Linux is getting out of hand now.

If your wireless driver is not open source, it will be insytalled from the nonfree repos by Ubuntu, but debian will not contain anything to support it.

I tried out Debian a while back (on my road to Ubuntu). I downloaded the "stable" build thinking I the latest version was like a "beta"... Turns out of course the "stable" build was really for business servers and the like and didn't a lot of my hardware (old kernel version, etc.)!! :D

(NB I am not knocking Debian - just pointing out it's stable - really stable!! :cool:)

Bob
 
Yes, debian freeze the package versions and then test for a LONG time before releasing. So the stuff is very old. Ubuntu has newer software, but debian is more stable.
 
Free as in freedom, not free as in beer.

Always found that to be among the worst thing to say. Especially given that freedom has always come with a price... Usually the deaths of thousands.

While a free beer is among the nicest thing that anyone can give you these days.

I mean... What would make you happier?

Someone killing everyone around you... Or offering you a pint?


Debian only contains packages that are 100% open source, 100% free (money) and contain no copyrighted brands etc. Which is why they don't have Firefox, they use Iceweasel instead.

I actually thought Firefox was O/S TBAH!

Canonical take debian, add non free (non open source) packages, put firefox on instead of Iceweasel, run their own vastly different repos, pack a lot of different software, make vast changes to the default configuration, and call it Ubuntu.


If your wireless driver is not open source, it will be insytalled from the nonfree repos by Ubuntu, but debian will not contain anything to support it.

No, clearly its not. I knew that from the off - Ubuntu 8.4 gave me the same info about the Wireless as it did the ATI driver... It said that they are not provided for this reason but if you click here then you can get them yourself, kind of thing.... Which is why I had to use Ethernet to download the Wireless driver.

As you say... Ubuntu saw they were non-free but gave me the path for them, while Debian knows about them and kind of lives in denial that they are available.

That said, Im liking Debian more than ubuntu right now and yet ubuntu worked fine and debian is being a bitch to me, so why that is I dont bloody know?

Maybe Im enjoying the fact that I have to get my hands dirty ( as opposed to my mind )
 
Go with Arch or *BSD!
My arch install was ~500Mb (Don't exactly remember, could have been 700, could have been 300) and came with nothing unneeded!
 
I have tried a couple of BSD distros and indeed Arch.

Never got Arch running well, and BSD seemed a little too strict or at least what I seemed to get of it anyway.

No, I have accepted the my Laptop needs a fairly well supported and completely non-free too, because hardly anythgin works on it with free stuff, or at least the free non-free stuff seems to be better.

I have gone with Debian on my Desktop upstairs and Im loving it... Im glad I opted for it after some coaxing from here, Im still using Sabayon as my main Desktop, but thats because everythign works perfectly and I would be stupid to replace it just "Because", and I have gone with ubuntu 9.4 on my laptop and thats running perectly fine and fairly quick as it is so...

My next port of call however, is to move my file server to a linux based one.

I have done some play abouts with simply allowing a Windows PC to have access to the Linux files but m not happy with it as of yet. This is me I know, so Its not a question.
 
I actually thought Firefox was O/S TBAH!

Firefox is open source but the license Mozilla applies to it requires that if you use the Firefox logo and call it Firefox, you can't just apply your own patches.

Debian apply their own patches to the source Mozilla provide, so MoFo required that the name was changed.
 
Back
Top Bottom