3. Some newer packages.
2. PPAs.
1. It's actually supported by hosting companies.
We use 10.04 (and soon to be some 12.04) at work. The server edition is pretty much a version of Debian. As a sysadmin, I like it a whole lot.
Canonical indulge in mind-boggling WTFery on the desktop - but on the server underpinnings, they actually contribute a lot of paid developer effort directly to Debian to keep things going.
Reporting bugs that were caused by Canonical is pretty much futile, though. With Ubuntu Server you get to keep both pieces just as you do with Debian, it's just they're pretty okay pieces.
FWIW I have seen a lot more Debian support from hosting companies than Ubuntu support. Either way it's overwhelmingly RedHat.
Honestly though, problems surrounding "newer packages" is the reason #1 I avoid Ubuntu. I think the problem I had might have been LTS-specific, but I expected it to break less with changes, not more.
We use 10.04 (and soon to be some 12.04) at work. The server edition is pretty much a version of Debian. As a sysadmin, I like it a whole lot.
Canonical indulge in mind-boggling WTFery on the desktop - but on the server underpinnings, they actually contribute a lot of paid developer effort directly to Debian to keep things going.
Reporting bugs that were caused by Canonical is pretty much futile, though. With Ubuntu Server you get to keep both pieces just as you do with Debian, it's just they're pretty okay pieces.