You should stay on Ubuntu if it work for you. This is just a meme. There is no need to feel bad and force yourself to switch just because other people think your distro is bad :)
Usual sentiment of “the best distro is the one that works for you”. I can just say that I found Ubuntu to do a confusing “splitting the difference”. It requires more knowledge than using, say, windows, but also tries to hand hold. I put in a lot of time with Raspbian, and now Debian on a desktop, and I like it better because there’s less “in-between”.
I’d kind of stumble through windows, sort of getting what was going on but mostly having faith and a hands off approach to what was going on underneath the hood. I didn’t really understand or learn much other than keyword recognition and a passing concept of broad principles. Rasbian and then Debian forced and encouraged me to get under the hood more, so when I was troubleshooting I was at least learning why things weren’t working. When I had display issues, it wasn’t “I clicked the wrong box” it was “because of my SSD my kernel has a race condition with the video driver and x”. Not that I would, but I get now how you can slim down an OS for a specific hardware platform if you really wanted. Having done a ton of microcontroller stuff where I was getting different chips and whatnot talking to each other succesfully, this was a HUGE missing piece. “Real computers” aren’t a black box mystery to me anymore, even if I’d suck at proper computer engineering.
Ubuntu kind of over optimized so I didn’t learn, but was being asked to do more under the hood anyway. I kept looking at it as adjusting settings the way I did with windows, even though it was asking more of me in terms of understanding to troubleshoot.
But again, that’s me and my experience, and more so it’s based off of how I personally learn. I’m still not overly familiar with Ubuntu, but I get now that there’s no reason you can’t do what I described above, it just never “clicked” for me.
The way you describe Ubuntu as asking you to do more under the hood, and you seeing it as adjusting settings, really rings true to me. Often I find myself frustrated at having to jump through so many hoops to do simple stuff. I like learning to use Linux but sometimes I just don’t have the time for it
When I decided to set up my own server my only Linux experience was experimenting with regular Ubuntu. So Ubuntu server was the closest thing to it, and I figured I would have to re-learn fewer commands. It’s also been my impression that because a lot of inexperienced folks like me start with Ubuntu, that’s where the most beginner-friendly instructions are likely to be. I didn’t really know what Debian was.
Some corporations are switching from Redhat-based (CentOS/Alma/Rocky) to Ubuntu because it offers a professional level of support in the event that support is needed.
Personally, I prefer Debian for servers and Arch for desktop.
Sure, but given red hats shenanigans we can’t just go on with status quo. The servers I have to replace are goijg to something else than a RH downstream.
As an Ubuntu user I feel called out. But the callout is also fair… I am conflicted. Is it a mitigating factor that it’s a headless server?
You should stay on Ubuntu if it work for you. This is just a meme. There is no need to feel bad and force yourself to switch just because other people think your distro is bad :)
Wait am I missing something? What did canonical do this time?
Usual sentiment of “the best distro is the one that works for you”. I can just say that I found Ubuntu to do a confusing “splitting the difference”. It requires more knowledge than using, say, windows, but also tries to hand hold. I put in a lot of time with Raspbian, and now Debian on a desktop, and I like it better because there’s less “in-between”.
I’d kind of stumble through windows, sort of getting what was going on but mostly having faith and a hands off approach to what was going on underneath the hood. I didn’t really understand or learn much other than keyword recognition and a passing concept of broad principles. Rasbian and then Debian forced and encouraged me to get under the hood more, so when I was troubleshooting I was at least learning why things weren’t working. When I had display issues, it wasn’t “I clicked the wrong box” it was “because of my SSD my kernel has a race condition with the video driver and x”. Not that I would, but I get now how you can slim down an OS for a specific hardware platform if you really wanted. Having done a ton of microcontroller stuff where I was getting different chips and whatnot talking to each other succesfully, this was a HUGE missing piece. “Real computers” aren’t a black box mystery to me anymore, even if I’d suck at proper computer engineering.
Ubuntu kind of over optimized so I didn’t learn, but was being asked to do more under the hood anyway. I kept looking at it as adjusting settings the way I did with windows, even though it was asking more of me in terms of understanding to troubleshoot.
But again, that’s me and my experience, and more so it’s based off of how I personally learn. I’m still not overly familiar with Ubuntu, but I get now that there’s no reason you can’t do what I described above, it just never “clicked” for me.
The way you describe Ubuntu as asking you to do more under the hood, and you seeing it as adjusting settings, really rings true to me. Often I find myself frustrated at having to jump through so many hoops to do simple stuff. I like learning to use Linux but sometimes I just don’t have the time for it
Not judging, just curious: If it’s a headless server, what does Ubuntu do better than Debian?
Edit: Better community support/documentation?
I find that installing things from repos you typically get something far more up to date with Ubuntu than Debian.
When I decided to set up my own server my only Linux experience was experimenting with regular Ubuntu. So Ubuntu server was the closest thing to it, and I figured I would have to re-learn fewer commands. It’s also been my impression that because a lot of inexperienced folks like me start with Ubuntu, that’s where the most beginner-friendly instructions are likely to be. I didn’t really know what Debian was.
Fair enough.
FWIW, Debian is 98% the same anyway since Ubuntu is downstream from Debian. I’d choose Ubuntu over Debian for desktops but opposite for servers.
Some corporations are switching from Redhat-based (CentOS/Alma/Rocky) to Ubuntu because it offers a professional level of support in the event that support is needed.
Personally, I prefer Debian for servers and Arch for desktop.
Yeah, still haven’t decided which distro to replace our CentOS-alikes with. Bothers me.
Doesn’t AlmaLinux offer professional support?
Sure, but given red hats shenanigans we can’t just go on with status quo. The servers I have to replace are goijg to something else than a RH downstream.