When Ubuntu came out with LTS releases, that's what did Debian in, in my experience. Numerous compliance regimes require supported OS versions, and having a guarantee of long-term support for a version means you're not forced to upgrade the entire OS every year or two, and reduces the cost of using that particular OS.

There was a period, including the time Ubuntu launched and got popular, that Debian was infamously slow to update stable. Along came Ubuntu with a clockwork-like release cycle (every six months IIRC) and up-to-date packages, even in LTS. (In fact the Ubuntu elevator pitch, as far as I was concerned ~10 years ago, was "Debian packaging but with regular releases.")

It sounds like (?) Debian has tried to put those days behind it. But sysadmins of a certain vintage will always remember when Debian allowed itself to languish. Ubuntu, meanwhile, has maintained a very good track record with regard to timely updates and keeping LTS packages patched, etc.

Debian's release cycle still isn't as predictable as Ubuntu; in fact, Debian slipped a bit with wheezy. Whereas lenny and squeeze came out in February of 2009 and 2011 respectively, wheezy didn't come out until May of 2013. I appreciate that Debian took the time to get it right; still, Ubuntu's greater predictability is appealing. Also, Ubuntu offers official backports of newer kernels to LTS releases; that's why Docker, for example, can target Ubuntu Precise.

ubuntu's release cycle is quite different from debian. If you want more recent versions software, but with firmer guarantees concerning support than testing or unstable, ubuntu is a good choice.

Having said that for many of our servers we use debian stable, because stability trumps latest-and-greatest.

As long as you don't get stale packages plagued by unfixed bugs.

For me the advantage of Ubuntu over Debian is that I know that each LTS release of Ubuntu will be supported for exactly 5 years. That means that at the time of deployment I can already anticipate when I will need to upgrade / retire that specific server.

Debian doesn't quite offer the same level of guarantee for how long each release will be supported for as far as I am aware.

Support contracts. Mostly CYA, but the fact that there's some company out there that can be paid to be "responsible" for any issues and provide companies with a scapegoat is worth something.

I've tended towards Ubuntu over Debian because I've found Ubuntu historically to be more likely to run a recent version of the packages I use (Python, PIL, python-mysql etc). Might not be so true these days now that Python 2.x development has more or less finished.

This makes no sense. All ubuntu packages originate in debian, although ubuntu may get them out the door as an official release first.

Nope.

Packages originate from the package authors; these people are not particularly tied to any linux distro. Ubuntu tends to stay close to the most recent version of packages(via apt-get update && apt-get upgrade), Debian purposely lags behind for stability reasons.

Probably one of the most notable examples of this is rtorrent(http://libtorrent.rakshasa.no/) for the longest time didn't support magnet-links; at least not for people who could only do apt-get upgrade. But going to the site itself and getting the src you could compile the newest version and get magnet-link support. Ubuntu , Debian, Fedora, etc. have nothing to do with what the rtorrent developers release on their website.

Another example, GIMP somehow is _still_ not 2.8 for all linux distros package-managers(at least my Linux Mint doesn't get it as of this writing) , but clearly http://www.gimp.org/downloads/ GIMP is on 2.8. The devs behind GIMP don't care what the distros do, they just write their code and release it.

Yep.

For basic apt-get Ubuntu starts by merging with debian for each release: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopment/ReleaseProcess#Mer...

Magnet links have been supported since rtorrent 0.8.9 which was release in June 2011. It was available for debian sid in September 2011 and is currently available in wheezy backports even. It was available for Ubuntu in April 2012 (possibly October 2011.)

GIMP 2.8 has been available for Debian since May 2012 if you run sid (or backport from sid). Debian stable since May 2013. Ubuntu since October 2012. Not sure where Mint gets it sources from.

These seem like reasonable delays in getting the package made available for testing.

Surely you do not install X on a server.... I don't get your comment

He thinks they're installing the Ubuntu Desktop edition on a server.

Aren't those the big selling points of Ubuntu - graphics drivers and unity? Both of which as you say are irrelevant on a server, I agree.

On the desktop you bet, it beats Windows for me. On the server, check the other comments, LTS and the ability to run newer stuff but still be very stable. I really don't see why you're having an issue, Ubuntu Server is plain and works well.

X/Unity/Graphics Drivers are not installed on Ubuntu Server by default.