Fedora vs. Ubuntu

[Mazen]

What is the main difference between Fedora and Ubuntu in general,
and is it possible to change from one to another without loosing data?
thanks

[scot524]

The biggest difference, in my opinion, is the way packages are distributed. Ubuntu uses apt/synaptic and fedora uses yum. Both are great distros, I used fedora first. However, the community support is better in Ubuntu and if you are downloading the distro, you only need to download one CD for Ubuntu. It's four or five for Fedora. The major release upgrades are also easier with Ubuntu. Again it's my opinion only but I would say Ubuntu is more user friendly and Fedora is a little more bleeding edge.

[clint1010]

I also was using Fedora before Ubuntu. Generally speaking I found the community support excellent in both cases. However I do prefer the Ubuntu packaging and upgrade system. And Ubuntu seems to be smoother and well polished. I was using fedora 4, maybe 5 is better again.

Synaptic is the package installer of preferance for me.

If/When you change distros, backup your data first for transfer to new system. If you want to change distros, do a clean install from scratch.

Good luck, have fun

[bluenova]

Same as the above, I used Fedora then moved to Ubuntu. To make it so that you can re-install Ubuntu or another distro without losing data just put your home folder in a separate partition, then you can format your Linux partition leaving your home partition with files and settings intact.

www.psychocats.net/ubuntu/separatehome

[SergioA]

Hi,

I'm using Ubuntu, but having purchased an Apple MacBook maybe I will give a try to Fedora: it seems that the last release (Fedora Core 6, still in test) supports Intel Macs better than Ubuntu...

Ciao

Sergio

[hey_ian]

That is wrong. Ubuntu works as good on Intel Macs as Fedora Core 6 does.

[SnTholiday]

Having tried Fedora Core 5 as my first Linux experience I found it very difficult to get certain things to work. Getting the Flash and Java plug-ins to work for Firefox was difficult, not to mention my printer. Ubuntu is much easier to setup.

[hey_ian]

Fedora Core restricts many multimedia formats (e.g. MP3, WMA). That makes the system very obsolete.

[Pri0n]

Fedora Core restricts many multimedia formats (e.g. MP3, WMA). That makes the system very obsolete.

If by "restrict" you mean "not included out-of-the-box", then yes. But Ubuntu does the same.

The process to enable MP3 in Fedora Core was quite simple. You simply had to install two packages with yum (xmms, xmms-mp3). The video codecs can also be easily installed (don't remember it off the top of my head, but there were many threads on fedoraforum.org that described it.)

There is a program for Fedora called "Fedora Frog" that automates the installation of many popular applications, plugins, and packages (see http://easylinux.info/wiki/Fedora_frog)

[hey_ian]

Well I do not mean "not supported out of the box" with restricted. MP3 and other popular codes are RESTRICTED by the Fedora Core community, as you can read on their official site www.fedoraproject.org. Of course you can use third-party tools to enable them. If you download the xmms package using yum the mp3 support will be enabled ONLY on XMMS. But what if I wnat to use Amarok or Rhythmbox?

[elst]

If you install a GStreamer plug-in for MP3 from any source then all of the GStreamer-compliant apps on your system will use it, including the default audio and video players for Fedora. Fluendo supply a GStreamer MP3 plug-in which is free and legal for use.

Fedora doesn't ship software for MP3 because the Project won't sign restrictive contracts with the patent-holder, as Fluendo had to do.

[foxmulder881]

I too used Fedora 5 before I even touched a copy of Ubuntu. I liked it. I found it really easy considering I had no prior Linux experience.

[Jordan Meeter]

Hi,

I'm using Ubuntu, but having purchased an Apple MacBook maybe I will give a try to Fedora: it seems that the last release (Fedora Core 6, still in test) supports Intel Macs better than Ubuntu...

Ciao

Sergio
Why one earth would you but a MacBook just to install Fedora on it? Makes no sense...

[kvonb]

What is the main difference between Fedora and Ubuntu in general?

Easy:

Ubuntu - you get help from other users who are friendly and helpful and are encouraged to try new things.

Fedora - you get put down and laughed at by a bunch of arrogant god-complex pinheads who would sell their own mother into slave labour if it made them feel even slightly more god-like for 1 measly second of their miserable lives!

Also Fedora's RPM dependancy hell against Ubuntu's Synaptic easiness.

[chaosgeisterchen]

You seem extremely biased, why on earth do you think like that?

Did the Fedora community disappoint you that much? Or don't you even know them?

[muep]

kvnob:

The fedora community isn't as active as Ubuntu's, but I haven't noticed any hostility towards newcomers there. Maybe you are judging the whole community based on one or two members of it?

I've only used the Core 5 of Fedoras, not any of the earlier Cores. In FC5 I didn't have any dependency issues, I guess they are much less of a problem now than what they used to be. Maybe you should try it again?

At least don't bash it that hard when you don't know what you are talking about.

[Simian]

For me the biggest atraction to ubuntu over other distro's is the community. They fedorra community like most distros, is very good but it just wasn't as active and encoraging as the Ubuntu community.

[raqball]

Having just installed and used FC6 today and REMOVED it with a quickness I can say Ubuntu is far better in many areas. You'd think that RedHat could produce a better product than FC6, but I guess not..

I will start with the install... Ubuntu 6.06 takes about 20 min boot to boot with the live cd on my laptop,

FC6 was about 1 hour and 20 minutes

Boot time... FC6 is pathetic. 6.06 makes FC6 boot times look very bad! Ubuntu 6.10's boot time makes FC6 look laughable.

On my latop everything just flat out works right off the CD with Ubuntu...

FC6 took 15 additional minutes of tinkering to get wireless working on my 2200 card. A new Linux user would NOT have figured out how to get the 2200 working without a lot of searching and posting in the FC forums.

FC6 does look a bit nicer as far a theme and icons go, but I am kinda use to the Ubuntu look and feel

This is all subjective as someone might actulaly enjoy the lenghty install time and I guess the EXTENDED boot time in FC6 will give you a chance to get that morning coffee and start on the french toast :)

[deweese]

Why one earth would you but a MacBook just to install Fedora on it? Makes no sense...

Your statement makes no sense. If someone wants to run Linux on a Mac, that makes sense!

[ComplexNumber]

Having just installed and used FC6 today and REMOVED it with a quickness I can say Ubuntu is far better in many areas. You'd think that RedHat could produce a better product than FC6, but I guess not..

I will start with the install... Ubuntu 6.06 takes about 20 min boot to boot with the live cd on my laptop,

FC6 was about 1 hour and 20 minutes

Boot time... FC6 is pathetic. 6.06 makes FC6 boot times look very bad! Ubuntu 6.10's boot time makes FC6 look laughable.

On my latop everything just flat out works right off the CD with Ubuntu...

FC6 took 15 additional minutes of tinkering to get wireless working on my 2200 card. A new Linux user would NOT have figured out how to get the 2200 working without a lot of searching and posting in the FC forums.

FC6 does look a bit nicer as far a theme and icons go, but I am kinda use to the Ubuntu look and feel

This is all subjective as someone might actulaly enjoy the lenghty install time and I guess the EXTENDED boot time in FC6 will give you a chance to get that morning coffee and start on the french toast :)
fedora is the only distro that i've used where i could access the repos out of the box. ubuntu couldn't manage that. as for the boot times, i think you'll find its the other way around. ubuntu takes a lot longer to boot and login than fedora.

[raqball]

as for the boot times, i think you'll find its the other way around. ubuntu takes a lot longer to boot and login than fedora.

Well then I must have got a bogus version of FC6 or FC6 hates my laptop because that thing dragged.... It was very sad and was the main reason I canned it after and hour of playing with it. My FC6 download went fine, the sum checked out and I even did the preinstall check of the media. Everything a-ok in that dept.

Even shutting the thing down was a yawner... So..... I either got a bogus bootleg copy, FC6 hates my laptop, or it's general junk

[montgoej]

Fedora seems to run really good when I'm running a VMWare session. I have Fedora DVDs laying around from LinuxFest that I may install on my old computer just to play around with, since VMWare isn't as fast as I'd like it to be. The thing I like most about Ubuntu is the community support though. When I first came to Linux, I found Fedora, which I couldn't get to install(I was in 7th grade and a noob at Linux) and I didn't get help from anyone, which eventually led me to Ubuntu.

[raqball]

I just gandered at the FC forums and WOW, a ton of posts already about massive issues...

I did not see anyone commenting about the speed being fast or slow though... I guess FC6 just hated my laptop because I am pretty sure others would have reported the nap they took while waiting for boot :)

[Hendrixski]

It's been a while since anyone posted here, but, is RHEL any good? It being the enterprise version of fedora and all?

[szf]

... is RHEL any good?

I've never encountered RHEL "in the wild" (i.e. at work), but my first Linux distro was Red Hat (5.2) so I trust that Red Hat takes it's job very seriously . With the recent ruckus with Oracle releasing "Unbreakable Linux" the high margins Red Hat has enjoyed on it's Enterprise products may be in jeopardy. I hope that Red Hat will continue to innovate Linux and support the whole of the Linux community. Oracle so far makes me think "bottom-feeder."

It being the enterprise version of fedora and all? Properly, Fedora is the "beta" version of RHEL.

[ComplexNumber]

Properly, Fedora is the "beta" version of RHEL.
thats one heck of a compliment to red hat. fedora is amongst the most stable distros that i've ever used(and i've used a lot), so if the 'beta' is rock solid, that is one of the highest compliments for any distro.

[szf]

thats one heck of a compliment to red hat. fedora is amongst the most stable distros that i've ever used(and i've used a lot), so if the 'beta' is rock solid, that is one of the highest compliments for any distro.

I met Matthew Szulik (CEO Red Hat) on the Red Hat 2004 World Tour. That was his position - I believe him.

[elst]

I've had the same experience with Fedora (and RHEL): the overall quality is excellent and I've had very, very few issues with Red Hat products. The Anaconda installer is superb.

For us, RHEL had two weaknesses. One is that RH can only support a limited number of packages, so to get the software that you need you may have to use third-party packages or source compile. The other is that RH don't seem to like supporting upgrades, and definitely won't offer facilities for on-line upgrading, so you have to consider what you will do with deployed systems when new versions of RHEL come out.

WRT "Unbreakable Linux", I think that Oracle are actually trying to play to a known weakness of Red Hat: RH currently don't have enough resources to fully support all of the customers that they now have. If you have in-house expertise then you only need to raise support calls if there is a genuine fault, and can take advantage of the Open Source-ness of RHEL and build your own packages or fix bugs if any issue arises. Plenty of organizations can't or won't work that way, though.

[stanjam]

Fedora is designed to be cutting edge. It is "experimental." As such it tends to be a lot buggier than a distro like Ubuntu. I use both and both have their advantages. I run my servers on Fedora. It is a very effective platform for this and extremely secure (SELinux included). Further security is added because you can select only those services you want to run during the install process. It is very reliable and for the purposes I run it extremely secure.

Ubuntu I run on my laptop because it is more of a "finished" distro. It is easier to set up and more things "just work." Add to that the niceties of programs such as automatix etc. and it becomes a very nice platform for desktop/laptop use.

So for my purposes it is Fedora for server choice and Ubuntu for everyday end user use.

[angryfirelord]

I've used Fedora Core 4, 5, & 6 and this is my experience to Ubuntu:

-Speed: Ubuntu loads faster than Fedora.
-Updates: MANY MANY updates for Fedora. The problem I had is that it also includes updating the kernel to a new security release, which messes with the nvidia and madwifi drivers.
-packages: yum pretty much eliminates rpm hell, but it's not a fast as apt-get. Yumex is REAL pokey compared to Synaptic.
-stability: Fedora is a testing platform, so it does break. I lost my gnome desktop in Fedora Core 5 while trying to update it. After downloading about 1GB of updates, I got a dependency error.

I actually run CentOS along with Ubuntu, so if you still want a Red Hat like product, CentOS is the next best choice.

[[bigmac]]

I don't think there's much difference in boot-times on my systems. I like both distros equal, i've got fedora on my fileserver and ubuntu on my desktop. Works very well. With regards to the slow yum updating, the workaround is using fedorafaq's yum config, which is a lot faster.

I don't fully understand or trust ubuntu's way of handling the root account yet, but it must be secure otherwise they wouldn't make it this way. But when I get better at this linux thing, i'll definately use a command line only on my fileserver, since it only sits there serving out files. :)

[ComplexNumber]

packages: yum pretty much eliminates rpm hell, but it's not a fast as apt-get. Yumex is REAL pokey compared to Synaptic.
why oh why oh why oh why are (some) people still equating rpm with dependency hell? lets get this straight once and for all. DEPENDENCIES ARE NOT HANDLED AT THE BACKEND LEVEL(ie rpm or dpkg). THEY ARE HANDLED BY THE FRONTEND (ie apt, smart, urpmi, or yum).

[habibbijan]

Hi all, I'm new to the forums.

I've used every version of Fedora that's been released, as well as every version of Ubuntu, starting with the first release candidate. My conclusion: I like them both.

The Automatix2 package for Ubuntu makes it a breeze to fill in the software "gaps" that I need. Fedora requires a few extra steps, but it's not much hassle.

Last month I wrote a short article on Fixing Common Fedora 6 Issues (http://www.habibbijan.com/articles/fix-common-fedora-core-6-issues/). If anyone wants to try Fedora, it may come in handy.

Cheers,

[poohbear1616]

I tried FC6 which I'm sure is a fine set up, but I have an old system which didn't fare to well. FC6 seems to be a resource hog. So I have returned my system to Ubuntu and will will be kept as such. Ubuntu seems to be much smoother. Don't know if its in the coding or other? So my conclusion is if you have an old puter stick with Ubuntu. And Ubuntu updater and package handler is far superior from my exp.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Fedora is good, but I always thought it was better for servers then the desktop.
Ubuntu is lightyears easier, fedora is good but it needs easier package management...

[rai4shu2]

I've been a Fedora Core user since FC3, and it's a bit better for pushing ahead with new kernels and such than Ubuntu. Ubuntu is slightly easier for general use. Other than that, they're pretty much identical.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I just wish fedora's YUM was better, its fair yes but not as good as apt or synaptic.

[chenyw]

Always people compare apt-get and yum. Do you try smart on fedora or not?? Synaptic better?? Go try! I never use yum for 3 years already. I really don't understand some of you.

Ubuntu and fedora should be at par when you install all the right things with the right way.

[motang]

Well I to as some of the others have come from using Fedora. I find Ubuntu much easier to manage, I like the way it looks, and the way it clean. Also I am big fan of just downloading one CD as opposed 4 of 5 CDs. I also like the fact that Ubuntu uses Synaptic which is much easier in my opinion. Also Ubuntu seem to have more diver support, as it saw my Voodoo3 3000 on my older computer to it's max resolution.

[karellen]

the last fedora core I used was 5, for almost four months. it was a pretty nice distro, polished and up-to-date, but compared to ubuntu, still loses. the community was weaker and, the most important thing, package management was worse. yum is slow, yumex is slower than synaptic, not talking about apt-get. that was my main reason why I switched...
I haven't tested fc6 , though

[usfour]

I've used Fedora Core 4, 5, & 6 and this is my experience to Ubuntu:

-Speed: Ubuntu loads faster than Fedora.
-Updates: MANY MANY updates for Fedora. The problem I had is that it also includes updating the kernel to a new security release, which messes with the nvidia and madwifi drivers.
-packages: yum pretty much eliminates rpm hell, but it's not a fast as apt-get. Yumex is REAL pokey compared to Synaptic.
-stability: Fedora is a testing platform, so it does break. I lost my gnome desktop in Fedora Core 5 while trying to update it. After downloading about 1GB of updates, I got a dependency error.

I actually run CentOS along with Ubuntu, so if you still want a Red Hat like product, CentOS is the next best choice.

This sounds exactly like something I would have written. I use CentOS as server and Ubuntu as desktop as well. I run CentOS 4 because it is Redhat Enterprise Linux and stable. I run Ubuntu 6.04 LTS because is is also stable.

[Rodneyck]

Here is a relevant piece from a longtime Fedora insider...

Over the last five years, I've watched Red Hat/Fedora throw away what
was at one time a near-unassailable lead in technical prowess, market
share and community prestige. The blunders have been legion on both
technical and political levels. They have included, but were not
limited to:

More...
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-February/msg01006.html

[beast2k]

"THE" Eric S Raymond ? and the date at the top (21 Feb 07') is that the date he wrote it ? yesterday ? Thats a pretty interesting post. When people like Eric Raymond are jumping the fedora ship it is a sign of things to come. I know of what he speeks Redhat used to be the KING of distros it was the distro all others looked up to. EDIT: here's a quote from Raymond "This afternoon, I installed Edgy Eft on my main development machine," yes even Eric Raymond now uses ubuntu, I wonder what Linus uses?

[ltk5]

Ubuntu is easier to setup and maintain :KS, the community is great (I haven't checked Fedora forums), the boot time is faster.

Fc6, I only use it for graphic stuff. Blender, Wings work great, and Beryl also. But that's it. Gl graphics work there, and so I installed it on a 7giga partition.

[cnayak]

"THE" Eric S Raymond ? and the date at the top (21 Feb 07') is that the date he wrote it ? yesterday ? Thats a pretty interesting post. When people like Eric Raymond are jumping the fedora ship it is a sign of things to come. I know of what he speeks Redhat used to be the KING of distros it was the distro all others looked up to. EDIT: here's a quote from Raymond "This afternoon, I installed Edgy Eft on my main development machine," yes even Eric Raymond now uses ubuntu, I wonder what Linus uses?

There are many interesting posts in fedora-dev list rebutting many points he has made. Of course, he had a problem (among many) with the core philosophy of Fedora, i.e, not encourage the use of proprietary codecs.

Btw, I've been using Ubuntu since Warty and Fedora since FC 1. There is no denying that Redhat is the gold standard. Some of the points made here are really silly. Someone posted that FC installation lasts well over a hour - thats because you have the option to install loads of packages from the DVD - rather than apt-getting later. And with a bit of tweaking and Livna, a FC desktop is as functional as any Ubuntu system. Also, to improve the load times, try disabling SELinux and stopping any unnecessary services. I've never noticed any speed differences in booting.

In the end, it all boils down to personal choice. Given a choice, I'd stick with Fedora.

[beast2k]

Two questions come to my mind about this issue.
1st it's a huge step for someone like Raymond to switch what with all his time invested in the distro. After all he has put into it to still see it "fall from the top spot" like it has...It just must be very hard after all the years of devellopment time he has put into it. I commend him in a way it takes guts to make a move like that
2nd I know what the newbs are thinking, "if Eric Raymond cant sort out dependency problems (and it must have been a MASSIVE problem for a guy like Raymond with his experience to not be able to sort it out) then how can a new likux user"
3rd I know I said 2 but I thought of 3 things. How many people and more importantly developers will he take over to ubuntu with him. He had huge influence in the Fedora development process and he leaves huge shoes to fill.
Overall I say he wou;ld be an asset to any distro he decides to get behind.

[elst]

I think that some people are massively overestimating ESR. Although he has produced some significant writing, he is not an important developer of FOSS, and is more a pundit than anything else. He didn't hold any position of responsibility or influence within the Fedora project itself.

On the contrary, he alienated the Fedora development community last year by sending emails to the development mailing list aggressively pushing for the inclusion of proprietary codecs, and refusing to accept the responses. Various people tried to explain to ESR that Fedora's stance was not going to change, but he basically ignored the responses and kept on reiterating the same complaints. This went on for days, and was exasperating and exhausting. I personally came away with the idea that ESR was deliberately being obnoxious in the hope of forcing some kind of policy change from the Fedora decision-makers.

I agree with cnayak that some of the points that ESR makes in his post are silly, and I can't help but feel that he is trying to forward some agenda again. Ubuntu is explicitly intended to meet the need for a widely usable alternative to Microsoft, and Fedora addresses a different requirement - to evolve a totally Free operating system that incorporates advanced features. ESR could contribute to either or both, but AFAIK he hasn't chosen to do so.

[beast2k]

I think that some people are massively overestimating ESR. Although he has produced some significant writing, he is not an important developer of FOSS, and is more a pundit than anything else. He didn't hold any position of responsibility or influence within the Fedora project itself.

On the contrary, he alienated the Fedora development community last year by sending emails to the development mailing list aggressively pushing for the inclusion of proprietary codecs, and refusing to accept the responses. Various people tried to explain to ESR that Fedora's stance was not going to change, but he basically ignored the responses and kept on reiterating the same complaints. This went on for days, and was exasperating and exhausting. I personally came away with the idea that ESR was deliberately being obnoxious in the hope of forcing some kind of policy change from the Fedora decision-makers.

I agree with cnayak that some of the points that ESR makes in his post are silly, and I can't help but feel that he is trying to forward some agenda again. Ubuntu is explicitly intended to meet the need for a widely usable alternative to Microsoft, and Fedora addresses a different requirement - to evolve a totally Free operating system that incorporates advanced features. ESR could contribute to either or both, but AFAIK he hasn't chosen to do so.

I'm not sure exactiy how much influence ESR had/has on Fedora but I think we can all agree he has the ear of some of the powers to be at Redhat and his opinion has much weight with alot of users. I heard about the conversation you mention and I can't help but think his leaving fedora actualy started right after he found out he coulden't get his way, and he then realized he would NEVER get his way. Some points of his post ARE worse than silly I find it hard to believe a guy with his history and the development time he has with linux is leaving for dependency problems and such, i think there's more to this than we know.