ubuntu just feels like debian with unwanted mods on top. if some specific proprietary sw you need only support ubuntu officially then ubuntu's the better choice, but if not i see no reason to use it tbh
Are you strictly self hosting with this device? If so there are whole operating systems that make this easy. TrueNAS Scale for example.
I would suggest broadening your search. Debian vs Ubuntu is not much of a difference in my opinion. Videos and just trying some can help you decide.
Both are viable. Ubuntu is based on Debian. It may come with some additional bloat. Really it comes down to what you feel comfortable with. Neither will be a bad choice.
If you already know Debian that's a big point in its favor. Nothing beats a distro you're familiar with. (And I'd make the same argument if you were used to Ubuntu.)
I've used both Debian and Ubuntu Server on my home servers and I ended up returning to Debian.
I've ended up concluding that Ubuntu Server is Debian, just with more quirks. It offers nothing essential that you can't do on Debian, and it will just complicate your life when the LTS support period eventually runs out (and even during LTS, when you have to jump through hoops like Ubuntu One to keep updates coming.)
(1) You can fuck up both Ubuntu and Debian's upgrades by adding a lot of 3rd-party repos because apt doesn't safeguard against external repos interfering with the core repos' dependency graph.
So the trick is to keep the OS minimal, install only Docker from its repo and install anything else in Docker containers. That way you benefit the most from Debian being stable and very little from Ubuntu Server.
If you also need to run system containers and virtual machines you can add Incus later to the mix alongside Docker and still keep your host OS lean and simple.
You can also consider completely migrating to Proxmox later, which is also Debian under the hood but it's a more turnkey solution. I wouldn't recommend jumping straight into Proxmox unless you're fairly sure that you'd need to run VMs. (If you're unsure stick to plain Debian for now.)
So the trick is to keep the OS minimal, install only Docker from its repo and install anything else in Docker containers.
Why from Docker's repo and not from Debian's? I just did a quick apt search docker and I see docker.io and docker-cli.
Debian's versions lag badly behind Docker's. You'd always be missing the latest features. Docker introduces them at a steady pace and it can get annoying to see people talking about a new useful improvement and then months passing before it gets to you.
Maybe I don't need the new features :)
You say that but sometimes they come up with stuff that's really useful and it can be very annoying to not have it. Like when they integrated compose into the main.
Also, if you later decide to switch to the official version you'll have to handle the upgrade carefully or you risk wiping out all your images, containers, networks, volumes etc. Which can be fine if you have backups of all the relevant functional definitions and the volumes and so on, but obviously a huge pain if it catches you unprepared.
Mind you, this can also happen by tinkering with stuff in /etc/docker/daemon.json, which is how I originally learned to back up my shit.
Ok, I will keep that in mind. I'm just wary of what you said earlier:
You can fuck up both Ubuntu and Debian's upgrades by adding a lot of 3rd-party repos because
aptdoesn't safeguard against external repos interfering with the core repos' dependency graph.
You're not the first person to tell me not to add too many external repositories on Debian for the same reason.
In Docker's case is a non-issue because they were careful to use completely different names for all their packages. It's only when the external repo uses the same names as the core that the dependency resolver can get confused.
Rant:
apt should either completely forbid external repos from using core package names (like Arch does), or look at both the package name and repo URL when deciding if a package is the same, not just package name.
I'm guessing that letting external repos "hijack" a package name was once upon a time seen as a feature and then they never got around to fixing it.
I use Debian as my daily driver
Chances are that you would find Ubuntu not just more complicated, but unneccessary complicated.
Stay with Debian. It can do everything.
Debian is better as a server host. Ubuntu is not easier for a server for anything except initial installation but you've already done that once with Debian so you'll be fine. Only reason to use Ubuntu is if you want core software updates every 6 months and for this purpose you don't. And can still have the option for newer software in select cases using containers.
Never Ubuntu, debian for server, fedora for desktop and arch/cachyos for tech fun.
I used to be the same but honestly arch has been way more stable and easier to use than fedora ever was.
You are already familiar with Debian, so it will be easier. Debian is more friendly than you might think. This is enough to choose it.
Choosy self-hosters choose Debian.
That said, I don't recommend hosting software at the bare metal level - use VMs or containers. Far easier to manage and isolate.
Don't use Ubuntu as a server. Pretty much every server application will run happily on Debian, meanwhile Canonical keeps adding/changing shit that is Ubuntu-specific and has broken otherwise-functioning server installations. I may or may not have personal experience with this.
Ubuntu used to be the go-to, but Canonical is quickly becoming the poster child for Linux enshittification.
For servers, use Debian and never think about it again. Except the one or two times a year it should probably be rebooted because of kernel updates.
If you're already using Debian on desktop, then Debian on a VPS makes sense from a maintenance perspective: you only have to track one set of security updates. When there's suddenly a critical update for some vulnerability, you can update both at once because it's the same upstream repos. Whereas with Ubuntu on your VPS, you'd have to be mindful to make sure to check back when the same vulnerability is patched there.
Do not underestimate the effort to upkeeping a server, and do try to unify your procedures so you're spending less time doing the necessary things, and more time building up your self hosting stack.
Ubuntu's "reputation" is nonsense. It's a great distro for servers. Security updates are really fast and using snaps in a server environment is really great. I recommend running things like Docker or Tailscale off snap. They will revert to a previous image if an update fails. Extra stability for a server as you run automatic updates. If you run everything that is not in the base install off a snap, you have an extra layer of sandboxing against any supply chain attack for dependencies.
Ubuntu will have more recent packages, that doesnt really matter in a server environment. Debian is otherwise fine, I just dislike it's installer and prefer Ubuntu's. I found it easier to sync third party drivers on Ubuntu.
Ubuntu Pro gets you livepatches for kernal issues, which may be worthwhile. Also done without rebooting.
Ubuntu also gives you better apparmour default profiles on more things, whereas on debian, its up to you to set them up.
Debian will be exactly the same, its just more conservative and has less of those extras I mentioned. May be marginally lighter on resources for that. Either are fine.
Yep this right here, I have used Ubuntu LTS for servers both my own and for work for years now and it works fine. I also don’t think snaps are as big of a deal as people make them out to be, the only snap I am actually forced to use is the mass snap and that is a canonical product so whatever. I even use it on some rpi4/5 even and it works great for use with workloads suited for a pi. Now, 10 years ago this was a different story, but these days Ubuntu LTS is a great OS overall.
Debian is also great though (and if I was building some sort of appliance OS I would prob start with that since it has the fewest customizations to start with) but after you use any of the deb based distros enough they are all basically start to look the same to operate so pick one you want to learn and use that until you have a reason to change, learn the tools not the distro and you will be fine.
All of that said though, every distro has idiosyncrasies but the Linux CLI skills you learn are definitely transferable so it’s not as big of a choice as it is made out to be sometimes, especially now that containers and systemd are everywhere. That is …unless you decide to pick Solaris or one of the BSDs but those are a whole other animal 😀
Yeah an appliance distro would be a different consideration. For me Ubuntu is really flexible and a great docker host. I feel it's safer to tinker with since you get those extra layers of containment and sandboxing.
If I was to build an appliance I might also start with Debian, but so far I have used FreeBSD. Works great on my NAS, where I use XigmaNAS. You can transfer a surprisingly lot of skills. Learning what was common to FreeBSD and Linux really helped me with cli.
I'm curious to try making stuff with Ubuntu Core. I think it has potential, but that's a future deep dive and project. lol
SNAP also doesn't work well with old hardware because of compression. It's ironic to recommend system riddled with incompatible compression to someone who explicitly wrote in a post that they would be using outdated hardware.
I think that's more of a Ubuntu Desktop concern. My thinkpad has a 4th gen i5 and launches Firefox maybe half a second slower on a fresh reboot and afterwards its normal.
Its really not relevant to a server who has all the time in the world to boot and stays up. Once the snap is launched, its launched, works fine afterwards. It's all cached in the RAM or temp data or whatever afterwards.
Ideally your server install would be on an SSD and your data on HDDs. Performance will be good with that setup.
Never mind what's ideal, in reality, one of my servers is running on a Core 2 Duo T7600 and when I installed ubuntu on it, it took 24 minutes to boot due to the unzipping of the base snap image in ubuntu server. Older hardware does not become faster just because os requirements change. And yes, I left ubuntu as soon as snap came out, i think that was 2018.
UPD: and of course I'm not going to change one of the local servers just because Canonical decided to release another system. Thanks. For 20 years the processor has been routing packets and will do so for another 20 without any problems. Just switched to another OS.
At least it supports 64 bit then. 😅
Listen, can't speak for 20 year old cpu, but yeah snaps are more optimized now than in 2018.
If you're planning to use old hardware for hosting, don't use Ubuntu. SNAP will kill performance.
So your choice is Debian.
P.S. VPS is already a Virtual Private Server and you can't install ProxMox or any virtualization on it. If you want experiments, look into containers.
i don't recall snap being installed on ubuntu server. but yes, go with debian always.
SNAP in the recommended packages of the ubuntu-server metapackage. Ubuntu installs all recommended packages by default. So SNAP is in the server installation, moreover, it can't even be simply removed without completely blocking in apt policy.
I run proxmox bare metal (debian-based hypervisor) and virtualize debian which has all my docker containers.
with virtualization you can take a snapshot and backup everything that way. super simple to roll back if you mess something up. the added bonus is you could probably take a snapshot of your VPS and migrate it to a local vm.
Ubuntu is something I played with about a decade ago and I never felt like I was "missing" something for debian, especially on servers.
As someone who ran Ubuntu server for a few years before moving to Debian. I would recommend Debian over Ubuntu just because I have had to do less maintenance with it. When I was on Ubuntu updating it was a constant concern of "will something change that is bad" for example they pushed the kernel live patch and the Ubuntu subscription banner as an update instead of an upgrade, so I updated as normal, and there it was.
I dislike OS's that install new packages as part of their update procedures (an update that installs a new package instead of replacing an existing one should be reserved for upgrades), and Debian has never done that with me, so Debian is where I stay.
Jump right into proxmox and use container templates for everything and spin up and kill virtual machines for experimentation!
Debian and docker. When you'll have your local server, just go with Proxmox, which is based on Debian. On that you'll be free to run any Linux flavour as an LXC container. As you are already familiar with it, that's a no-brainer. The day you decide to play with a raspberry pi, Raspberry-Pi OS is also Debian with very little customisation.
I'm gonna second this. Proxmox bare metal and everything else hosted by it as a VM or LXC.
As someone who has both Ubuntu servers and Debian servers.....go with Debian. It does everything Ubuntu does, but leaner and better.
You're installing a headless system right? Ubuntu and Debian are going to have very similar if not downright identical day to day operating procedures, including installing and setting up new things. Ubuntu is going to have software packages coming from a different repository and they may be newer (though this rarely matters) and the initial install may be different. One is backed by a for profit corporation and one by a large open source community. Whenever you need help, guides for Debian will probably work on Ubuntu and vice versa.
For home self hosting use, it boils down to you own philosophy. In practice, it won't really matter.. they're both really similar.
I proudly use Debian BTW.
Choose Debian. Real secret reason? Debian means you have to upgrade to new versions less. Ubuntu LTS lasts as long as Debian (5 years) but they crank out a new LTS every 2 years. If you have 3rd party sources, I’ve run into they only support the two latest LTSes - well you have one year left on your 5 year support… but do you really? And now you can put on your sad face because you get to do two LTS upgrades. All while Debian was over there on one version and everyone will target that one version and its previous version no problem.
Debian just makes better sense for a server.
(And Ubuntu is stupid with its “ooh extra patches just register your machine with our central authority” ok bud my Debian machine just says I have mail for some reason every time I boot it up, it doesn’t make it weird and gimmicky and based on a “free” deal that could change whenever they want to jerk you around)
Yeah, I would go with Debian for sure.
Although... I'm experimenting with Fedora IoT (the name might be misleading) for my server OS right now...
Debian.
This is the future so Virtual Machines and containers are where most of the stuff will end up anyway. If you need a specific distro it's minutes away with a VM or container.
If you think there's a chance you might want some Redhat cert for a job at some point it might be the time to jump to Rocky, and I've never used Proxmox so I can't comment except to say that if I come into two fairly large computers for self hosting, the first one will get Rocky so I can get much more familiar with it, and the second will get Proxmox.
It's all systemd anyway.
What's this community's opinion of Yunohost?
I've been struggling with keeping everything in control, the discovered yunohost. It's like containerised apps, but without containers. I love how simple it is and the wide range of apps.
Definitely Debian. You're already used to it and personally I highly value the stability it brings for servers.
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.
AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.
Resources:
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!