Ubuntu or Debian Jessie ?

[VideoPod]

Ok you gotta bear with me, I'm fairly new to this. I'm in the process of setting up a VM and just ran across the Debian Jessie website. I had planned on using the Oracle VirtualBox with Ubunto on my Windows 7 machine but now I'm wondering if
this is still the latest and greatest? Can Anyone shed some light on this for me? Thank you in Advance. VideoPod

[L0rd Midnight]

Debian is pretty great, but Ubuntu likely has more documented cases of errors and solutions because it currently has a larger user base. I can't even with Canonical, so it's Debian for me all the way. However, I personally use Gentoo... although that's likely not what you're looking for in this instance.

[TheCotMan]

Selection of OS is a personal choice based on opinion. This has a closer match in trying to compare/contrast the merits of foods and how they "should" be prepared -- everyone has different tastes, and preference on foods, preparation, and which is best.

There are two common core arguments that have no resolution:
* Arguments where a core disagreement is based on the definition of one or more words central the the argument. Example: What is heat? Is heat IR radiation being emitted from electrons, or is it a measure of the kinetic energy of a sample of matter or a mix of these, both, or something else? Is light a wave, a particle, both, neither, it depends?
* Arguments based on opinions: which flavor of ice cream is the best? Lactose intolerant or a vegan might say "none" , and others may have their own opinion, and yet others may ask, "what is ice cream?"

The best you can do with OS decisions is to ask people what they like and dislike about the OS they use or the OS you list, not ask them which is better.

Between Debian and Ubuntu, you have 2 large considerations:
1) In Ubuntu, the complexity of settings and controls is hidden from you, often pre-selecting the most common options, sometimes not the ones you want, sometimes making compile-time decisions by package maintainers to eliminate some options from even being possible in Ubuntu. However, more work is done to have things "work" with little effort after installing new packages. Ubuntu is more likely to have nifty control panels or GUI-config wizards to help you configure services. This is useful for novices.
2) In Debian, many packages are built with as many features possible enabled, and configurable for use, but there is an assumption that you know what you are doing, and you will edit service configuration files on your own, to make the service(s) work the way you want to. Some attempts are made to ship with some options pre-selected, but it is up to you to refine these. A plus here is Debian is much less likely to silently change your configs during upgrade. A disadvantage here is upgrades in Debian may include many questions for the admin to resolve before finishing.

In Debian, you generally edit your service configs as you want, and then when you upgrade, you are told your config differs from the new one, and you are given choices to keep your own, show diffs, replace with the maintainer's version, etc. You can then work to extract those config items you want to keep, and merge them with the new service's config. Sometimes the package maintainers build migration scripts to attempt to automatically import your customizations into the new service config files.

In ubuntu, sometimes you will be asked how you want to deal with differences in config, but more often, I see the upgrade tool just replace the present config with new config, and sometimes silently archive the old config as a reference. This affords fewer questions/dialogues to upgrade, but it also highlights a difference between these two.

Debian has been slower to adopt new "fads" than Ubuntu.
Debian tends to make major and minor upgrades work, though configuration migration is often left to the admin, and the admin is expected to know what they are doing.
Ubuntu has a history of making serious changes to the OS (old init.d to upstart to systemd to ???) which create complications for some migrations and upgrades.
Some decisions made in Ubuntu-land have lead to philosophical disagreements on how the OS should work, leading to forks of Ubuntu (Ubuntu Mint, etc.)
Debian is slow to make serious changes, which can be a plus for stability, but can be problematic if you want support for some new service that relies on newer trends in Linux distros.
Debian can also be a disadvantage if you plan to support commercial products -- not all vendors of commercial products target Debian for support. Many seem to target RedHat and CentOS, though, and include these with packages and core testing and optimization, with other distros getting unofficial support, which is less active.
Ubuntu is more likely to have support for your video card if you buy a new laptop than Debian.
To get similar "new" stuff in Debian, you may have to switch to install "Debian Testing" or the even less appealing name "Debian Unstable"


The best advice I can give for any OS you are considering:
If you have the disk space, install them both, play with both, see how they work, and choose the one that works best for you and your likes.
If you have requirements to install a package from a 3rd party, see which OS is better supported for it, and use this in your consideration and decision.
Periodically re-visit your decision -- no decision you make should ever be free from reconsideration. It is totally acceptable to change your mind. If you think you made a mistake, admitting this early instead of later can save you a lot of time.

HTH,
-Cot

[VideoPod]

Debian is pretty great, but Ubuntu likely has more documented cases of errors and solutions because it currently has a larger user base. I can't even with Canonical, so it's Debian for me all the way. However, I personally use Gentoo... although that's likely not what you're looking for in this instance.

Thank You for the feedback. This is all a new learning curve for me.

[VideoPod]

Selection of OS is a personal choice based on opinion. This has a closer match in trying to compare/contrast the merits of foods and how they "should" be prepared -- everyone has different tastes, and preference on foods, preparation, and which is best.

There are two common core arguments that have no resolution:
* Arguments where a core disagreement is based on the definition of one or more words central the the argument. Example: What is heat? Is heat IR radiation being emitted from electrons, or is it a measure of the kinetic energy of a sample of matter or a mix of these, both, or something else? Is light a wave, a particle, both, neither, it depends?
* Arguments based on opinions: which flavor of ice cream is the best? Lactose intolerant or a vegan might say "none" , and others may have their own opinion, and yet others may ask, "what is ice cream?"

The best you can do with OS decisions is to ask people what they like and dislike about the OS they use or the OS you list, not ask them which is better.

Between Debian and Ubuntu, you have 2 large considerations:
1) In Ubuntu, the complexity of settings and controls is hidden from you, often pre-selecting the most common options, sometimes not the ones you want, sometimes making compile-time decisions by package maintainers to eliminate some options from even being possible in Ubuntu. However, more work is done to have things "work" with little effort after installing new packages. Ubuntu is more likely to have nifty control panels or GUI-config wizards to help you configure services. This is useful for novices.
2) In Debian, many packages are built with as many features possible enabled, and configurable for use, but there is an assumption that you know what you are doing, and you will edit service configuration files on your own, to make the service(s) work the way you want to. Some attempts are made to ship with some options pre-selected, but it is up to you to refine these. A plus here is Debian is much less likely to silently change your configs during upgrade. A disadvantage here is upgrades in Debian may include many questions for the admin to resolve before finishing.

In Debian, you generally edit your service configs as you want, and then when you upgrade, you are told your config differs from the new one, and you are given choices to keep your own, show diffs, replace with the maintainer's version, etc. You can then work to extract those config items you want to keep, and merge them with the new service's config. Sometimes the package maintainers build migration scripts to attempt to automatically import your customizations into the new service config files.

In ubuntu, sometimes you will be asked how you want to deal with differences in config, but more often, I see the upgrade tool just replace the present config with new config, and sometimes silently archive the old config as a reference. This affords fewer questions/dialogues to upgrade, but it also highlights a difference between these two.

Debian has been slower to adopt new "fads" than Ubuntu.
Debian tends to make major and minor upgrades work, though configuration migration is often left to the admin, and the admin is expected to know what they are doing.
Ubuntu has a history of making serious changes to the OS (old init.d to upstart to systemd to ???) which create complications for some migrations and upgrades.
Some decisions made in Ubuntu-land have lead to philosophical disagreements on how the OS should work, leading to forks of Ubuntu (Ubuntu Mint, etc.)
Debian is slow to make serious changes, which can be a plus for stability, but can be problematic if you want support for some new service that relies on newer trends in Linux distros.
Debian can also be a disadvantage if you plan to support commercial products -- not all vendors of commercial products target Debian for support. Many seem to target RedHat and CentOS, though, and include these with packages and core testing and optimization, with other distros getting unofficial support, which is less active.
Ubuntu is more likely to have support for your video card if you buy a new laptop than Debian.
To get similar "new" stuff in Debian, you may have to switch to install "Debian Testing" or the even less appealing name "Debian Unstable"


The best advice I can give for any OS you are considering:
If you have the disk space, install them both, play with both, see how they work, and choose the one that works best for you and your likes.
If you have requirements to install a package from a 3rd party, see which OS is better supported for it, and use this in your consideration and decision.
Periodically re-visit your decision -- no decision you make should ever be free from reconsideration. It is totally acceptable to change your mind. If you think you made a mistake, admitting this early instead of later can save you a lot of time.

HTH,
-Cot

Thank's Cotman,
I'm going thru the Cybrary.it Tutorials on Ubuntu and Since I am New to this That's what I'll be loading. Thank you all for your valuable feedback.