3 ms·

> The majority of desktop installations are either Ubuntu or Ubuntu-based, and Ubuntu is quickly becoming the server of choice as well. Unless you are using un

by pavanky 13y ago

> The majority of desktop installations are either Ubuntu or Ubuntu-based, and Ubuntu is quickly becoming the server of choice as well. Unless you are using unity, I don't see why a distribution should be called ubuntu based instead of debian based. A lot of "Ubuntu derivatives" are not based on unity. Sure Ubuntu has a betteer installer and pretty themes, but the base is undeinably debian.

Mikeb85 13y ago
Ubuntu has made more modifications than simply the Unity DE. Is Linux Mint (the regular edition) fully compatible with Debian? Does a Debian server have the same features as an Ubuntu server?
dragonwriter 13y ago
> Unless you are using unity, I don't see why a distribution should be called ubuntu based instead of debian based. Because Ubuntu is more than Unity. I mean, by the "Unity or its not Ubuntu-based" standard you propose, Kubuntu (which is exactly Ubuntu -- sharing all the same repos -- with the KDE desktop and apps installed by default) wouldn't be an "Ubuntu-based distribution". Heck, Ubuntu Server, since it doesn't have a default DE at all, wouldn't be an "Ubuntu-based distribution", either.
- pavanky 13y ago
  Well you'll have to show me what Ubuntu has that Debian does not. Kubuntu, I suspect, is only named because it was originally sponsored by Canonical. Nothing more.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Well you'll have to show me what Ubuntu has that Debian does not. Ubuntu maintains a set of repositories for each version of Ubuntu, which (even when the same--by name--software is in Debian's official repositories, will often be different versions or otherwise different contents than Debian repos). Kubuntu uses entirely software from the Ubuntu repos from the corresponding version number (e.g., Kubuntu 12.04 uses exactly the same set of repos as Ubuntu 12.04.) You can, in effect, switch from Kubuntu to Ubuntu, or vice versa, just using the apt package manager without changing the base repositories, just installing and removing the right packages from the ubuntu repos. The difference between Kubuntu 12.04 and Ubuntu 12.04 is entirely in which packages, from the Ubuntu "precise" repositories are installed by default. The difference between either and any version of Debian is much greater. The whole "unity or you have to call it 'Debian-based' instead of 'Ubuntu-based'" idea is nonsense.
  - na85 13y ago
    If you're going to be so nit-picky then distinctions between distros become meaningless. Your choice of distro really just boils down to your package-manager preference.
  - deelowe 13y ago
    Surely you're joking, right? For one, Ubuntu has a desktop and server version along with a LTS version and the repos are totally different. The filesystem layout is little different between the two. I'm sure there's more like init differences, differences in installation and configuration, kernels, and stuff in /etc, but I haven't used Ubuntu in quite some time.
jlgreco 13y ago
> Sure Ubuntu has a betteer installer Highly debatable. "Most accessible" installer perhaps, but as far as I am concerned, Debian's netinst has yet to be beat. Style isn't exactly high on my list of priorities during installation, it's not like that is something I do to show off in coffee-shops.
- pavanky 13y ago
  You are right, that is what I meant. Something a person fairly new to Linux can use.
- jbicha 13y ago
  Ubuntu also has a mini iso if you really want the net install. For most people, the net install will take significantly longer than a regular install as each package has to be unpacked individually. http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/raring/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/ http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/raring/main/installer... or http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/raring/main/installer-i386/current/images/netboot/ http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/raring/main/installer...

by pavanky 13y ago

Mikeb85 13y ago

Ubuntu has made more modifications than simply the Unity DE. Is Linux Mint (the regular edition) fully compatible with Debian? Does a Debian server have the same features as an Ubuntu server?

dragonwriter 13y ago

> Unless you are using unity, I don't see why a distribution should be called ubuntu based instead of debian based. Because Ubuntu is more than Unity. I mean, by the "Unity or its not Ubuntu-based" standard you propose, Kubuntu (which is exactly Ubuntu -- sharing all the same repos -- with the KDE desktop and apps installed by default) wouldn't be an "Ubuntu-based distribution". Heck, Ubuntu Server, since it doesn't have a default DE at all, wouldn't be an "Ubuntu-based distribution", either.

pavanky 13y ago
Well you'll have to show me what Ubuntu has that Debian does not. Kubuntu, I suspect, is only named because it was originally sponsored by Canonical. Nothing more.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Well you'll have to show me what Ubuntu has that Debian does not. Ubuntu maintains a set of repositories for each version of Ubuntu, which (even when the same--by name--software is in Debian's official repositories, will often be different versions or otherwise different contents than Debian repos). Kubuntu uses entirely software from the Ubuntu repos from the corresponding version number (e.g., Kubuntu 12.04 uses exactly the same set of repos as Ubuntu 12.04.) You can, in effect, switch from Kubuntu to Ubuntu, or vice versa, just using the apt package manager without changing the base repositories, just installing and removing the right packages from the ubuntu repos. The difference between Kubuntu 12.04 and Ubuntu 12.04 is entirely in which packages, from the Ubuntu "precise" repositories are installed by default. The difference between either and any version of Debian is much greater. The whole "unity or you have to call it 'Debian-based' instead of 'Ubuntu-based'" idea is nonsense.
- na85 13y ago
  If you're going to be so nit-picky then distinctions between distros become meaningless. Your choice of distro really just boils down to your package-manager preference.
- deelowe 13y ago
  Surely you're joking, right? For one, Ubuntu has a desktop and server version along with a LTS version and the repos are totally different. The filesystem layout is little different between the two. I'm sure there's more like init differences, differences in installation and configuration, kernels, and stuff in /etc, but I haven't used Ubuntu in quite some time.

jlgreco 13y ago

> Sure Ubuntu has a betteer installer Highly debatable. "Most accessible" installer perhaps, but as far as I am concerned, Debian's netinst has yet to be beat. Style isn't exactly high on my list of priorities during installation, it's not like that is something I do to show off in coffee-shops.

pavanky 13y ago
You are right, that is what I meant. Something a person fairly new to Linux can use.
jbicha 13y ago
Ubuntu also has a mini iso if you really want the net install. For most people, the net install will take significantly longer than a regular install as each package has to be unpacked individually. http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/raring/main/installer-amd64/current/images/netboot/ http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/raring/main/installer... or http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/raring/main/installer-i386/current/images/netboot/ http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/raring/main/installer...