been used all over the world for a long time. Trying to reduce it to a server distro isn't fair.

Debian is the Mother of Ubuntu.

Debian and Ubuntu are simply aimed at different areas. Debian is as easy to use as Ubuntu, Ubuntu is much easier to configure. When I last installed Debian (using the network install disc) the end result looked something like the Ubuntu server install, you have to then pull in the x-server and your WM/DE yourself using aptitude. I regularly do this myself with Ubuntu anyway so I can pull in *buntu-desktop, I'm not sure if similar metapackages exist in the Debian world.

Anyway, nobody here should put down Debian, it is crucial to Ubuntus survival. Ubuntu has a faster release cycle because it targets a much smaller range of packages, with fewer archs and fewer kernels (Debian has Linux, HURD, BSD and there are talks about Solaris if it goes GPL compatible).

Neither OS is better than the other. They are different and have different goals in mind. Debian stable is more stable than Ubuntu but it is alot harder to use and the software is pretty outdated.

How is it "harder to use"? Installing Debian is harder, but you only do that once. After the installation, the actual usage is through a GUI (GNOME, KDE etc.), and those are more or less identical between Debian and Ubuntu.

Debian and Ubuntu are simply aimed at different areas. Debian is as easy to use as Ubuntu, Ubuntu is much easier to configure. When I last installed Debian (using the network install disc) the end result looked something like the Ubuntu server install, you have to then pull in the x-server and your WM/DE yourself using aptitude. I regularly do this myself with Ubuntu anyway so I can pull in *buntu-desktop, I'm not sure if similar metapackages exist in the Debian world.

Last time I checked, regular workstation desktop was available as an option from the netinstall, so you most likely just forgot to choose check that option.

apt-get install gnome

will otherwise do the trick (replace gnome with kde for kde).

To be honest I don't see how debian is hard to configure -- choosing the recommended options usually gives you a good system.

I can't really figure out how to ask what it is I want to find out.

Maybe for example, why is Dapper better Hoary?

I guess I'm thinking that if I had Hoary, but all the components were up to date, wouldn't that be similar to Dapper?

What is it that seperates those releases. Is it just bug fixes?

• Pahbi

Dapper is the newer version of Ubuntu. Hoary, Breezy, and Warty are older versions.

Even if you updated Windows 98, it wouldn't be Windows XP. Even if you updated Mac OS 9, it wouldn't be Tiger.

I've been thinking of putting Debian on a notebook. I've been reading some of Debian's documentation, and was wondering if Debian Testing would be a good way to go?

As it's a notebook, I'd prefer to have some newer packages than are available in Stable but would also like a fair degree of stability (yes, I know this is probably asking for too much and the response may be: :-({|= ). I'm not looking for bleeding-edge though, and I'm quite pleased with Ubuntu's release cycles and updates philosophy.

While I could use Stable with backports, I'd probably be having to use them heavily and thought that just installing Testing may be a better option.

Another concern is security updates: looks like Stable, for good reasons, gets priority in this respect. Should I be worried at all about this?

Has anyone run Debian Testing that would like to share their opinions? Thanks for any input.

I am not putting Debian down it is an excellent distro but it requires more knowledge than Ubuntu does. I had a friend who used to have Slackware and she had some issues with Debian none with Dapper. When talking about an OS I never talk about testing and unstable branches those aren't the ones that will be running on any enterprise systems (not w/o modifications at least).

Anyways I will not argue as alot of those things are highly subjective, just wanted to make it known that I do not put Debian down and I respect it. However I do believe that Ubuntu is a better desktop.

I've been thinking of putting Debian on a notebook. I've been reading some of Debian's documentation, and was wondering if Debian Testing would be a good way to go?

As it's a notebook, I'd prefer to have some newer packages than are available in Stable but would also like a fair degree of stability (yes, I know this is probably asking for too much and the response may be: :-({|= ). I'm not looking for bleeding-edge though, and I'm quite pleased with Ubuntu's release cycles and updates philosophy.

While I could use Stable with backports, I'd probably be having to use them heavily and thought that just installing Testing may be a better option.

Another concern is security updates: looks like Stable, for good reasons, gets priority in this respect. Should I be worried at all about this?

Has anyone run Debian Testing that would like to share their opinions? Thanks for any input.

There's a very recent review of debian testing at newsforge:

http://os.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/05/25/146242&tid=2

You also have the option to go with stable + some stuff from backports + a few apps in a sid chroot jail. Let's say you want the rock solidness of stable, but with xorg, an up to date kernel and a few kde-apps that are constantly as recent as possible. A good way to do this would be to:

• install debian stable
• get xorg and kernel from backports.org
• bootstrab debian unstable (or testing) in a chroot jail
• apt-get install (for instance) kdissert and kdvi in the jail
• use dchroot to integrate the jail apps seamlessly.

Testing and stable both have official debian security support, but, afaik, the applications from backports.org don't. However, I think that the guys who maintain backports.org are very reliable and do apply security patches when needed.

I want to make a question. What is the real difference between debian and ubuntu? Apart from default settings and package polish, mind you.

Because both use aptitude, update-rc and similar tools. Lots of ubuntu debs had worked as Debian developers before. Are there any admin tools in debian not available in ubuntu? And viceversa? So apart from a passion for stability and bugfixing (take all the time you need), is there any real difference?

And to the one asking between the difference between hoary and dapper: *real* differences are kernel 2.6.15 compared to 2.6.10, X.org 7.0 against 6.8.2 and compiled with gcc 4.0 instead of gcc 3.4. This is the real difference. The other changes are basically desktop love.

Of all these, supposing you had the knowledge, changing kernel and X server is not that difficult, but you would have to rebuild the entire system on your own for the compiler change.

Oh! Nearly forgot the real killer app not present in hoary!!! Bash 3.1

Dapper is the newer version of Ubuntu. Hoary, Breezy, and Warty are older versions.

Even if you updated Windows 98, it wouldn't be Windows XP. Even if you updated Mac OS 9, it wouldn't be Tiger.

That, to me, seems like not the best comparison. When I update windows, I don't really as far as I know (which isn't much), update the kernal or core of windows, I just update various parts of the system.

• Pahbi

I want to make a question. What is the real difference between debian and ubuntu? Apart from default settings and package polish, mind you.

Because both use aptitude, update-rc and similar tools. Lots of ubuntu debs had worked as Debian developers before. Are there any admin tools in debian not available in ubuntu? And viceversa? So apart from a passion for stability and bugfixing (take all the time you need), is there any real difference?

And to the one asking between the difference between hoary and dapper: *real* differences are kernel 2.6.15 compared to 2.6.10, X.org 7.0 against 6.8.2 and compiled with gcc 4.0 instead of gcc 3.4. This is the real difference. The other changes are basically desktop love.

Of all these, supposing you had the knowledge, changing kernel and X server is not that difficult, but you would have to rebuild the entire system on your own for the compiler change.

Oh! Nearly forgot the real killer app not present in hoary!!! Bash 3.1

So there are some things in each distro, that generally don't get updated by normal end users (except by advanced users), and those are things that really seperate releases? (ex. Dapper from Hoary)

• Pahbi

That, to me, seems like not the best comparison. When I update windows, I don't really as far as I know (which isn't much), update the kernal or core of windows, I just update various parts of the system.

Why isn't that a good comparison? I don't understand.

• Pahbi

We were just at kernel 2.6.15-23 in Dapper, and a few days ago we got updated to 2.6.15-25. Still Dapper, different kernel.

Windows XP is the latest version of Windows. Windows Vista will be the next latest version. Simply updating Windows XP will not give you Vista. You will need to upgrade to Vista or reinstall Vista.

Same with Ubuntu. Dapper is the latest version. Simply updating Dapper does not give you Edgy. You need to either upgrade to Edgy or reinstall it.

Where am I missing out in the comparison?

You also have the option to go with stable + some stuff from backports + a few apps in a sid chroot jail. Let's say you want the rock solidness of stable, but with xorg, an up to date kernel and a few kde-apps that are constantly as recent as possible. A good way to do this would be to:

• install debian stable
• get xorg and kernel from backports.org
• bootstrab debian unstable (or testing) in a chroot jail
• apt-get install (for instance) kdissert and kdvi in the jail
• use dchroot to integrate the jail apps seamlessly.

Testing and stable both have official debian security support, but, afaik, the applications from backports.org don't. However, I think that the guys who maintain backports.org are very reliable and do apply security patches when needed.

What is the dchroot and jail stuff for?

What is the dchroot and jail stuff for?

If you're running stable and want to have some applications from the up-to-date unstable branch, but don't want to upgrade their dependencies (i e if you don't want to mess with your stable system), you can bootstrap an unstable chroot jail and install the applications there. Basically, this means that you create a SID installation that you can reach into from your stable installation, seamlessly, via the dchroot command.

This is a technique that the 64-bit distributions can use in order to keep the 64-bit system clean from any 32-bit libraries and applications, but it's very handy in other cases too. For instance, you can use it to keep several versions of a package at the same time.

Personally, I'm on a 64 bit debian SID installaton, but I have a 32-bit SID chroot jail for openoffice, firefox and wine, as well as a 64-bit sarge chroot jail for the stable tetex-2 (I work a lot with latex and want both tetex-2 and tetex-3).

Check https://alioth.debian.org/docman/view.php/30192/21/debian-amd64-howto.html for a little guide.

We were just at kernel 2.6.15-23 in Dapper, and a few days ago we got updated to 2.6.15-25. Still Dapper, different kernel.

I beg to differ. While these two kernels do have different binary interfaces, they are essentially the same. The source, apart from some security or bug fixes, is identical. 2.16.15-25 is a patched 2.6.15-23. They have the same hardware support and the same settings.

IMHO a good ubuntu point is that devs don't (usually) change application versions once the distro has become stable (exception: a couple of days ago some gnome components changed from 2.14.1 to 2.14.2... though this is mainly bugfixing)

So there are some things in each distro, that generally don't get updated by normal end users (except by advanced users), and those are things that really seperate releases? (ex. Dapper from Hoary)

Exactly. And for debian systems (apt-based) it is usually more straightforward, even for the advanced user, to upgrade the whole distro using apt than changing, let's say, gnome.

i would say:

new "releases" (v5.04 hoary, v5.10 breezy, v6.06, dapper) usually include major kernel upgrades (hoary=2.6.10, breezy= 2.6.12, dapper=2.6.15) while inbetween ("mid-release"), minor kernel upgrades become available. this is unlike the windows model of "releases", where the kernel cannot be upgraded within each release.

new releases also include newer versions of programs from previous releases, or add new programs that weren't there before, or remove programs completely. this is similar to the windows model of "releases".

as to your orignial question pahbi - "what separates one release from another?" - in the end, it's what the developers of the release decide is best for the purpose they desire. if they want a stable, reliable distro, they choose the kernel, desktop environment and programs accordingly - using only stable, "final" versions of the components. the same applies if they want to make a cutting-edge, very up-to-date distro, they might choose components that are still "beta", but that attempt to provide functionality that is not available in the stable, but earlier versions.

a distro/release is basically just a collection of some of the available "bits" of linux that the developers of the distro choose to make into a coherent "whole". in actual fact, a lot of the "bits" are interchangeable - you can install a different kernel if you want, or a different web browser, or text editor, or window manager. a distro just takes a lot of the work out of constructing a linux setup, by making some choices for you, and doing a lot of the hard work of making things work properly. in essence though, you could install "ubuntu", then uninstall various "bits" of it, and install alternatives in their place, and end up with a completely different distro - simple example: install ubuntu, install kde, uninstall gnome, and you get kubuntu! :) )

... ...

Thanks a lot for the input and review!

Depends on how you define 'better'. If you like a system that doesn't do anything behind your back, try Debian. (I heard dapper comes with automatic updates enabled by default - automatic updates are evil)

And while Dapper packages may be newer than those of Debian Stable, Debian Testing has newer packages than Dapper. (Testing is the middle part of Debian, between Stable and Unstable). I hear Testing is very nice, and it certainly has newer packages. I'm going to review it soon, so far the only review is here: http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/05/25/146242

I'll replace my Kubuntu 5.10 with Etch and try it. I used Debian before, I'm not scared. ----------------- I attached a comparison of packages from Debian Etch (testing), and Ubuntu Dapper. Created with diff, kate and awk.

Debian is on the left. Here are the original lists: http://packages.debian.org/testing/allpackages.en.txt.gz http://packages.ubuntulinux.org/dapper/allpackages.en.txt.gz

Ubuntu is not better than Debian, but Ubuntu is more user friendly...

Ubuntu is not better than Debian, but Ubuntu is more user friendly...

I think it would be a good idea to try and list how, to what extent and in what areas this is true.

"Is Ubuntu better than Debian?"

Can you say that you're better than your mother?

What does "better" mean anyway?

A more logical question would be what's the difference between them?

Depends on how you define 'better'. If you like a system that doesn't do anything behind your back, try Debian. (I heard dapper comes with automatic updates enabled by default - automatic updates are evil)

Ubuntu comes with automatic *notification* of when updates are *available* being switched on by default. However nothing is actually updated without your permission. Not quite sure what is evil about that.

:cool:

Ubuntu comes with automatic *notification* of when updates are *available* being switched on by default. However nothing is actually updated without your permission. Not quite sure what is evil about that. You can set it to install *security* updates automatically, but nothing else. You can also set it to download the updates automatically, but not install them. Neither is enabled by default. It *checks* for updates daily, but that can be changed to every two days, weekly, bi-weekly, or never.

I've been thinking of putting Debian on a notebook. I've been reading some of Debian's documentation, and was wondering if Debian Testing would be a good way to go?

As it's a notebook, I'd prefer to have some newer packages than are available in Stable but would also like a fair degree of stability (yes, I know this is probably asking for too much and the response may be: :-({|= ). I'm not looking for bleeding-edge though, and I'm quite pleased with Ubuntu's release cycles and updates philosophy.

While I could use Stable with backports, I'd probably be having to use them heavily and thought that just installing Testing may be a better option.

Another concern is security updates: looks like Stable, for good reasons, gets priority in this respect. Should I be worried at all about this?

Has anyone run Debian Testing that would like to share their opinions? Thanks for any input.

I installed Debian Etch last night. My experience has been that things are a little sketchy, but much, much faster than Ubuntu. My gnome desktop is using 76 megs of ram on Debian vs around 120 in Ubuntu. (Alot of that has got to be stuff running in the background that I don't use, so I need to figure out what it is.) That's a huge deal for my crappy laptop. The downside though is that there are some bugs. I need to ifup/ifdown my wireless card a couple times to get it going when I first boot the computer, and sometimes when I resume from sleep my touchpad quits working (it's an IRQ conflict, probably won't happen to most people). Also, if you exit and then re-enter gnome sometimes the panel and/or nautilus gets confused and you have to kill X. Otherwise though, I'm happy with it. The touchpad thing is the only really serious problem.

To be honest I have switched between Sid, Etch and Ubuntu (Breezy, and Dapper) over a two year cycle. Debian is rock solid. Even with Sid i.e. unstable, I have had less problems than Ubuntu.

With this written, Ubuntu is a beautiful project. To me the most important part about Ubuntu is it has an Awsome community. While I use Sid on my laptop and Etch on my desktop I use the Ubuntu forums for help and assist other in it to the best of my ability.

Debian is faster for me, bash and other cl tools are newer and for me this is important. Debian has not crashed on me - unlike Ubuntu which has several times. It is also more difficult to create custom kernels in Ubuntu. In Debian the usual is to make your own kernel. For a laptop that needs special help with acpi I *Need* the ability to make a custom kernel that works without complications of special drivers blah blah.

But the community of Ubuntu keeps me wishing that eventually Ubuntu will be a project that I can jump into rather than put my feet in.

Philosophically Debian is not run by anyone and it stays afloat and is powerful - I like that. No demigogs, and no prophets this is good for me.

I've used Sarge, Breezy and Dapper previously and am now working with Etch. I'll have to say that I found Debian to be more stable and faster on < 400 MHz and < 128MB RAM systems. Sarge was able to run KDE without any problem on a tray loading iMac, and it didn't crash or malfunction once. Ubuntu on the other hand goes south on me with a 512MB RAM system and 1.8 GHz - it is more inclined toward eye candy, and in some respects is Debian with training wheels. A user who wants to learn Linux won't get half as far using Dapper as with Sarge and a command prompt.

That being said, I think KDE within Sarge hasn't changed much since 3.3.2. Its system applications are still functioning in a left + right pane "Control Center" interface, and the desktop personalization is much the same. Hopefully that will change when KDE 4 comes out.

Is Ubuntu better than Debian? That's not *really* a good question to ask. It's like asking if an Omelette is better than eggs, orange juice is better than oranges, or if a car is better than the engine, combustion chamber, and transmission.

Ubuntu IS Debian, with modifications. Neither is better, it depends on what you want. Do you want eggs this morning or do you want an omelette? Do you want orange juice, or would you rather just eat the orange?

Of course in software, real-world analogies are not perfect, so I'm assuming these points are going to be picked apart, but I'm hoping that my intended meaning is coming out.

Don't ever bring up a which is better question in respect to Distros... it turns into fights every time haha. Learning Bash, how the kernel works, what prog does what, etc is a big part of the experience sure... but another big part atleast in respect to Ubuntu is everyone sticks to their guns or rather favorites to the death. Geeks like us are pretty particular ha.

Oh and thumb... Orange juice is easier to get down than an orange... if that makes any sense in respect to that metaphor ha.

no argue,

just focus on the choosing what suite to use for you, and then just use it your way

is that too difficult is that not the way linux were born?

Just like the old fashion arguing about intel and AMD processors LOL :D ,they are all the processor!! just pay , bring it home and use it !!!

Precisely, Distros are only starting points basically I mean... you can get the kernel youself and build your own distro yourself if you so wanted based on the linux content standard. It's all the same Penguin love baby! Ubuntu is just a title for collective programs made by other open source projects, and code to glue them all together. (Don't get mad at me here guys I know it's more complex naturally, just simplifying it.)

I am moving this thread to the Debian forum with a redirect

[SIZE="4"]Sure debian is better![/SIZE] :D

SIZE="1" [/SIZE]

Better at what? seriously, you have to define what your needs are before anyone can seriously begin to answer that question. I would think for most people Ubuntu would be better, but for you that may be different.:confused:

The development on it is on a slow side and the stable release tends to be behind the times

Thats kind of easy to say for ubuntu when they're letting debian do all the hard work, make base system. All ubuntu has to do is implement new features, bugfixes, and freeze SID when time comes. basically-ubuntu does all the pretty new inovations to linux, and lets debian do the dirty work for them.

Debian Etch makes Dapper look like a half assed attempt at a distro. Well, you asked. I like Ubuntu, but Debian it aint.

prizrak said: Debian stable is more stable than Ubuntu but it is alot harder to use and the software is pretty outdated.

Outdated, yes, some of the software is. But to be fair Sarge is right at the end of its life so you can't expect it to be all new and shinny.

And hard to use? I am new to Linux and I tried several distros and settled with Sarge, and I don't think it is hard to use at all. I think it is a dream to administer, I REALLY like Debian.

Plus it really runs nicely on the lil'ol Celeron 700 with 128Mb I am using... With fluxbox.

panickedthumb said: Is Ubuntu better than Debian? That's not *really* a good question to ask. It's like asking if an Omelette is better than eggs, orange juice is better than oranges, or if a car is better than the engine, combustion chamber, and transmission.

Ubuntu IS Debian, with modifications. Neither is better, it depends on what you want. Do you want eggs this morning or do you want an omelette? Do you want orange juice, or would you rather just eat the orange?

Of course in software, real-world analogies are not perfect, so I'm assuming these points are going to be picked apart, but I'm hoping that my intended meaning is coming out.

Well said, PanickedThumb...

I would say they are both equally as good as the other or as equally bad as the other depending on perspective.

I have used Ubuntu Dapper since the release a few months ago, and i switched with some minor troubles to Debian Etch which i really like more once i had set it up.

A lot is the same, thats logical since Ubuntu is build upon Debian. But there are some differences that make it less userfriendly to setup. I did an install with the Gnome desktop environment included btw.

After installing Etch with the netinstall CD (which works great btw) it configured my xorg.conf wrong. I got a motherboard with an onboard video chip (SIS) and an AGP Nvidia card. xorg.conf was configured for the SIS chip, so the first thing that happened was an X crash (because i'm using the Nvidia card of course). No problem for me, i knew what was going on and how to fix it, but for a 'newbie' it would be the end of his Debian experience - unless hey knows how to use links, or has another OS installed somewhere where he can look up the problem.

Debian doesn't come with a Live CD, Ubuntu does, and imo it is much easier to install an operating system that way, even tho i did not have any troubles with the installation of Debian. Also the 'damn, now i cant do anything' part was annoying me while installing Debian, with Ubuntu i could enter the web with Firefox and read the latest news etc. Now i had to read an old fashioned newspaper during the installation...

The next thing is the documentation of the community. When i first entered Ubuntu i found the Ubuntu Dapper Guide after 5 clicks or something, so setting up things was really easy, especially for a beginner. Otherwise a quick forum search would give me the information i needed. In the meanwhile i don't need it anymore, but i didnt find such a thing for Debian. Same thing for the sources.list. I took quite a wile before i had the repositories i needed to install most of the basic stuff i need. But if you know how to use Google you can find it, but it is less userfriendly imo. And the funny thing is, if you know how it works, it is just so friggin simple (like always)...

Another thing is that when you go look around for packages not in the repositories, you'll mostly find Ubuntu .deb packages, and most (in my case) won't work on Debian by default because of the dependency differences, so you have to go search for those files manually, and if you cant find them, you have to compile the application, which is also not much fun when you are used to do sudo aptitude install <package> or sudo dpkg -i <package>.

There is one thing that bothers me tho, it seems that it is quite hard to install VLC on Etch, on the website of VLC there are 2 repositories for both Sarge and Sid, but not Etch. And the dependency errors i get when i want to install VLC from a .deb package i found aren't much fun, but i found out i'm not the only one with this problem after a quick search with Google. It isn't in the Etch repositories either. But besides this it has everything i used in Ubuntu and it is running nice.

And it installed more stuff i never use then Ubuntu did, but that's probably because i was lazy and let the installer install the complete gnome environment with a lot of applications.

Both Debian and Ubuntu rocks, but Debian needs a little more attention and knowledge to set it up the same way you had to set up Ubuntu. I was excited when i start using Ubuntu, and i'm also excited now i'm using Debian. I feel like i can learn more about Linux from using Debian then using Ubuntu. Ubuntu still runs on another PC here, which my mother uses, and it is running great for 5 months now.

Debian IS a professional distro, not really aimed at people who do not have any Linux experience. Therefore we have Ubuntu.

In my opinion Ubuntu is better for people without any Linux experience coming from Windows or who did not use a PC at all.

Debian is better for enthusiasts and professional users, it lets your more space to configure your system.

I just got VLC installed on Debian Etch :D

I used the Ubuntu Dapper repository from my signature (Monkey's Audio), and i only needed this package. After installing that packages it installed fine (aptitude install vlc), and it runs great as far as i can see :D It's not the most clean way to do it, but hey, it is working :D

In case i change my signature: http://morgoth.free.fr/ubports/

For me, ubuntu has been much easier to install and set up. Plus the documentation and forums for ubuntu are great, and very noob friendly. I tried debian etch (is this the same as testing?). I found it much harder to use. Also, the debian site is rather cumbersome to use and find the info you need. Also, the documentation for debian can be difficult to understand if you have no prior linux experience. I use DSL over PPPoE. So I had to set that up after the install. With ubuntu, it was easy. On debian, it seems if you don't have a network connection during the install you are at a disadvantage, since the installer can't setup your sources.list. You then have to do it manually after the install. Anyway, I managed to break debian beyond repair in about a week. I have never broke ubuntu. I have no doubt debian can do everything ubuntu does, perhaps more. But for me, ubuntu was just the path of least resistance.

Just to put my 2¢ worth. I'm not really saying anything new, but here goes. One of the earlier posters said that Ubuntu is Debian with training wheels. That's absolutely right, and not a drawback. It's Ubuntu's biggest advantage. It gives newer users a Debian desktop with a minimum of fuss. But at some point children take the training wheels off the bike. I'm probably going to flamed well-done for this, but think of Debian as the serene master, and Ubuntu as the eager and earnest student. I'm afraid that come December, the student is going to slapped around hard by the master (with the release of Etch). That pretty much sums up my experience using both Etch and Dapper.

Well, I think a friendly competition between Debian and 'son' Ubuntu is good.

I think Debian has awakened, it was a little outdated and only concerned on debianites inner goals.

With Ubuntu irrumption, Debian is moving... but in a long view, as ubuntu is based on Debian, it´ll good for both distros.

As code, programs, drivers, etc. are the main body of a OS; the comunity, easy of use, visual... part of a OS would make the difference.

Debian is solid and stable, that are its strengs Ubuntu rely on community and user-centered experience

Only one question: have debian and ubuntu smoked peace pipe ? :-k

someusernoob said: Both Debian and Ubuntu rocks, but Debian needs a little more attention and knowledge to set it up the same way you had to set up Ubuntu.

I've noticed approximately that, it seems that running Ubuntu is slightly lower maintenance. Although in my case, this may well be an illusion caused by my using the meta-packages now (ubuntu-desktop, etc) but not when I was running Debian.

hey_ian said: Debian IS a professional distro, not really aimed at people who do not have any Linux experience. Therefore we have Ubuntu.

In my opinion Ubuntu is better for people without any Linux experience coming from Windows or who did not use a PC at all.

Debian is better for enthusiasts and professional users, it lets your more space to configure your system. Heh. I actually started with Debian (well, after playing with a couple bootable floppy distros for a few days), because I was on dialup and it was the first distro I found floppy images for installing.

I've noticed very little difference between Ubuntu and Debian. When I switched, I just added the Ubuntu repositories to sources.list and kept upgrading as normal, then removed the Debian repositories a couple months later. Now I'm thinking I'll switch back (at least for a while, to see how things compare), and plan to use the exact same method.

Yes, they really are that similar. The only really noticeable differences seem to be the different branding and different release schedules. (And maybe different setup defaults, like the su-vs-sudo thing.)

tbrownaw, you were actually able to switch from debian to ubuntu just by changing your sources.list? Wow! The reason I ask is because I have read in the forums that adding debian repos to ubuntu (and vice-versa) is courting disaster. (Ubuntu is said to be a "fork" from debian-sid). Did you encounter any problems with this? I would be very interested if you could successfully switch back to debian the same way.

tommcd said: tbrownaw,

you were actually able to switch from debian to ubuntu just by changing your sources.list? Wow! The reason I ask is because I have read in the forums that adding debian repos to ubuntu (and vice-versa) is courting disaster. (Ubuntu is said to be a "fork" from debian-sid). Did you encounter any problems with this? Not really, it worked fairly well. Not much worse than, say, switching testing->unstable during a pre-release freeze or Dapper->Edgy halfway through the dev cycle. There were a few problems when I still had both repositories enabled when they started switching g++ versions.

tommcd said: I would be very interested if you could successfully switch back to debian the same way.

Yes, but it's being *much* more difficult. "courting disaster" sounds about right, actually. I don't know if it's the direction of the upgrade, or that there's a bigger divergence now.

Ubuntu split xbase-clients out into individual packages, and this has the problem that aptitude doesn't realize it has to remove the split-out packages before it can install xbase-clients again. So I had to do that manually with dpkg. I had to keep one of the split-out packages unless I want to downgrade gdm, so I had to mess with dpkg-divert.

There's one package that's named differently (with or without a dash in the name). That was a bit of a pain.

udev version numbers are different, 0.xxx in Debian, xxx in Ubuntu. So it thinks Ubuntu's 093-whatever is newer than Debians 0.100-whatever .

Aptitude's automatic dependency handling / conflict resolution can't really handle this big of a change, it tends to eat all available memory when I ask it to try.

I haven't actually tried rebooting or logging out since I started, so I don't know that it still actually works.

Well, good luck with safely getting back to debian. You are brave to try all this.

tbrownaw said:

I haven't actually tried rebooting or logging out since I started, so I don't know that it still actually works.

tbrownaw, how did it go?

My first Linux install was Ubuntu 5.04. I wanted to run Debian, but the installer at the time would not play with my SATA disk. In my naivety, I thought that installing Ubuntu would give me a Debian system. Wrong.

I have enjoyed Ubuntu a lot and have recommended it to many people, but now I'm getting bored. I was almost ready to install Gentoo, but then I recalled that my original intent was to run Debian. So I've decided to give Debian a try.

From what I have read, I believe that it would be better for me to do a new install of Debian than to try and convert my Ubuntu. I have 80 GB free on my disk, so there is enough space for both.

This is a desktop system, amd64 3200+. Although I'm fairly new to Linux, I've been programming for forty years, both working in industry and teaching at a university. I'm now retired, so I can enjoy playing with this stuff. :) I don't need a rock-solid system, and I enjoy solving problems.

I look at it this way:

If you want THE ultimate stability in a distro and just want EVERYTHING to work, then that's where you go Debian.

If you're willing to give up a little stability for more up-to-date packages, then go with Ubuntu.

*Note: Even though Debian's packages are out of date, they release their own security updates for each package. In Debian's case, older packages does not mean less secure.

Well if you're running Debian on a desktop you would generally want testing or unstable though and be just as up to date as Ubuntu.

Personally i've found Debian to be faster and more stable, and no one is going to tell you upgrading without a metapackage is unsupported...

sharkboy said:

The biggest difference between ubuntu and debian is that debian is a democratic, entirely community driven project that releases its stable version when it's ready.

I have to agree. Debian is much better than Ubuntu. I just use this forum for support for debian. I use Ubuntu sometimes, but havn't since dapper first came out.

In some respects I think ubuntu is better, as for the longest time debian was a mess. Debian sid is very chaotic and yet a lot of distros based thier systems around sid and look where they are now. Mepis is now ubuntu based Kanotix is falling apart and there are reports that it will go ubuntu soon too. Now other branches of debian are also very ehh, debian stable is pretty much stuck in the dark ages in terms of apps. People want the more current apps, so they would go with sid or a sid based distro. But at this point I would suggest Ubuntu more then Debian sid, when I was under Mepis the sid repos were so messed up that nothing worked unless you compiled it yourself. Mepis under sid taught me a lot of lessons about usung a sid based distro, now debian stable might be better for servers but for home use I rather use Ubuntu.

While Debians "stable" release cycle only happens once every ice age, if you really want the latest, cutting edge, Debian unstable may be the thing for you. Debian developed apt, that revolutionized LINUX. Now every distro is following suite, Novell and Red Hat have their own apt-like programs. While Ubuntu is bringing Linux to the masses, it can't yet say that it has done as much for LINUX as Debian has.

Yeh that is the biggest problem with sid though, it is overly cutting edge. I think the debian cycle should have something in the middle between stable and sid. the layout of debians cycle is rather ick, it is one of debians biggest issues, if debian had a "midway" varient it would be very good... But i will give debian its due though, they have done a lot of great things for linux, the .deb format is one of the easiest installers on the planet next to windows exe files. apt is great, it is definately debians biggest gun. Debian is a real pioneer, but there are some things in debian that make me turn away from it.

SunnyRabbiera said:

I think the debian cycle should have something in the middle between stable and sid. the layout of Debian's cycle is rather ick, it is one of Debian's biggest issues, if Debian had a "midway" variant it would be very good...

lol They do: Debian "testing". You can download the current alpha at http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ It's more stable than "unstable" and more recent than sid.

I used testing but its still rough around the edges. testing is alright, but I have had issues with it.

SunnyRabbiera wrote:

«testing is alright, but I have had issues with it.»

Perhaps the trick is only jump from stable to testing after some time had passed since new testing is out (such as 6 months after the begining of each new testing). Don't you agree?

zetetic

dark ages apps? ice age releases? What???

Linux started moving a lot faster, debian is a big organization that could not move quite as quick, some things have been corrected and it should be able to keep up again.

want ultra-stable - stable (want ultra-stable with some updated apps then check out backports on stable) want stable with up to date - testing want cutting edge - unstable want bleeding edge - experimental/incoming

Debian -- the universal OS!

I tend not to agree on that, development on ubuntu is a bit speedier then debian (though I will admit not by much) It really depends on what app you want though

So which is the best place to download Debian testing? http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ or: http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/ The dates on the second one are more recent. I have found Debian's site to be a bit confusing. What is the difference between the two?

tommcd:

Do you have any good reasons to choose Debian Etch weekly-builds instead of Debian Etch RC1 release?

If not, I think you shuold choose Debian Etch RC1 release, cause, as far as I know, the installer components of weekly-builds are newer and less stable than the installer components of RC1 release.

But I'm not certain about this. Pearhaps someone with more knowledge about Debian could through more light on this subject?

zetetic

If your complaining about not up-to-date apps, change the repos from sarge to ubuntu or unstable. I am using netinst sarge and runs fine with unstable repo. Or just enable the backports.

Goat Spirit said: If your complaining about not up-to-date apps, change the repos from sarge to ubuntu or unstable. I am using netinst sarge and runs fine with unstable repo. Or just enable the backports.

That's a good point too. The heart of any Debian based distro is the apt repositories, changing it to something more recent will keep your applications more up-to date.

Or, like I said earlier, download testing: You can download the current alpha at http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ You don't have to install it on your computer, you can just to test it on a virtual machine VMWare Server and Xen will do the trick. Compare it to Ubuntu, and then post your findings on this thread.

tommcd said: So which is the best place to download Debian testing?

http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ or: http://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/weekly-builds/ The dates on the second one are more recent. I have found Debian's site to be a bit confusing. What is the difference between the two?

daily images are the regular nightly build - very up to date - may work or may not since if something is broke the iso is still built AFAIK.

weekly images are the weekly build - up to date - will likely work since the changes to the daily build will turn into the weekly build. Occasionally a glitch may still occur. But fairly safe. Often these are what I test out and when I come across a good set of the first 3 CDs I just keep them handy and use them until stuff gets updated and then I test these images again.

The etch DI builds are the debian installer team builds and usually contain a stable image and the recent updates to their work on the installer. Should be fairly safe since they are still hoping for a Dec release yet I would expect Jan or possibly early Feb myself. :)

All of this should be on the Debian website somewhere. Of course it is difficuly to find info on there. I think that has been discussed and anyone is welcome to step forward and make it better. If you can figure out where to step forward at. :-D

Thanks for the info guys. I tried Debian before, I found it harder to use than Ubuntu. This was likely due to my lack of knowledge more than anything else. I'm planning to give Etch another go, now that I've learned a bit more. Question: for a home desktop PC, would it be better to point my sources.list to debian etch or debian testing? As I understand it, if the sources.list points to testing, you will always follow the testing version, and will have more up to date apps, possibly at the expense of stability. Is this correct? Any problems with doing this?

tommcd said: Question: for a home desktop PC, would it be better to point my sources.list to debian etch or debian testing? As I understand it, if the sources.list points to testing, you will always follow the testing version, and will have more up to date apps, possibly at the expense of stability. Is this correct? Any problems with doing this?

Not sure what you're really asking here because etch & testing are one in the same.

I run etch on one of my servers and etch also on my laptop. I don't use the net install, I use the business card net install. http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ Boot using the command: expertgui and at some point during the install you will be able to choose just the exact kernel that you want. And also spacebar "out" the x's in software selection. This ends you up with a plain base system. Once rebooted, install the apps you want. To get a fast non-ubuntu-like-bloated-gnome use apt to install: gnome-core xorg synaptic alsa-base alsa-utils To get multimedia add to sources list: deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch main then do: gpg --keyserver hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net --recv-keys 1F41B907 gpg --armor --export 1F41B907 | sudo apt-key add - apt-get update apt-get install w32codecs libdvdcss2 liblame0 mplayer optional: apt-get install msttcorefonts xmms xmms-skins then install the rest of what you need using synaptic. This makes for a fast non-bloated efficient system that just works.

tommcd said: Question: for a home desktop PC, would it be better to point my sources.list to debian etch or debian testing? As I understand it, if the sources.list points to testing, you will always follow the testing version, and will have more up to date apps, possibly at the expense of stability. Is this correct? Any problems with doing this?

Better to keep 'etch' for a while IMO. Wait a month or so once etch goes stable and then if you feel the need to run 'testing' again then change it to testing and upgrade. Little safer that way.

OK, sounds good. thanks again Deanlinkous.

Anyone here try sidux ? Based on debian sid.

deanlinkous said: Better to keep 'etch' for a while IMO. Wait a month or so once etch goes stable and then if you feel the need to run 'testing' again then change it to testing and upgrade. Little safer that way.

Etch is now at least 3 monthes behind schedule. It won't become the new stable until at least March or April 2007 IF IF works picks up pace, else the delay will be even longer. http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2006/41/

tturrisi said: Etch is now at least 3 monthes behind schedule. It won't become the new stable until at least March or April 2007 IF IF works picks up pace, else the delay will be even longer. http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2006/41/

It wont be that late. Maybe January or at the latest early February.

We do expect to freeze the full archive soon now that the

installer RC 1 is out, which means a freeze delay of about one month from the original projection, and a similar delay for the release.

In regards to my quote I simply meant that it is better to stay with etch in your sources for a couple months after etch moves to stable and then evaluate if you want to move back to the testing flavor of debian. That is all regardless of when etch goes stable.

Either way right now etch is stable enough to use and should only get better until release so go for etch.... :)

mfaridi said: If you have high speed internet UBUNTU is good package and kernel is up to date

but when you do not have high speed internet DEBIAN is great you can find everything in debian CDs dependency is very good

I used debain for one year it is great It is stable high secure

sorry , my english is so bad

Great reply, mfaridi. I understood you completely. Thanks for making those points. I don't think many people would know that.

BLTicklemonster said: Great reply, mfaridi. I understood you completely. Thanks for making those points. I don't think many people would know that.

+1

If I did not have adsl I would also be using debian with all it's dvds.

i think Ubuntu is better than Debian in one aspect...it uses SOME non-open source apps/modules/etc...

jdhore said: i think Ubuntu is better than Debian in one aspect...it uses SOME non-open source apps/modules/etc...

I think Debian is better than Debian in many respects, one of which is it doesn't use SOME non-open source apps/modules/etc... ;)

greggh said: I think Debian is better than Debian in many respects, one of which is it doesn't use SOME non-open source apps/modules/etc... ;)

i used to be (and still am) a Debian user and i like the fact that my PCMCIA wifi card worked right out of the box with Ubuntu, when it took me 4 hours to get it working in Debian.

jdhore said: i think Ubuntu is better than Debian in one aspect...it uses SOME non-open source apps/modules/etc...

Like? Debian isn't "100 percent free" anymore. That's why it isn't on...dun dun dun THE LIST.

xabbott said: Like? Debian isn't "100 percent free" anymore. That's why it isn't on...dun dun dun THE LIST.

Yeah, Debian does offer non-free stuff as a choice in their repos. But at least Debian doesn't have kernel blobs like some others.

tturrisi said: Not sure what you're really asking here because etch & testing are one in the same.

I run etch on one of my servers and etch also on my laptop. I don't use the net install, I use the business card net install. http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-installer/ Boot using the command: expertgui and at some point during the install you will be able to choose just the exact kernel that you want. And also spacebar "out" the x's in software selection. This ends you up with a plain base system. Once rebooted, install the apps you want. To get a fast non-ubuntu-like-bloated-gnome use apt to install: gnome-core xorg synaptic alsa-base alsa-utils To get multimedia add to sources list: deb http://www.debian-multimedia.org etch main then do: gpg --keyserver hkp://wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net --recv-keys 1F41B907 gpg --armor --export 1F41B907 | sudo apt-key add - apt-get update apt-get install w32codecs libdvdcss2 liblame0 mplayer optional: apt-get install msttcorefonts xmms xmms-skins then install the rest of what you need using synaptic. This makes for a fast non-bloated efficient system that just works.

Thanks tturrisi. That is just the kind of info I was looking for to get all that multimedia stuff for Debian. As soon as I get done fooling around with Zenwalk on my test box I will move on to Debian Etch.

no problem, wondered what happened to you!

I have very recently installed _**Sidux**_ which is a brand new name, but made by all but *Kano* of the really sharp Kanotix developer team.

The above means that it is stable Debian Sid.

It is really fast compared to Edgy on the same machine! :KS The reason that I am enthusiastic, is the potential for rt kernel speed & recording music direct to hard disk drive.

It is looking really good initially & it will only get better, it is so young that there is not even an .iso out for it yet!!!

There is talk of meta-packages for musicians, graphic artists & the like...

I can't recommend it to new linux addopter's, but if you have patience & logic, you can get there without the .iso.

I did! :)

handy said:

It is really fast compared to Edgy on the same machine!

Ok, so I was not imagining things then. I feels snot fast on my 1.5GHz Celeron (512MB) lappy. And my reference point is Kubuntu Dapper on a Athlon64 3200+ (1GB)

handy, did you use the h2 install script ?

What are the advantages of running Sidux over Debian Sid? Doesn't it use the same packages?..

edit: oh it's fixed releases like Ubuntu? Nevermind then..

mips said: Ok, so I was not imagining things then. I feels snot fast on my 1.5GHz Celeron (512MB) lappy. And my reference point is Kubuntu Dapper on a Athlon64 3200+ (1GB)

handy, did you use the h2 install script ?

Hi Mips, yes I used the h2 script.

This machine is an *old* Asus board running the original nForce chipset & an Athlon 2200xp cpu, it also has 1 gig of ram & an Asus Gforce4 tx (or something, I forget) with 128mb ram.

Anyway the installation of both the Etch RC1 & then the upgrade via the h2 script was flawless.

I will wait until the .iso is released before I start mucking about with musical stuff. I've asked on the forum about a rt kernel :)

Kindred said: What are the advantages of running Sidux over Debian Sid? Doesn't it use the same packages?..

edit: oh it's fixed releases like Ubuntu? Nevermind then..

The whole aim of the game with the previous Kanotix, & now with the new Sidux, is to make a linux OS that runs on Sid & is stable. So they put a lot of work into the incorporated Sid stuff.

My machine is set up to boot either into Ubuntu 6.10 or Debian unstable, both in 64-bit mode. (I installed Debian from etchy. Then I changed "etchy" to "unstable" in my /etc/apt/sources.list file and upgraded things.)

I notice that Debian unstable has gnome 2.14.3 and evolution 2.6.3. My Ubuntu 6.10 has gnome 2.16.1 and evolution 2.8.1. This implies that Ubuntu is more up to date that Debian unstable. Since Ubuntu is based on Debian, how does this occur?

This would also suggest that Debian unstable is probably as stable as Ubuntu 6.10. I realize that this is not a completely valid conclusion. Both systems run quite well for me. Debian seems a bit faster, but I would need a stopwatch to be sure.

rplantz said: My machine is set up to boot either into Ubuntu 6.10 or Debian unstable, both in 64-bit mode. (I installed Debian from etchy. Then I changed "etchy" to "unstable" in my /etc/apt/sources.list file and upgraded things.)

I notice that Debian unstable has gnome 2.14.3 and evolution 2.6.3. My Ubuntu 6.10 has gnome 2.16.1 and evolution 2.8.1. This implies that Ubuntu is more up to date that Debian unstable. Since Ubuntu is based on Debian, how does this occur?

This would also suggest that Debian unstable is probably as stable as Ubuntu 6.10. I realize that this is not a completely valid conclusion. Both systems run quite well for me. Debian seems a bit faster, but I would need a stopwatch to be sure.

I would suggest that you check out _**sidux.com**_, you may find answers to your questions in the Sidux forums.

Also, Sidux is basicaly Kanotix at the moment with changes coming in the future.

rplantz said: My machine is set up to boot either into Ubuntu 6.10 or Debian unstable, both in 64-bit mode. (I installed Debian from etchy. Then I changed "etchy" to "unstable" in my /etc/apt/sources.list file and upgraded things.)

Debian does not support multi-arch and that does not make for a very good 64bit distro. One of the Debian negatives unfortunately.

huh?

mips said: Debian does not support multi-arch and that does not make for a very good 64bit distro. One of the Debian negatives unfortunately.

Apparently **_Sidux will/does support 64bit, including 64bit apps:_**

quote> *6) sidux is always bleeding edge technology, packed into a tested and stable combination which is ready for use. It is moving very fast, and will always bring to you the hippest and most interesting developments first. sidux is also one of the few operating systems where you can get a 64bit system with real 64bit compiled applications - and again providing the 100% compatible access to Debian Sid.* /quote

handy said: Apparently **_Sidux will/does support 64bit, including 64bit apps:_**

quote> *6) sidux is always bleeding edge technology, packed into a tested and stable combination which is ready for use. It is moving very fast, and will always bring to you the hippest and most interesting developments first. sidux is also one of the few operating systems where you can get a 64bit system with real 64bit compiled applications - and again providing the 100% compatible access to Debian Sid.* /quote

I have seen several definitions of "mult-architecture."

I think that the most common one these days is that it the OS and most applications are running on an x86-64 architecture in 64-bit mode, but it will also execute 32-bit applications.

The problem with current Ubuntu and Debian distros is that a 32-bit chroot environment must be set up in order to run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit install. It is possible to run some 32-bit applications if they have been compiled with static libraries. I run Opera on my Ubuntu system this way.

As far as I know, Ubuntu and Debian are essentially the same here.

I'm very new to GNU/Linux. I'n only using GNU/Linux for (more or less) 2 months now.

I'm runing Ubuntu Dapper and Debian Etch.and I think they both rocks.

Unfortunately it seems Ubuntu will no longer be a free distro, because it will include proprietary video drivers by default, but that is another discussion.

For me it is still very soon to say without any doubts which is better (Debian or Ubuntu).

But I can say claims that Debian is much more difficult to set up or to use are simply not true. For a completely newbe like me both distros present nearly the some kind of dificulties/challenges.

I think Ubuntu configures xorg.conf better than Debian, although in my experience the only thing Debian did not configured correctly was the monitor (for me it was a matter of changing a few lines on xorg.conf).

Out of the box Ubuntu is much more pleasant to the sight than Debian. In Debian you really need to change GTK+ Themes, GDM Themes, GNOME splash, backgrounds, install some new icons and fonts. Offcourse we are talking about fairly simple things to do, and in the process you learn some new things, and waste time...

Ubuntu has a LiveCD which is nice, cause you can test if your hardware will be compatible before the installation. Debian has not a LiveCD.

Ubuntu Forums and documentation are far better and easier to read that Debian counterparts. Off course the vast majority of the Ubuntu documentation apllies to Debian as well, but there are some exceptions.

Debian Etch installer, in my opinion, is better that Ubuntu's installer.

Debian Etch installer gives the user the option to easily encrypt the whole system (except /boot) ! This is really a VERY important factor in favor of Debian.

With Debian testing you can be as up to date as with Ubuntu, or perhaps even more updated: because with testing you are always receiving new versions of applications; on Ubuntu you have to upgrade distros in order to have more updated applications (newer versions).

Debian is an entirely community and democratic distro; Ubuntu is far from that...

So, which is better? I let you, the reader, decide. But let's see what the future brings us. I have some clues about what the future will bring us (regarding the evolution of both Debian and Ubuntu), but for now I prefer to remain silent...

zetetic

For me, there's alot of apps that are in Universe that arent in Debian. Testing and Unstable were fine for me but its Universe and the community that keep me with Ubuntu.

MetalMusicAddict said: For me, there's alot of apps that are in Universe that arent in Debian. .

Care to name names???

deanlinkous said: Care to name names???

Half of the gstreamer packages I use, LAME and gnome-raw-thumbnailer come to mind. There was also a gimp plugin. I think the package difference was about 1000 packages in Synaptic? Wasnt much.

rplantz said: I have seen several definitions of "mult-architecture."

I think that the most common one these days is that it the OS and most applications are running on an x86-64 architecture in 64-bit mode, but it will also execute 32-bit applications.

The problem with current Ubuntu and Debian distros is that a 32-bit chroot environment must be set up in order to run 32-bit applications on a 64-bit install. It is possible to run some 32-bit applications if they have been compiled with static libraries. I run Opera on my Ubuntu system this way.

As far as I know, Ubuntu and Debian are essentially the same here.

Again I say, ask on the **_Sidux forum_** if you want accurate answers to your suppositions...

You may be surprised at the answers!

@Zetetic: **_Sidux_** is NOT Debian, please don't confuse them...

Ok. I fired up my Debian Sid install again to give a little more info as I see it.

I mentioned packages before. If you open up all the Ubuntu (Feisty) and Debian (Sid) repos Ubuntu has more packages to choose from. Debian has 19877 and Ubuntu has 21024. This without the source repos.

Other than the packages I noticed missing niceties like system sounds or a Boot Splash. The shutdown/logout. Debian has the same configurability UI-wise that any Ubuntu user would be used to.

If you do a expert install you can set up sudo right from the start. I have issues with gksu though.

Hardware-wise Debian is alot better than the last time I tried it vs. Ubuntu. I see no major difference with Debian on my laptop nor my desktop vs. Ubuntu now. Debian has the 8776 nVidia drivers and 8.28.8 for ATI.

Now with Ubuntu using Upstart I see a boot time difference of 5-8 seconds. I also noticed during boot it asks for a password. Im not sure what its for.

In the end Im not sure. I have no problems with Debian nor Ubuntu. For me Im sticking Ubuntu because of the nice touches it does for the user.

Is that including the debian multimedia repos?

I started with Ubuntu, but I've now moved to Debian Etch. It's faster, MP3 works out the box, and I have more packages than I could ever want right there in the repos.

deanlinkous said: Is that including the debian multimedia repos?

I base my comparisons on what comes in the distros. If it wasnt in the sources.list I didnt use it.

Actually, I just noticed not all of my function keys work on my Dell 2200 laptop.

uh okay...

handy said: Again I say, ask on the **_Sidux forum_** if you want accurate answers to your suppositions...

You may be surprised at the answers!

Well, I've been following 64-bit stuff on the ubuntu and debian forums, and I've just started looking at sidux. So far, unless I'm missing something, it looks like they all three are the same when it comes to running 32-bit apps on a 64-bit system. At least, I don't see a big difference in sidux, but I will continue to probe.

It's not a huge issue for me. Most of the time I get along just fine without flash, wmv, etc. If I really want it, I fire up my old Mac g4 running OS X.. I can deal with just about anything there.

Really, I know very little about Sidux, except to say that its run by a group of sharp dedicated developers. I don't know when they will have their first release .iso ready?

12 months down the track we should be able to make some useful observations about Sidux.

The Sidux forum, being much much smaller than this, & being populated mostly by ex Kanotix people is quite close knit.

handy said: Really, I know very little about Sidux, except to say that its run by a group of sharp dedicated developers. I don't know when they will have their first release .iso ready?

It does look interesting. I intend to keep following it.

In an earlier post I was responding to your response about sidux being multi architecture. You quoted their goal #6, which is to run on amd64. It's my understanding that "multi architecture" is more than this. I think it usually means that you can run 32-bit apps on a 64-bit system without having a chroot environment. But I'm fairly new to this, and I've read several definitions.

Of course, the ideal situation would be that 32-bit apps would be upgraded to 64-bit. This generally involves much more that simply recompiling. There are a lot of differences between the x86-32 and x86-64 environments at the instruction set level. And the model for calling functions in 64-bit mode is very different, so using functions in 32-bit libraries is not straightforward.

rplantz said: It does look interesting. I intend to keep following it.

In an earlier post I was responding to your response about sidux being multi architecture. You quoted their goal #6, which is to run on amd64. It's my understanding that "multi architecture" is more than this. I think it usually means that you can run 32-bit apps on a 64-bit system without having a chroot environment. But I'm fairly new to this, and I've read several definitions.

Of course, the ideal situation would be that 32-bit apps would be upgraded to 64-bit. This generally involves much more that simply recompiling. There are a lot of differences between the x86-32 and x86-64 environments at the instruction set level. And the model for calling functions in 64-bit mode is very different, so using functions in 32-bit libraries is not straightforward.

I remember my 8 & 16bit computers, 32bit will disappear like its parents did...

Not a very comforting thought really! :-k *i.e. we will go the same way!* ;-)

why is their truly a benefit to 64bit or just hype?

handy said: I remember 8 & 16bit, 32bit will dissapear like its parents did...

The first several projects I worked on used 8-bit or 16-bit processors. They are still around. Over half the microprocessors sold are 8-bit. Think toaster, microwave oven, etc. According to statistics in wikipedia, less than 10% are 32-bit or more. Desktop and laptops account for only 2%. :)

deanlinkous said: why is their truly a benefit to 64bit or just hype?

Comparing the x86-64 architecture (e.g., amd64) to the x86-32, the 64 has twice as many general purpose registers and twice as many multimedia registers. Computations are much faster in registers than when you have to access memory.

The additional general purpose registers has also allowed them to use a faster mechanism for calling functions. Rather than push arguments onto the stack (which causes a memory access), arguments are passed in registers. It's much faster.

So there is a lot more to the story than simply being able to address more memory.

Having said this, the real speed increases will come when programs are redesigned to take full advantage of multi-core processors.

What I was clumsily trying to say in my earlier post, was that 64bit's time has not yet arrived.

has twice as many general purpose registers and twice as many multimedia registers. Computations are much faster in registers than when you have to access memory.

Much faster as in one blink of my eye compared to two blinks? Is that going to matter when I click to play my ChiliPeppers CD?

The additional general purpose registers has also allowed them to use a faster mechanism for calling functions. Rather than push arguments onto the stack (which causes a memory access), arguments are passed in registers. It's much faster.

Whew thank goodness.... Oh wait, the computer I use now seems plenty fast enough. I cannot say anything is slow about it.

So there is a lot more to the story than simply being able to address more memory.

Agreed and I truly appreciate the explanation. I was just doubting if it is a revolution or simply the latest fad that everyone just has to have because everyone else has it....

Having said this, the real speed increases will come when programs are redesigned to take full advantage of multi-core processors.

That sounds like sage knowledge! I just question if a dude wasting all his time surfing the forum is going to see/feel a difference.

I personally have never noticed a difference in my 1.7ghz pentiumIV and my 3.2 celeron D? So I question if 64bit is going to be anything I HAVE to have or just have because that is what everything is going to.

deanlinkous said: So I question if 64bit is going to be anything I HAVE to have or just have because that is what everything is going to.

Well, my first job out of college was to design part of the guidance system on the Gemini space capsule. I did that with a slide rule. So I know that we can do a lot of things without any computer. Another job I had was designing system software for a CT scanner. The principle behind a CT scan is quite simple. But you can't collect the data fast enough for a good picture without a computer.

I claim that the only reason to use a computer is to go faster. Now the question becomes, how fast is fast enough?

Think about cars. My current car, a Prius, is slow by today's standards. Yet it's about as fast as the 1982 Audi Coupe I owned back then, and it was considered "sporty."

I still have my slide rule -- just in case. :)

handy said: What I was clumsily trying to say in my earlier post, was that 64bit's time has not yet arrived.

Ah, sorry. I misunderstood.

Having used 64-bit for a year and a half, I agree with you. We are still in transition. I think that people thought it would be easy because the 64-bit processors will also run 32-bit code. Nope. Nothing in this field is easy.

Actually, things would be going a lot faster if the 64-bit processors would NOT run 32-bit code. Then people with 64-bit machines would not buy 32-bit apps, and developers would quickly switch to 64-bit.

I am retired, so my computer is simply fun now. But if I really had to get work done, I would definitely be running 32-bit.

lol, I'm retired too!

I installed Breezy 64bit when I first started using Linux seriously. It was ok, but some things were a lot harder or impossible to install under 64bit. So after trashing my system following someones how-to, I decided I'll re-install (I was a windoze tech' :rolleyes: ) & take the opportunity to see what the 32bit Breezy is like.

I've used Breezy, Dapper, Edgy, gNewsense, Sidux & Dapper again, on my 2 machines, & every install since my initial Breezy 64bit, has been the 32bit version.

Installing one of the 64bit OS's & running all the 32bit app's, (Wine) is not for beginners, its for advanced users who enjoy using there knowledge, or have a genuine application that can truly use the extra computing power.

For the rest of us I think that 64bit OS's are more trouble than they are worth.

handy said:

For the rest of us I think that 64bit OS's are more trouble than they are worth.

I agree. I was a CS Professor. My specialty is assembly language. There are two reasons I'm running 64-bit: (1) I want to learn the x86-64 instruction set architecture, and (2) I'm doing a little consulting with a friend who does some heavy duty math that can benefit from 64-bit.

I've managed to pretty much avoid Windows. My preferred platform before Linux was Mac OS X. I have an old g4 Mac next to me that I can fire up whenever I want to look at multimedia stuff, etc.

And back to the original question of this thread, I just started working with Debian a few weeks ago. I have almost decided that it provides a little more flexibility for people like me who want to dig into things. One of these days I actually may contribute some of my programming expertise.

I have also considered Gentoo. The overall problem I see there is that one is almost obligated to work with source code. With Debian (and Ubuntu), I can always work with the source code if I choose.

The best thing about being retired is that now I can choose my projects and playmates. No more university administrators! :)

rplantz said:

The best thing about being retired is that now I can choose my projects and playmates. No more university administrators! :)

I do understand! :) & I wish you all the very best.

That wise saying comes to mind:

Time is very precious, waste it wisely... :KS

deanlinkous said:

I personally have never noticed a difference in my 1.7ghz pentiumIV and my 3.2 celeron D? So I question if 64bit is going to be anything I HAVE to have or just have because that is what everything is going to.

To your first point...yea celerons are that slow. :P

Anyway, it comes down to what you do. If you browse the internet and read email then maybe you don't need more than 1.7ghz. Programming, video editing, gaming, 3D modeling, etc will take advantage of these things that just look like hype to you. We've been using 32bit forever and if we were to never transition it would eventually become another bottleneck. Right now I personally think hardrives and maybe bus speeds are the bottlenecks. I don't have a 64bit yet only because (like it has been said) the software isn't there yet.

There is no big difference between Debian and Ubuntu and as said on Ubuntu homepage: "the Ubuntu project attempts to work with Debian to address the issues that keep many users from using Debian. Ubuntu provides a system based on Debian with frequent time-based releases, corporate accountability, and a more considered desktop interface. Ubuntu provides users with a way to deploy Debian with security fixes, release critical bug fixes, a consistent desktop interface, and to never be more than six months away from the latest version of anything in the open source world."

"When a bug is reported in the Debian bug tracking system and then later fixed in Ubuntu, the fixes are often automatically communicated back directly to the debian bug system. Patches are also published automatically on patches.ubuntu.com. The long term goal of that work is to ensure that patches made by the full-time Ubuntu team members are immediately also included in debian packages where the debian maintainer likes the work."

IMO the main difference is the feel (never used Debian though) so if u are using Ubuntu or Debian and it works fine for u than that is the best distro for u

They are both as good they just target a different audience