I just wish PopOS was built on Debian and not Ubuntu.
why?
As a person who uses Debian for a long time, and Ubuntu for throw-away VMs; Debian feels more "pure" from a system perspective, and it's not just skin deep.
Debian is set-up to be a leaner OS out of the box. Everything is within reach, and deeply configurable from command line. Desktop environments are add-ons to the system, not integrated (even in desktop versions). I don't find surprising choices or hard to reach configuration stuff in Debian.
Even though derived from Debian, Ubuntu "standard" comes with packages from Amazon, et. al., and sends analytics. This is not something that I like. Also, when I install Ubuntu server, I get subtle ads of "Canonical Landscape" and their paid offerings. This signals me that I'm using a freemium product, and as a user, I'm not their primary focus.
Debian is of course sponsored by a lot of corporations, but at the end they are independent and they do as they wish at the end. I'm part of the process, and can talk with devs, and my bug reports and commits are not pre-filtered with "commercial" interests before even discussed.
These are my feelings and experiences though. YMMV.
The thing I think Ubuntu has over Debian is that they package proprietary software, which often means better driver support. Considering System76 is building the computer, though, this is probably not an actual issue.
IIRC, that visibility is rather new. Nevertheless, it's a step in the right direction.
> The thing I think Ubuntu has over Debian is that they package proprietary software.
Debian also has the non-free repository for a long time, which contains firmware and drivers.
However, building a computer with AMD graphics cards and Intel network adapters rarely needs any big binary blobs, maybe except the firmwares.
Ubuntu feels more polished out of the box for me on a laptop but a stripped down Debian can’t be beat for servers.
One of the downsides of the Debian is, its stable branch is very slow, and generally very outdated for desktop use. For a more "rolling" and modern release, which is more suitable for desktop/laptop usage, Debian testing is more preferable. While it's called testing, it is as stable as Ubuntu stable.
> Ubuntu feels more polished out of the box...
That's a fair point, and since Ubuntu is a desktop first bistro, that's expected.
> ...a stripped down Debian can’t be beat for servers.
When setup right, a Debian box is a set-and-forget it affair. I personally lost a server in the system room since it was working as it should and the hardware didn't die. :D
Fwiw I agree that the default Ubuntu desktop is a little heavy - but I also realize I'm not the typical target user.
Compared with a "minimal graphics" centos server build I did - which required a mouse to install the thing, I think I know where "little heavy" lies.
The thing I like about Debian is everything is inside a single ISO, and it's still an independent Linux distribution. FWIW, I don't like to use a distribution made by a for-profit company.