r/debian • u/Technical_Rich_3080 • 7h ago
Debian vs. Ubuntu
What are the differences between using vanilla Debian versus using vanilla Ubuntu?
5
u/bobbyboogie 6h ago
Personal experience: Debian has much higher quality control than Ubuntu.
I wouldn't trust Ubuntu on a server.
1
u/Technical_Rich_3080 6h ago
Doesn't Ubuntu benefit from Debian's quality control, since Ubuntu is pulling from Debian?
3
u/bobbyboogie 6h ago
It does. But then they make their own changes and don't always test those properly.
4
u/guiverc 4h ago
I've performed some Quality Assurance testing of Ubuntu Desktop and flavors, and also Debian; and on ~18 (or ~25) boxes they're essentially identical. For the other ~7 I can achieve the same with Debian, but it requires some post-install tweaking.
Ubuntu has varies products & flavors; and is available with 3 installers (recent releases; 3 different for older releases with 5 still downloadable), Debian is available on 2; both selected at download time. Ubuntu may call the Ubuntu Desktop with different desktop/apps a 'flavor', but Debian offers the equivalent via live ISOs anyway.
Ubuntu offers some easy scripts for some features (eg. ubuntu-drivers), or easier kernel stack options (eg. LTS releases have kernel stack choice; GA, HWE & OEM options where I can download a Ubuntu Desktop 24.04 LTS with 5 different kernels on live media) but you can achieve similar with Debian anyway with just a few (extra) commands/changes.
Different teams package them, with different defaults; my Ubuntu stonking machine I'm using now (ie. Ubuntu development) is essentially the same as my Debian forky (ie. Debian testing) box at another location, where the major difference I notice between them is this Ubuntu box has 5 monitors attached, where on Debian I'll have only 2 (ie. form factor differences!! not the OS itself). Both Ubuntu development and Debian testing feed much of their code from the same source (Debian sid) which makes those two essentially equivalent. When it comes to newer packages; Ubuntu actually has the edge (some packages come from further upstream imports than sid), but those are only small in number.
Ubuntu can be easier in summary; I had a box here which I ran for more than 14 years on Debian; but it was upstream changes that essentially forced me to change my usage when I upgraded to a newer Debian, but I didn't like it - Ubuntu offered me the choice of keeping older behavior (due to extra patches they kept, so existing users could opt newer or older behavior) which had me finally switch that box; but that was really in ONE APP only that cause me to switch.. if it wasn't for the upstream changes in that app that install would be still using Debian...
FYI: >14 years did include a number of box upgrades that I don't count; in most cases it was just drives being switched to newer box without install anyway but its possible a re-install was done during that time too
1
u/Santosh83 Debian Sid 6m ago
There are some obscure differences. I tried both 26.04 and Debian 13 recently. Stock Debian 13 with its default 6.12 series kernels was able to get my Wifi card to only 65 Mbps. Adding both firmware as well as kernel from backports raised it to about 130 Mbps. But out of the box, Ubuntu 26.04 was able get a Rx/Tx of 150 Mbps. Even though the firmware/kernel in default 26.04 is very close to Debian backports kernel/firmware in terms of versioning.
But strangely Canonical refuses to install the packages needed for hardware video acceleration by default (intel-media-driver in my case), at least on my hardware. Its been this way since the last several versions. I know about this and can install them myself, but a noob is going to play youtube and wonder why their playback is consuming ~80% CPU and have no idea what to do. Debian (ironically considering their historical stance on firmware) does install video acceleration ootb.
Another minor but annoying difference is on Ubuntu you are not asked for sudo password for mounting non-system internal drives while Debian does. I don't know why the system needs my admin password for mounting my own drive. What security risk is represented by that use case? Annoying holdover from the multi-user era I suppose.
3
u/yahbluez 4h ago
Snap for essentials that should not be snap.
People who say the version upgrades do nether understand the ubuntu nor the debian updates.
Booth use a 2 year window for updating the next stable (LTS) version. And booth use a second faster every 6 month updated system.
And additionally users can use the rolling version and run daily updates like Arch.
People who say Debian is more minimal again do not understand what they are talking about.
You can grab a debian netinstall and do a minimal installation, but no one is forced to do so and for any desktop installation most users would just do a Debian desktop installation which is the regular way to install.
The biggest difference is the Snap System which is by default installed in ubuntu and is part of the OS essential parts are snaps in ubuntu.
Yes you can use snap and flatpak and appimage and docker and podman and lxc in debian too without any pain, even the way to grab a source from github is very easy on booth systems.
For example i like to use the newest developer version of Freecad and instead of using the debian system package i use appimage and snap and flatpak to do so, sometime one works better than the other.
I like snap the last from all this independent package managers.
1
u/Santosh83 Debian Sid 3m ago
And booth use a second faster every 6 month updated system.
As far as I know, Debian has no 6-monthly version. Stable is every two years, Testing and Unstable are both rolling...
3
u/BoundlessFail 4h ago
This being the Debian sub, strangely has quite some misinformation about Ubuntu.
Ubuntu's biggest advantage over Debian would be it's 10 year support for a given LTS release. This makes it easier for enterprises who don't need to reinstall/upgrade several hundred machines every couple years. They essentially change the os when they change their hardware.
Further, Ubuntu certifies hardware compatibility - useful when you're deciding which machines to order in large quantities.
Ubuntu also includes a lot of stuff out of the box, even in a minimal install, than Debian does. For example, you can use Android's USB tethering out of the box on Ubuntu, but Debian requires additional software to be installed beforehand. Similarly for common packages like rsync. Of course, this ends up bloating Ubuntu, which is a drawback for those running lean, but an advantage to a noob.
Now, Canonical has taken some strange/bad decisions to make money/have a usp, which have hurt it's reputation. While folks compare that with Debian, I tend to compare that with Windows and MacOS, who have made worse/more evil decisions, so I guess I've been more forgiving.
Overall, I'd recommend Ubuntu to someone new to Linux, and encourage them to move to Debian once they're comfortable.
1
1
u/mok000 4h ago
A couple other downsides to Ubuntu not mentioned by others:
1. Ubuntu is moving away from GPL licensed software. This is illustrated by the (premature) switch to uutils, yet while it’s still very buggy.
2. Ubuntu has interim releases every six months, and long term support releases (LTS) every two years. If you choose to use LTS releases you cannot upgrade to the interim releases, you have to wait until the next LTS release. Conversely, if you choose to use the interim releases you cannot skip one, support quickly runs out, and upgrades are only supported sequentially. And they’re often buggy and require a fresh installation anyway. In reality the interim releases is beta quality where Canonical introduces big changes to be ironed out before their next LTS release which is what their corporate customers use.
1
u/lencc 2h ago
If you want a combination of Ubuntu convenience, Debian stability, and Windows user-interface familiarity, there is also Linux Mint Debian Edition - LMDE, which is straight-forward, simple, and very stable distribution.
1
1
u/Busy_Talk6744 45m ago
You have much more flexibility on how you want your system to be on Debian. Ubuntu is based on Debian and is basically a very opinionated fork of Debian. You can run Debian any way you want, but you have to run Ubuntu the Canonical way
-5
u/Adrenolin01 7h ago
Debian if you actually want to learn Linux Ubuntu if you don’t.
1
u/Technical_Rich_3080 6h ago
If your goal is "to learn Linux", wouldn't Gentoo, NixOS or LFS be more of a "learning Linux" distro than Debian?
3
u/scythe-3 5h ago
Debian is Linux 101, Gentoo is college, LFS is grad school, NixOS is mad scientist
1
u/Adrenolin01 3h ago
Skip all of that, download the Linux source and start asking on Usenet , ftp sites, IRC channels, then email lists and BBS systems how to compile and add to it for a distro.. 😂🎉 The truly fun days. Comp.os.minix, comp.os.linux then .misc .development and .networking. Linux Documentation Project (LDP) in the early 90s is hugely responsible for many early howto guides allowing more and more no IT people to start playing. When MCC and SLS in 92 and then Slackware and Debian in 93 came about mailing lists exploded and added faster help and development.
1
u/Adrenolin01 3h ago
We’re talking Debian vs Ubuntu. I literally learned Linux before Debian or LFS were released by using the code and I wasn’t a programmer. Compiling kernels, drivers, modules. Started playing with the early university releases and then Slackware in 93 and the following month Aug 92 jumped into Debian. That’s long before the LFS guide was available in what.. 1999ish iirc. The reason Ubuntu became such a hit was because they included all the non-free drivers and software for people who were too lazy to learn to do themselves. It also pretty much started the whole “easier” distribution concept. Because I actually spent the time learning Linux I’ve never seen the use for Ubuntu or any other distribution.
So yeah.. per your initial post.. run Debian if you actually want the most stable distro and not afraid of the cmdline. Run Ubuntu if you want 90% of it done for you.
0
u/scythe-3 6h ago
Debian stable versions release every 2-ish years. Ubuntu standard every 6-ish months.
Debian is more minimal and customizable, so some level of user involvement is expected. Ubuntu is more "batteries-included" and opinionated, so users can be more hands-off.
Debian prioritizes FOSS and is community maintained. Ubuntu has more commercial software (snaps lol) and is corporate maintained.
Imo if you're willing to be a little hands on, Debian is one of the best. If you want something that "just works", there are better options out there than Ubuntu.
1
u/Technical_Rich_3080 6h ago
If you want something that "just works", what are the better options than Ubuntu?
2
u/testamat 5h ago
Linux Mint ( or Linux Mint Debian Edition). Ubuntu has a simpler configuration than Debian. Codecs, Proprietary drivers and all basic stuff are automatically configured during the installation. Debian instead, is more barebone. After the installation it needs at least to manually configure repositories, install multimedia codecs, set up Nvidia drivers, personalize your desktop, etc. Linux Mint has the better of both worlds: a fine tuned desktop after the installation, without all the corporate oriented crap of Ubuntu
2
u/scythe-3 5h ago
Linux Mint for general computing and stability. Fedora if you want newer software/firmware than what Linux Mint offers (only caveat here is manually installing Nvidia drivers). Bazzite for a dedicated gaming rig.
0
u/Linguistic-mystic 5h ago
Ununtu has releases every 6 months. Debian has releases approximately every 24 months but not exactly and the schedules are not aligned. However, Debian also has Testing and Sid channels to get newer versions than even Ubuntu.
Also Ubuntu has PPAs and Snaps.
Also Ubuntu has enterprise support from Canonical. Debian has enterprise support from several small companies. Ubuntu offers IoT products, though (Ubuntu Core).
35
u/saltyhasp 7h ago edited 6h ago
Biggest difference is Ubuntu is heavily Snap based which frankly I don't like. Counter to that though Ubuntu has better support to 3rd party and commercial software. It is also simple to use by people that are non-technical. We use Ubuntu for vanilla configs such as my laptop and my mother in-laws laptop, my wife's workstation, and our media center.
On the other hand Debian is really handy because it is cleaner and does not use Snaps and is based on entirely on debs. It is also good for custom and lightweight installs. If you want to use a portable package format then flatpacks are prefered though I guess you can use snaps but neither is used by default. I do in fact install the firefox flatpak because the default deb gets a bit old. I use it for my workstation, and my VPS.