Please don't misunderstand or compare Debian with Ubuntu. (at least I have the feeling that people do this nowadays because Ubuntu is so popular).
They have different release strategies, Debian focuses on stability and security as a Server orientated distribution. Ubuntu on the other hand has a strong commitment twoards the user desktop segment. Both is fine, I mean Ubuntu is basically just Debian with faster release cycles (and they like to taint their Kernel). (sorry for the oversimplification)
If you prefer more uptodate Software from the Debian side, please try testing, unstable and experimental. For the totally impatient there is e.g. Backports, Sidux and many more. Cross-pinning (mixing of Debian and Ubuntu is possible too.) Don't know how far Ubutnutu (or how ever you write that project name) has come.
Ubuntu's "strategy" is that they release every 6 months, and do a long term support release every few years. I am not sure those are the ideal numbers to use (6 months is short), but on the whole, I think I prefer that approach to Debian's "we'll release...sometime... if we're not debating how many GPL's fit on the head of a pin". Debian is excellent, and I started maintaining a few packages for it in 1997, but my involvement has waned to pretty much nothing, and these days I'm a mostly happy Ubuntu user.
"Use unstable" is a bad argument. Sure, it doesn't break most of the time, but it can and does. You can't base a business on that kind of thing.
Also, there is nothing inherently 'server' or 'desktop' about Ubuntu or Debian - the first may put some resources into improving the desktop experience, but the good patches eventually flow back to Debian, as it's all open source. And Ubuntu makes for a fine server, too.
Defining a good release strategy for everybody is difficult I suppose. You can't make everybody happy, because the intersection of interests from Server/Desktop people is just different I think. Of course Debian's rather slow release strategy is not so great either, which if I understand correctly was one of the factors why Ubuntu could grow in the first place?
The GPL issues, e.g. firefox->iceweasel naming issue etc. are really nitpicking I concurr, but that happens when you have your own constitution :).
You can base a business on Ubuntu? I actually don't know, it would be very interesting to hear advice from somebody who really knows Ubuntu and Debian very well. I mean have extensive Debian experience but Ubuntu rather little. Could you give me some advice on that?
I mean I have been working with Debian since forever and I know my way around. What do you e.g. mean with "doesn't break most of the time"? I haven't encountered anything even when using experimental which gives me too much headache. At least when I switch from apt-get'ing to aptitude for some rather weird dependency issues.
Than on the other hand your argument is that I want to base my business on that. If I really want to do that, why would I pick so new software anyway? (I read bugtraq, fd etc. that is a bad idea as far as I understand.) That screams for a xen/vserver based solution where I run my host system in a stable (very stable) environment and control my unsecure systems via virtualization. Or is that a bad idea?
Debian is not just slow, but slow and irregular with their releases. There's nothing that says "about every 2 years" or "let's try for once every 18 months" or something like that. It happens when it happens. That can be kind of maddening. With Ubuntu you have the choice to either grab on to the every-six-months version, or use the long term support version.
The "just use unstable/experimental" thing is fine if you have no memory of really big transitions... libc5 -> glibc6, for instance, caused a lot of breakage. There are no guarantees that that kind of thing won't happen again. Using unstable is fine if you're a hacker and don't mind helping out when something goes awry - I'm glad people do that, and did it myself at one time. But if you're not in a position to drop what you're doing to go chase down some obscure bug in a package, then perhaps unstable should be approached with caution.
Ubuntu and Debian really aren't that different - file layouts, tools... pretty much everything is the same. Which is good... it makes Ubuntu Debian + money for usability improvements + a more unified vision + a regular release schedule.
Oh, another thing I like with Ubuntu is that I can run exactly the same code on my laptop and server, which has proved to be quite convenient more than once.
Debian is fantastic though... if Ubuntu ever falters, I will go back without a second thought. They get a ton of things right and do great work.
> If you prefer more uptodate Software from the Debian side, please try testing, unstable and experimental.
Indeed. I have used Debian Unstable as my desktop OS forever, and it's wonderful. It does not break nearly as often as you might guess by the name. (Maybe once a year.)
It certainly breaks less than Ubuntu, although I got rid of my last Ubuntu machine about a year ago.
Interesting, could you tell me what you mean by break?
Is the issue ultimately solvable by e.g. aptitude and alike or you need to mess around by hand in the apropriate dpkg files?
fortunately my domU xen instances will not need KDE, however they will gladly welcome a stable xen 3.2. I've been using backports since then, but I'm glad stable is done. I seriously doubt many are using debian on their desktops...
Debian comes in three easy flavors: Stable, for those who cannot crash, testing, for those who don't really want to crash, but want some more recent software, and unstable, for people who don't care about crashing and who want up-to-date software.
I know many people who run sid (unstable) on their (desk|lap)tops. It has all the power of debian and apt, without the long release cycle.
