Debian Ubuntu Linux Solutions Blog

51 Comments

1. 
   Charliebrownau
   February 17th, 2009 at 11:28 pm

   Reason’s I use Debian instead of Ubuntu

   - Updating via Local Optical Media instead of Internet
   Debian comes on Multiple DVD’s that I can update local via burnt dvds instead of using Internet Quota and getting shaped.
   Also when I am at an Lan Party with NO Internet I can quicky grab the discs and update if needed without going ” ohh no , no internet Im stuff”

   - I would rather use Plain Debian .deb’s then download programs that only work on Ubuntu as .deb . This way the one .deb file works on both Ubuntu and Plain debian and other distros that are deb based . (I keep a copy of all opensource , gpl and freeware deb/linux files on my file server to share to others that use Linux)

   - Debian changes less – Debians upgrade system seems to be better and more suited for what I need in an operating system , as it doesnt change as frequent as Ubuntu , this way I know its going to work and be stable if I upgrade to the next major release of Debian

   - Recently more ISP’s in Australia are proving free quota/free traffic Debian mirrors instead of Ubuntu mirror servers

   Reply to this comment

   

   Kushal Reply:
   February 17th, 2009 at 11:43 pm

   Thanks.Your reasons are added. I only selected reasons which I think are relevant to the interest of this particular post. Nevertheless, people can see all your reasons in the comment section.:) Thank you.

   Reply to this comment

2. 
   nikhil
   February 25th, 2009 at 2:03 pm

   i love mandriva for its ease of installation and my preference for kde
   kubuntu is no match for mandriva’s kde.
   ubuntu is too bloated and runs rather slowly on my pc.

   Reply to this comment

   

   Kushal Reply:
   February 26th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

   Thanks Nikhil, for your comments.
   Your reason has been added:
   http://linux.koolsolutions.com/2009/02/17/100-reasons-why-debian-is-preferred-over-ubuntu/

   Reply to this comment

3. 
   sleepy
   April 9th, 2009 at 11:25 am

   i am a linux newbie. i have ubuntu box and a debian box on some donated hardware. ubuntu works great but i chose debian on the new hardware because of the architecture support. if i am going to invest anytime in learning something new, i want to make sure that i get the most out of it. debian way surpasses ubuntu on the type of architecture that it will run on. that is why i prefer debian. check it out here…

   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions#Architecture_support

   Reply to this comment

   

   Admin Reply:
   April 9th, 2009 at 11:30 am

   Thank you for your comment. It has now been posted here:
   http://linux.koolsolutions.com/2009/02/17/100-reasons-why-debian-is-preferred-over-ubuntu/comment-page-1/#comment-9072

   Reply to this comment

4. 
   Peter
   April 28th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

   Debian is liberated – free as in freedom – from proprietary junk software

   Reply to this comment

   

   Admin Reply:
   April 28th, 2009 at 4:41 pm

   Thank you Peter for your comment!

   Your comment has been added!

   Reply to this comment

5. 
   Joseph Uncolager
   June 11th, 2009 at 1:31 pm

   Looks like there may be a lack of ideas…personally I use both (for different purposes). Maybe what we need is “Which is best for what and why”?

   Reply to this comment

   

   Admin Reply:
   June 12th, 2009 at 10:53 am

   Joseph, I think you are right. I realized that some time back. I think I was over ambitious to for 100 Reasons. May be I should have stick with 10% of 100 = 10 reasons. Sounds like a reasonable ask.

   Reply to this comment

6. 
   Zahid
   June 18th, 2009 at 12:37 am

   debian strictly adheres to the open source philosophy and free from any kind of trademarks. That is why, I prefer to say, debian is a distro without any trademarks.

   The debian can be used both for desktop, server & netbook. Ubuntu has different distro for different audience(desktop, server, netbook).

   Thanks for initiating this idea.

   Reply to this comment

   

   Admin Reply:
   June 18th, 2009 at 9:58 am

   Thanks Zahid!

   Your comment has been added now.

   Reply to this comment

7. 
   Dan
   July 9th, 2009 at 3:54 pm

   Debian has been built by the community. Ubuntu was heavily funded. Nothing beats a solid committed community. It’s been estimated that if you were to pay to build Debian 4.0 it would cost around 10 billion dollars. That’s quite a community.

   Reply to this comment

8. 
   dean
   December 30th, 2009 at 9:25 pm

   i’m waiting for my new Eee pc. it has an atom 280, 1g ram, wifi and bluetooth, 250g hd, that other os #7, and i would love debian. now how do i get it! just waiting on amazon and you.
   happy new year

   Reply to this comment

9. 
   Derek Broughton
   January 25th, 2010 at 7:11 am

   I’d have to disagree about installing via DVD rather than net – that’s as easy to do with Ubuntu as Debian.

   My last 3 or 4 systems ran Ubuntu. The next will be back to Debian. “Debian changes slowly” is a two-edged sword. I left Debian when Sarge took almost forever to release, and Ubuntu came along at the right time, but Ubuntu has a “change-for-change’s sake” mentality, and KDE has been a disaster for almost two years. Also, I’m really tired of the policing on their user lists which, while supposedly intended to keep everything friendly, so as not to scare off newbies, results in a lack of community.

   Reply to this comment

10. 
    John
    March 12th, 2010 at 12:04 pm

    Debian is much older and therefore more mature; it has more past experiences to learn from. At age six, Ubuntu isn’t mature at all compared to it’s rivals.

    Reply to this comment

11. 
    Philippe
    April 12th, 2010 at 8:14 am

    first of all wow!! more than one year and only 10 reasons…

    here is my contrib:

    - without debian, ubuntu would not exist.

    Reply to this comment

12. 
    Ben in Seattle
    April 18th, 2010 at 8:49 am

    * Debian doesn’t have a “business model”.

    * Debian has a constitution and a social contract.

    * Debian is released when it is ready.

    * Whenever there has been a conflict between being popular and following their principles, Debian has always kept to their principles. (See: “Iceweasel” vs “Firefox”).

    * Debian has a deep commitment to ethics and morality, particularly when it comes to Free Software.

    * Debian knows the difference between “Free Software” and “Open Source Software” and intentionally uses the word “Free” to emphasize freedom.

    * Debian actually recognizes that GNU (the OS) is not the same thing as Linux (the kernel) and makes a point of it in the name of their flagship “product”: Debian GNU/Linux.

    * Debian is able to rein in the madness for whiz-bang features (which we all feel) and release a truly STABLE distribution. (An amazing feat!)

    * Debian’s developers tend to be from the old school UNIX hacker community and it shows in the well thought out design.

    * Very few wheels are reinvented, and when invention is necessary, it is thoroughly thought out and done *right* (for example dpkg/apt).

    * Debian works on well-nigh everything (my latest desktop PC, my cell phone, my antique Macintosh, and my video game console).

    * Debian has a command-line centric community. (People who have only used graphical user interfaces may not know it, but the command line is a Very Good Thing.)

    * Debian defaults to a text-mode installer which is fast and just plain *works*. It is not as graphically pretty, but for a hacker it has beauty, for example hitting Alt-F2 to pull up a console during installation.

    * When a Debian advocate says she has “1001 reasons”, chances are, she’s counting in binary. (Unless she’s Scheherazade).

    –Ben

    Reply to this comment

    

    Derek Broughton Reply:
    May 3rd, 2010 at 5:42 am

    Ben makes some good points. But some are not good, or even valid.

    What’s wrong with having a business model? I’m sure Medecins Sans Frontieres has a business model. Not having one doesn’t make Debian worse, but neither does it make it better.

    “Debian is released when it is ready.” Precisely. How many remember Sarge? – the number one reason why Ubuntu took off in such a big way! You can have too much of a good thing – and waiting 3 years for Sarge was definitely too much.

    “Very few wheels are reinvented, and when invention is necessary, it is thoroughly thought out and done *right* (for example dpkg/apt).” Wait – isn’t this a Debian vs. Ubuntu page? Which parts of Ubuntu were reinvented?

    And frankly the “command-line centric community” is one of the things that drove me from Debian in the first place. I DO use the CLI, extensively, but I’m a firm believer that a well-designed GUI is better for the average user – and that brands me a heretic in Debian-land.

    Reply to this comment

    

    Ben in Seattle Reply:
    May 4th, 2010 at 3:56 am

    Hi Derek!

    Thanks for the feedback, I’m glad to hear I at least made a few good points. :D

    As a hardcore commandline user, I’m surprised and disappointed to hear that you felt a heretic in “Debian-land” for holding a perfectly reasonable sentiment.¹ GUIs are everywhere for a good reason: they work for the average user, and most Debian folk know that.

    I’d like you to feel welcome in Debian-land again next time you visit, so please allow me to attempt to explain a paradox. Debian folks can agree with you, that a well-designed GUI is better for the average user, and yet still be commandline centric.

    I think the crux is the definition of “well-designed GUI”. Despite how easy it is to use GUIs, it’s very hard to design one well. There are just so many things that could go wrong, or break, or be forgotten all together. That’s why, if you take a genius GUI programmer and a genius CLI programmer, you’ll find that the commandline interface programmer has much more time for making her program more powerful and more robust. GUIs crash not because it’s inherent in them, but because it’s so difficult to design them well.

    Sometimes I just want to get work done and a GUI gets in the way of what I want to express. At those times, I need to be able to drop down to the commandline so I can use a reliable, flexible solution. Too often, I’ve realized that if Debian didn’t exist, the CLI solution wouldn’t have existed either.

    Many GNU/Linux projects, including Ubuntu, seem a bit embarrassed about their commandline roots. They devote their resources to hiding it from newbies. I think that’s a valuable service since the commandline isn’t for everybody.

    We live in a world that too often mistakes the commandline as an archaic relic rather than the fundamental infrastructure it is. One of the wonderful things about Debian is that it recognizes that and doesn’t have to waste time debating the merits of whether there should be a commandline tool for this or that: the answer is, “yes, of course”.

    –Ben

    ¹ Footnote: The word “heretic” makes me think of a crowd of people pointing and squealing at you like in “Attack of the Body Snatchers”. I’d rather use the word “apostate”. Unless you actually are talking about body snatchers, in which case, I apologize, but, unfortunately, they’ve overrun the earth.

    Reply to this comment

    

    Ben in Seattle Reply:
    May 4th, 2010 at 4:56 am

    I realized I skipped over your other comments. I don’t want to take up a lot of space, so I’ll just treat them quickly.

    You make an excellent point about Sarge taking years before it was fully baked. Ubuntu was a reasonable reaction, and the Debian folks are folding some of the ideas back into it, like timed code-freezes. Personally, I enjoy contributing to a project that releases when its ready, rather than being on an artificial deadline. It feels too much like “real work” if I’m shipping software that I know is going to make people unhappy.

    About business models. My point is that Debian folks are “amateurs” in the original sense of the word: they work for love, not money. I respect that that may not be a benefit in your book, but it sure is for me. By the way, I think Doctors Without Borders, while mostly incomparable, is similar to Debian in that only someone who misses the point would ask, “But what’s its business model?” On the other hand, many critics have asked the same about Ubuntu and the Ubuntu folks for some reason feel the need to come up with an answer. (Personally, I think they should just laugh at the critics and keep on doing good work, but maybe that’s a luxury that only comes with having a project that’s almost old enough to vote and can already drink in some states.)

    You do have a good point that Ubuntu doesn’t reinvent the wheel too often since it is based on Debian. I probably should retract that point, since it really is Gnome that is my bugaboo, not Ubuntu. (Oooh, I’m a poet and I don’t even know it!) The point I was attempting to make is that Debian’s slow, deliberative process does invention very, very well.

    –Ben

    Reply to this comment

13. 
    Dennis M. Linton
    August 23rd, 2010 at 4:53 pm

    Ubuntu is great because it allowed me to get up to speed using linux for everyday computing. It is not great because it no longer runs on old hardware, which was one of its original claims to fame, and the Server 10.4 that I installed on my Proliant 3000 has a memory leak that reduces 1.8 Gb RAM to about 200 Kb in less than five days so I do not get to report my server uptime in weeks or months but days. No one seems to know what causes the problem and, seemingly, even fewer have any interest in fixing it.

    On a lark, a few days ago I installed Debian something (sorry, not up to speed on version names but it is current) on an old Dell OptiPlex GX150 (1.1 GHz, 256 Mb RAM, 20 Gb HD) that sits beside my dual boot (Ubuntu 10.4 and that XP thing, which I have to suffer for work sometimes) work computer on a four port KVM switch. I use this antique for web and e-mail when I am stuck on the wrong OS on the work computer. Much to my surprise, the old Dell does okay (writing this on it) with Debian installed along with both LXDE and Gnome desktops. I had given up trying to find something that would work with some intention of getting the job done – WattOS, Linux Mint, XUbuntu and others were all very, very sluggish.

    Now as a result of Ubuntu I understand Debian sufficiently to use it for work and even run a server (file, web, email, ftp, ssh). Also, as a result of Ubuntu, I am looking for something non-Ubuntu. I have a feeling that the 10 or 12 Ubuntu installs I have around here are going to broach extinction within the next few months.

    There you have it, Ubuntu and Debian are both great but at this point in my life, or learning curve if you will, Debian is greater.

    -Dennis

    Reply to this comment

14. 
    hintss
    September 1st, 2010 at 3:51 pm

    switching to debian because my friend kept calling me a noon for using ubuntu :P

    Reply to this comment

15. 
    Kevin
    December 9th, 2010 at 12:40 pm

    Debian gives you more control over your operating system.

    Reply to this comment

    

    derek Reply:
    December 10th, 2010 at 9:42 am

    It’s the _same_ operating system! There is absolutely zero that can be done with Debian that can’t be done with Ubuntu – on architectures supported by Ubuntu. There are valid reasons for going with either one over the other, but this is just bias.

    Reply to this comment

    

    Ben in Seattle Reply:
    December 20th, 2010 at 8:19 pm

    Hi Derek,

    I have a different take on it. Just because you can do the same things doesn’t mean that both systems make it equally easy. Consider the Turing Machine, which consists of a long tape on which symbols can be written and a read/write head that can move along the tape based on the symbols read. A Turing Machine is equivalent to the most advance computer; anything one can do, the other can do. That doesn’t mean that to choose one over the other is “bias”.

    Ubuntu intentionally shields the user from the “scary” parts of Unix. This is, in many ways, a good thing and makes for a softer landing for people switching from Microsoft Windows. Debian takes the tack that a strenuous learning curve is worth it as users will gain the mastery they need to control their system. (Whether users *want* control is another question.)

    You don’t have to look far to see that this is true. Try running the Debian Installer and the Ubuntu Installer. Which one gives you more control? I’d say it’s the one that gives me a text console that I can hit Alt-F2 on to get a shell, Alt-F4 to see the console log, and Escape to get a full menu of all the install steps. On unusual hardware, particularly some wireless devices, being able to stop in the middle of the install to configure things from the shell has been a life-saver for me.

    There are benefits to Ubuntu’s simplicity, but it is not bias to say that Debian gives users more control. As with the Turing Machine, sure, you could do the same thing with Ubuntu, but it would be easier to just use Debian than to try to make Ubuntu act like Debian.

    Reply to this comment

    

    Kushal Koolwal Reply:
    December 21st, 2010 at 9:44 am

    Great point Ben! I like your example of Turing Machines…completely forgot about them since my CS undergrad classes….:D

    Reply to this comment

    

    banger Reply:
    May 27th, 2011 at 10:16 pm

    Hmmm can you do a min install with ubuntu like debian can?

    Reply to this comment

16. 
    Alexander Bermud
    January 29th, 2011 at 12:37 pm

    Debian boots in the verbose mode, what makes it look more cool (To me), and also allows me to see whats currently happening.

    Reply to this comment

17. 
    rudel
    February 5th, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    Debian lacks pro-active security:

    http://labs.mwrinfosecurity.com/notices/security_mechanisms_in_linux_environment__part_1___userspace_memory_protection/
    http://labs.mwrinfosecurity.com/notices/assessing_the_tux_strength_part_2_into_the_kernel/

    And it’s generally less secure because of package maintainers playing with patches (OpenSSL, PHP Suhosin, Exim).

    Since Debian isn’t a rolling release distro, it’s good keeping you awake at night what security patch might have been missed in your running software by the package maintainer.

    Reply to this comment

18. 
    Onlyjob
    April 3rd, 2011 at 10:47 pm

    Because Debian is universal – it’s good for new computers as well as for old ones.
    Debian equally suitable for Desktops and for Servers.
    It is very convenient to have one system suitable for nearly everything – I even have Debian on my Nokia N900 phone. ;)

    Reply to this comment

19. 
    Onlyjob
    April 3rd, 2011 at 10:48 pm

    Because Debian is original first generation distribution, not a redundant parasiting derivative.

    Reply to this comment

20. 
    Onlyjob
    April 3rd, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    Because in Debian ‘stable’ we can cherry-pick packages from ‘backports’ repository as well as from rolling-release ‘testing’ and ‘unstable’ versions. This gives power and flexibility.

    Reply to this comment

21. 
    Onlyjob
    April 3rd, 2011 at 10:57 pm

    Because by using and supporting Debian I pay respect to community and free software values. (Not to selfish company behind Ubuntu).
    Making Debian a little bit stronger will benefit Ubuntu as well. (I’m not sure regarding the opposite).

    Reply to this comment

22. 
    Onlyjob
    April 3rd, 2011 at 10:58 pm

    Because Debian is innovative while Ubuntu is copy-cat.

    Reply to this comment

23. 
    Onlyjob
    April 3rd, 2011 at 11:08 pm

    Because Debian is not just GNU/Linux distribution but also a family of customised (and pure blend) Debian distributions.
    Ubuntu is not a customised Debiand because Ubuntu is incompatible with Debian due to changes to repository, repackaging etc.
    Ubuntu has no added value over Debian.

    It is important to understand that family of customised Debian distributions share the same community while Ubuntu in fact separate this community by “pulling the blanket”.

    Reply to this comment

24. 
    Onlyjob
    April 3rd, 2011 at 11:14 pm

    Because Debian is free distribution, it is free from trademarks while Ubuntu is not free: its trademark policy prohibits commercial redistribution of exact copies of Ubuntu, denying an important freedom.

    Reply to this comment

25. 
    Meh
    May 25th, 2011 at 9:32 pm

    Linux in general evolved out of companies, saying that it is completely free is an understatement and you probably don’t know history and economics. While it is true Linus Torvalds adapted the kernel, he didn’t really write the OS and there is much more to an OS than just the kernel. Linux as it stands is held together by giants (IBM, Novell, Red Hat etc) if they decide to call it quits we can all just pack our bags, fact remains without some level of corporate backing Linux simply has no future.

    Same however does not apply to BSD, BSD is not a fork but a complete OS from core kernel to all its bearings including software. What makes BSD different is the license because of this developers don’t need to focus on giving each other an endless pat on the back. It also has some twists that will never be allowed to come over to the GNU license pyramid, best example “ZFS” good luck seeing that on Linux.

    Linux is a clone of Unix not Unix like!

    BSD is a direct derivative of Unix and not a clone or Unix like emulation!

    Reply to this comment

    

    Bob Reply:
    May 31st, 2011 at 8:34 pm

    Sorry buddy but if linux stopped having corporate backing it will still be alive. extremist will continue to develop the kernel and feed more code into it. this is only possible thanks to the GPL licensing, which means that everyone has the freedom to take and modify its source code. Its code is not a dependent on corporations to keep it alive, thats just window$. BSD-Unix is an awesome OS as well and many distros implement the simplicity of it’s init/rc scripts. the only thing that is trademarked is the name “Linux” because of Linus Torvalds.

    Reply to this comment

    

    Meh Reply:
    June 14th, 2011 at 10:30 pm

    I will take your word for it and I stand corrected :)

    Although I would say it wouldn’t be much for open source to pull strings from if OEM drivers go awol, imagine the pain in the rear end. Having to hand code tens of thousands of lines for every piece of driver in existence or yet to come out. Not saying it’s impossible but does seem improbable. Putting aside the legal ramifications.

    Reply to this comment

26. 
    banger
    May 27th, 2011 at 10:12 pm

    I have found debian much more stable. I find i have to fix more stuff relating to my hardware with ubuntu, there very frequent updates may contrib to this.

    The only effective package i found in ubuntu was their Nvidia proprietry driver installer, but i have had that crash on a kernel update, which i got sick of every other day;-(

    Reply to this comment

27. 
    Bobnonymous
    May 31st, 2011 at 1:10 pm

    Debian is more transparent in a technical perspective, allowing and encouraging the user to see what’s going on behind the scenes. This is specially important to aspiring Linux System Administrators because it encourages the user to RTFM instead of staying a newb and asking silly questions to problems easily understood and solvable from the manual. ‘Ubuntu’ is just a Southern African word for “I can’t configure Debian”

    Reply to this comment

28. 
    Meh
    June 14th, 2011 at 10:21 pm

    LOL 100 useless facts!

    I wonder if those people ever considered the fact that Ubuntu is based on Debian, in fact the core teams responsible for the two products are in fact the same people. Ubuntu is geared towards a commercial friendly and easier to use scheme, whereas Debian is geared toward providing a mass audience of old and young users/devs not just an OS but a complete set of variations of the same thing that can be adapted for any kind of situation. The only difference here is that Debian is designed with completely free code in mind.

    Reply to this comment

29. 
    Terrence
    July 29th, 2011 at 8:21 am

    I Choose Debian over Ubuntu because it gives you a choice and does not force unity on you

    Reply to this comment

30. 
    KaeLuX
    August 2nd, 2011 at 1:32 am

    I prefer Debian over Ubuntu for the speed and the relaxed dependencies.

    Red always has been one of my favorite colors. I don’t really like brownish orange.

    Lots of Debian tweaks doesn’t work under Ubuntu.

    I like the logo?

    Ubuntu’s minimal install is already bloated.

    I tried everything: Mandriva, Fedora, Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Knoppix, OpenSUSE, Arch linux and Gentoo. I always get back to Good Ol’ Debian.

    Reply to this comment

31. 
    TurquoiseGNU
    August 4th, 2011 at 3:22 pm

    The reason why I prefer Debian is; any 3rd party linux based script or application has more documentation on debian as debian is more understandable and easy to manage.

    Reply to this comment

32. 
    Justin
    February 3rd, 2012 at 9:52 pm

    Debian has a special team auditing their package respository for security vulnerabilities. No other distro does this. Not even OpenBSD.

    Reply to this comment

33. 
    Daniel
    August 30th, 2012 at 8:43 am

    Debian changes less. That`s a little exaggerated here.
    Ubuntu`s Long Term Support Versions (like the current 12.04 )are supported 2 years. You get updates, e.g. for security in these 2 years and dont have to install a new OS. 2 years is a good cicle. You dont need any of the STS Versions.

    I´m not really pro Ubunu but let`s keep it fair. Also Reason #90: “switching to Debian because my friend kept calling me a noon for using Ubuntu :P” is just nonsense babble. It doesn`t fit in a serious discussion.

    Reply to this comment

    

    Ben in Seattle Reply:
    September 1st, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    While I agree being called a “noon” is not a good enough reason to switch––well maybe it is, if I knew what a “noon” was––I do have to point out that *any* discussion of “x OS is better than y OS” is guaranteed to be pure nonsense babble.

    Reply to this comment

34. 
    Ben in Seattle
    September 5th, 2012 at 8:48 am

    Is it just me or are “reasons” #91 and #79 not actually reasons that
    Debian is better than Ubuntu?

    I suggest replacing them with:

    * Ubuntu has lost its way. Ubuntu’s original goal was to simply get
    wonderful, already existing Free Software code out there to the
    masses. (“Linux for Humans!”) Some people criticized Ubuntu for not
    giving back code to the community, but Ubuntu stated they were
    contributing enough by “reducing friction” in popularizing
    GNU/Linux. I tend to agree that they did a good job at that.
    Unfortunately, Ubuntu has tried for the last two years (as of 2012)
    to also be a major developer by pushing “Unity” (see below) and it
    has meant they are no longer the frictionless conduit they once
    aimed to be.

    * Unity. I wish Ubuntu luck with their Unity user interface, but it’s
    still not ready, as of 2012, as a viable desktop user interface.
    (Yes, you can replace it or install a modified version of Ubuntu,
    but why not just use Debian?)

    Reply to this comment

35. 
    DebianRocks
    March 14th, 2013 at 10:32 pm

    Debian (unlike Ubuntu) actually values the users privacy. This can be seen with the Amazon integrated search debauchle in Ubuntu.

    Reply to this comment

Leave a Reply