4 ms·

I am always baffled by people using ubuntu because "free". I get the desire if you want the paid stream. EG, an alternative to Redhat or SuSE as a paid stream

by b112 3y ago

I am always baffled by people using ubuntu because "free". I get the desire if you want the paid stream. EG, an alternative to Redhat or SuSE as a paid stream. But if you're going to use Ubuntu, why put up with the snaps, the commercialism, the app store, when you can just use debian? Every time I hear a reason why, it makes little sense to me. Even though 95% of Ubuntu is Debian, and Ubuntu wouldn't exist without Debian.... people use it. Ah well.

dylan604 3y ago
If I'm not running a desktop, why would I consider running Ubuntu at all? I feel the same about people offering a kneejerk suggestion of Ubuntu as when I'm told to use Docker without actually knowing anything about my needs. Just because I'm wanting to use Linux does not mean I need Ubuntu. Just because I'm deploying code doesn't mean Docker is the solution. But 99% of the time I talk to people, it's all Docker this Docker that.
- michaelt 3y ago
  There is a certain practicality in running the same thing on the server as on your developers' laptops. Ubuntu and Debian are pretty similar, and using Debian gets rid of things like snap, which I'm glad to be rid of - but it adds an extra level of "well it works on my machine" which I'm not glad for. If it's going to be hard to get that special different version of Java to work on the server, it should be hard to get it to work on the desktop too :) Of course the rise of containers has made a lot of this stuff less relevant.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    If the headless server has a UI process running that is absolutely wasted resources. Having the same environment for the dev's laptop and the server seems like such a waste of resources. The two things are not the same, so don't try to fit the square peg in the round hole. Whatever these differences are, they should be able to be determined and accounted for in the deployment. To me, we've gotten a bit lazy and a bit too focused on the wrong things. I feel like this happened when we started running javascript on the server. That was such a shock to the system and all sorts of things had to be done since it just was not the normal way of doing things. Someone decided it'd just be easier to clone the dev's system and deploy that as a server. Like what the actual... I also totally feel the same way about running a Windows Server. Like why on gawds good earth would you ever think that was a good idea?
    - chromakode 3y ago
      Ubuntu has a bunch of non-GUI server flavors. It's a common base image for cloud VMs, similar to Debian. https://ubuntu.com/download/server https://ubuntu.com/download/server
- claytongulick 3y ago
  I've found the Docker discussion is seen through a better lense when you talk about the tech it's running. For polygot/hybrid cases where you have a smattering of different languages and supporting technologies/services, docker makes a lot of sense. If you're all in (for example) on nodejs with a monorepo, it probably doesn't - you're just an "npm install" away from deployment. Whenever I really dig into the docker passion, I usually find devs who are frustrated by having to manage a million little details to get the dev environment going. If the language/stack takes that pain away, docker loses most of its value.
  - dylan604 3y ago
    my issue is when my process can utilize 100% of CPU available, it makes no sense to have the ability to run several on the same VM. my VM is already one of several on the host. my software stack is already available on the AMI. I don't need the additional time to wait for my AMI to warm up and then warm up Docker. Once my AMI is up, I'm running
peddling-brink 3y ago
Because 15 years ago Ubuntu shipped them distro CDs in the mail for free, and Debian was an entire dvd to download, slowly. Their more clever friends were compiling Arch, but who has time for that? I say this tongue in cheek, as a personal lived experience.
- jzb 3y ago
  This isn't wrong, really. Canonical, for all its flaws, correctly identified a lot of problems with Linux early on -- distribution, usability, application availability -- and then solved them. (Or made strides, anyway.) It also wasn't shy about marketing and made an effort to have a welcoming community whereas other communities were much less friendly to outsiders. The free CDs and Canonical's "ground game" in the face of the Red Hat Linux diaspora made it much more successful than other "Debian, but easier" efforts before it.
lpapez 3y ago
As a long time Ubuntu user, I figured I'd try Debian a month ago for the same reasons you listed. It's supposed to be 95% the same, so why not. Fresh install, my bluetooth headphones didn't work. Reverted back to Ubuntu and they worked right away. That's my reason for using Ubuntu instead of Debian - I simply don't care enough to bother with these small things.
- not2b 3y ago
  Yes, Debian prioritizes software freedom, and Ubuntu starts from Debian but prioritizes having the hardware actually work, so while Debian might be just fine and quite stable for servers, probably not the best choice on laptops for most. Edit: perhaps this situation has improved for Debian now that non-free firmware support isn't hidden, but it's been a while since I installed Debian on a new machine.
- smaudet 3y ago
  Except Ubuntu did what Fedora/RH didn't used to do - break my shit. Everything would work great, then bam giant updates, everything broken (bluetooth, wifi, video, graphics cards, audio), have to start from scratch learning some new fad Ubuntu folk had invented. When I want to tinker or try out cool-new-tech, then sure, a platform like Ubuntu is great - semi-stable, half-working software. When I don't, Debian/CentOS are hands down just better. Sure, I have to configure my bluetooth, but I have to do it just once _and it never breaks_. Fedora used to be pretty great, then some personalities with inflated opinions of themselves started ruining the relative stability.
Thaxll 3y ago
There are many reasons, LTS, security kernel patches etc ... Ubuntu is not 95% Debian, as a matter of fact Debian got LTS only recently, before that you were out of luck. I still have bad memories of going to the DC with a USB stick with network driver on them because the Dell server with Debian on it would not ship with non proprietary firmware / drivers.
- squarefoot 3y ago
  This is a thing of the past. From the firmware wiki at debian.org: "The Debian project took the decision in October 2022 to create a new repository component non-free-firmware, and include its content on installation media for the upcoming Debian 12 release (bookworm) to make things easier for our users. This change was implemented in time for the bookworm alpha 2 release of debian-installer in February 2023, and all d-i releases and daily and weekly images since then all include firmware." Previously one had to either download the needed firmware separately, or a bootable image containing it so that it was accessible during install. Many users having problems with proprietary hardware didn't know they could just grab the install image with included firmware at https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/ https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-in... But I blame Debian for this because their site historically has been excellent at hiding stuff.
bluedino 3y ago
It's supported, and it's known. Ubuntu = Linux for a lot of people these days, kind of like Red Hat was to us old guys.

by b112 3y ago

dylan604 3y ago

If I'm not running a desktop, why would I consider running Ubuntu at all? I feel the same about people offering a kneejerk suggestion of Ubuntu as when I'm told to use Docker without actually knowing anything about my needs. Just because I'm wanting to use Linux does not mean I need Ubuntu. Just because I'm deploying code doesn't mean Docker is the solution. But 99% of the time I talk to people, it's all Docker this Docker that.

michaelt 3y ago
There is a certain practicality in running the same thing on the server as on your developers' laptops. Ubuntu and Debian are pretty similar, and using Debian gets rid of things like snap, which I'm glad to be rid of - but it adds an extra level of "well it works on my machine" which I'm not glad for. If it's going to be hard to get that special different version of Java to work on the server, it should be hard to get it to work on the desktop too :) Of course the rise of containers has made a lot of this stuff less relevant.
- dylan604 3y ago
  If the headless server has a UI process running that is absolutely wasted resources. Having the same environment for the dev's laptop and the server seems like such a waste of resources. The two things are not the same, so don't try to fit the square peg in the round hole. Whatever these differences are, they should be able to be determined and accounted for in the deployment. To me, we've gotten a bit lazy and a bit too focused on the wrong things. I feel like this happened when we started running javascript on the server. That was such a shock to the system and all sorts of things had to be done since it just was not the normal way of doing things. Someone decided it'd just be easier to clone the dev's system and deploy that as a server. Like what the actual... I also totally feel the same way about running a Windows Server. Like why on gawds good earth would you ever think that was a good idea?
  - chromakode 3y ago
    Ubuntu has a bunch of non-GUI server flavors. It's a common base image for cloud VMs, similar to Debian. https://ubuntu.com/download/server https://ubuntu.com/download/server
claytongulick 3y ago
I've found the Docker discussion is seen through a better lense when you talk about the tech it's running. For polygot/hybrid cases where you have a smattering of different languages and supporting technologies/services, docker makes a lot of sense. If you're all in (for example) on nodejs with a monorepo, it probably doesn't - you're just an "npm install" away from deployment. Whenever I really dig into the docker passion, I usually find devs who are frustrated by having to manage a million little details to get the dev environment going. If the language/stack takes that pain away, docker loses most of its value.
- dylan604 3y ago
  my issue is when my process can utilize 100% of CPU available, it makes no sense to have the ability to run several on the same VM. my VM is already one of several on the host. my software stack is already available on the AMI. I don't need the additional time to wait for my AMI to warm up and then warm up Docker. Once my AMI is up, I'm running

peddling-brink 3y ago

Because 15 years ago Ubuntu shipped them distro CDs in the mail for free, and Debian was an entire dvd to download, slowly. Their more clever friends were compiling Arch, but who has time for that? I say this tongue in cheek, as a personal lived experience.

jzb 3y ago
This isn't wrong, really. Canonical, for all its flaws, correctly identified a lot of problems with Linux early on -- distribution, usability, application availability -- and then solved them. (Or made strides, anyway.) It also wasn't shy about marketing and made an effort to have a welcoming community whereas other communities were much less friendly to outsiders. The free CDs and Canonical's "ground game" in the face of the Red Hat Linux diaspora made it much more successful than other "Debian, but easier" efforts before it.

lpapez 3y ago

As a long time Ubuntu user, I figured I'd try Debian a month ago for the same reasons you listed. It's supposed to be 95% the same, so why not. Fresh install, my bluetooth headphones didn't work. Reverted back to Ubuntu and they worked right away. That's my reason for using Ubuntu instead of Debian - I simply don't care enough to bother with these small things.

not2b 3y ago
Yes, Debian prioritizes software freedom, and Ubuntu starts from Debian but prioritizes having the hardware actually work, so while Debian might be just fine and quite stable for servers, probably not the best choice on laptops for most. Edit: perhaps this situation has improved for Debian now that non-free firmware support isn't hidden, but it's been a while since I installed Debian on a new machine.
smaudet 3y ago
Except Ubuntu did what Fedora/RH didn't used to do - break my shit. Everything would work great, then bam giant updates, everything broken (bluetooth, wifi, video, graphics cards, audio), have to start from scratch learning some new fad Ubuntu folk had invented. When I want to tinker or try out cool-new-tech, then sure, a platform like Ubuntu is great - semi-stable, half-working software. When I don't, Debian/CentOS are hands down just better. Sure, I have to configure my bluetooth, but I have to do it just once _and it never breaks_. Fedora used to be pretty great, then some personalities with inflated opinions of themselves started ruining the relative stability.

Thaxll 3y ago

There are many reasons, LTS, security kernel patches etc ... Ubuntu is not 95% Debian, as a matter of fact Debian got LTS only recently, before that you were out of luck. I still have bad memories of going to the DC with a USB stick with network driver on them because the Dell server with Debian on it would not ship with non proprietary firmware / drivers.

squarefoot 3y ago
This is a thing of the past. From the firmware wiki at debian.org: "The Debian project took the decision in October 2022 to create a new repository component non-free-firmware, and include its content on installation media for the upcoming Debian 12 release (bookworm) to make things easier for our users. This change was implemented in time for the bookworm alpha 2 release of debian-installer in February 2023, and all d-i releases and daily and weekly images since then all include firmware." Previously one had to either download the needed firmware separately, or a bootable image containing it so that it was accessible during install. Many users having problems with proprietary hardware didn't know they could just grab the install image with included firmware at https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-including-firmware/ https://cdimage.debian.org/cdimage/unofficial/non-free/cd-in... But I blame Debian for this because their site historically has been excellent at hiding stuff.

bluedino 3y ago

It's supported, and it's known. Ubuntu = Linux for a lot of people these days, kind of like Red Hat was to us old guys.