Diferences between Ubuntu and other linux distros

[Isoss]

I'd like to know the differences between Ubuntu and other distros like Suse, RedHat and Fedora ...

I've been using linux for 4 months now and I love it. I quit windows starting from the second month. Ubuntu is my first linux distro, but I still wonder how other distros look like and dunno what differences are there. I understand the machanism of DEs like KDE and Gnome.
So my question is not about desktop environments but about the filesystems and applications. Like what are the differences between ubuntu, Suse, fedora, redhat etc. concerning Repos, filesystem, and everything ...

Another question, which distro is the best for servers and programming environments ...

[barbarian]

I've used Mandrake 7.0, then Debian from 2.2, and now i dont see better choice for me then Ubuntu..
:cool:

[rejser]

biggest differ I say is that ubuntu is built arround the apt-get system from debian, while suse has it own system (or do they use rpm?), fedora (redhat) is built arround a rpm system. Otherwise you can do exactly the same which-ever dist you use.

[InfoLock]

I used Mandrake for about one year but have used linux for about 4 years on and off. I do like the apt-get idea. I have only just started to use ubuntu and so far it has been relatively painless.

[Delkster]

I used Red Hat in the beginning but some things didn't work out-of-the-box and others I broke myself, and I didn't know enough to be able to fix it (and didn't have the time to learn at that time). I got rid of Linux for a while and later on returned to the battlefield with Debian. Since then I've switched to Ubuntu (which, for me, was initially just a tweaked and desktop oriented variant of Debian) and taken quick glances at some other distros.

The differences are mostly in package management, applications and libraries installed by default (or available through the package management), default settings, and the way the settings are laid out in the system (i.e. where a particular configuration file is located, whether and how it's handled by automated setup scripts and tools, etc.).

For example my little experience with Suse suggests that it automatically gets most things configured right (as does Ubuntu), and if it doesn't, you may well be able to configure it with relative ease using GUI tools (perhaps unlike Ubuntu), particularly Suse's YaST tool.

On the other hand, if you happen to need to make a specific manual tweak for example due to an exotic problem with your hardware, with bad luck those tools may overwrite your manual changes. Debian (and Ubuntu), on the other hand, does some things automatically but, if you do your tweaks correctly, it doesn't get in the way of your manual configuration.

Of course my impression of Suse may be outdated or misguided due to lack of experience. I mean the above mostly as an example of what kinds of differences there may be between various distributions.

[MethodOne]

Fedora and SUSE require me to use third party repositories to get everything I want, including streamtuner and MP3 support in XMMS. The difference between those distros is that SUSE provides some proprietary packages and links to third-party repositories on its site, while Fedora provides packages with no legal issues and doesn't link to third-party repositories.

Unlike those distros, I can get streamtuner and an uncrippled XMMS from the official Ubuntu repository. I can get some proprietary packages from multiverse, the developer's repository, plf, or an RPM converted with alien.

rejser, SUSE uses RPM.

[K.Mandla]

You'd probably get a different skew in the poll, if you asked on a different forum. :)

But suffice to say I swerve between two distros -- Arch and Ubuntu -- depending on my need: speed or stability. That probably says it all.

[Delkster]

Ah yes -- I'm not sure I'd run Ubuntu on a server either. At the moment I only happen to have a single desktop machine at my disposal, though, and for that I currently run Ubuntu.

[oskie]

I prefer Ubuntu for several reasons. It is less bloated than either Fedora or Suse. I like how everything fits on one CD. The community surrounding Ubuntu is large and very helpful and a good 'how to' is never far away. Finally, Dapper 'just works', at least on my hardware, so that's a plus. Plus it comes in funky default colours....:D

[aysiu]

Most distros are able to run the same software and use the same interfaces, but these are the main differences:

1. How many CDs are available and in what form? Are there DVDs, too?

2. Cost--is it free? Is there some kind of subscription involved or members club?

3. Release cycle--does it come out every three years or every six months? Does it just come out irregularly?

4. Package Management--does it use .deb files or .rpm files? Does it use emerge?

5. Software available--what repositories does it use?

6. Support--these forums, for example, are the main reason I'm using Ubuntu and not something else.

7. Installation--point-and-click? What questions get asked? How is partitioning done?

8. Default applications. Some have a lot. Some have few. Some make you choose them before the distro's installed.

[AndyCooll]

In terms of the major distros, I believe they are essentially similar. I've tried a range of distros and like most of them, and since the core of each is essentially the same it is the little differences that make the difference.

For instance different distros use differing installation methods and I like the Debian based distros because of Synaptic. I particularly like Ubuntu because it is selective in its pre-installed packages, but also because of Synaptic its easy to add any extra software packages I might feel are missing.

These forums are also a key reason why I like Ubuntu.

And finally there is the "just works" factor. And for me the distro that provided that was Ubuntu. On my various boxes I've usually had most success with Ubuntu. Not just for hardware, but also for the software packages I use.

:cool:

[montgoej]

I have used DSL and Ubuntu, both only as live CD's so far. I am planning to install Ubuntu on my new PC in the following months because of how easy it is to use, and how it runs great on both my 8 year old PC and my 1.5 year old pc from the Live CD, it even runs faster off of the Live CD than Windows XP runs from the Hard drive on my 8 year old PC. I like DSL for use at school when I need something that I can boot from a Live CD quickly so the teacher doesn't notice what I'm doing, and to show off Linux to my friends during "Intro to computer applications"(basically intro to Windows 2000, since my principal doesn't trust Linux for some reason).

[FredB]

I tried / used (since 1998-1999)

1) Slackware
2) Mandrake
3) RedHat
4) Fedora
5) SuSE
6) OpenSuSE

And now, Ubuntu. I think I will stay with it for at least 6 months. After, only time will tell.

[LeslieL]

I switched to Ubuntu last week when I tried to install the next version of my beloved Xandros and failed (installation hung at hardware detection). I liked Xandros because it works out of the box but isn't too hard to tweak, and because of its forums. It looks like Ubuntu has the same strengths. This forum in particular seems friendly and helpful, just like the Xandros one. If anything I've had to do less tweaking than with Xandros, and some things work better.

Over the last couple of years I've tried
- Fedora
- Mepis
- Suse (might give it another try soon)
- Linspire

Last time I tried a Ubuntu distro (Kubuntu?) it didn't recognize my display properly. This time no problem. I think I'm hooked.

[graigsmith]

the problem (to me) with other distros is....

1. they aren't as pretty.
2. they aren't as functional or easy. (what is the point of 10 different text editors, 3 webbrowsers, and 4 email programs for a desktop distro than to waste my space and confuse me??)

[3rdalbum]

The only other distros I've tried are Live CDs:

Puppy (which I quite like)
DSL (BORING!)
Dynebolic (interesting technology in that one)
SimplyMepis (6 of one, half a dozen of the other really)
Looking Glass 3D (Bleh! And so slow!)

[Dragonbite]

My OS Geneology
old Mac (at high school)
DOS (at high school and college)
VAX (VT100 terminals) (at college)
Windows 3.1 (at work)
Windows 95 (at home)
Windows 98 (home and work) ... thankfully not Windows ME!
Red Hat 8.0 (at home) <-+ bit me with the Linux bug!
Red Hat 9.0 (at home)
Pick (Unidata and programming in Pick BASIC) (at work)
Gentoo Linux (at home)
Windows 2000 Professional (at work and recently at home)
played around with SuSE 9.1, DSL, Gentoo and Ubuntu to decide which distro for a virgin machine.. decided on Ubuntu
Ubuntu (Breezy) (at home)
Windows XP Professional (at work, only in the last 11 months)
CentOS Linux (built off RHEL source) (at home)
Ubuntu (Dapper) (soon to come)


Gentoo is a great distro to get your hands dirty and learn Linux.

When you are done installing, you are faced with a CLI, the OS (Kernel), and Portage Packaging System. Where you go from there is wherever you want to (Server with no GUI? Minimal GUI for Video Editing? Home System with all bells-and-whistles? Whatever!).
With good optimization it can remain very fast!
The Portage packaging system is similar to apt-get (some say better, some say worse).
You don't have to care about versions, if you keep updating (#emerge world) then you will always have the latest version of the OS.


CentOS (built from RHEL source so to be 99% compatible) is a good stable distro.

It runs off of RPMs (SuSE does too, but they are not compatible) but Yum makes it like a fledgling apt-get, roughg around the edges and needs refining but is a similar concept.
Works better with older hardware, it recognized everything on my 6 year old Sony than anybody else.
Does NOT run the latest-greatest bleeding-edge software, instead using tried-and-true versions with updates and bugs worked out of many of them.


Ubuntu, in my opinion, is a nice balanced distro

APT-GET and Synaptic makes updating and maintaining very easy
Pretty good detection of hardware (if not too old) and even detected things SuSE 9.1 missed on my system
Active developers updating software versions available without putting out things too buggy
Starts you off with a smart list of software, instead of trying to give you everything under the sun

[richbarna]

Since my first experience with suse in 1994 I have always used Windows and Linux. At present I am doing my best to get through distrowatch.

I am a fan of mini distros as they download quick and there's no waiting around. Damn Small Linux for me is awesome (somebody said it was "boring"?). I prefer single cd distros as I am impatient, and can't be bothered to wait for downloads.

As for differences, apart from .deb's, rpms, source packages and the way of downloading and installing, I haven't seen anything that majorly stands out. So many distros with KDE, GNOME and the same old WM's, there isn't really a lot of difference.

I will give any distro a go, as long as previous/present users say that it is clean and fast. I don't like bloat.

I don't bother looking for hardware support as I have pretty standard boxes that were built with Linux in mind.

[gratefultux]

I started out with Red Hat, but i must have broken something because within a couple of days it was acting more like Windows ME. I went back to windows for a while, but was compelled to give Linux another shot. I ran debian unstable for a long time, and liked it. Yet again, something broke (unstable, DUH). So i was ambitious and decided to try Gentoo, which I liked, except that i don't want to spend 30 hours compiling KDE on my next reinstall. I really liked every other aspect of the distro, especially emerge, which reminded me of apt. I did some research and found ubuntu, and i've been using it ever since (almost).

[shinkaide]

Well, I used Mandrake 8 and then 10, and I can say this... there's a lot more stuff included (hey, 4 CD's). They also included some multimedia codecs.

The only huge advantage Ubuntu (Dapper) has for me is Aptitude. I've yet to slog through dependency hell using Dapper Drake.

[overcast]

Current ubuntu live cd is helll slow it requires 256 mB of ram and it is way slower than the mepis live cd.i've tested it under vmware 5.5 with 160mb ram ,live cd takes about 1 hour to get into desktop and it even dont open any application.on regular computer with p4 with 2.0 ghz ,256 ddr ram it takes 28 minutes to get into desktop,poor ubuntu.