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.
Not judging, just curious: If it’s a headless server, what does Ubuntu do better than Debian?
Edit: Better community support/documentation?
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.