Ubuntu vs Debian

[ca_aok]

By the way, one question to those used to Ubuntu.
I'm using 9.10, with a lot of tweaking and customization, and at the updates manager it has a huge button saying "upgrade to 10.04 LTS"... Does upgrading that way will keep my installed software and configurations, or will it wipeout what was installed and do a fresh install of 10.04, ignoring all that was behind ?

Generally if it's going to overwrite user edited config files on an upgrade you'll be given a prompt asking you whether you want to use the new config file, your old one, a patchwork of the two, or some other less useful options.

[Lucifer9999]

debian and slackware are the top of linux ever... personally, i very dislike ubuntu...

[Cabalo]

So, we can assume it's safe to do the upgrade?
I've never done it before, as I usually go for clean installations, but I'm reasonably willing to take the chance on this one, though it's my work laptop.

[aen]

So, we can assume it's safe to do the upgrade?
I've never done it before, as I usually go for clean installations, but I'm reasonably willing to take the chance on this one, though it's my work laptop.

Well I upgraded 9.10 -> 10.04 by this way. Everything was fine

[Wwwildthing]

Your preference of linux OS?
Which would you prefer to run if you were to start a private tracker site (perhaps gazelle)?

I'd go with Ubuntu, because of the more frequent updates.

This link will take you to a torrent of Gazelle running as a virtual machine under Debian.

I wouldn't use it for 'production', but it'll let you get your hands dirty with little hassle.

[DanielleD87]

debian stable headless (no GUI).

From defaults I install:
sudo
ssh
and then I write a script to auto check for updates every 24 hours for security reasons

Also, anything I install outside of the distro (like gazelle) I manually compile with the newest version. Debian stable has up to date security fixes but not up to date software so everything I'm using I go out of my way to install newer versions manually.


Ubuntu is just debian with a different gui frontend and more desktop based applications packed in with it. For headless/server usage Debian should be your distro of choice. Using ubuntu as a server is the same thing as using a bloated version of debian. The only difference you would notice is one uses more ram and hdd space than the other.

[OlegL]

I would rather use gentoo instead of ubuntu or debian. But if I had to pick between ubuntu and debian, I would pick debian.

[backie]

debian stable headless (no GUI).

From defaults I install:
sudo
ssh
and then I write a script to auto check for updates every 24 hours for security reasons

Also, anything I install outside of the distro (like gazelle) I manually compile with the newest version. Debian stable has up to date security fixes but not up to date software so everything I'm using I go out of my way to install newer versions manually.


Ubuntu is just debian with a different gui frontend and more desktop based applications packed in with it. For headless/server usage Debian should be your distro of choice. Using ubuntu as a server is the same thing as using a bloated version of debian. The only difference you would notice is one uses more ram and hdd space than the other.

1) don't manually compile stuff use package managers like aptitude they were created for a reason. You can get all the newest stuff for debian using aptitude if you know what you're doing.
2) Ubuntu isn't just debian, it's based on debian and to the untrained eye there is no difference. But ubuntu does have a different kernel, it does have edits to stuff to various tools aswell having various tools which debian doesn't have.
3) If you don't know the difference between ubuntu and debian it doesn't matter which one you use.
4) Automatically installing upgrades is a security risk not a security measure.

[DanielleD87]

baka *grumbles*
1) No. Even in unstable a lot of custom software like bt clients are older than the uncompiled versions on their web sites.
2) You're restating what I said originally. Ubuntu is just like debian but with more crap.
3) There obviously is a difference or I wouldn't recommend one over the other.
4) Debian stable has different update trees... ones that are specifically to patch exploits only, for obvious security reasons. Look it up..

[backie]

baka *grumbles*
1) No. Even in unstable a lot of custom software like bt clients are older than the uncompiled versions on their web sites.
2) You're restating what I said originally. Ubuntu is just like debian but with more crap.
3) There obviously is a difference or I wouldn't recommend one over the other.
4) Debian stable has different update trees... ones that are specifically to patch exploits only, for obvious security reasons. Look it up..

1) If you know what you're doing yea you can. It's called using other repos. This provides you with an easy way to update packages.
2) No, I am pointing out that the difference is actually way more than your implying. Also they have the same gui frontend, gnome. They just use different themes/skins.
3) I highly doubt you do.
4) Installing stuff automatically is a security threat, doesn't matter who the source is. Look it up...