i had debian. then i installed ubuntu, and i didnt like it. i just didnt. now i have debian again and i love it.
is ubuntu more popular than debian?
as far as i know ubuntu is knock-off from debian woody. wouldnt ubuntu be dependent on debian packages anyway? it looks like ubuntu has separate apt repositories... whats better?
to be honest i am NOT a n00b in computing and dont need all that sweet user interface integration and stuff like that. i live just fine in terminal.
can someone explain why there is ubuntu?(other than someone's personal project)
can an expert tell me which one is better and why?(compare it to sarge or etch. i understand that ubuntu might introduce packages that are otherwise marked "testing" in debian a bit earlier for support reasons.)
i know this might trigger a violent debate... thats exactly what i want.

they're both terrible, actually. Slackware's the best.


I'm just kidding, of course. This is completely pointless - just try them both - maybe stick with Ubuntu a bit longer to see what it's really like, and make your decision.

i already made my decision. i chose debian sarge, for both my desktop and my server.
my server has been running for about 4 months now, without a single reboot.
ive had debian on this desktop for about as long and did alot of experiments on it. it lives after every major crash(i have a habit of removing things that the system uses... well there isnt a better way to change things out sometimes you know)
and no, i didnt ask to be told to try them. i asked a speciffic question for experts to tell me what the real difference is.
a friend of mine keeps bothering me about him using Ubuntu on his machine and how great it is... what is it about it? if ubuntu is derived from debian and gets its updated packages by sorting and testing debian packages, wouldnt ubuntu be always inferior to the current debian as a distro? am i missing something here?

Ubuntu is more geared toward inexperienced users. At least, that's what I've always thought. If you have the ability to use Debian, then I think you should go for it. Personally, however, I prefer Etch. It's more up to date.

Ubuntu (and it's sub-distros) use Unstable as a base (well, the new Dapper, version 6.06). Debian itself uses Testing for their general releases.

I generally like Debian (sid), however, the latest install cd doesn't want to install on my new computer. So, I'm trying Kubuntu.

i am using sarge and it uses all stable repositories by default. ive used testing repositories and was very dissapointed. perhaps for n00bs that only play around and surf testing and unstable packages work, for me programming libraries and compilers that are unstable only wreak havoc to my system and add more frustration while i am trying to adapt linux as my development platform (i write software for PIC microcontrollers).
yes it was the impression i got from ubuntu, a more user targeted distro.

I compile lots of stuff. I run sid at home, sarge at work. No problems compiling with, or using either. Maybe I've just been lucky.

I think it's wierd that you think n00bs are the one's using sid/etch. My guess would be n00bs (or people requiring ultimate stability, but no leading edge) choose sarge, and more experienced people who are willing (and capable) of fixing the rare breakage choose sid or etch. However, I probably would not choose sid for a mission critical work server, even though my home sid system has been rock-stable. The potential for instability is surely there, although I haven't personally experienced it. I check bug reports on packages I might want to install before I install them. This probably predisposes me to a more stable system. I haven't done a dist-upgrade on sid in quite a while. When I see all it wants to add, remove, and change, I say "no way". Not until I have some time to sort through the potential disasters that might occur. If you willy-nilly upgrade everything that pops up in the sid repositories, I can imagine you'd run into some issues!

this is a stupid question. you answered your own question on the first post. You tried both, and debian was the winner for you. Someone else migth choose differently, its all about choice.

I find them both to be very similar, and I use Debian Sarge on my server, and Kubuntu breezy on my desktop. As someone said earlier, Ubuntu is more geared towards newbies however there is no reason that it can't be used by experienced users.

Ubuntu tends to have more hardware support, and other nice things like the ability to install Nvidia drivers using apt.

--Ian

PS: Why is this thread getting abusive? It really is not necessary. At this site, we generally manage to be civilised.

nvidia drivers are avaliable in debian via apt as well. as i see you are using sarge, therefore you need to add other sources such as "testing" repositories. few nvidia related packages ever make it into stable because 100% stable and bug free video drivers are impossible to make. any platform suffers from such problems. from my experience, ubuntu is much quicker to distribute packages that are still testing or unstable on debian. ignoring the fact that a packages is potentially unstable is most certainly not an advantage. in fact it could potentially turn against you if you are having problems. it might not be obvious that there is a stability issue with it.
i am running sarge and i dont mix in testing packages unless it is absolutely necessary.
IDIT: btw compiling your nvidia drivers is more beneficial since the apt package is missing a few tricks.

Is that why Kubuntu broke on me after a few upgrades? X11 would crash on random bootups.

you may have not noticed but etch is still completely at testing stage. of course you can make sarge out of etch by selecting only stable repositories during your first net install, but you wont get etch, you will get sarge. versions of debian are quite fuzzy...
readily avaliable packages and adapted source is what makes a distro...

Ubuntu does not only aim to reach more inexperienced users (the desktop system is very straightforward to use, indeed) but also tries to reach the business market (both for servers and clients).
There are defined release dates and periods of official, granted support (as for the server version of Dapper, 5 years).
Ubuntu's commitment to business use might be emphasized by the facts they're already *certified* for IBM's DB/2 database and they're now closely working together with mySQL (to achieve the same goal I assume).

[Edit]In the meantime, I realized Ubuntu's already certified with three other major players: IBM DB/2, mySQL, and VMWare.[/Edit]

Currently, there are two Linux distributions offering business support and certifications: RHEL (RedHat) and SLES (SuSE). Ubuntu might become the third one.

Mark Shuttleworth, Ubuntu's founder, is a visionnaire, and a businessman. He's extremly thriving the evolution of Debian and Linux.

My two cents worth, As a linux noob, I really like Ubuntu. I tried Fedora, but to be fair, I had no idea of what I was doing so I didn't like it. (maybe I should take a look, again). After a little more exper. I tried Debian, and I found it easier to use than Fedora (except setup for fedora is really good, for stupid users and rescue disk easy to use, don't ask!). Now that I am really confused (and unlearning so much), Ubuntu setup and use seems to be a great toe hold for wanna-bees (I am learning more about CLI, but for now Ubuntu/Kde GUI works great for the other work, that must get done.

Which, thankfully, brings me to the opinion that for shear brute force stuff, Ubuntu may not be for you (see RHE). We as users, are responsible to get the most of what fits best. Go ahead and try something on, (that's what "live CD's are for.)

It should also be said that I have had quite a bit of experience with windose and I had no idea Linux (any flavor, anytime), could give me such free/FREE access to my own system. I BELIEVE, I am a convert (Linux in general, I feel like a geek, again, whew). I'll reboot when I want too!!!.

I use ubuntu because it is the only distro that detected all of my hardware straight after installing.. no config required. plus the ubuntu guide is awesome for getting started with linux, which I was when I first installed ubuntu. now I'm a lot better with linux, but I still choose to use ubuntu because it's simple to use, and, unlike the other noob distro's (suse, mandriva, fedora, etc), it doesn't hide the terminal from you; it actually encourages you to try it and get better at using it.

I tried debian several times, and it required a crapload of configuration after install. my x86config (whatever it was called, I'm used to xorg now) was completely messed up, my sound card wasn't detected, neither where the extra buttons on my mouse (the one thing ubuntu didn't detect out of the box), and to top it off it couldn't connect to the internet. I managed to fix it all up, but after that I ran into some more problems and just decided to scrap it in favor of ubuntu.