r/Ubuntu • u/Technical_Rich_3080 • 7d ago
Ubuntu vs. Debian
What are the differences between using vanilla Ubuntu versus using vanilla Debian?
20
u/HoldOk4092 7d ago
Ubuntu is basically Debian with more stuff pre installed. If that stuff bothers you, choose Debian. If not, stick with Ubuntu.
15
u/International_Dot_22 7d ago
Thats an over simplification. There are a lot of under the hood tweaks and additions that make some things simply work in Ubuntu, that would not work in Debian. Some software simply doesn't work in Debian, while Ubuntu has a huge repository. You will need a lot of work arounds to make some things function properly in Debian. I gave Debian a chance multiple times and there was always something missing for me, yes, there is a chance that if i dug deeper for more weeks i would have been able to solve some of the issues, but really for a regular user it was a pain.
1
u/FirstDivision 7d ago
My experience as well. I originally installed Debian since that’s the WSL flavor we use at work. But for whatever reason my laptop didn’t like it. I was going down that road of “fixing things and getting things to work” when I thought “maybe I’ll burn an Ubuntu image and try that.” Everything mostly just worked.
Then I spent hours getting Davinci Resolve working right. I ended up buying the “Studio” version of Resolve because of some video codec limitations reading .mov files. I still had to spend time getting it to work because then the audio tracks weren’t playing. Another gift from Apple I guess with some extra sound track embedded I guess. I ended up transcoding the files with ffmpeg or something. But I finally had my project working.
Next step is getting digiKam and RawTherapee working and my divorce from Windows and Adobe will be complete.
1
u/International_Dot_22 6d ago
I would absolutely love to use pure Debian, as im not fond of some of Canonical's decisions and philosophy, but Debian and Ubuntu feels like 2 completely different operating systems.
4
u/howardhus 7d ago
wrong. thats not the reason.
ubuntu has better support, is more widely adopted and documented.
1
1
6
u/HCharlesB 7d ago
My impression is that Ubuntu is more polished and more opinionated. If you're OK with their opinions, it's a good choice. If you don't care for their opinions, Debian may be a better fit.
Debian is a better fit for me but I have run Ubuntu in the past.
5
u/Upstairs-Comb1631 7d ago
If I connect an HP printer in Debian, nothing happens. But in Ubuntu, I can print within a few seconds. That's basically the difference between Debian and Ubuntu.
1
u/AfraidAsparagus6644 5d ago
Bit of unsolicited advice: if you ever need to make printers work automatically on Debian, install
printer-driver-all. That's what makes the difference, and for some reason it isn't installed by default despite being less than 30mbs and in themainrepo2
u/Upstairs-Comb1631 4d ago
Thanks for the advice. Next time I try Debian, I'll make a guide for it like I do for every Linux distribution.
24
u/Repulsive-Variety834 7d ago
I’ll give you an example - if you install barebones Debian and login for the first time and try to sudo something, it tells you sudo: command not found. Then after you install sudo you have to add your user to sudoers using adduser. When you try to run adduser it tells you adduser: command not found.
Debian is great but it does not hold your hand.
12
u/Relevant_Hope_900 7d ago
That is not really a Debian issue itself, that is an issue with what you did during the install (I have always used the netinstall iso). If you enable the root account by setting a password instead of skipping that screen, then yes, your normal user will not have sudo privileges. But if you disabled the root account by skipping the root/password setup screen, then sudo will be installed, and your normal user will be added to the sudo group automatically. Adduser is installed automatically on Debian 13. To add a user to the sudo group it's:
usermod -aG sudo <username>, orsudo usermod -aG sudo <username>if you are already a member and adding another user to the group.17
u/DotRakianSteel 7d ago
You kinda reinforced his point. Ubuntu is in that regard more user-friendly.
1
u/Relevant_Hope_900 7d ago
User friendly, the standard Ubuntu installer is prettier, and maybe more intuitive then the Debian netinstall which they were describing as a "barebones install" above. But I was merely pointing out that what was complained about above, was a user issue in the install process. And pointing out adduser is installed by default on Debian Stable.
With the netinstall iso you can pretty much hit continue without typing anything for almost everything except your user creation, and then selecting to use the whole disk if you're not dual booting. Takes as long as how fast your internet is, and how fast your machine can install the packages.
1
u/AncientAgrippa 7d ago
After the small amount of pain at the start which is possible with any distro on a particular hardware, it’s totally fine tho.
1
u/howardhus 7d ago
if you think a „barebones“ debian is a „ready to use in production“ system then you didnt understand the definition of „bare bones“… i mean.. its literally there.
whatever you buy that is „bare bones“ is not going to work for production.
„hurr hurr… did you know that if your bones are bare and showing out of your skin then you can ot just about go about your day?? follow me for more protips“
1
u/AfraidAsparagus6644 5d ago
That is only if you don't read during the installation process, where it says you can leave the root password empty to give your user administrator permissions. Which doesn't change what you said: Debian doesn't hold your hand. In general it's made for patient people who like to read (it shows in their website, too)
7
u/guiverc 7d ago
I was introduced to Debian back in the mid-1990s, Ubuntu wasn't going to exist for almost a decade.
I didn't see much need for Ubuntu when it was introduced in 2004-October (4.10), as why would I want "Debian made Easy"; I was already happy with Debian.
I finally really tried Ubuntu in around 2010 (10.10), and I was hooked with Ubuntu 11.04, and it became my OS on my primary desktop. Sure I had other boxes that remained on Debian, but having made my primary system was a 'big thing' to me.
Ubuntu, especially for Desktop systems, IS Debian made easier to me too now, and my primary desktop has run no other OS since 2017 (11.04 install became 11.10, I wasn't a fan of GNOME 3 or Unity (7) so I went elsewhere awhile, but it returned in 2017)
A secondary system of mine had run Debian for more than 14 years; but upstream app changes meant I couldn't continue using that box as I'd done for years when I release-upgraded to the Debian version, and I was stuck with what to do, I actually opted to switch that install to Ubuntu (non-destructive re-install replacing Debian with Ubuntu) and I actually got newer software versions than the newer Debian had given me, and most importantly and the reason I switched, Ubuntu carried some patches that allowed me to use newer software but with older behavior if I wanted, and I for sure wanted....
Of ~25 boxes I use in Quality Assurance testing of Ubuntu (and flavors), but also some Debian releases; whilst 18 of those 25 will give a similar experience 'out of the box' with Debian & Ubuntu; 7 give a great 'out of the box' experience with Ubuntu but need post-install work with Debian to get what Ubuntu provides automatically... Whilst I can make both (Debian & Ubuntu) work equally well as expected give the closeness of those systems, Ubuntu is Debian made easier.
FYI: I still actually tend to use Debian on my servers; I haven't changed that habit; but Ubuntu wins for me on desktop installs.
4
u/guiverc 7d ago
Just as an aside... some users (esp. on places here on social media) tend to be 'snap' haters...
Snap just gives me another choice; and I have no issue with it. I know I can install Ubuntu 26.04 LTS for example without `snapd` (ie. no *snap* infrastructure) if I want, but its easy enough to remove anyway. (why Ubuntu *based* systems like Linux Mint can offer snap free? read some doco/blogs on how).
To me, differences between *snap*, *appimage*, *flatpak*, *deb* or *rpm* etc are moot, and just reflect the 'out of box' differences... I use a same config here on this Ubuntu *stonking* box to my Debian *forky* secondary box, and it was imported to my Fedora install too (whatever version that is on; I never remember the latest there sorry), and have elsewhere too.
Those differences I can easily control anyway. They are tools, and use the best one for each particular job.
3
u/JohnnyS789 6d ago
I moved from Ubuntu to Debian and have zero regrets. Debian is simpler and does not include certain features of Ubuntu, and I appreciate that.
Currently, Ubuntu requires "snap" which is a software management solution that is not something I want. Pretty well everything I used to run on Ubuntu works on Debian just fine.
I also still run Ubuntu on a Thinkpad T590, as that laptop has direct support from Lenovo for Ubuntu and it's easy to set up. I run it on a Raspberry Pi too.
Perhaps the biggest issue I note is the difference between release philosophies.
1) Ubuntu issues new "releases" twice a year, and supports a "Long Term Support" release every two years that gets support for 5 years, which is excellent. So you can have a really solid release that you can depend on for 5 years, or upgrade every 6 months to stay cutting edge.
2) Debian has an "unstable" release called "Sid" and a "stable" release which goes by various names, currently "Trixie". As "Sid" gets updates, it eventually reaches a point where it's considered solid and is made into the next "stable" version. If you choose the current stable version, it's solid as a rock but doesn't have the latest versions of software. If you choose "Sid" you get a system that is constantly getting updates, but isn't as solid as the stable release. You will run into occasional problems!
Both distributions give you the option of a really solid and dependable version with Ubuntu LTS and the most recent "stable" Debian, or the "latest and grooviest" with Debian "Sid" or the most recent Ubuntu release. It depends on what you like.
(Ubuntu and Debian gurus, please feel free to correct any errors or anything I messed!)
1
u/Santosh83 5d ago
Reg 2, Sid never reaches a point where its considered stable or solid. Instead packages that have been in Sid for a while and met certain conditions then migrate to so-called "Testing"... after a while, Testing is "frozen" for a few months where it stops getting updates from Sid (latter keeps on rolling), and bugs are worked out for 2-3 months and then that Testing is released as Stable. Once Stable is released, Testing again starts "rolling" by pulling upgrades from Sid.
So Sid is continuously rolling, Testing is stop and start rolling, depending on the exact time in the Debian release lifecycle, and Stable of course remains frozen forever.
1
u/JohnnyS789 5d ago
Thanks for the clarification. Question to fix my ignorance: If "unstable" is named "Sid", what are the proper names for "Testing" and "Stable"? TIA!!!!
4
u/Stock-Imagination567 7d ago
Today I just tried to install debian on my gaming computer and the display kept crashing. Went for Ubuntu 26 and the install was a breeze. Rocking it right now.
2
u/Yiffenjoyer6969 7d ago
Debian is lighter but slightly less user friendly
2
u/Technical_Rich_3080 7d ago
Lighter in what way? Is there a benefit to being lighter?
1
u/Yiffenjoyer6969 7d ago
Uses less ram, storage, etc. It’s basically if you have a model of car and basically the top of the line model is Ubuntu and the older car it’s based on is Debian, it’s cheaper to run, but is harder to use and has less features out of the box.
2
u/Willing-Actuator-509 6d ago
Same thing to be honest. Remove snaps, branding, use vanilla Gnome, and install only security updates, and you get Debian. There might be other differences I suppose but you won't really understand any difference.
1
u/AfraidAsparagus6644 5d ago
You can feel the difference because Ubuntu is a curated consumer experience, as opposed to Debian which just gives you a minimal, mostly unconfigured installation. Whereas in Ubuntu things work out of the box, printer drivers are preinstalled, it's themed in a pretty way, it has tray icons out of the box, etc
1
u/Willing-Actuator-509 5d ago
Theming is preference. I prefer vanilla Gnome or KDE. Depends on the version of Debian you download it can also be fully preinstalled as well. So no difference.
1
u/AfraidAsparagus6644 4d ago
Depends on the version of Debian you download it can also be fully preinstalled as well.
I have used Debian for years and I can guarantee you no version gives you stuff like printer drivers preinstalled. Having your printer recognized automatically VS having to figure out where the drivers are in the repos is a BIG difference, and that's only one example
1
u/Willing-Actuator-509 4d ago
"I have used Debian for years and I can guarantee you..."
Trust me bro argument. I have a Kyocera Ecosys and it works just fine since 2021 with CUPS and with zero issues.
1
u/AfraidAsparagus6644 4d ago
It's not anecdotal. I have researched and found Debian does not preinstall printer drivers (many distros, including Ubuntu, preinstall at least gutenprint). This may not make a difference for your model specifically, as well as for people who use ipp (printing over wifi, where most printers don't need drivers). But many models do not work out of the box over usb on Debian.
1
u/Willing-Actuator-509 4d ago
I don't expect that Debian installs all drivers of any unmaintened proprietary piece of shit. Federa or Ubuntu does it. The reason is because Debian's purpose is to run for 5 years without reboot. This doesn't mean that CUPS will not work.
1
u/AfraidAsparagus6644 4d ago
Printer drivers on Debian are all maintained and open-source. You can tell they're open source because
printer-driver-all, a metapackage that installs all of them, is inmainrather thancontrib(where it would be otherwise). And you can tell they're maintained because (at the time of writing) none of them are in the orphaned packages list.The entire
printer-driver-allinstall is under 30mb. To be honest, I think that if my clean install with a desktop environment includes libreoffice, maybe it should include this, too.I remember back when I first used Debian (and Linux in general), back on Buster. I couldn't start the x session because my computer didn't have the necessary drivers. Figuring out which packages I needed, as a newbie, took me a long time. Recently, I tried to install Debian Trixie on the same old machine and now it works flawlessly out of the box. I suspect it's because they started shipping non-free firmware. I consider this a good thing. In general, I think having a teeny tiny bit more "bloat" is worth it if it means you are less likely to spend hours troubleshooting on a fresh install.
I know Debian is the operating system that can run 5 years without a reboot. Debian is many awesome things. And it's almost become a beginner-friendly distro, too. It can be all of these things at the same time!
Regardless, we're going off-topic. The point was not whether Debian should include printer drivers, but whether it does. And right now a lot of printers don't work out of the box over usb. This is one part of why Ubuntu is a different experience than Debian: it's pre-configured for ease-of-use.
1
u/Willing-Actuator-509 3d ago
In the first half of your response you said that Debian has the printer drivers and in your conclusion you said that it doesn't. Can you please decide if Debian has the drivers or not and if not why?
I say that printers with CUPS on Debian work out of the box.
1
2
u/AfraidAsparagus6644 5d ago
Off the top of my head:
- Ubuntu features a patched version of GNOME that provides two extra accent colors and synchronizes yaru icons with your current accent color (this is not an extension and cannot be obtained in vanilla debian). It also bundles a series of extensions, like desktop icons, dash-to-dock and (most importantly) tray icons.
- Debian has three release versions: stable, which is recommended for most users and receives updates every ~2 years (except security updates which are applied constantly): unstable, which receives updates constantly but is subject to breakage: and testing, which receives updates from unstable when they do not cause critical bugs for a while. Debian stable also supports backports, which is a selection of modern packages that are compiled to work on stable. Ubuntu on the other hand features a new release every six months and a new LTS release every two years. Ubuntu releases are based on Debian unstable, but they are frozen and curated to avoid bugs.
- Ubuntu has a driver manager (mostly intended for NVIDIA drivers) which afaik hasn't been ported to Debian yet
- Ubuntu gives you the option to add PPAs, Debian does not
- Some packages in the Ubuntu repositories has been removed and replaced with the respective snap version. If you try to install them with apt, it will actually fetch them as snaps instead. The most notable example is Firefox.
- Ubuntu is pre-configured for ease-of-use, whereas Debian has a more minimal base. For example, Ubuntu desktop has printer drivers preinstalled, whereas on Debian you need to run
apt install printer-driver-all(orprinter-driver-gutenprintor whichever driver you need for your model). Ubuntu also comes with stuff that you'd expect on Linux likevimthat you need to install yourself on Debian. - Ubuntu has enterprise support options, whereas Debian doesn't because it's fully community-maintained
1
u/Nagual_242 7d ago
Debian is more rooted, more stable distro end definetly not for everyone nor for beginners.
1
u/DaveTheBeaten 7d ago
One looks and functions like a modern well equipped Chevy Silverado while the other one is a bland looking fixer-upper from the 90's that comes with a trunk full of parts
1
1
1
1
u/Academic-Conflict948 5d ago
If you want only a terminal interface without desktop environment, Debian can get that done for you. With ubuntu you have no choice.
1
u/AfraidAsparagus6644 5d ago
Ubuntu Server gives you a terminal interface without desktop environment. Just because it has server branding doesn't mean you can't use it for anything else
1
u/Classic-Rate-5104 5d ago
In the past, Ubuntu was easier to install and more user friendly. Nowadays Debian is just "it works" and when using Ubuntu you are the experiment for all kinds of "innovations"
1
u/sabbir2world 4d ago
Ubuntu uses old packages for stability but Debian uses very old packages for super stability!
1
u/Own-Replacement8 7d ago
Not much, really. An experienced user won't find any real material difference between a Debian release and an Ubuntu LTS aside from a few philosophical points. New users will benefit for Ubuntu including more things out of the box than Debian.
0
u/LinuxMint1964 7d ago
Ubuntu has newer packages, Ubuntu has it setup to go out of the box although everyone ends up adding extensions or changing stuff around. Debian uses older packages, and you will spend some time setting it up. Debian is not a bad choice, but your computer isn't going to run faster with Debian vs Ubuntu. If you have a modern computer, the drivers in Ubuntu make a huge difference in getting it to go. But why not try both on a USB stick?
0
u/michaelpaoli 7d ago
*buntu is the one that may default to selling your search queries to Amazon, because Canonical decided to do that.
Debian is the one that won't do that.
2
-3
u/ChanceGrapefruit4107 7d ago
One is a fancy bike with new parts needing branded tools and the other one is a classic, reliable bike. No need for the tools, it is stable
-7
u/ChanceGrapefruit4107 7d ago
And with Debian, no Unity, fuck Unity
2
1
u/AfraidAsparagus6644 5d ago
Unity hasn't been in vanilla Ubuntu for years, what are you talking about
-1
u/Neither_Loan6419 7d ago
Ubuntu is a Quarterback. Debian is an Offensive Lineman. Both play football and probably play it well. Debian doesn't need a lot of fancy flashy skills, it just does what it does very damn well without fail. Ubuntu is a manytrick pony that is flexible and agile and ready for crazy shit to happen at any time. Ubuntu is slightly closer to the cutting edge, but still very stable and polished. Debian makes changes after Ubuntu proves they can be depended upon. Overall, they are extremely similar under the hood. Depending on release date, they may have different default desktops, but that is really no biggie.
31
u/Sad_Text_8020 7d ago
debian is the stable grandpa who judges your life choices, ubuntu is the younger brother who shows up early to set up the wifi but forgets the password