Debian or Ubuntu for a desktop box?

[Kurt Granroth]

Actually, as others have said, you are in a unique position to find out
for yourself.  I have experience with both, but have never really
compared them one-on-one.  My Ubuntu experience is with a modern
"Dapper" system used as a development workstation and my Debian
experience is over many years "back in the day" and always for servers.
 It's easy to say that Ubuntu has more polish, but what does that mean
to you?

All that said, here's some opinions I have on the matter.  Take these
with a grain of salt since I've been known to hold contrary opinions on
a variety of topics.

First, one of the major differences between Debian and Ubuntu follows
the grand tradition of "Free Software" vs "Open Source", X.org drivers
vs ATI and NVidia proprietary drivers, and Gnome vs KDE.  In all cases,
there is a pragmatic solution and a more morally pure solution.  Debian
has always been Free software, not Open Source.  Their obsession with
free vs non-free packages is either refreshing or exhausting, depending
on how you feel on the topic.  Plus, Debian is completely controlled by
the community.  Ubuntu has a community, but the reigns are still tightly
held by a corporation.  Does that matter to you?  It does to some (a
lot?) of people.

Second, Ubuntu has paid developers working on polishing the packages..
fixing bugs and making sure everything is integrated.  Debian has a LOT
of people working on the parts that interest them.  I am a big fan of
the former style of integration.  IMO, a focused controlling force is
needed to truly have proper integration of all the various parts.

Third, Ubuntu has a lot of momentum and buzz.  That's a good thing in
and of itself because that often translates into a lot of people
stressing the system and if you have a dedicated team of people fixing
the issues that arise, it can only mean a better system.  Debian is well
known for doing things as sloooowlly as possible.

Finally, Ubuntu actually updates their packages in a timely manner.  The
only real way to be reasonably up to date with Debian is to use
TESTING... and that's buggy as all hell.  At least, that used to be the
case when I used Debian.  Dunno if they've gotten better at updating
UNSTABLE and STABLE.

Alex Dean wrote:
> No opinions on this?
> 
> On Jun 8, 2006, at 5:14 PM, Alex Dean wrote:
> 
>> Hi all.  I've been using Debian testing for a few servers for a while,
>> and I really really like it.  I've been using RHEL4 for a desktop
>> machine, and I've decided I want to replace it with either Debian or
>> something Debian-based.  I've installed one Ubuntu desktop machine,
>> and it went very smoothly, so that's fresh in my mind as I debate
>> which distro to choose.
>>
>> I'm wondering what are the principal differences between Ubuntu and
>> Debian?  I know Ubuntu is 'Debian based', but I don't really know what
>> that means.  What's been modified, and will I care?  The only reason I
>> hesitate to use Debian itself is just because I have no experience
>> configuring an X server, and having a little friendly GUI handholding
>> for that part is appealing.
>>
>> I am basically Linux-literate and willing to tinker.  But, for the
>> desktop box, I also really want something that 'just works'.  I don't
>> want to notice it, I just want to use it... to tinker with the server. :)
>>
>> Any thoughts, observations, etc. are welcome.  I am not trying to
>> start a RH vs. Debian thread, so I do ask that replies be limited to
>> comparing Ubutntu and Debian.