What is the difference between Debian vs Ubuntu (etch vs feisty)?

[hasu]

I have been reading about Debian-etch release. Many articles suggest that it is not for the beginners. Neither do they say that it going to be too hard. Since Ubuntu is derived from Debian, I assume that Ubuntu has more packages pre-installed comapared to Debian. Is that the main difference? What other differences are there between Ubuntu and Debian? Basically I am wonering if I were to install Debian-etch what would I be missing? I have already downloaded all the three DVDs for Debian-etch.

 

[nweaver]

Debian is a bit more stringent about packages and binary blobs (don't think there is a restricted-modules package like Ubuntu)

 

[dwcal]

The complete answer would be a long story, but I'll try to summarize the bullet points.

- Ubuntu is generally more noob-friendly (especially the forums) and more focused on desktop usability.
- Ubuntu is committed to regular stable releases about twice a year. Debian goes years between stable releases and falls behind on features because of that (etch is the latest stable and it was just released). However, Debian stable is stable and very well-tested. For servers, a stable release that lasts years and that's supported for years is a good thing.
- Debian is more strict about only including Free software. Ubuntu has some binary or non-Free software like the restricted modules. What's interesting is that there are two Ubuntu derivatives that split off because of this. Gnusense is Ubuntu with only Free software. Linux Mint is Ubuntu with more non-Free software like Flash, video codecs, etc.

 

[drag]

The main differences between Debian vs Ubuntu is thus:

In technical terms...
Debian has three main different versions.. Debian Stable, Debian Testing, Debian Unstable.
Debian Unstable is the development branch. Updates are continious and can be a handfull time to time.

Debian Testing takes packages from unstable once they meet Debian's standards and don't seem buggy. It's generally easier to live with then Unstable, but there are times (like directly after a stable release) were it can realy suck.

Debian Testing is desgined to form the basis for the next Stable version.

Debian Stable is the current 'production quality' version, which means that if you deploy it you can trust it to be relatively bug free and that it is static.. it won't require any updates beyond major bug fixes or security patches.

Most experianced Debian users will use Testing or Unstable for their personal system and use Debian stable for production servers.



Now Ubuntu...

Ubuntu takes a snapshot of Debian Unstable and then updates or modifies many packages. They update Gnome, update X, change the kernel, and change the Init system. Those are the major changes, but they do some tweaks. They only officially support a fraction of packages from Debian. Most Debian packages they use will end up in the 'universe' or 'multiverse' packages.


Now one thing to keep in mind is the concept of 'Stability'. One meaning of 'stability' with software is a measure of realative 'bugginess'. The More 'buggy' the software is the less 'stable' it is. All software has bugs and all software will crash, so it's a relative way of looking at operating systems.

The second definition of 'Stability' is in terms of 'changing-ness'. If a OS goes through a lot of 'churn' and a lot of changes then it is going to be 'less stable' then a OS that doesn't go through a lot of changes.

Now, of course, both go hand in hand. If you have a OS that changes very often then there is less time for quality control and there is more of a chance of that software being buggy. Usually this is so, but it's not nessicarially always true.


Another thing to keep in mind is that Linux-based operating systems and open source/free software undergoes continious improvements. It's the nature of this type of software that it is never finished. It's just a continious evolution and releases are realy nothing more then a development snapshot that has undergone extra quality assurance to make sure that they aren't very buggy.

The concept of 'software versions' or 'software releases' is a bit of a misnomer. It's always changing.



So Ubuntu is less stable in terms of change, in that it releases very often with less quality assurance then Debian. But Ubuntu also has better hardware support and will have better/more userfriendly software because it is using newer versions of everything that Debian Stable uses. Gnome is getting better as time goes by, the kernel is getting better as time goes by, everything is getting better.




Now that was the more technical stuff. The second part is cultural differences between Debian and Ubuntu.

What Ubuntu has realy been able to do well, that Debian has sucked at, is creating a very aproachable and friendly environment around itself. It's wikis are usefull and provide usefull step-by-step ways of overcoming common problems and dealing with common hardware issues.

Ubuntu provides documentation and steps that are usefull for mortals.
Debian tends to go off into intellectual and political tangents that affect end users in negative ways.
Ubuntu has a 'pretty' distribution that focuses on art work, eye candy, and usability.
Ubuntu provides sane defautls for desktops. They remove a lot of choice from the initial install and setup that Debian provides, but this makes it easier for people to avoid the tedious tweaking and software selection proccess that Debian users go through.
Debian is a bit ackward feeling and takes a lot of effort to get it working very well for a paticular use. But this enables to be very flexible.


So even though Ubuntu will have a tendancy to be a bit more buggy then Debian. It provides a much more usefull initial setup and provides a community that is friendly and makes it easier for people to feel comfortable and learn Linux.

So that makes Ubuntu especially suitable for the 'computer power users'. The sort of people that like mucking around with computers time to time, but are not experts in it. This sort of person is the type that would be most interested in Linux nowadays and is going to be the types that you generally seeing asking questions about 'which linux to use'.

So Ubuntu is a pretty easy choice.

Also if you learn to use Ubuntu well, then Debian won't be very hard to learn either.

Generally speaking most people now would recommend Debian for the server and Ubuntu for the desktop. With Ubuntu vs Debian.

 

[Nothinman]

Since Ubuntu is derived from Debian, I assume that Ubuntu has more packages pre-installed comapared to Debian.

Not necessarily more but just a different set. By default Ubuntu forces a full Gnome desktop on you but Debian makes you select the Desktop task during the installation if you want that and even then some of the package set will be different because of the different tastes of the developers. And Debian supports more packages, the Ubuntu devs selected their core set of packages and chose to only support those while Debian supports all ~18,000 packages that they maintain. The same packages are available in Ubuntu via the universe and multiverse repositories but the same level of support isn't there.

Basically I am wonering if I were to install Debian-etch what would I be missing? I have already downloaded all the three DVDs for Debian-etch.

Ubuntu's artwork and some of the custom stuff they've added, not very much overall IMO. And you didn't have to download all of those DVDs, just the small netinstall ISO would have been enough for you to start the installer and then it could have downloaded just the packages you selected from a Debian mirror.

Debian is a bit more stringent about packages and binary blobs (don't think there is a restricted-modules package like Ubuntu)

They're there, they're just packaged seperately and in non-free instead of main. Well most of them anyway, the only one I really pay attention to is the nVidia driver and the appropriate nvidia-kernel packages always work fine for me.

 

[hasu]

Anyways, I will give it a try and install etch in a spare machine. Let's see how it goes!
Thanks for all the help guys!

 

[F1Fish]

Can you use Microsoft Virtual PC to play with either distro?

 

[drag]

Ya sure. Should work without much problem.

Vmware's stuff is suppose to work better, though. (better compatability with non-Windows OSes)

 

[F1Fish]

Thanx

 

[imported_Equinox]

I use VMWare 5.5.3 with Ubuntu. I have to admit though, I prefer KDE to Gnome, and since Knoppix (Live Debian) runs very well under VMWare and is a completely functional environment, it has been a better environment for me. Of course, I've also been using it for a lot longer than Ubuntu. I tried Fedora and it was okay.

For just wanting to try it out and see what Debian Linux is about without making permanent changes or going through a hassle, Knoppix is excellent.

 

[Netopia]

Since drive space isn't an issue these days, I like to install both gnome and KDE. I prefer to live on the KDE desktop, but both KDE and gnome have utilities I like. For instance, I prefer to edit files (when in a GUI) with gedit (over kedit), but for general file browsing and stuff, I greatly prefer Konqueror to anything in the gnome environment. I also appreciate how (in Konqueror) I can just smb:///domain/machine in the location bar to get at all the shares on a Windows domain (with authentication) or fish://machine.name to get at any machine that has ssh logins, and see their file system in Konqueror (after authentication) as if it were mounted locally.

I realize that these are not very "high tech" issues, but the only reason I care about having a desktop is so that things can be easier, so these little things count a lot for my decisions.

Joe

 

[Nothinman]

I also appreciate how (in Konqueror) I can just smb:///domain/machine in the location bar to get at all the shares on a Windows domain (with authentication) or fish://machine.name to get at any machine that has ssh logins, and see their file system in Konqueror (after authentication) as if it were mounted locally.

Nautilus can do the same stuff, smb://machine or smb://workgroup works fine as does ssh://machine or sftp://machine.

 

[xtknight]

Most would agree Feisty is more user friendly. It has a restricted drivers manager and totem player supports mp3/dvd right out of the box. Also there is experimental desktop effects (Beryl) support built-in. There is user profile importing during the install in Feisty. Lots of stuff seems more streamlined.

A lot of the packages are geared toward ease of use while Debian's are geared toward security and stability. That doesn't mean Feisty is insecure or Etch is hard to use, it's just relative.

Etch (stable) is better for those who want a server or more stable workstation.

They have different goals. Ubuntu is mainly concerned with getting 'some form of Linux' on to people's systems (even if they have to use some restricted drivers or ndiswrapper) while Debian is focused on being 100% open source and more niche.

 

[Nothinman]

totem player supports mp3/dvd right out of the box.

That's not true, I know it doesn't do encrypted DVDs because libdvdcss2 isn't hosted by Debian or Ubuntu and MP3s is kind of questionable too.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

totem player supports mp3/dvd right out of the box.

That's not true, I know it doesn't do encrypted DVDs because libdvdcss2 isn't hosted by Debian or Ubuntu and MP3s is kind of questionable too.

Ah my mistake, it does for MP3s but not DVDs. Totem will ask you with a dialog and allow you to install the mp3 codecs if you select 'proprietary' under a list box.

Is there an official Etch LiveCD or will there be?

 

[hasu]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

totem player supports mp3/dvd right out of the box.

That's not true, I know it doesn't do encrypted DVDs because libdvdcss2 isn't hosted by Debian or Ubuntu and MP3s is kind of questionable too.

Can we use Wine to run any of the windows DVD players (like PowerDVD) in Linux?

 

[Netopia]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I also appreciate how (in Konqueror) I can just smb:///domain/machine in the location bar to get at all the shares on a Windows domain (with authentication) or fish://machine.name to get at any machine that has ssh logins, and see their file system in Konqueror (after authentication) as if it were mounted locally.

Nautilus can do the same stuff, smb://machine or smb://workgroup works fine as does ssh://machine or sftp://machine.

So you can! Ever since gnome dropped the more "explorer" or "konqueror" like, sort of minimalistic, browser... I've not looked at it much. To be honest, since there is no location bar, I never thought to look for a shortcut to open location.

While we're on the subject of Nautilus, is there any way to make it just reuse the same window and not spawn a new on each time you click on anything?

Joe

 

[drag]

Not all DVDs are encrypted. So totem should run those fine.
Most DVDs are encrypted so it's unable to support those out of the box.

Also you need to use the 'Xine' backend for Totem in Etch. (which is the default). If you use the gstreamer backend then it won't work as that backend just generally sucks.

For all your evil dvd cracking and suspect codec needs needs check out debian-multimedia.org
http://www.debian-multimedia.org/
Install packages like libdvdcss2 and w32codecs.

Can we use Wine to run any of the windows DVD players (like PowerDVD) in Linux?

No need.
Once you install the libdvdcss2 package then most media players will support even encrypted DVDs.

There are a veriaty of players to check out...
For simplier uses the totem version that uses the Xine backend works fine.
For intermediate users then stuff like Xine (gxine) and VLC is very good. VLC is a good one to install as it has the widest amount of codec support out of anybody.
For advanced users mplayer is very cool. For people that want the 'best' quality.

I think for watching movies and such gxine is probably the easiest and gives the best results.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Netopia

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I also appreciate how (in Konqueror) I can just smb:///domain/machine in the location bar to get at all the shares on a Windows domain (with authentication) or fish://machine.name to get at any machine that has ssh logins, and see their file system in Konqueror (after authentication) as if it were mounted locally.

Nautilus can do the same stuff, smb://machine or smb://workgroup works fine as does ssh://machine or sftp://machine.

So you can! Ever since gnome dropped the more "explorer" or "konqueror" like, sort of minimalistic, browser... I've not looked at it much. To be honest, since there is no location bar, I never thought to look for a shortcut to open location.

While we're on the subject of Nautilus, is there any way to make it just reuse the same window and not spawn a new on each time you click on anything?

Joe

Ya sure.

If you use nautilus in browser mode. It still supports all that, it's just not by default.

There are two ways to do it. The first way is to launch nautilus with the --browser option...

nautilus --browser

And that will open up nautilus in 'browser' mode. Then you you can do the ctrl-l thing to open up the location dialog if you want.

For other nautilus options check out nautilus --help

The second way is to edit the gconf settings to enable browser mode all the time. Gconf it the configuration backend for Gnome and make nautilus use that by default all the time.

Gconf on the surface and utlitmate function is very similar to the Windows registry. But instead of a database file it uses the ~/.gconf directory and XML files. You can edit those directory or use the gconf-editor.

The easy way to do it is to install the "gtweakui" package.

Gtweakui is just a collection of various little GUI dialogs that you can use to enable and disable common tweaks to Gnome.
gtweakui-nautilus


My favorite tweak is to use the home directory (~/) as the desktop directory and change the name of 'computer' to something silly.

By default Gnome uses ~/Desktop directory which I find irritating since I use the command line a lot.

 

[Nothinman]

Is there an official Etch LiveCD or will there be?

Not sure, I know there's a package in there that can build you a LiveCD that looks just like your running system and I vaguely remember talk about an official livecd but I never really looked for it.

Can we use Wine to run any of the windows DVD players (like PowerDVD) in Linux?

Not sure but I wouldn't get my hopes up about it (and that's assuming that Windows DVD players aren't crap, which they are) because AIUI their installation routine installs the appropriate codecs for MPG2, AC3 and anything else they might need and then they just use the normal Win32 codec APIs to use them and I don't know how WINE would handle the codecs.

While we're on the subject of Nautilus, is there any way to make it just reuse the same window and not spawn a new on each time you click on anything?

Just disable the "Always open in browser windows" option, it works whether or not you use the --browser option when you launch it or not.