Unix & Linux Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Linux, FreeBSD and other Un*x-like operating systems. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu. Ubuntu is based on Debian. Like this, there are several other linux distributions that are based on Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, etc. What confuses me is what does this mean i.e one Linux distro based on some other. How they are made?

share|improve this question

migrated from stackoverflow.com Jan 4 '12 at 19:33

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

@Zenklys - this is not a duplicate. I don't want to know the difference between Debian and Ubuntu. What I want to know is how is one distro based on some other distro. I have taken Ubuntu and Debian as an example only to tell what I am trying to ask. – Zeal Kaiser Jan 4 '12 at 18:39
By knowing the differences, you know the ressemblance. ;) – Zenklys Jan 4 '12 at 18:43
slackware isn't based on debian or ubuntu – psusi Jan 4 '12 at 23:34

Ubuntu uses the same packaging management system (deb and apt) and with each development cycle pulls in the latest packages from Debian and then adapts them to Ubuntu specifics and adds more features and patches where necessary. They also push changes back to Ubuntu and often developers are Ubuntu and Debian developers.

Mint in turn does the same with Ubuntu packages (Update: although Mint does not seem to contribute back as much or at all)

share|improve this answer
thanks!!! But I still have a question. If Ubuntu themselves uses Debian packages, then one should use Debian only. But still people would go for Ubuntu? – Zeal Kaiser Jan 4 '12 at 18:34
Their goals and philosophies are somewhat different. If you want a stable, cross-platform OS, by all means switch to Debian. If you want a desktop OS which runs reasonably recent versions of popular apps, choose Ubuntu. – tripleee Jan 4 '12 at 18:46
Ubuntu uses the Debian packages as base for their own modifications and additions. As such they are not the same packages in all instances. Often things are fixed in Ubuntu and then pushed upstream to Debian later. Also often the stable release of Debian uses way older stuff, because the release less often and focus on stability. Ubuntu on the other hand takes the packages from Debian testing and releases every six month. – Manfred Moser Jan 4 '12 at 19:13
Debian has a very strong ideology about what packages they would include with their system. Debian would only include things licensed to be "free as in freedom" (open-source licensing) and not "free as in beer" (given away but still not truly open-source licensing). This severely limited some things in the system. For instance, video drivers may be given away, but only as binaries, which did not meet the criteria, and thus hand to be hand-installed. Ubuntu took the great framework and package system done with Debian, and made it to be a great user experience, rather than a political statement. – MattG Jan 4 '12 at 23:18
Erm, I'm a Ubuntu and Debian developer, and have never seen contributions from Mint. They also don't seem to do anything to stop their users from sending us bugs :) – tumbleweed Jan 9 '12 at 8:23

Zack had a great diagram explaining it on his UDS-P Talk Slides

Ubuntu's Source

Basically, Every Ubuntu cycle, until Debian Import Freeze, source packages that aren't modified in Ubuntu are copied from Debian into Ubuntu, daily (the 74% branch). Packages that have been modified in both Debian & Ubuntu get manually merged (the Patch branch), usually by the developer who last touched the package in Ubuntu.

Some core packages (kernel, much of the desktop, and other bits) doesn't come from Debian at all, and comes straight from Upstreams (the 11% branch)

So, Ubuntu gets to maintain its own core set of packages and also get the benefit of the huge quantity of Debian packages.

share|improve this answer

There are a number of things that define a distribution, apart from the name. Packaging system (deb, rpm, ...), standard environment (eg. the kind of "init" used as a standard), and a number of other things, like scheduling policy, main target users, etc. Notice that sharing certain core tools don't make two distributions "siblings". See the case for Red-Hat and SuSE, for example: on the graph linked by @Zenklys, you see that SuSE is an early derivative from Slackware, but they borrowed the RPM packaging system from Red-Hat, I guess not to reinvent the wheel.

Most of those things are decisions that someone (a company, individual or a developing community) takes for you. Some distributions are quite different from each other and have almost nothing in common in their origins (Debian and Red-Hat are two examples from early times...), result of parallel efforts on achieving a working environment, but others are born just because a sizeable community agree that certain aspects of an existing distribution could be done in a different way, like having shorter (or larger!) release cycles, or maybe making the distribution less "general" and focusing on certain aspects, like media creation (you pre-install tools, try to have better/easier hardware config for specific things...); or when a company decides they can do business by tuning a distro for certain target audiences.

Let's keep with Ubuntu from here on, but keep in mind that this process is similar all around.

Of course, taking the "derivative" way means you start with a working system from day 0, where you work will focus on making the desired changes and on keeping up to date with the "parent" version.

Ubuntu is a derivative of Debian in that sense: they took a working distribution and decided on a number of things: default (and officially supported) desktop environment and theming, putting emphasis on a non-root user being able to access all the restricted areas (hardware setup, for example), etc., and also integrating tools and, sometimes, also developing new ones, to achieve their goals. At some point, they started taking more fundamental decisions, like changing crucial subsystems (going for upstart, for example), or default version of tools, for example, the one for Python, in which Ubuntu depends heavily. Some of those changes may end up not taking place on the original distribution, or just taking longer time... or the opposite, where you don't like a change that has been made in the parent distro and you arrange things so that your distribution stays the same way as it was (like when Ubuntu moved to Gnome 3 as the default).

Then again, at some point Ubuntu users decided they weren't happy with all the choices that are being taken for them, so you end up with derivatives like Kubuntu or Xbuntu that may (or may not) end up achieving a certain "official" status within the original project.

Ubuntu has kept a certain level of feedback with Debian, making it easy to take your knowledge from one to the other (to a certain degree), but that doesn't need to be true for all derivative distros.

And so on... but the answer is running long by now :P

share|improve this answer

I always liked this little picture about linux distributions and their relations. :)


share|improve this answer
Now that's not really answering the question... – levesque Jan 4 '12 at 19:58
and it is not a little picture! – Aditya Patawari Jan 5 '12 at 4:53
Indeed, but still an interesting graphical representation of linux dérivations. It is clearly not answering but it topic related ;) – Zenklys Jan 5 '12 at 7:38

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.