Ubuntu is faster than Windows, though the added features affect the performance when compared with Debian. Expect both Ubuntu and Debian to slow down over time as feature-bloat keeps piling up, though you’ll be hard-pressed to find an Ubuntu or Debian machine running slower than an equivalent Mac or Windows. Debian Vs Ubuntu Vs windows 7. If I started comparing WIndows with a Linux distro, I'd need a lot more time:) In short, if you are a total beginner, you should use Windows (10 preferably). If you are a beginner but want to use a free Linux distro, then go with Ubuntu. If you are an experienced user (a developer), you can try both Ubuntu.
Which is a better platform for a professional use server?
Debian Stable or Ubuntu LTS?
The third party software we plan to use, works on both. Which one is better on it own merits?
Take into account things like the kernel (Ubuntu for example has its own custom kernel for servers), and other Ubuntu specific customizations.
I keep switching back and forth, and I need to decide so I can recommend one or the other to a client. Right now, I think I am going to choose Debian Stable.
Recently, I have had Ubuntu Server Edition 10.04.1 have a few strange issues...
I have Ubuntu setup to do automatic updates via a simple script, and every few months or so, libapache2-mod-php5 gets removed because of conflicting packages... Thereby causing me to loose the php function of the web server.
closed as primarily opinion-based by Pilot6, mook765, Eric Carvalho, Charles Green, user68186Feb 25 at 15:46
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
8 Answers
Well I don't see why people are making a fuss about the quality of the question. It's clearly a decision that lots of developers will want to weigh up before deploying. And there are clearly some differences that are very relevant to deploying each.
I think the prime consideration and comparison between debian stable and an Ubuntu LTS is security and general package updates.
Debian 'stable' releases are supported for a year after the next stable release. So if a stable comes out every two years, and you started on a stable release right at its launch, you get three years of updates:
The security team tries to support a stable distribution for about one year after the next stable distribution has been released, except when another stable distribution is released within this year. It is not possible to support three distributions; supporting two simultaneously is already difficult enough.
You should note that the debian cadence is not guaranteed. Stable releases come out when they're ready. This could mean you get anywhere from 18 months to 18 years of support. This makes it very unpredictable as you won't know when you need to upgrade until you know when the next stable will be finalised.
Compare that to a Ubuntu LTS release, desktop updates are very similar but for the server applications and kernel, you get a mammoth 5 years of support, regardless of any new LTS releases in that time:
A new LTS version is usually released every 2 years. With the v12.04 Long Term Support (LTS) version you get 5 years support for both the Ubuntu Desktop and the Ubuntu Server. There is no extra fee for the LTS version; we make our very best work available to everyone on the same free terms.
This means you should be able to deploy the latest LTS on a box and not have to worry about it not getting security updates (for supported packages) for years and years. When you have more than a handful of servers, or just some applications that can't afford any downtime for testing upgrades, or just don't have the time to spend a day/week testing upgrades, Ubuntu has a large advantage over debian.
To answer your question about Professional/Production use I think there are several key elements that have been addressed but there is one point I feel that is extremely crucial.
Packages and Package Management
This is a key difference between Debian stable and Ubuntu LTS especially if your concerned about longevity, uptime, stability etc.
Ubuntu is released every six months and is based off of the Debian unstable branch which generally means overall newer and more up to date software but at the same time having the disadvantage of being considered basically 'unstable' at least in an enterprise context.
Now the LTS release is based mostly on Debian Testing which in Debian terms 'represents the state of the upcoming stable release before it is actually considered stable' and although Ubuntu puts a lot of time and effort into making regular and LTS versions as stable as possible after the packages have been pulled from there respective Debian branches, LTS is still based on the Testing branch which in turn is still considered by Debian in its own branch to be not quite ready for Production use or anything approaching mission critical.
And Ubuntu's community of developers simply cannot compete on the same scope or level of Debian which is possibly the largest communal based software ever created.
In basic terms this means Ubuntu LTS being based upon the Debian Testing branch and even with Ubuntus attempts to stabilize and polish their testing packages after they're pulled, does not equal the immense development and maturity of Debian stable and the packages thereof. Debian stable truly is the Golden Standard for rock solid stability.
jkriderjkrider
I stumbled upon this thread whilst googling 'ubuntu server stability issues' - searching for answers to my own concerns regarding the stability of Ubuntu server.
I have to admit that I'm a long term Ubuntu fan, particularly on the desktop (Since Breezy).
Box 1: 'Fred'
I first deployed Ubuntu server 8.04 on a production machine that has low usage requirements; it's predominantly a 'brochure-ware' level webserver with about 4/5 websites, which also acts as an offsite backup repository. Primary packages are Apache2, Mysql, Postgresql, PHP.
It's dual core, has 2 GB RAM, 2x 1GB HDD configured with mdadm as RAID1.Stability wise, it has been great except that it seems to die every 3-6 months for no obvious reason, despite combining through log after log.
I've kept this machine on 8.04, performing occasional updates.
Box 2: 'Charlie'
Charlie has been running for a similar lifetime as Fred, and is used as an office based backup and media storage machine, office server monitoring node, network gateway for remote logins, wiki and virtualbox host.Primary packages are: Apache2, postgresql, mysql, PHP, webmin, samba and Virtual box - Non OSE (We needed the headless feature back when that wasn't supported in the OSE).
Hardware wise, Charlie is Quad core, with 8GB RAM, has about 10TB of storage, distributed across a number of sata and ide drives, some of the sata drives comprise a soft RAID5 array, we have a drobo connected over firewire, two external usb drives and another drobo due to be attached.
Charlie started on Ubuntu 8.04, has been upgraded periodically via dist-upgrade and is currently at 10.04.
Sadly, Charlie is as stable as drunk in a brawl.
Charlie has frequent kernel panics, OOM's and requires a reboot every 2-3 weeks. Combing through logs has me scratching my head.
To Summarise
I love Ubuntu server, it's familiar, relatively well laid out, I love aptitude (Which should be the default package manager IMHO, packages/apps such as UFW, Fail2Ban, Denyhosts, logwatch, logrotate etc make administration relatively simple.
But both Ubuntu server boxes have uptimes measured in weeks or months, if we're lucky, and yes, during that time we've changed the hardware and re-installed from scracth, tested the disks, tested the RAM.
By comparison, I have clusters of HP DL360 G5's, DL380 G5's, DL380 G6's where uptime is measured in years, sometimes, 1000's of days.
These are running CentOS - and it doesn't float my boat like UBuntu Server, but it seems so much more stable, yet I don't know whether that's the Hardware or the OS.
Just my two-pence worth.
ByteCodeByteCode
I am testing xen hypervisors for 2 years now and the general rule is newer kernel = more performance/stability. In that regard Ubuntu LTS is almost like Arch Linux with support. Debian worked fine with Intel/Nvidia, as soon as we got into testing AMD 'hit the fan'. Debian with xenkernel from testing still doesn't have a bugfix for AMD FX 81xx CPUs, i won't even talk about 'stable' repo. Big community is good and all, but Canonicals responsiveness was better every time it was needed (may be conincidence).
I think in 3-4 more months there will be enough statistics for me to say decisevly, but i am convinced there will be a migration of all hypervisors to ubuntu server.
Seeing ByteCode's answer, I thought I'd supply my anecdotal experience with Ubuntu LTS on a work server.
The box: AMD 1055t, 4GB ram, 4TB hardware raid5, enthusiast motherboard with mild overclocking. Lots of fans & the 4 raid drives are external & mounted to a large aluminum plate with copper as heat sink on other side.
Installed Ubuntu 10.04 LTS in 2011 I think. Might have been 2010. Never did a dist upgrade. Rarely if ever updated at all actually, as I didn't do it frequently enough and then dependencies got broken. It shutdown in September 2011 when San Diego's power went out for hours. Then next time was this year when I moved it into a cabinet.
My trick? Total neglect. Rarely updated & when I did, I used aptitude. Then we had 3 power outages in a row yesterday. Should have left it off the whole time, but the last time something went wrong with the HDD and ubuntu wouldn't boot. So new HDD time and I'm installing debian now, as from my reading, it would seem debian is better for install and forget.
edit / update 1.5 years later
Debian didn't install quite as easily as I'd like on my latest server, so I'm back on the latest Ubuntu LTS. Uptime would be much more awesome than 29 days but had to shut down to remove a couple failing drives from the zfs raid. Been running ubuntu for the work's fileserver for half a decade and it is rock solid. Not once can I point any blame at the OS. Heck, it even saved me when that aforementioned AMD system started having kernel panics from the RAM trying to go bad.
I haven't ever purchased windows server, but at least once a year, one of our Windows computers does an update and upon reboot, isn't quite the same again. Never had that with linux...
Chris KChris K
Up to recently support life cycles were of similar length so it made little difference. The most recent Ubuntu LTS (18.04) gives you 10 years of support rather than the usual 5.
Migrations are expensive so 10 year support is a big advantage for Ubuntu.
Terminology and meaning of 'professional use server'For me the term 'professional use server' includes a wide range of attributes.It is sometimes difficult to answer such a question.
For example the term 'stable' means for some of us a software that is not crashing.Where as the term 'stable' also could mean a software that is released/marked as 'stable' that will not change for the time being released until the next release e.g. release GNU Debian Lenny and following release GNU Debian Squeeze. As you can see '$stable' -ne 'stable' ;)
Security is another elastic term. For example Ubuntu uses always the latest available security compiling flags and features when they compile and build their packages.E.g. heap/stack buffer-overflow, address space layout randomization (ASLR) or position-independent executable (PIE). GNU Debian still does not implement PIE in its stable release 'Squeeze' due to the fact that the source code must be adopted (changed) to make it possible to compile using those security flags and as of stability policy of GNU Debian means not to change things during a running release. However it is planed to enable these features in the next release (Wheezy) which is for now in the testing branch.
Software licensing might be also an issue. GNU Debian spends big efforts to be clear about software licensing issues e.g. Iceweasel vs. Firefox ... That being said that GNU Debian spends big efforts to provide you also with a wide range of real free software stable and ready for production use. Another example is that the main parts of the Linux kernel still stand under GPLv2 and thus GNU Debian does not use non free vendor drivers as much as Ubuntu does. Resulting in a broader hardware support with Ubuntu. At the other hand with GNU Debian you are less exposed to other companies with heavily patents and software licensing based businesses when it comes to interests conflicts.
At the very end you have to choose the right GNU distro that mostly suits your needs.
samsam
There are many things to consider including.
Which is newer. Since Debian stable and Ubuntu LTS release at different times One or the other may have newer versions of the packages you care about at the time you come to install. Right now Ubuntu LTS is newer than Debian stable, but that will of course switch around when buster is released.
What software do you care about? Ubuntu has a distinction between packages in main where Canonical pays people to care about providing updates and packages in Universe where updates are up to the community and where most packages were imported from Debian without a Ubuntu person ever taking a look at them. Debian does not have such strong distinctions.
Backported kernels, Ubuntu backports kernels from regular releases to the previous LTS release for 'hardware enablement' and includes those new kernels on installatoin media. Debian also backports kernel's but in a more ad-hoc manner and it does not include those backported kernels on installation media.
Support lifecycles, Ubuntu LTS releases traditionally have a 5-year support lifecycle at least for server packages in main. Apparently the latest LTS release has increased this to a massive 10 years. Debian gives regular support until 1 year after the next release (typically about 3 years from inital release), on recent releases there has also been 'lts support' for another couple of years after that, though only for packages the LTS team considers sufficiently important.
Canonical offers official paid support, while there are certainly paid support options for Debian, none of them are official.
Which of these are most important is a question you will have to consider in light of your particular application.
Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged serverdebianlts or ask your own question.
There is a seemingly endless list of distributions to choose from if you’re interested in Linux. That said, one of the most popular distributions is Ubuntu. If you’ve heard of Linux, chances are you’ve heard of Ubuntu.
You may have heard that Ubuntu is based on another distribution, Debian. Which one should you choose? Is it a matter of preference, or is easy distribution better suited to different use cases?
What Are the Major Differences?
At first place, Ubuntu and Debian seem largely similar. Both use the same package management system and you’ll often find software packaged for both. Below the surface, however, there are some key differences to be aware of.
Not all software available for Ubuntu is available for Debian due to license restrictions in the latter. Debian has a much stronger stance on free software. This applies to firmware as well, so not all hardware that works with Ubuntu will work with Debian.
Ubuntu also has Personal Package Archives, commonly known as PPAs, available. These let you easily install packages not available in the official Ubuntu repositories. This makes installing a wider range of software much easier than it is on Debian. Our guide to PPA installation and securityLinux PPAs: Installation, Removal, and SecurityLinux PPAs: Installation, Removal, and SecurityPPAs -- personal package archives -- are a way to install Linux software via the Terminal. But are they safe to use? How can you remove a PPA? And which are the safest PPAs to...Read More will help you out here.
The restrictions imposed by Debian aren’t as strict as those used by some other distributions, but it’s something to be aware of. Debian also has a different release cycle than Ubuntu. Both this and different license restrictions affect certain use cases, as we’ll see later on.
Debian vs. Ubuntu: Laptop Use
As you might have gathered from the above section, Ubuntu is often much easier to use on laptops than Debian. Part of this comes down to the third-party firmware and software. Much of the hardware on newer laptops lacks open source drivers, meaning you’ll have to turn to non-free binaries.
Some non-free binaries are available in the Debian non-free repositories, but a wider range of hardware is more easily supported in Ubuntu. This combined with the software available in PPAs means you’ll have an easier time getting up and running with proprietary software in Ubuntu.
One of the main advantages of Linux is how customizable it is. This means that with a little work, you can get Debian running on a laptop as well as Ubuntu. That said, you’ll have to put in a bit more work to get to that point.
Finally, if you want to run Ubuntu on a laptop, you can simply buy a laptop running Ubuntu. It’s possible someone sells laptops pre-loaded with Debian, but you’ll find plenty of laptops preloaded with Ubuntu.
Debian vs. Ubuntu: Desktop Use
When it comes to desktop use, Debian is easier to use than it is on a laptop, especially if you choose your hardware carefully. If you’re building your own computer this is easy. If you’re dealing with a pre-built computer, maybe less so. Have an older computer? There’s a decent chance your hardware is supported.
When it comes to installation, you’ll generally have an easier time with Ubuntu. This isn’t necessarily a plus for every laptop user, but it is for many of them. Configuration is also easy in Ubuntu; how easy Debian is to configure will largely depend on your desktop.
The toughest time you’re going to have is with graphics cards. Nvidia offers drivers that will deliver decent performance for many of its cards. That said, if you want to use the open-source drivers you’ll have better luck with AMD cards.
If you’re looking to Linux alongside your Windows installation, you can dual boot either Debian or Ubuntu. That said, there are far more ways to run Ubuntu alongside WindowsHow to Install Ubuntu on Windows 10: 3 Simple Methods to TryHow to Install Ubuntu on Windows 10: 3 Simple Methods to TryThere are many ways in which you can try Ubuntu. One of them is to install Ubuntu on Windows 10 using one of these methods.Read More.
Debian vs. Ubuntu: Server Use
Debian doesn’t have a bespoke server download. Instead, it offers a minimal base installer. The main choice is to pick the image for your CPU architecture. Once you’ve installed the base system you install the software you need. From here you can choose server software or a more desktop-oriented installation.
In the case of Ubuntu, multiple installers are available. One is meant for desktop use, another is meant for server use. Still others are meant for other use cases. The server image is a relatively minimal install with no graphical interface and basic server software.
Debian is frequently used in server environments for a few reasons. One such reason is its reputation for stability. This is due to the relatively older packages it ships. These have been tested and verified, so they’re less likely to have bugs.
Ubuntu is still a good choice for server software, but it tends to use newer versions of software. This is a plus if you need features found in newer software versions, but it does mean that packages aren’t as time tested.
If you’re curious, we have a rundown of the key differences between the desktop and server versions of UbuntuWhat Is the Difference Between Ubuntu Desktop and Ubuntu Server?What Is the Difference Between Ubuntu Desktop and Ubuntu Server?Ubuntu ranks as arguably the most popular Linux operating system. But did you know that there is a desktop version and a server version of Ubuntu?Read More. Many of these apply to Debian as well.
Debian and Ubuntu vs. Other Distributions
What if you’re wondering about choosing Debian or Ubuntu instead of a distribution like Arch or Fedora? One of the key advantages of using either distribution is just how popular they are. If you’re looking for a tip for solving a problem, someone has likely encountered that problem on Ubuntu or Debian. This may not be true for other distributions.
This popularity helps when it comes to packages too. You’ll find DEB packages that run on Debian or Ubuntu for plenty of software. You may not find packages for other distributions. This is doubly true for Ubuntu, as its PPA system means you’ll find plenty of packaged software available.
Why Pick One?
For the most part, which distribution is best for you comes down to personal preference. Ubuntu is generally easier to use on the desktop while Debian is well-suited to server use. That said, you can easily use Debian on the desktop or Ubuntu on a server. As long as your hardware is supported, you can easily use either.
That said, there may be other reasons you may not want to use Ubuntu, or Debian for that matter. If you’re curious why you might opt for another distribution, we can fill you in on the details. Check our guide to the best Linux operating system distributionsThe Best Linux Operating DistrosThe Best Linux Operating DistrosThe best Linux distros are hard to find. Unless you read our list of the best Linux operating systems for gaming, Raspberry Pi, and more.Read More for more.
Explore more about: Debian, Linux Distro, Ubuntu.
I thought we'd get some hard data on performance. Instead we get some beginner estimates and opinions.
'At first place, Ubuntu and Debian seem largely similar. '
Please do some research before putting together an article like this. Ubutntu is a based on debian, adds its support and few other issues. This is just like comparing ink to water.
AFAIAC, there two problems with Ubuntu (and its offspring): 1) They are monoliths. You are stuck with the packages that were installed by default. If you try to uninstall any of them, 'ubuntu-minimal' file will be uninstalled also which will make your system inoperable.
2) In the past few days, Canonical, tyhe developer of Ubuntu, has announced that they consider .DEBs outdated and will change all their packages to Snaps, a 'universal' packaging system that they have developed.
Canonical does not control or vet PPAs so it is impossible to tell whether the software in them contains malware or not. The software that goes into distro repositories is vetted by the distro staff to make sure the packages are safe to use.
Please there are many distros that are not Ubuntu. Remember Ubuntu is Linux,but Linux is NOT Linux.
You mean Linux is not Ubuntu. Right? :-)
Ubuntu is basically bloated Debian.
I love Debian. I start with the most minimalist install possible then add packages and software until it works how I want it to.
Ubuntu is Window-ized Debian.
Ubuntu is often much easier to use on laptops than Ubuntu. Who did the proof reading?
Ubuntu is often much easier to use on laptops than Ubuntu. Who did the proof-reading