Live data from Hacker News

Moving from Ubuntu to Debian

magnatecha.com

61–70 of 76 posts

Re: Moving from Ubuntu to Debian

#61
post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must disagree with you in turn, in most particulars. Arch's wiki is an information source par excellence , and I find that the information contained therein is often just what I need to get my Debian system working correctly. The init systems will likely diverge at some point, but as far as I know that decision is not final yet, and I prefer systemd anyway. Are there some particulars you can divulge?

Ubuntu, like most mainstream distributions, has design choices and UI that abstracts away as much as possible the act of administering a Linux system. A lot of things you will do on Ubuntu are specific to Ubuntu systems, and even more so with distros like RHEL and Gentoo. Then you have oddities like GoboLinux. It's one of the oldest sayings in the community that "if you know Slackware, you know Linux". This is somewh…

While great points are made in each successive post, my child poster specified "Ubuntu with Gnome", which is a long time ago, in fact that was back when Ubuntu (IMO) was the best entry into Linux.

Now, I feel Ubuntu took away the administrative capabilities of a system that has not yet grown out of its need to be administered.

Re: Moving from Ubuntu to Debian

#62

I also moved away from Unity after about a year or so of using it (some good ideas, but too unstable for my taste), and instead of going Debian, which was my initial impulse, I decided to give Ubuntu Gnome a try. This is a Ubuntu variant that isn't talked about much, and it's still early days for them, but it shows some promise. You basically get the same Ubuntu base you're used to with all the repositories and PPAs…

The Ubuntu Gnome spin looks very promising with the combination of the Ubuntu ecosystem and the Gnome desktop environment.

the only fly in the ointment (for me at least) is the distros uncertain future as Canonical developers are not keen on moving to the latest version of Gnome (http://www.webupd8.org/2013/10/ubuntu-1404-lts-to-stay-on-gt...) and longer term the focus will be on QT and other technologies as Unity and Mir mature.

Re: Moving from Ubuntu to Debian

#63

There are actually many good Linux distributions not named Ubuntu.

Would anyone recommend some? Also, would anyone talk about FreeBSD vs Linux? What are some reasons to choose each?

I've used FreeBSD as my desktop for a long time and would continue using it if it supported the hardware in my new home machine (no drivers for this particular WiFi USB adapter, and not that great support for Intel graphics[1], unfortunately I was in a hurry and didn't have the time to pick and choose the hardware). I have only the best words for FreeBSD. The best way I would describe the experience of using it is you can just feel the clarity of thought that the commiters have. Almost everything is really well thought out, clean, logical and backed with fairly good arguments. Documentation is excellent -- I never had to dig around the internet to find a solution. Everything is well explained in The Handbook[2] or the man pages. A few corner cases you might encounter usually get solved quickly on the very helpful mailing lists. The community is likewise excellent. Aside from a few snide regulars (just users, not developers), people are very helpful and polite.

Ever since I switched to Linux (it's been a few months now) because of those drivers issues, a small part of me dies every time I sit in front of this machine. :) What comforts me is that FreeBSD is focused on the server side, and doesn't compromise that for desktop battles which IMHO are lost to proprietary systems anyway. I would gladly accept using any convenient piece of crap on the desktop, such as Ubuntu or any other Linux distro, if that means FreeBSD stays focused on serious business(tm). On the server, you can take it from my cold dead hands.

Now, to get in the right state of mind for using it on the desktop you have to understand one simple fact -- no desktop related software is part of FreeBSD. FreeBSD is a whole operating system developed in unison consisting of the kernel, standard BSD and POSIX userspace and some necessary third party software without which it would simply not be a complete Unix system. Everything X (and desktop) related is part of the Ports system (i.e. third party software ported to FreeBSD but not part of it). This means that if you want Ubuntu level integration and functionality of your desktop you'll have to configure it yourself. I've seen many people who didn't understand this point clearly get frustrated and angry and miss the beauty of it.

So, for desktop use:

Pros (in no particular order):

* The sound system -- unlike the Linux mess, FreeBSD always had a sound sound system. ;) No need for PulseAudios of the day or whatnot to get multichannel, etc. it's all working right there in the kernel.

* The Ports -- you simply get the latest versions of applications as soon as available. Note however that sometimes Ports contributors and commiters can lag and you might end up waiting, but since the Ports tree is unique and shared among all supported releases of the system there is no policy of keeping outdated version of applications (it's partially a side effect of the fact that Ports are not part of the system and as such need not be stable, although some important things, and where it makes sense, have multiple versions maintained). High profile software usually gets updated within a few days.

* One of my favourites is GELI, the GEOM[3] module for disk encryption. It's so straightforward and easy to use (command line tools only) it's a real joy. It supports cool stuff like having a USB stick as a token in addition to a password. Because it's part of GEOM you can layer things completely freely, although with some caveats if you use GPT partitions.

* Some enterprise/server class features that might come in handy on the desktop -- Jails, GEOM in general, ZFS, PF...

* For Linux only applications there's Linuxulator (kernel translation for system calls) which works great although it's a bit dated (I think it doesn't support stuff added since Linux 2.4, may get updated eventually). Works with no performance penalty.

* Sanity and peace of mind (granted, this is subjective)

Cons:

* It may not have the drivers for some popular desktop hardware. FreeBSD is really server and enterprise oriented and it shows in driver availability. YMMV and always check the Hardware Notes for a particular release. Nvidia cards are fully supported with the proprietary driver.

* My personal pet peeve -- for years and years TeX Live wasn't available for FreeBSD. It's slowly changing and it should go into the Ports replacing the ancient teTeX (similar for Sage Math).

* The Ports -- yes they are in the cons too. While it didn't bother me that much, building stuff from source can be a burden. On faster machines it's not that scary, but each time Perl, pcre or something other that a lot of stuff depends on gets a version bump, if you're not careful, things can get hairy. On the other hand PKGNG, the new binary package management system, is great and once the new format packages become widely and officially available all of this will become a non-issue.

* As I said, you have to configure most things of interest on a desktop machine yourself. Apart from what vanilla desktop environments offer themselves, there is very little system level hand holding. OTOH, most if not all of it is documented.

* I'm not sure of Gnome 3 status right now, there were some problems. KDE 4 on the other hand has a great ports team supporting it and it's regulary updated, no problems there.

General remarks that are neither cons nor pros:

* Flash works fine in my experience (since it's Flash for Linux it requires Linux emulation enabled) but since HTML 5 become the norm I never bothered with it (for stuff not supporting HTML 5 video I just used applications which use Mplayer to stream flv and that's actually how I prefer it).

* Gaming -- if it works in Wine it will work in FreeBSD (having an Nvidia card is recomended).

[1] The basics work from 9-RELEASE onward at least up to Ivy Bridge graphics, but going to console from X via Alt+Ctrl+F doesn't work and I think there are some other minor issues. Nothing absolutely critical, but I like things that work to work properly, it's the FreeBSD way after all.

[2] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/handbook/

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEOM

EDIT: formatting

Re: Moving from Ubuntu to Debian

#64

So, is the Linux distribution market now ripe for disruption? I wonder who out of today's major players could be the next big thing. OpenSUSE seems the closest to Ubuntu in terms of user friendliness (Linus' comments notwithstanding) due to tools like YaST [1] and a PPA-like mechanism called the openSUSE Build Server for extra prebuilt software [2]. People certainly have speculated about it online for a while but we'…

I'm really rather happy with openSUSE. I have a VPS and a RPi running Debian stable and beta respectively, but my main laptop has been running openSUSE for years and I prefer it if possible. I think this one has been updated at least since 11.4, and I've started using their "rolling stable" release (for lack of a better description), called Tumbleweed, which is really neat![1]

YaST is nice since it's there if one doesn't know how to change certain things (or if one cannot be bothered) simply with the config files, though they are always there for direct editing. Another nice thing is the wide array of Window Managers available, I've been using KDE4 for a long while but recently found myself using i3 more and more.

Regarding package management, I find zypper a delight to work with, since repository management is straight-forward (and so is gpg-key-management). It's also rpm-based, which I think makes packaging a lot easier, but YMMV.

[1]: Thanks gregkh! :)

Re: Moving from Ubuntu to Debian

#65
I recently switched to Ubuntu from FreeBSD because of driver support problems (i.e. not willingly) and here's my take:

* Unity: I don't see what the big deal is. Granted, it's a subjective thing. As someone who generally dislikes DEs and would normally use just a tiling window manager maybe I don't appreciate the finer points in DE wars. I've been reluctant to install Xmonad because of the fear of what might break, and I have to say I've had no particular annoyances with Unity which I wouldn't have with any other desktop environment. Indeed, all the annoying stuff actually comes from GNOME components that they left. I find the Dash and HUD quite nice.

* Online scopes and advertising. In recent years I've come to the conclusion that a free (as in beer) general population friendly OS just isn't going to happen. The work needed to polish things to compete with Windows and OS X in this aspect is extremely boring. No hacker (or even average programmer) is going to spend his free time doing that. You have to be paid to do it. The money has to come from somewhere, thus advertising. I'm not a big fan this, but what Canonical is doing is at the moment our best shot of having a viable desktop OS which just works and lets you get on with your life (and even Ubuntu isn't there yet). And you can disable it with a single switch. Big deal.

* Shuttleworth trolling people... Well, it's certainly legitimate to not want to use an OS developed by a company owned by a person who says controversial stuff, but I don't see the technical angle. For example, is OS X better of worse because Jobs was a strange type? And as for Mir (that's what the issue revolves around), if Mir is a bad idea Wayland is also a bad idea. You just can't think Wayland is all peachy and Mir a horrible thing because they both basically do the same thing. All the talk about splitting the community (what community would that be?) makes no sense -- if Canonical decided they need complete control of their graphics stack it's a legitimate decision, and no one has any moral ground to attack that decision. In developing Mir they are not interfering with Wayland in any way, they are simply not participating. (BTW, I don't think either Wayland or Mir are good ideas, we'll end up with the situation we have in OS X, where X can be tacked on when necessary, and it is often necessary, with who knows what kind of crappy support.)

I'm no fan of Shuttleworth or Ubuntu, I really just don't care about either on any emotional level, but I'd like a FOSS OS which is also free as in beer AND just works on the desktop and lets me get on with my work and life. After you get to a certain age in life, fiddling with the OS gets old real fast.

Re: Moving from Ubuntu to Debian

#66
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After having used Ubuntu, Arch and now Debian testing, I can say that Ubuntu is a great way to get to know Linux. At least it was when I used it with Gnome 2.8. At some point I grew tired of all the unnecessary software bloat, though. I loved Arch, until the moment I had to unexpectedly fix a non-booting system after some update. It just wasn't for me, although the minimalism of it felt great. Now to Debian testing.…

I have to disagree. Ubuntu is a great way to get to know Ubuntu. Debian, while _incredible_ has somewhat the same flaw, but in its case is worth the tradeoff. Slackware or Arch are great ways to get to know Linux.

What stops you from saying that "Arch is a great way to know Arch" then? It's not as if it doesn't have its own package manager and all, like any other distro...

Re: Moving from Ubuntu to Debian

#67

I've also switched to Debian, back in August. I don't like Unity, but the deciding factor was the rolling update characteristic of Debian Testing. Ubuntu just plain breaks in every semi-annual update, and I missed the rolling aspect of Gentoo (which I used before Ubuntu). Debian testing is reasonably up to date, updates continuously and requires much less maintenance than Gentoo. It's about as hassle-free as Ubuntu.…

The problem with Debian Testing is the relatively long freeze periods before a release. Wheezy was frozen for over 10 months.

Re: Moving from Ubuntu to Debian

#69

I have both installed for a few years now (Debian on Desktop and Server, Ubuntu on Laptop). First of all every article mentioning something like "I switched recently and everything is fine" just gives me a little sad smile. Yes - every Distro after a fresh install will usually work pretty well by now. Problems tend to show after using it daily for a few months. My experience is that new Ubuntu versions tend to mess u…

  > Pretty much every Desktop application where you want
  > newer versions is simply not available.
I'll never understand why this argument is made so frequently. The only explanation I can think of is that I use entirely different apps than most people do.

I use Debian Stable on my desktop computer, and I have the latest, or nearly the latest, versions of the apps that I use most. I use backports, third-party repos, and binaries that I download directly from upstream. For example, I get the following apps from the sources listed below:

Firefox - http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/late...

Google Chome - https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/?platform=linu...

Thunderbird - http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/thunderbird/releases/...

Emacs - http://emacs.naquadah.org/

LibreOffice - http://packages.debian.org/wheezy-backports/libreoffice-kde

VirtualBox - https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Linux_Downloads

PostgreSQL - http://www.postgresql.org/download/linux/debian/

  > Even finding a browser which simply runs on all websites tends
  > to be a constant pain.
Huh?

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/late...

http://mozilla.debian.net/

https://www.google.com/intl/en/chrome/browser/?platform=linu...

http://packages.debian.org/chromium

Re: Moving from Ubuntu to Debian

#70
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to disagree. Ubuntu is a great way to get to know Ubuntu. Debian, while _incredible_ has somewhat the same flaw, but in its case is worth the tradeoff. Slackware or Arch are great ways to get to know Linux.

What stops you from saying that "Arch is a great way to know Arch" then? It's not as if it doesn't have its own package manager and all, like any other distro...

It's not the having a package manager that makes it specific, it's that it's ports-like. It's also a great feature that I'm a huge fan of.

It doesn't do nearly as much patching as other distros (save for Slackware or CRUX) to packages making reporting bugs upstream much more straightforward.

This explains it better than I do: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way

Post reply on HN