Ubuntu versus Debian
 

I have been a content Debian user for quite some time. Because of some hardware issues, I had been on an old version of Debian for a while. Now that I can do a big upgrade, I'm considering switching to Ubuntu.
My first original reason for choosing Debian was that Ubuntu's updates broke the system (of other people I heard of) occassionally at the time. I believe Debian stable is still considered more stable, but how much of a difference is it nowadays?
My second original reason for choosing Debian was the customizationability. But, even though all of Ubuntu's documentation seems to obfuscate the fact, Ubuntu allows the user to cherry pick packages just as much as Debian.
I hardly ever had trouble with Debian... but when I had, it was mostly because it wasn't Ubuntu: older software that doesn't let me follow tutorials and best practices found on the internet; and third party software that isn't supported on Debian.
I also like the idea of having newer software (for security and for developing).
I don't like Canonical, but as far as I know they are not doing anything unforgivably evil. Do you think a user like me still has reasons to favor Debian over Ubuntu?

I use Debian (stable) because I want a rock solid OS. Also, with Ubuntu there is just too much stuff I don't want. I prefer installing the things I need rather than spending hours on uninstalling software that, for me, is completely useless.

I don't have anything against Ubuntu at all. Fact is, had it not been for that distro, I probably would have made the switch to GNU/Linux later. Not a fan of Unity or some of the more recent paths taken by Canonical. But you should choose whatever suits you!

Best regards,
HMW

Good thing you reminded me to use the "server" installation. Is there a specific reason you say Debian is more stable, or is your opinion on that as unaffirmed as mine?

You can't compile a kernel yourself?? Check >4.6 kernel or latest. You will have no benefits of switching to Ubuntu just because of your hardware.

You hardware can be supported by debian, if you matter to ask on this board.

Proprietary Radeon legacy driver doesn't work on newer X.org, older X.org doesn't work on newer kernel, and you're stuck with an old kernel.

For what it's worth:

I run both Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS. I don't find the latter to be much less "stable" than the former.

I've run every LTS release, going back to 6.06, and I've been running Stable since around that same time -- 2006, something like that. Seems to me that the LTS releases have improved to the point where they're just about as solid as Debian Stable.

I stick with Stable for my "main" or "primary" computer. I picked up a newer laptop recently and I went with Ubuntu 16.04 for that one; my thinking was that it would probably be easier for me to work through any hardware and driver issues with Ubuntu LTS than with Debian Stable.

For me, the biggest drawback with Ubuntu is that I have to take some time to "fix up" Unity. I'm fine with using Unity but I like to remove and/or turn off some stuff, and to do some other tweaking. And then I'll add a different DE or WM to use sometimes. For 16.04, I added GNOME Shell; I like that better than Unity, and in the GNOME Shell session I avoid all that stuff that comes shipped with Unity. Perhaps Ubuntu GNOME or one of the other Ubuntu "spins" would be a better choice for me than the "main" Ubuntu, but whatever.

I'm not so sure that I'd pick Ubuntu over Debian, but in my case, I don't have to make that choice because I can take advantage of what each distro offers. Same thing with Arch, which I also run (I see "Archlinux" listed among your distros, Weapon S). I simply can't imagine myself not having a Debian Stable installation here.

But in my experience, Ubuntu isn't nearly as bad as lots of other Debian folks make it out to be. I do prefer the LTS releases over the "in-between" Ubuntu releases, though. I've only run a few of the non-LTS releases -- most recently, Ubuntu 15.10 -- and I don't think the quality is as good as with the LTS releases. Plus, I don't like the much shorter support period.

I have been using ubuntu for a long time. I used to dual boot with MS Win7 till the point I saw no convincing benefit of using MS Windows.

Ubuntu updates used to break the system , but that was just a phase. Ever since I moved from fedora to ubuntu my complaints got lot less.
As a distro the hardware detection, stability and support is quite good and IMHO it has improved very much over time.
With newer softwares you get to use the new features it comes along with. I have not used Debian at all, so I would refrain from commenting on it.

As far as DE is concerned you can install gnome classic desktop , lxde etc whatever you fancy.

If you want to try safely, you can dual boot between Debian and Ubuntu. If you dont like one, you can format the corresponding root partition.

So, I have Ubuntu now, and just from the installation process I can tell a few differences.
Ubuntu installs a lot of crud. Ubuntu comes in a lot of "flavors", because the maintainers seem to think it's their responsibility to assure you are never missing that one package you might need. Even the server installation installs some server-oriented crud. (Though for people who want to pick their desktop environment manually, I can still recommend the server installation, because it installs the least crud.)
The package management feels a bit less organized. This is just a first impression. The categories "main", "universe", "multiverse", and "restricted", apart from the names seem to be distinguished more arbitrarily. I think some packages have more "dependencies" where in Debian they'd be "recommendations". /etc/apt/sources.list Is a mess by default. I've read some bad stories from people trying to update to the next Ubuntu release.
Though it seems Ubuntu's default repositories are all "official", so I expect there'll be less inconsistencies than with Debian.