Ubuntu or Debian?
 

I have been a Linux user for about 8 years or so. I started using Ubuntu at 6.10 and have used it ever since, at least until Unity. I simply did not like Unity, I tried, just didn't go well for me. I then switched over to Linux Mint but it's not really what I want either.

I've never used Debian and am wondering how the UI compares with Ubuntu's Unity? How does it compare with what Ubuntu was using before Unity (Gnome 2.x I believe)? I'm really looking for Ubuntu before unity, would this be Debian?

Ubuntu's 'it just works' functionality really spoiled me. Can I expect the same from Debian? I don't need a lot of eye candy but I would like something functional, customizable, and easily configured. Nothing Arch Linux like :)

My understanding is that there are loads of apps for Debian, not quite as many as for Ubuntu, but more than enough. Please forgive my ignorance regarding Debian, but is it pretty user friendly? I'm not afraid of the command line but I'm no real hand at it either.

Any thoughts or suggestions are appreciated.

Thanks!

I highly recommend Debian! Debian's current Stable release (6.0 Squeeze, released Feb. 2009) has Gnome 2 (just like "classic" Ubuntu) and has another year, maybe 2, of support left. The next release (7.0 Wheezy, coming soon, in its final testing "freeze" now) will have the new Gnome 3. But NOT Ubuntu's whacky Unity interface!

If you are looking for a distro committed to keeping Gnome 2 alive indefinitely, the only one I know (and it's a good one!) is called Fuduntu: www.fuduntu.org

How does Debian work with peripherals such as my new Logitech C-310 webcam? I understand that Debian is more idealistic when it comes to non-free drivers and such than Ubuntu. Will this limit my ability to use such peripherals? I'm pretty much 90% ready for the switch, just gotta convince myself to go for it :)

I also understand that Debian has a much slower release cycle and many of the apps, such as GNUCash, my be a version or so behind those that Ubuntu is using. Is this the case? If so, about how behind are they? I'm not one that needs to be cutting edge, I do prefer stable to new and flashy, just don't want to get TO far behind the curve!

Thanks for the response.

you can install a ubuntu server then install a xfce or gnome desktop

I personally like Debian more, but if you were happy with Ubuntu, i think you should go with Mint.
Debian has three releases, Stable, Testing, and Unstable. Each one has newer software than the previous. Stable is default, and my personal preference due to less updates. Stable is similar to Ubuntu in the respect that it is a frozen release, just Ubuntu is likely to release three or more releases in the time Debian will release one. Due to Debian stables long releases, stable does often end up with older software, and this does cause issues with some newer hardware. Debian does have a backports repo though which can help tremendously with this issue. If you need newer software then Going with Testing or Unstable may be a better path but you may find bugs, and if you're running Unstable, even have an unbootable system if you don't read the change logs ect.

As for the Ui. Previous versions of Ubuntu, which you used and were happy with used the Gnome2 desktop environment. Gnome2 is no longer supported by the gnome team, and they're putting the efforts into the much different gnome3. Gnome3 uses a shell to have things work the way they do. Ubuntu uses Gnome3 as well but they have removed the gnome shell and Window manager and replaced them with there own Unity shell and Compiz to make things work the way Ubuntu works. Linux Mint (i believe) are the creators of the Cinnamon, which like Unity, is just a different shell and Window manager on Gnome3; designed to work similar to previous Gnome2.

Mate is a different desktop environment. Mate (i believe created by some Arch user folks) is a fork of Gnome2. This means Gnome 2.32 has been taken by some people and they've continued developing it where the previous developers had left it.
Mate still has some rough spots, since all the names have to be changed to allow for compatibility in distributions to work along side Gnome3 if the user chooses to. There may be other technical issues in development that are causing rough spots too that i'm unaware of. I have tried mate under Debian and Slackware and it seems very nice.

Due to Debians slightly older software, and more manual approach, as well as you were simply happy enough with Ubuntu, and Mint is basically just Ubuntu with a different name. My recommendation is to try Linux Mint, Mate edition.

I hope that's helped expand your knowledge and answer your question.

Hi,

there is no "Debian UI". Debian comes with a huge variety of window managers and desktop environments.
Have a browse of http://packages.debian.org

Evo2.

Interesting thread.

To the OP, no, you cannot expect Ubuntu's "it just works" approach with Debian. Debian is a darn fine distro and I do love it, but it is aggressively free, so that many of the things that Ubuntu does automatically, such as recognize NTFS drives or Broadcom wireless, require extra steps on Debian. Many things do "just work" in Debian, but not necessarily the newest or the non-free things.

Debian also will not be running the latest kernel; stability trumps bleeding edge for Debian. The implication of this is that will its hardware recognition will not be on par with the hardware recognition in the latest kernel. (I mention this because it relates to your question about the webcam; I did web search for Debian and that webcam and found nothing.)

Consequently, I agree with Knightron. Try Mint, MATE edition. I'm running it on one of my computers and it performs quite nicely.

Moderator Response
 

Moved: This thread is more suitable in <Linux-Distributions> and has been moved accordingly to help your thread/question get the exposure it deserves.

If you like Ubuntu and just don't like Unity you don't have to change the distro. Just use Ubuntu with Mate (as already mentioned a fork of Gnome 2) or any other desktop environment you like. May be you want to give Xubuntu a try, maybe you try Kubuntu.

I'm currently using Linux Mint Lisa and noticed an option to log in with Gnome Classic, is this basically Gnome 2? It does seem to look like Gnome 2 but there are some differences. Previously with Gnome 2 on Ubuntu I was able to add additional trays where I could place widgets, shortcuts, whatever; I seem to remember doing this by simply right clicking an existing tray (perhaps 'tray' is not the correct term) and the adding one. Not seeing this on 'Gnome Classic' so I'm wondering if the Gnome Classic option on Linux Mint Lisa is actually Gnome 3 rebranded to look like Gnome 2 and not actually a fork of Gnome 2?

imo, Gnome2 might still be available on handful of distros or Mate might come close to look and feel of G2 but i wish people would just accept that the ship has sailed and gnome2 is thing of the past like netscape, winmodems and ball mice. Mate will always be an ugly hack and as time passes running gnome2 on newer version of X will not be possible.
That brings me to two choices: learn to live with gnome3 or go other DE. Xfce is more than capable DE to replace gnome. LXDE is getting better. Openbox will let me assemble my own desktop way i need. Or if i want to go totally obsessive-compulsive: there is a wealth of tiling DMs that let users manage every single pixel on the screen.
Debian is a really good choice to try out any and all DEs available in gnu/linux world.

Gnome 2 has still a huge userbase and many people that don't want the new style DEs. I wouldn't consider it to be a thing of the past just because the developers thought they would rather go for a DE aimed at mobile devices.

Please explain that, I can't think of a reason why it shouldn't run on newer versions. But even if that so, with the existing plans to port MATE to GTK3 I wuldn't think that this is true for MATE.

The reasing I follow: imo what people miss the most from Gnome2 is the panel. I'm sure if those unhappy with gnome3 could have the old panel back most of complaints would disappear but do the unhappy people miss the panel itself or they miss the gnome panel applets/indicators?
With Gnome2 being the product of the 90ies it is outdated technology and difficult to develop for. Atm Unity has got a lot more applets for thier panel in the space of couple of years than gnome2 could ever manage in 10 years. I still think that main reason for Gnome3 wasn't to make it pretty on pads and phone but to upgrade to the technology from this century.

I think there is more to it. Gnome 2 is an environment that is heavily configurable, comes with almost anything out of the box (and don't need plugins for functionality that other desktops except Gnome Shell delivers out of the box) and it doesn't follow the "everything has to look like a tablet OS" paradigm. I think the massive shift of users away from DEs like Unity and gnome Shell towards KDE, XFCE and Cinnamon proves me right here.

Replace gnome 2 with Linux here and rethink that phrase. Just because something is old that doesn't mean that it is outdated and should be abandoned. Otherwise you shouldn't use trains, phones and bicycles.

I still think the main reason for Gnome Shell is that the Gnome developers have reached their goal to create a good free desktop environment and didn't know what to do next, so they came up with something for the mobile market, something that they have not done before.
Also, have a look at the slides 19, 23, 27 of this years GUADEC presentation: http://www.slideshare.net/juanjosanc...htfuture-gnome
They are clearly aiming at the mobile market.

That is exactly my point: if gnome3/unity isn't what the user wants, why try to jump through numerous hoops keeping gnome2 alive with fallbacks and hacks when there are ready made alternatives available. Imagine if everyone unhappy with gnome3 would switch to say Xfce in numbers then most of distro developers would sit up, take note and next debian release would've had Xfce as default desktop. As it stands we keep muddling through with various versions of old gnome and all that developing time dedicated to gnome hacks could've accually been spent addressing shortcomings of xfce, for example. I suppose it's the human nature - stick with what you know no matter how hard it might be.