Personally, I don't understand why people claim that Ubuntu is more "user-friendly".
I tried ubuntu for about a year before finally taking the dive into Debian (had used Fedora/RH for 8 years prior, but finally got tired of yum breaking stuff).
Stuff broke on Ubuntu (not as much as Fedora!), and I wasted time fixing it.
I installed Ubuntu for a few n00bs, friends who were tired of their virus/crash ridden XP, etc.
They all became frustrated, because, well, stuff broke, and they didn't know how to fix it.
Now, when my Mom got an old computer from a friend, a 400hmz PII with like 128mb ram, I installed Lenny on it for her.
It's run great ever since, without a single problem (time to go update her to Squeeze, though).
I've been using Debian on all my desktops now for about 2 years, upgraded to Squeeze last weekend.
The most trivially easy, seamless upgrade ever. (can't be said of ubuntu's frantic release schedule, where every new silly snake release breaks more stuff).
Nothing ever breaks in Debian. I haven't had a single software problem since making the move, and I can't imagine ever moving away, now.
It's rock-solid, impregnable, and it just works.
I don't get what's supposedly so "user-friendly" about Ubuntu.
For one thing, I kind of agree with Tuomo Valkonen about "usability" anyway. Do what I want, only what I want, and stay out of the way.
Ubuntu makes too many decisions for the user, and not always good ones (usually tying a ton of bloat together in "metapackages" in such fashion that you can't remove some useless crap like, say , cowsay, or something, without removing your entire window manager).
Debian allows me to install what I need, precisely, no more no less.
And for n00bs, it doesn't break and cause problems.