Ubuntu LTS vs Debian LTS

[bester69]

I readed Ubuntu LTS are four years vs only two for debian.. Should i switch to Ubuntu or stay in debian?.. Im righy now with Streetch, and I think next year stop support.. I see two years LTS a litle short.

How do you see it¿?

[L_V]

=>> Debian Long Term Support (LTS) is a project to extend the lifetime of all Debian stable releases to (at least) 5 years.
https://wiki.debian.org/LTS

[Deb-fan]

Nobody can say what you'll prefer, that's up to you. Personally I clearly prefer Debian or I'd be running something else. As for what amount of time should be considered enough, I'll be glad to leave that up to the people who develop and maintain Debian. As I'm sure things are setup the way they are for good reason. Still using Stretch myself here, first time I've bothered with an oldstable release, shrugs.

Honestly have never even bothered learning about this topic, beyond really basic, support cycles associated with Debian etc. When I stop being lazy will just go ahead and update to Buster with a clean install.

[bester69]

=>> Debian Long Term Support (LTS) is a project to extend the lifetime of all Debian stable releases to (at least) 5 years.
https://wiki.debian.org/LTS

LTS debian, is 5 years but if Im not mistaken, only for security issues, they doenst update apps... As for Ubuntu LTS, ubuntu's team keep porting newer version's apps as long as it last. So after two years you cant use newer softwar versions, you'd have to appeal to snaps/flatpak or install debs from webpage.

[bester69]

Nobody can say what you'll prefer, that's up to you. Personally I clearly prefer Debian or I'd be running something else. As for what amount of time should be considered enough, I'll be glad to leave that up to the people who develop and maintain Debian. As I'm sure things are setup the way they are for good reason. Still using Stretch myself here, first time I've bothered with an oldstable release, shrugs.

Honestly have never even bothered learning about this topic, beyond really basic, support cycles associated with Debian etc. When I stop being lazy will just go ahead and update to Buster with a clean install.

I feel debian'ssupport cycles is a littel short, I just miss one more additional year.. so you dont have to be upgrating debian every two/three years

[L_V]

As for Ubuntu LTS, ubuntu's team keep porting newer version's apps as long as it last.

I would say, to be confirmed (I would not be so optimistic on long term.).
Debian has backports.
LTS is of course generally more focused on security than apps update.

[Deb-fan]

Or apt-pin (yep wouldn't be fully stable) or compile or use one of the distro's which are based on the Debian release you prefer and are "fully compatible" which truly means it's just a rebranded version of Debian and yep, some of them are really good. They may have longer periods of time in which all apps/utils are supported.

If someone is a personal user and just doesn't like to have to upgrade every few years, track Sid/unstable etc. Again haven't even really investigated how this subject works in detail in terms of what from Debian is supported for how long but people can believe as intelligent, considerate, competent and methodical as the people behind Debian are and remain for 20+ years, they definitely have valid reasons for why things are the way they are. Also know you didn't mean this as a slight towards Debian but it's likely to get taken that way with such a title ... this vs that and the OP. Doesn't matter, though yeah am a real fan of Debian here.

Edit: You (Bester69)posted while I was, I get that but we can't always get what we want and there's generally no shortage of ways to have it your way when it comes to gnu/Linux. Just might not be laid out on a silver platter or according to every endusers, every whim. When it comes to things like this I tend to be grateful for what the people behind this project do for us. I/we can bet that there's massive efforts behind Debian and I'm thankful for all the people who contribute to it.

[anticapitalista]

Save us from your posts and go for Ubuntu ...

[sunrat]

@bester69 I think anticapitalista is right, you should go for Ubuntu. You already love your snaps so you'll fit right in.

[Head_on_a_Stick]

CentOS ftw!

[Fernando Negro]

The reason why I moved to Debian, after many years of using "Buguntu", is because I got tired of Ubuntu's bugs...

And, I had the habit of only using at least one-year-mature LTS versions (to try to reduce the amount of bugs).

Even relatively mature Ubuntu (or, at least, Xubuntu) LTS versions have serious bugs - and, it gets quite annoying, if you use your computer for important stuff.

So, if your main concern is to, first of all, have a functional OS (and don't mind having less polished, or less graphically pleasant, functionalities) I highly recommend Debian.


(P.S. - Don't mind the trolling, in here. If anyone doesn't have the patience to help less knowledgable users on this forum, they can just ignore your posts.)

[bester69]

The reason why I moved to Debian, after many years of using "Buguntu", is because I got tired of Ubuntu's bugs...

And, I had the habit of only using at least one-year-mature LTS versions (to try to reduce the amount of bugs).

Even relatively mature Ubuntu (or, at least, Xubuntu) LTS versions have serious bugs - and, it gets quite annoying, if you use your computer for important stuff.

So, if your main concern is to, first of all, have a functional OS (and don't mind having less polished, or less graphically pleasant, functionalities) I highly recommend Debian.


(P.S. - Don't mind the trolling, in here. If anyone doesn't have the patience to help less knowledgable users on this forum, they can just ignore your posts.)

Thanks mate for your support, we need more real souls, world is full of "organic portals"

Ok, So, staying to topic, Your ubuntu experience is much worse than debian?, then I wont go to ubuntu, cos I already get to many bugs in debian..

I recently gave into a Gimp' bug, and seems to happens also with snap.. when you've a clipboard manager opened and copy screen image from gimp it crashes..

So I'had to create a workaround script for this gimps' bug and waste some more minits of my life ,

Code: Select all

#!/bin/bash
#
killall copyq
#flatpak run org.gimp.GIMP "$@"
/usr/bin/gimp-2.8.run "$@"
copyq &

[Fernando Negro]

You're welcome.

Yes, I've had a (much) worse experience with Ubuntu. Debian is like "paradise", ever since I've switched to it.

The last time I've tried Xubuntu on my computer (with relatively old hardware) some 2 years ago(?), even though it was a mature LTS version, right after I installed and updated it, I came across some annoying bug (I can't remember which) when using the desktop.

The only situation in which Ubuntu can (or really should) be a better option, is when using new hardware. Because Ubuntu uses more recent software versions, better capable of dealing with more recent hardware.

(Like, when I once tried installing Debian on a new laptop, it would freeze, sometimes, because of what I suspected/concluded was the CPU overheating - since, it was impossible to use a new configuration option with such older version of the kernel, or something of the sort. And, after installing Xubuntu instead, the problem went away.)

Also, if you use your computer just for basic stuff, like Internet browsing, I suppose Ubuntu might be OK. I have installed it on a relative's computer, and it hasn't been problematic, so far. But, for anything more elaborate than that, I don't consider it a good option.

But, then. There's nothing like trying/checking things for ourselves, also... (And, you can use a virtual machine for that, nowadays.)

[bester69]

You're welcome.

Yes, I've had a (much) worse experience with Ubuntu. Debian is like "paradise", ever since I've switched to it.

The last time I've tried Xubuntu on my computer (with relatively old hardware) some 2 years ago(?), even though it was a mature LTS version, right after I installed and updated it, I came across some annoying bug (I can't remember which) when using the desktop.

The only situation in which Ubuntu can (or really should) be a better option, is when using new hardware. Because Ubuntu uses more recent software versions, better capable of dealing with more recent hardware.

(Like, when I once tried installing Debian on a new laptop, it would freeze, sometimes, because of what I suspected/concluded was the CPU overheating - since, it was impossible to use a new configuration option with such older version of the kernel, or something of the sort. And, after installing Xubuntu instead, the problem went away.)

Also, if you use your computer just for basic stuff, like Internet browsing, I suppose Ubuntu might be OK. I have installed it on a relative's computer, and it hasn't been problematic, so far. But, for anything more elaborate than that, I don't consider it a good option.

But, then. There's nothing like trying/checking things for ourselves, also... (And, you can use a virtual machine for that, nowadays.)

Im still using a 2008's laptop with debian stretch, Ive the system very stable, because I try dont to install non repos. apps, and when I need them, I first try with snaps/flatpaks and futhermore I use a lot btrfs (system and home snapshots), so I can rollback when something new messed something, So im going consolidating stable snaphots as time goes by, and system keeps updating changes and configurations.... BTRFS is best ever thing in linux, you should try if you dont know it. Thanks to BTRFS I didnt have to reinstall system anymore since three or four years ago,

[NFT5]

CentOS ftw!

The one distro that, in my distro hopping days, I was never successful in installing.

As for Ubuntu LTS, ubuntu's team keep porting newer version's apps as long as it last.

No, they don't. From the Ubuntu LTS Wiki:

and clearly state that it is not:

A Feature-Based Release: We will focus on hardening functionality of existing features, versus introducing new ones1, except for in the areas of Online Services and Desktop Experience2.

1. Exceptions for priority projects will be documented.
2. Because these two areas of development are relatively new, they still require new features to satisfy the original reasons for their creation

Cutting Edge: Starting with the 14.04 LTS development cycle, automatic full package import is performed from Debian unstable1

1. This is due to deploying ProposedMigration in the Ubuntu archive.

They do extend support for newer hardware, as Fernando Negro notes, but this is only useful if you are changing hardware on an existing machine to something that isn't currently supported. If you're changing machines then a fresh installation of the most recent stable is the better way, having first established that it will support your new hardware anyway. Wherever possible I'd prefer to use Debian and Backports or even bring in a specific package that is essential to the use.

I do use Ubuntu LTS on a couple of machines where either the user capability is better suited to Ubuntu than Debian or there is a particular hardware configuration that works with Ubuntu but I've been unable to make work in Debian. In either case the decision to go with Ubuntu is made with the knowledge that it will be a significantly slower system than if operating with Debian.

[Deb-fan]

The only situation in which Ubuntu can (or really should) be a better option, is when using new hardware. Because Ubuntu uses more recent software versions, better capable of dealing with more recent hardware.

All easily solved, even with Debian stable by a user which knows what they're doing. Even if what's needed isn't available through backports, plenty of other routes to getting even latest software packages in Debian stable. When talking about hardware support the kernel and any relevant firmware packages being the main concern. Also more than a few ways to work around any limitations in the stable installer/iso.

2 cents.