More often than not, a good explanation is very simple, if not trivial. The way I see it, the two points of view are exactly that - points of view. They are both valid approximations to what happens in reality, and there are areas in which one of them works better than the other. The whole controversy looks to me ridiculously similar to the one described in Gulliver's Travels where philosophers were engaged in an endless argument about from which side to crack an egg.

From a more technical perspective all this comes down to a simple fact that some consider probabilities within the framework of Information Theory, while others prefer to use a standalone axiomatic foundation.