SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
Datamation examines the Debian and Ubuntu distros in detail by starting with the question, what is the difference between Debian and Ubuntu? Neither GNU/Linux distro has been out of Distrowatch's top six since 2005, and for the last four years neither has been out of the top three. There are good reasons for that. Though if systemd is not your cup of tea, there is also a Debian fork, Devuan, which is basically Debian GNU/Linux minus systemd.
[Ed Note: For many in the community who are Linux experts, this article may have no appeal. For those of us that are new to it and trying to learn, something this basic is a nice read and contains good information.]
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Debian vs. Ubuntu: What's the Difference?
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 57 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16 2017, @02:47PM (15 children)
No.
https://www.debian.org/social_contract [debian.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16 2017, @03:03PM (6 children)
Then why do they support systemd?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16 2017, @03:29PM (5 children)
Because it's what their users want & need based on the social contract they have. instead of what purists think it should be or what was good tens of years ago. Needs change and what used to work doesn't always keep working ad infinitum. Sometimes you really do have to throw shit out and begin anew.
That being said, I fall in the purist category, but I see their point and don't go all Holy War & Crusade on it. I'm a pragmatic purist, if you will.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 16 2017, @03:38PM
Nonsense. There has been no outcry from users that the distros move to systemd. The users need and want an init system - and few of them cared much about which one to use. Those few have always been free to choose which one to use, of course.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16 2017, @04:02PM (3 children)
Systemd was never designed for users or to meet their needs. It was designed solely for the people that make distros and do the packaging of software for the distros.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday July 16 2017, @04:56PM (2 children)
Those people don't want it either. Hey guys, instead of something small simple and has its bugs fixed, here's an enormous cancerous monolith that hasn't been debugged yet, its not exactly a better mousetrap. Its the oldest marketing game in the book, manufacture a need while coincidentally providing the only solution.
I had to move to freebsd, and its working great. Best conspiracy theory ever is the *BSD people are supporting and financing systemd to destroy linux and force *BSD adoption. Its more likely Microsoft has some submarine patent preparing to launch. Embrace extend extinguish. Become the monopoly provider of init, dns resolution, sound, ssh, who knows what else, then whoops a daisy some MS patent is being violated and you can either roll back technology half a decade to pre-monopoly era, or just pay a cheap $5/host licensing fee to microsoft, or accept this generous $10 off coupon to upgrade to Windows Server 2016 or whatever they're calling it.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday July 17 2017, @02:07AM
We need more of this sort of post from you. Modded up. Stick to technical stuff and lay off the politics, huh? This is where your strength lies.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 20 2017, @12:58AM
The manufactured solution but not the submarine patent is right asfaik. It's all about Redhat etc being able to sell consulting services and whatnot which requires *drumroll* special knowledge of systemd which only they can provide. They even have the crystal ball for the next "feature"..
And then it exposes Linux to new bugs in case anyone tries to defend their privacy.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 16 2017, @03:46PM (7 children)
"We will be guided by the needs of our users and the free software community."
And - who are Debian's users? Or, more to the point, who were Debian's users when the contract was written? Even today, the real rookies aren't drawn especially to Debian. The less experienced, less sophisticated users are magnetically drawn to Ubuntu sub-distros, including Linux Mint. As they gain experience and sophistication, SOME of those users move on to Debian and other distros.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16 2017, @03:55PM (3 children)
Ah, yes... the "noobs will be noobs" defense.
Pray, continue to tell us how much you are better than everyone else for using a 'hardcore' distro and how all these noobs are fucking up your life.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 16 2017, @05:03PM
The "noobs" thing is what it is. Ubuntu strives to be easy to work with. It seemed to many of us that it was trying to be Linux' version of Windows, especially with that whole Unity/Metro thing. People who have never opened a CLI in their lives could be comfortable on Ubuntu. My own wife fits into that crowd, or very nearly so. She has actually used DOS a little bit, and can open a Command prompt on Windows. She, at least, recognizes a terminal for what it is. Many people don't.
And, those of us who consider ourselves to be "real" Linux users can't imagine computers without a terminal.
It is what it is, and none of your objections will change the facts of life. Maybe I fail to express it properly, and/or maybe you fail to understand it properly, but it remains what it is, and there are very separate target audiences addressed by the two distros.
Ubuntu worked hard to capture the Windows crowd, while Debian went on with what they have always done. By definition, that contract caters to Debian Linux users, not to Windows users.
(Score: 2) by ragequit on Monday July 17 2017, @03:13AM (1 child)
I use Slackware. Migrated all the servers from Suse to Ubuntu in 2013 (service contract expired); all servers to Slackware in 2014. Never regretted the decision. No Ubuntu, I do not want to reboot to apply your updates.
The above views are fabricated for your reading pleasure.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday July 20 2017, @01:03AM
How do you handle new kernel fixes without reboot? I think I read something about a such feature.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday July 16 2017, @03:59PM (1 child)
Mint sucks shit. I have explained why many times on this website. I wish the muh Linux Mint meme would fucking go away already.
Ubuntu sucks. But you can configure it to be as perfect as you like.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 16 2017, @05:06PM
Linux Mint isn't bad. LMDE, or, Linux Mint Debian Edition is better, IMHO, but Mint is alright. I ran Mint for awhile, then I ran LMDE. I was happy with them, until I hopped to a different distro. For that matter, the only reason I broke with Ubuntu was the Unity thing. My wife would still be running Ubuntu, if not for Unity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 16 2017, @10:34PM
Well, my mom... seriously...
and no, she's the opposite of a geeky user.