3 ms·
I think you're 100% wrong there. Ubuntu supplied, and supplies, polish that Debian just doesn't bother with. You're grossly underestimating the It Just Works fa
by davidgerard 10y ago
I think you're 100% wrong there. Ubuntu supplied, and supplies, polish that Debian just doesn't bother with. You're grossly underestimating the It Just Works factor.
(I remember trying to move back to Debian. Apart from Xfce compared to Xubuntu looking like it's had a two-day session with the ugly stick, getting my wifi to work felt like I was being lectured by a small RMS on my shoulder.)
I do like Debian a whole lot, but for my purposes Ubuntu is functionally an acceptable Debian. (I use Debian on my personal server, Ubuntu on work servers and Xubuntu for my desktops.)
- 4ad 10y ago> Ubuntu supplied, and supplies, polish that Debian just doesn't bother with. This is often repeated but never with any concrete and specific evidence.
- antod 10y agoYou want concrete and specific evidence for a subjective judgement call based on peoples own experiences? Where's your concrete and specific evidence that nearly everybody else's subjective personal experience is somehow objectively 'wrong' and needs justifying?
- davidgerard 10y agoThe 100 Papercuts projects, for example. Debian has bothered more in the decade or so since Ubuntu started. And, of course, fixes go upstream where applicable - Ubuntu deals with a lot less platforms than Debian has to account for - and Canonical employees work directly on Debian in a few areas. But dude, I remember how much pain Breezy Badger wasn't compared to Debian at the time, in so many ways.