Why should I use Debian over Ubuntu?

I'm using a shitty old laptop that overheats on W10. I need something light and fast that'll work well with i3wm. Is Debian faster and lighter than Ubuntu? I really hate adding PPA's whenever I want something to install in Debian.
>Inb4 SystemD, really don't care

Other urls found in this thread:

wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Distcc
cdn.rawgit.com/distcc/distcc/master/doc/web/man/distcc_1.html
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>systemd
Enjoy your botnet.

>I really hate adding PPA's whenever I want something to install in Debian.

You're not even supposed to use PPAs in Debian.

They both use systemd

It can't be a botnet if it's open source you faggot. ffs rms uses it.

Gentoo. Not even kidding. I'm using in a really shitty Asus laptop (AMD A4, 1,5 GiB RAM), and the custom kernel is making miracles. The thing had Win10 originally, and would crashif you tried to open many things at the same time. I'm using Clover OS.

Forgot to mention I'm also using i3 on it. Very smooth.

>Is Debian faster and lighter than Ubuntu?
The GUI desktop is what makes a distro "light" or "heavy". Run a Desktop Environment (DE) like LXDE and it won't matter if you are using Debian or Ubuntu.

People who select Ubuntu tend to want something that "just werks". By default it doesn't come with a "lightweight" DE. So you will either have to install one yourself or using a *buntu distro like Xubuntu or Lubuntu. I use Lubuntu and like it. Also, Ubuntu is based on Debian.

People who use Debian want something that is ultra stable and/or something that adheres strictly to the Free Software principles. If you feel strongly about the free software philosophy or you need something very stable then use Debian. Again you will need to install it with a different DE if you want "lightweight".

Also, instead of taking the word of random people on an anime imageboard you can test drive both distros with a "liveDVD" or "liveUSB".

You can add PPA's to an apt script. Not something I enjoy, but it's essential to run Ubuntu exclusives.
I've used both distributions over 5 years. Ive been around the block and realize memory usage of windows managers, that's not my issue. I'm referring to both distributions, running from a non Xorg bare minimal standpoint. Which would be lighter and faster in this case?

not faggotOP, but what are compile times like on that piece? I have a 1.6ghz dual core, and its kinda a catch 22: i want to compile from source for speed/efficiency but dont want to spend literal days updating packages.

You're a fucking idiot for using Linux. This isn't the fucking space station, Einstein.

Server is the basic distribution for a web server or any kind of server. More suited for headless programs.
If you want something lightweight to get shit done, juste use Xubuntu or Lubuntu, they are just two Ubuntu distributions with a lighter Desktop environment than Ubuntu.

Debian*

>It can't be a botnet if it's open source you faggot.
have you read and understood every SLOC of it?

compile on faster computer

>Which would be lighter and faster in this case?
"Lighter" is a function of the DE.

>Ive been around the block and realize memory usage of windows managers, that's not my issue.
I don't know what to tell you, user. If you strip the DE's away then there is no perceivable difference. Don't believe me? Run them without a DE. You won't notice a difference.

>I've used both distributions over 5 years.
Using the default DEs? Or did you run a lighter one (which one)?

Again, if you want something to run on an old laptop and the choices are between Debian and Ubuntu then the answer is...it doesn't matter. If you use the default DEs then they will probably both run just as fast on your laptop (you didn't give the specs). Someone who is more familiar with the Debian DE might have a better idea, maybe it is lighter. Regardless, "lighter and faster" will depend on the DE (debian and ubuntu are so similar.

Again, I recommend Lubuntu (Ubuntu with LXDE). Xubuntu is fine. and there are other DEs that go well with Ubuntu. And of course Debian is fine as well...you can use the same DE's with it.

Good luck.

There is a perceivable difference though, Debian starts way less shit services by default.
The installed size of a fresh Debian is less than 1gb (911mb). And Ubuntu is like 4.9gb.

>There is a perceivable difference though
With the default DEs? Because that would make complete sense (and the point I was attempting to make).

If you are referring to them using the exact same DE, or no DE at all then I would be perplexed.

You should never add a PPA to your apt sources in Debian. It's going to cause issues later. The times that I have done so in the past, I'd experience weird behavior. If you're on Debian unstable, it's very unlikely that you'll see a program packaged for Ubuntu that isn't in Debian's repos or doesn't have a Debian-specific repo or deb hosted by the author. If all else fails you can compile the program from source.

..

>faster and lighter
This depends on the software you install, not how you update it.

Yes that's what I meant, with the same DE there is a difference. Ubuntu is starting up a lot more shit in the background.

It's sadly not very unlikely these days. I couldn't even get LXD for example. Some days I feel like going to fedora because of how much mess had been caused between Debian and Ubuntu.

I've run Debian and Ubuntu under i3 for several years, no difference to my eye. There's just something about Ubuntu that feels bogged up, the startup process. Then Debian has this visual pattern glitch during login manager. They both have Gnome appstore, and are so identical. It's really confusing.
And how has Fedora been? I've avoided anything rpm based, too lazy to leave apt. I've heard it's Wayland ready, does that make it any more efficient than Xorg, or at least reduce annoying screen tearing?

>i dont care about lenny-d

ok, manjaro netbook edition?

Haven't tried it past installing and experiencing some flakiness and uninstalling about 30 mins in. Probably should have tried the xfce spin. Fedora Gnome is balls.

wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Distcc
>Again, if you want something to run on an old laptop and the choices are between Debian and Ubuntu then the answer is...it doesn't matter.
There is a difference though. Ubuntu has changed a lot of the base software they use to be different and it takes care of some functions that aren't in Debian. Ubuntu will be heavier even with the same D.E. thrown on top. Thanks to Red Hat and their corporate needs, Fedora (with any DE) is likely going to run lighter than Debian or ubuntu with the same DE. If you need to have the absolute minimum constantly running and scheduled processes, then CentOS would be your choice.>it's very unlikely that you'll see a program packaged for Ubuntu that isn't in Debian
a fair bit of software is released Ubuntu&source only and offers sole support for Ubuntu

Not him but that distributed compiling looks sweet. If I have 3 machines with varying RAM sizes and CPUs, would it be able to work out how best to divide the job?
How long roughly does it end up taking with , say, 2 machines with ivy bridge i5s at 2.5ghz with 4gb ram (one actually has 8gb)? I also have a c2d desktop but it only has 1gb ram which I might upgrade just for this.

Gentoo seems viable now.

>You can add PPA's
Just because you can add PPAs, that doesn't mean you should. There are inconsistencies between Ubuntu and Debian (dependency versions, libc etc) which are enough to fuck it up.
Read the page on the Debian wiki entitled "DontBreakDebian".

>If I have 3 machines with varying RAM sizes and CPUs, would it be able to work out how best to divide the job?
It will just get started, I don't know how much planning it really does. It should use every machine you add
>A "host list" tells distcc which machines to use for compilation.
>distcc prefers hosts towards the start of the list, so machines should be listed in descending order of speed. In particular, when only a single compilation can be run (such as from a configure script), the first machine listed is used (but see --randomize below).
>Placing localhost at the right point in the list is important to getting good performance. Because overhead for running jobs locally is low, localhost should normally be first.
>/LIMIT
>A decimal limit can be added to any host specification to restrict the number of jobs that this client will send to the machine. The limit defaults to four per host (two for localhost), but may be further restricted by the server. You should only need to increase this for servers with more than two processors.
cdn.rawgit.com/distcc/distcc/master/doc/web/man/distcc_1.html

>How long roughly does it end up taking with , say,
dunno

>It can't be a botnet if it's open source
What is Chromium?