PDA

View Full Version : Former Fedora Core users...



Arbiter
December 14th, 2004, 07:04 PM
Prior to using Ubuntu, I was a user of Red Hat Linux (from version 6.2 and up into Fedora Core). I switched away from Red Hat because of its lack of innovation when it came to its releases. There was not too much of a difference between Red Hat 9 and Fedora Core 2.

So what made you change, former Fedora users? :D

jdodson
December 14th, 2004, 07:14 PM
Prior to using Ubuntu, I was a user of Red Hat Linux (from version 6.2 and up into Fedora Core). I switched away from Red Hat because of its lack of innovation when it came to its releases. There was not too much of a difference between Red Hat 9 and Fedora Core 2.

So what made you change, former Fedora users? :D


ubuntu is faster, easier to configure, easier/faster to install, no bluecurve desktop, no rpm, no buggy test releases that look like stable releases, community involvement, debian base.

oddabe19
December 14th, 2004, 07:33 PM
I was getting irritated with Redhat (been using since RH7), and when FC1 came about... i was disappointed with it... it was slow, clunky, and i didn't like it...

I used FC2, but it crashed all the time (it was stable at first) yum was slow, i was sick of "dependency hell".

Gave Gentoo a try, but that meant I didn't have a working system for 2 days while it installed a base system.

Ubuntu (like all debians), is quick, took 15 minutes to install (infact, i actually timed it at 11 minutes 13 seconds last install i did). It just worked... all my hardware works, and had gnome 2.8....

Fedora is just too clunky for me, and you have to do things Redhat's way... which i don't like (one main reason why i don't like Microsoft, you have to do things THEIR way, not yours)....


Ubuntu's just better.


Sorry for writing a book ;-)

ewinslow
December 14th, 2004, 08:00 PM
ubuntu is faster, easier to configure, easier/faster to install, no bluecurve desktop, no rpm, no buggy test releases that look like stable releases, community involvement, debian base.
What got me to try Ubuntu was its debian base, 1 CD install, and philosophy.

Now that I've tried it, I like that it is fast and stripped down compared to FC. It's definitely more pleasing to work on.

I feel that FC has a good community going for it also, and it did work very well for me. Yum was very easy to work with for pkg mgmt. We'll see if I stick w/Ubuntu or go on to FC3.

One thing that has me scratching my head about Ubuntu (Warty) is that I have not been able to locate an easy way to configure my wireless settings. They changed recently, but Ubuntu seems to like to hold onto the former key. Everytime I boot it up and I need to use 'iwconfig' to reset the key, and then get a cup of coffee while I wait for the machine to pick up an IP address. Minor, but it's getting old, although I'll keep poking around for a solution. Laptop power mgmt is as flaky with Ubuntu as it was with FC2.

Eric

adbak
December 14th, 2004, 08:24 PM
Fedora was fun while it lasted, but I'm thankful I'm done with that. I never really liked Up2Date because it had me update programs that I had no use for. A friend told me to install Apt for rpm, but I couldn't get the hang of that. Eventually I grew tired of looking for FC RPMs so I stopped installing things. Things became stale after that.

Not to mention everytime I had to reinstall FC, whether it was because I had screwed something up and wanted to start over or something screwed up and wouldn't work, I had to use 3 out of the 4 cds that came with it.

Now with Ubuntu I see how nice it is to have one cd. How nice apt-get can be. How nice it is to understand the file system (to a degree). How nice it is not to be a guinea pig for Red Hat. How nice it is to have a fast boot-up.

How nice it is to be with Ubuntu. But the nicest thing about Ubuntu is the community -- something FC never had.

jdong
December 14th, 2004, 10:16 PM
You can google this forum for my thoughts on Fedora... it aint worth my time to retype it!!

kleeman
December 14th, 2004, 11:23 PM
apt-get works better on a Debian system and is much more developed than yum. Debian is not commercial. Better hardware detection. Faster system. One advantage of Fedora is there are more rpm repositories with somewhat more up to date software

jdong
December 14th, 2004, 11:28 PM
apt-get works better on a Debian system and is much more developed than yum. Debian is not commercial. Better hardware detection. Faster system. One advantage of Fedora is there are more rpm repositories with somewhat more up to date software
is that an insult? j/k :D

kleeman
December 15th, 2004, 03:46 AM
Not at all :-P The backports project is much appreciated!

Jspired
December 15th, 2004, 08:46 AM
I was happy to try something new! up2date was slow and never worked properly. Gentoo was great, but took forever to set up. I'm happy with Ubuntu.

poofyhairguy
December 15th, 2004, 09:11 AM
So what made you change, former Fedora users? :D

14,000 packages.

Lovechild
December 15th, 2004, 05:05 PM
could you people stop trolling Fedora

I use both Ubuntu and Fedora, they are both excellent distros, right now Fedora does a lot of things Ubuntu doesn't, like full utf-8, SELinux, bootsplash, prelink, exec-shield, grafical installer, translations... wheither I'm a guinea pig for RedHat or Debian makes no difference, this is open source, everyone benefits. RedHat drives glibc, binutils, gcc and kernel development (you are welcome to grep @debian and @redhat on many projects - you will probably find more hits for the latter). Fedora is a good thing for us, regardless of what we use, RedHat supports open standards, they contribute everything back and they are normally the first to adopt technology like SELinux, which then gets hammered in place for everyone else.

Now one thing I've noticed is that fedora's infrastructure is much more in place, they are very respondant to bugreports, I have yet to see the same integrated system on any other distro, they really have a lot of experience in this area.

So can't we all just rejoice that people use free software?

mark
December 16th, 2004, 05:13 AM
Prior to using Ubuntu, I was a user of Red Hat Linux (from version 6.2 and up into Fedora Core). I switched away from Red Hat because of its lack of innovation when it came to its releases. There was not too much of a difference between Red Hat 9 and Fedora Core 2.

So what made you change, former Fedora users? :D
I'd noticed a tendency to bloat (5 CDs???) and a feeling of slowness with the later (FC2, FC3) releases - plus, I'd never tried a Debian-based distro. Ubuntu caught me with a clean desktop, relatively painless install - and, of course, apt. I'd been using the apt port for RPMs for Red Hat/FC more & more, as up2date and yum just seemed to get slower and more prone to just stopping - but the "native" apt environment has stolen my heart & mind.

Add in the stated Ubuntu philosophy and is was pretty much a "no-brainer" - something I specialize in <g>...

panickedthumb
December 16th, 2004, 06:19 AM
Nobody is saying flat out "Fedora is crap, nobody should use it, they're evil, etc" they're just saying why they don't like it. Expressing opinions does not equal trolling. If they were flaming Fedora for no reason, then it would be trolling. These are people who have obviously used Fedora and switched for whatever reason, and the question was "What made you change"

zabilcm
December 16th, 2004, 11:37 AM
Fedora lacked attention to finer details. For me it seemd like desktop patchwork.
Before I came to know about Ubuntu, to get Fedora to be pleasing I replaced blue curve with Industrial and then installed apt and synaptic.

So when I installed Ubuntu I had a smile on my face because those things came by default.

Plus I could get the reiserfs option without passing crude boot parameters during installation.Reiserfs is definitely faster than ext3 I can feel the difference.

Also Ubuntu seems to run faster on my Laptop.
So I am happy that I made the switch.

jdong
December 16th, 2004, 02:37 PM
could you people stop trolling Fedora

I use both Ubuntu and Fedora, they are both excellent distros, right now Fedora does a lot of things Ubuntu doesn't, like full utf-8, SELinux, bootsplash, prelink, exec-shield, grafical installer, translations... wheither I'm a guinea pig for RedHat or Debian makes no difference, this is open source, everyone benefits. RedHat drives glibc, binutils, gcc and kernel development (you are welcome to grep @debian and @redhat on many projects - you will probably find more hits for the latter). Fedora is a good thing for us, regardless of what we use, RedHat supports open standards, they contribute everything back and they are normally the first to adopt technology like SELinux, which then gets hammered in place for everyone else.

Now one thing I've noticed is that fedora's infrastructure is much more in place, they are very respondant to bugreports, I have yet to see the same integrated system on any other distro, they really have a lot of experience in this area.

So can't we all just rejoice that people use free software?
We aren't trolling or anything like that! We just are saying that we don't like to use Fedora, for the exact reasons you listed!

Fedora spends too much time adopting these technologies that they've lost contact with the finer details (like putting the right icon for OOo), and they've ruined the RedHat kernel line by adding in exec-shield and SELinux support, sometimes tripling kernel latency!

Lovechild
December 16th, 2004, 10:54 PM
Sorry but I'm getting the "My distro is holier than thou distro" vibe from this whole debate.

I'm just happy with the freedom Linux grants me, Fedora has excellent integration and a lot of features, and it's stable and responsive for me at least.

Ubuntu however is much easier to install external things via such things as universe, so that's what I use for my main setup right now, since I need Mono and various codec support - and I'm not really wanting to wait for someone to package it for FC3.

In the end Fedora and Ubuntu have similar goals, and there's really no big difference between them. I'm looking forward to seeing what both distros have up their sleves in the coming years.

jdodson
December 16th, 2004, 11:13 PM
Sorry but I'm getting the "My distro is holier than thou distro" vibe from this whole debate.

my goal in from my typed words was not anything like what you describe. in fact i have not dumped the idea of fedora from my computer forever at all. in fact i read an article today about fedora opening up thier CVS server, this is a big deal as fedora(redhat controlled) merges with the fedora community. i totally support a more community centric fedora base, and i think that will happen(abliet slowly). that community will bring a level of innovation that could launch fedora into a new usability bracket, or not. read an article on it here: http://www.redhat.com/magazine/002dec04/departments/fedora_status/


I'm just happy with the freedom Linux grants me, Fedora has excellent integration and a lot of features, and it's stable and responsive for me at least.

i think we all agree about the freedom of gnu/linux. i do not think we all agree about the stability issues of fedora. i have found it to be very bug ridden.


Ubuntu however is much easier to install external things via such things as universe, so that's what I use for my main setup right now, since I need Mono and various codec support - and I'm not really wanting to wait for someone to package it for FC3.

the reasons you mentioned keep ubuntu on my desktop. it is simply easier to perform tasks in ubuntu than fedora counterparts. did i mention i found ubuntu to be faster?


In the end Fedora and Ubuntu have similar goals, and there's really no big difference between them. I'm looking forward to seeing what both distros have up their sleves in the coming years.

i will completley agree that ubuntu and fedora share SOME similar goals, building a completley free as in freedom desktop comes to mind. however, i believe that there are MANY things that make them different. for instance: RPM vs. APT distro, Corporate Testbed vs. Stable distro, Slim/Sleek one CD vs. 4-5CDS or 1 DVD distro, Ubuntu pay for support vs. No pay for support must purchase RHES.

in the end there is no trolling going on here. i simply find ubuntu to be a better desktop distro. i am open still to using fedora as a server, however that gap is closing slowly between using fedora or going with debian stable/testing or ubuntu (i love APT man seriously it rocks) and i am leaning twoard the ubuntu/debian end.

Lovechild
December 16th, 2004, 11:35 PM
One area when it comes to speed where Fedora beats the pants off ubuntu, cd ripping - for some strange reason using the same versions of Sound-juicer under each os (granted both are probably patched by vendors, as well as gstreamer), Ubuntu gives me 2-3x, Fedora gives me 5-6x - under ubuntu the machine is nearly usable, under Fedora it's fully functional.

Now I've tried tinkering with IO scheduling, and turning a few knobs - but nothing brings the problem to a standstill.. oddest thing really.

The reason Fedora seems slower is probably the current overhead in SELinux, once Ubuntu adopts that as well we will see the same 5-10% drop in performance, although the RH hackers are working hard on making that better now. Personally I find ubuntu and fedora about equally fast in day to day work but that might be my slow old machine.

And yes, Fedora pre-Extras and CVS was opened today, all rejoice RH has finally made a right move towards working more with the community, not that it was bad before - they listen a lot of the people on the mailinglists and on bugzilla, as I said they are very responsive to bugreports.

As for the bloat, much will eventually be moved to Extras now that it's opened, but as it stands now the official Fedora Core 4 might be hitting 2 DVDs. I tried getting them to move KDE and some other stuff like XFce and GNOME Office to Extras but it ended up in a huge pointless debate, I to enjoy the 2cd Ubuntu distro (I count the live cd, since it's a valuable asset for testing)

I just discovered one cool new thing, I do translation work, and ubuntu's Rosetta project seems to lower the entrance skilllevel to about zero, the webinterface is so neat - now if only there was a way to setup a team (I dunno if you can actually) because that's how I think translations work best ensuring reviewing before a commit. Anyways that's a really cool feature, more distros needs to work with this project and make it universal for everything.

jdong
December 16th, 2004, 11:40 PM
Oh and the reason Fedora seems slower is probably the current overhead in SELinux, once Ubuntu adopts that as well we will see the same 5-10% drop in performance.

That's DEFINITELY not the only reason. Some combination of Fedora libraries is making disk IO very impacting on the rest of the system's performance! ESPECIALLY when copying a directory tree, the mouse gets jerky and the whole system is practically unusable--not even for internet browsing--while the operation takes place.

I've tried a different kernel -- same one I use for Ubuntu, disabling SELINUX -- no luck.

poofyhairguy
December 17th, 2004, 04:59 AM
Sorry but I'm getting the "My distro is holier than thou distro" vibe from this whole debate.


I hope not. Thats my second biggest problem toward plain Debian, is how the Debianheads are very snobbish about Debian and OSS software. The other problem is the damn debian menu in gnome- funky to say the least.

I actually think Fedora and Ubuntu complement each other well. They are the two big Gnome distros, and they are both completely free. I actually liked Fedora Core 2 a lot before Ubuntu came out. I think each distro can help each other- there is a lot of ideas that Fedora has the Ubuntu could be improved with.

regeya
February 3rd, 2005, 05:52 AM
ubuntu is faster, easier to configure, easier/faster to install, no bluecurve desktop, no rpm, no buggy test releases that look like stable releases, community involvement, debian base.

Hope you never look at my Bluecurved desktop, and quite frankly, Warty *is* a test release masquerading as a stable release. I say that in the kindest way, though, as I know that Warty is a first release. Looking forward to Hoary! :D

emperor
February 3rd, 2005, 06:09 AM
I like both Ubuntu and Fedora (with apt & synaptic instead of yum). I have unbuntu installed on my desktop and my 13 year old daughters machine. My daughter likes the linux games so Ubuntu with the universe's many packages is a good fit. My wife and son are running Fedora Core 2 right now. I decided to give Fedora Core 3 a couple months before installing it myself and then updating my wife and son's machine. Personally, I like the idea of keeping up to date on both a deb and rpm based distro. I also intend to buy a mac-mini or mini-mac since a OSX and hardware can now be had for less than $500.http://www.ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif Down the road, I am planning on all this tinkering to pay of with a pre-retirement type job as I approach 60.http://www.ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/icon_cry.gif

jdong
February 3rd, 2005, 03:04 PM
I switched away from Red Hat because of its lack of innovation when it came to its releases. There was not too much of a difference between Red Hat 9 and Fedora Core 2.

Whoa whoa, HUGE objection to those statements....

1. RedHat has been one of the BIGGEST innovators, especially with Fedora. They're one of a few (Gentoo, Debian-Testing) who've tried to keep a stable distro with the latest package updates -- and it's worked out pretty well for them!

2. They have one of the best maintained kernels... Heavily patched, yes, but definitely not bloated, and definitely works flawlessly on the MOST computers I've dealt with.

3. They've been the first distro to integrate SELinux/Exec-Shield (proactive security solutions) on a multipurpose distro. Gentoo is the only other multipurpose distro with SELinux support. Every other SELinux/Exec-Shield/PAX distro has very specific purposes (i.e. Firewall, Web server, etc).

4. They've supported LVM/RAID from the beginning, with an easy partitioning tool.

5. Prelink and randomized library layouts?

6. Innovative RedHat Graphical Boot? Much better than bootsplash....



So my point is, they do innovate quite a bit!

CowPie
February 3rd, 2005, 08:17 PM
Prior to using Ubuntu, I was a user of Red Hat Linux (from version 6.2 and up into Fedora Core). I switched away from Red Hat because of its lack of innovation when it came to its releases. There was not too much of a difference between Red Hat 9 and Fedora Core 2.

So what made you change, former Fedora users? :D
Fedora's gnome is ugly (bluecurve), yum is SLOW!!!!, and repositories are scattered.

poofyhairguy
February 3rd, 2005, 08:25 PM
Fedora's gnome is ugly (bluecurve), yum is SLOW!!!!, and repositories are scattered.

I actually like the bluecurve. Apt4rpm is much better than yumi (or more importantly synaptic is better than yumi).

dtessier
February 9th, 2005, 04:44 AM
One area when it comes to speed where Fedora beats the pants off ubuntu, cd ripping - for some strange reason using the same versions of Sound-juicer under each os (granted both are probably patched by vendors, as well as gstreamer), Ubuntu gives me 2-3x, Fedora gives me 5-6x - under ubuntu the machine is nearly usable, under Fedora it's fully functional.
Sorry for reviving this thread, but I just stumbled onto it today. A quick suggestion: you may want to check if you have different paranoia settings on Ubuntu and FC3.

The gconf key name is /apps/sound-juicer/paranoia, and the online description states the following:

Paranoia mode, 3 settings: 0 (no paranoia), 4 (cdda2wav-style overlap checking) and 255 (full paranoia)

In my experience, full paranoia slows the ripping down quite a bit. See "man cdparanoia" for more info.

anomie
February 9th, 2005, 04:54 AM
Arbiter wrote:

So what made you change, former Fedora users?

I ran FC2 for a short time and found it to be really buggy. I am not very interested in a "bleeding edge" OS that works sporadically. I need this to get work done, so I don't feel like fooling around on an unstable developer playground. The stable Redhat enterprise OSes I like very much (but they're not free any more, of course).

As for free distros I absolutely love SuSE and have had a lot of good experiences with it. The reason I decided to try Ubuntu is I gave the live cd a shot and thought it looked pretty slick. There are a couple things I like more about SuSE, but I have to say that Ubuntu runs more smoothly on my low-end system! So that's a huge plus.

anomie
February 9th, 2005, 05:00 AM
emperor wrote:

Personally, I like the idea of keeping up to date on both a deb and rpm based distro.

Good point. Ubuntu is the first distro I have used that is not rpm-based. This is a good learning experience.

wallijonn
February 18th, 2005, 07:02 PM
I for one really liked RH9 but when it went to FC it seemed as if all support was stopped (like updating). Making the switch from RH9 to FC really irked me as I found myself deleting RH9 to update to FC. I'm hoping that the upgrade from Warty to Hoary is a lot smoother.

Just as I can't look at KDE anymore, I cannot bear GNOME 2.4 and Mozilla. My distro has to have Evolution and that is one of the big reasons why I chose Ubuntu. Now if I can get FC to look like my customised Warty... :D

jdodson
February 18th, 2005, 07:18 PM
Arbiter wrote:


I ran FC2 for a short time and found it to be really buggy. I am not very interested in a "bleeding edge" OS that works sporadically. I need this to get work done, so I don't feel like fooling around on an unstable developer playground. The stable Redhat enterprise OSes I like very much (but they're not free any more, of course).

As for free distros I absolutely love SuSE and have had a lot of good experiences with it. The reason I decided to try Ubuntu is I gave the live cd a shot and thought it looked pretty slick. There are a couple things I like more about SuSE, but I have to say that Ubuntu runs more smoothly on my low-end system! So that's a huge plus.

i agree ubuntu rocks. if you want to check out a redhat enterprise source build clone, checkout centos. the new version 4.0 is out now in RC1 form.

cyberloon
April 5th, 2005, 02:19 PM
I used RH and then Fedora, it worked ok and didn't have too many serious faults. Although I was annoyed at the difficulty of getting mp3 to work, and very frustrated with up2date. What ultimately made me quit using Fedora was the dependancy hell, I just could not be bothered to try to update or install new software.

Then I gave Gentoo a try, and while I was thrilled at getting to know some of the low-level stuff in GNU/Linux, and elevated myself above the level of a simple observer of my system. I quickly became tired of constantly compiling new packages for a speedup and optimization, which I did not actually perceive.

I feel that Ubuntu meets my needs very well. It's fast, almost all of the hardware in my laptop (Inspiron 510m) was detected and configured automatcally, and with the simple addition of 855resolution I have a system that is more than a match for the preinstalled XP Pro.

My impression of Fedora is that it is focused on the windows userbase, people that only want a working system that will for the most part take care of itself and are prepared to forgive minor bugs in the system. While Ubuntu certainly targets the same users, it also targets users that want to be more in control of their system, which is of course due to it's Debian roots. And I have yet to see a serious bug in Ubuntu, for me "It just works (tm)".

seven
April 5th, 2005, 03:57 PM
apt-get is a dream, way better than yum.
ubuntu runs faster, and its boots faster than hell

there isn't a lake in packages like fedora, and the community rocks :D

defkewl
April 5th, 2005, 05:38 PM
Well I still use Fedora. Yes I must admit it is slow and I don't really know what are they focusing on. Perhaps they don't have any. As you know that Debian focuses on building a stable and secure OS while Ubuntu focuses on powerful desktop OS.

james_mad
April 5th, 2005, 10:59 PM
I came from FC2, I was going to try FC3 but the download site was down and I did not feel like downloading/installing bit torrent. And actually I was at the fedora forums when I saw a thread about Ubuntu taking fedora for the #2 spot on dw, so I decided to check out ubuntu, and have been loving it.

adbak
April 5th, 2005, 11:39 PM
I came from FC2, I was going to try FC3 but the download site was down and I did not feel like downloading/installing bit torrent. And actually I was at the fedora forums when I saw a thread about Ubuntu taking fedora for the #2 spot on dw, so I decided to check out ubuntu, and have been loving it.
Welcome :)

SubZero_AK
April 5th, 2005, 11:49 PM
One more brand new convert from Fedora here. I wanted to get away from the commercial minded distrobution. I also wanted a debian based system because of apt-get. Happy to be here...

Cheers,
Mark

Slapdash
April 6th, 2005, 07:38 AM
Ok this is how I see it.

I ran Ubuntu Warty. Liked it a lot. Clean, Fast Apt-Get.
Then I Downloaded hoary and thought OK I'm not going to to an upgrade from Warty. I'm going to delete my partision and do a clean install.
Before I did that I desperatly wanted to try out Fedora Core 3. I also tried out CentOS witch is excellent by the way.
I installed Fedora C3 and I liked that I had the option of downloading 1 or 5 CD's. see some people would like to have the CD's so they dont have to go to the net every time they install a distro.
Anyway I liked it and I never had the nvidia card / driver problems that you find all over the net. anyway. I used it for a week.took it of and installed Hoary.

Why did I take it off? I thought that Fedora / CentOS / RH. would be very good as it's so widely used in the industry ( corporate marketplace etc. )
FC3 is a good distro but it has more problems in my opinion.

FC3 was MUCH slower to respond to mouse clicks and opening apps out of the box. one can tweak this to get it better.
FC3 also has an awesome community. 3 weeks before I got the CD's I talked to them on their forums etc. I must say they are MUCH less pollitical than us ;)
We must be carefull as not to be seen as bashing other distro's I think.

Hoary just works better for me, maybe its a lack of technical savy or what have you. i dont know. The "feel" works for me. Apt-get is DEFNITLY the way to go. 1 week with RPM ( And APT for RPM even with Synaptic ) I was starting to REALLY miss Apt/ deb. that I had with Warty.

Hoary is a MASSIVE improvement as well to Warty so I can only Imagine What Breezy Badger would be like ;)

Anyway thats my experiences. I dont think I will ever go back to a RPM / RH based distro if i have the choice.

KiwiNZ
April 6th, 2005, 08:46 AM
I have used all Redhats since I think version 6 up to RHEL and all the Fedora Cores . I have not yet tried core 4 tests.
I guess my may prob with Fedora is I got sick of being in what seemed eternal Beta testing .
Also after trying Debian and in particular Synaptic , RPM is such a pain. Constant dependency catch 22.
But I am a distro junkie so I will try Core 4 when it releases.

Slapdash
April 6th, 2005, 12:36 PM
I dont think I'll go back to another RPM based system until they make A LOT of improvement or create another solution.

Psquared
April 6th, 2005, 12:46 PM
I simply wanted to try another distro. In fact, on the Fedora Forum there was a thread about Ubuntu and how great it was. I read a couple of other reviews of it that essentially said it was fast, stable and worked out of the box.

I had FC3 downloaded and ready to go, but then I decided to order some Warty disks. When they came I tried the Live CD and I like it so I went ahead and installed Warty. My only disappointment is the difficulty I had with java and upgrading to Hoary. Other than that, everything works and I'll never go back to Fedora.

Fedora Core 2 broke my box 3 times. I managed to get it up and running, but it happened too easily. Fedora is also bloated with stuff I don't need. I don't need or want KDE, or other WMs. I am perfectly happy with Gnome. I also don't need 10 different multimedia programs and 5 different word processors.

If I were to go into business building PCs (or repairing them) I would insist on installing Ubuntu as the primary OS. (Unless they were gamers.)

23meg
April 6th, 2005, 01:03 PM
RPM vs. APT, 4 minute boot time vs. 40 seconds, laggy gnome operation vs. a smooth one...

defkewl
April 6th, 2005, 01:24 PM
Why would we use Fedora. It's not guarateed to be stable. Anyway Fedora is just an experiment for RHEL. So IMO Ubuntu is by far a safe choice.

asimon
April 6th, 2005, 01:42 PM
Why would we use Fedora
For FC4 there are many reasons like fortification, gcc-4, native Eclipse, selinux, and more.

I for example like very much what they do with Java and Eclipse and I love to be able to get the latest mono rpms from mono-project.com (no debs and their binary installer doesn't work on Hoary).

Ubuntu is great. But it's neither the best distribution for everyone nor absolutely better in every possible regard than Fedora.

defkewl
April 6th, 2005, 04:03 PM
For FC4 there are many reasons like fortification, gcc-4, native Eclipse, selinux, and more.

Thanks for the info. But isn't selinux what makes fedora run so slow?

poofyhairguy
April 6th, 2005, 09:24 PM
Thing about Ubuntu is, is that Redhat probably likes it more than any of the other big commercial distros. They charge for a desktop version, but Redhat doesn't (anymore). Why? Because they realized that the desktop version exists just to develop the technology they want to sell for big bucks in a corporate version. They created Fedora just to make sure Gnome gets pushed, GCC gets pushed, SELINUX gets pushed, etc.

But now with Ubuntu around some of the pressure is off of Red Hat. They can get funkier with Fedora and not mess up gnome development. they must love Ubuntu. We are making the desktop better for that hundred dollar version they sell.

k5knt
April 6th, 2005, 09:50 PM
No flamming or trolling intended here, but... <putting flame retardant suit on>

I just entered www.ubuntuforums.org in the site search at www.netcraft.com and they show the following:


OS, Web Server and Hosting History for www.ubuntuforums.org
http://www.ubuntuforums.org was running Apache on Linux when last queried at 5-Apr-2005 11:37:12 GMT - refresh now Site Report
Try out the Netcraft Toolbar! FAQ
OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
Linux Apache/2.0.51 (Fedora) 21-Dec-2004 66.246.118.210 Net Access Corporation
Linux Apache/2.0.51 (Fedora) 30-Nov-2004 66.246.118.210 Net Access Corporation
Linux unknown 29-Nov-2004 66.246.118.210 Net Access Corporation
Linux Apache/2.0.51 (Fedora) 24-Nov-2004 66.246.118.210 Net Access Corporation
Linux Apache/1.3.31 (Debian GNU/Linux) PHP/4.3.9-1 13-Nov-2004 66.135.39.50 ServerBeach
Linux Apache/1.3.31 (Unix) mod_auth_passthrough/1.8 mod_log_bytes/1.2 mod_bwlimited/1.4 PHP/4.3.9 FrontPage/5.0.2.2634a mod_ssl/2.8.19 OpenSSL/0.9.7a 18-Oct-2004 66.98.139.68 EV1Servers
Linux Apache/1.3.31 (Unix) mod_auth_passthrough/1.8 mod_log_bytes/1.2 mod_bwlimited/1.4 PHP/4.3.8 FrontPage/5.0.2.2634a mod_ssl/2.8.19 OpenSSL/0.9.7a 13-Oct-2004 64.235.230.194 Lunarpages

I do find it interesting that the Ubuntu forums are apparently being hosted on a server running Fedora. :shock: :grin:

adbak
April 6th, 2005, 10:09 PM
Fedora was a good distro for me when I first started out. But as I grew, my needs and wants changed. Now Ubuntu fits my needs and wants better. That's not to say Fedora is bad, it's just not my cup of tea.

raublekick
April 8th, 2005, 02:13 AM
i actually haven't been using linux much at all in the past few months. i decided to get back into it for some programming reasons. i logged back into FC2 and after tying to change some settings i realized i completely forgot my root password!

i was going to switch to FC3 anyways, but i would need to download the ISOs, and since i have my Ubuntu CDs right here i decided i'd give it a shot. but then i realized Hoary was going to be released in a week, so i decided to wait for that. i haven't used either Ubuntu or FC3 yet, but based on what i see at these forums, Ubuntu is free of the many random (i.e. some people get them, some don't) problems that FC3 has.

zenwhen
April 8th, 2005, 02:23 AM
No flamming or trolling intended here, but... <putting flame retardant suit on>

I just entered www.ubuntuforums.org in the site search at www.netcraft.com and they show the following:


OS, Web Server and Hosting History for www.ubuntuforums.org
http://www.ubuntuforums.org was running Apache on Linux when last queried at 5-Apr-2005 11:37:12 GMT - refresh now Site Report
Try out the Netcraft Toolbar! FAQ
OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
Linux Apache/2.0.51 (Fedora) 21-Dec-2004 66.246.118.210 Net Access Corporation
Linux Apache/2.0.51 (Fedora) 30-Nov-2004 66.246.118.210 Net Access Corporation
Linux unknown 29-Nov-2004 66.246.118.210 Net Access Corporation
Linux Apache/2.0.51 (Fedora) 24-Nov-2004 66.246.118.210 Net Access Corporation
Linux Apache/1.3.31 (Debian GNU/Linux) PHP/4.3.9-1 13-Nov-2004 66.135.39.50 ServerBeach
Linux Apache/1.3.31 (Unix) mod_auth_passthrough/1.8 mod_log_bytes/1.2 mod_bwlimited/1.4 PHP/4.3.9 FrontPage/5.0.2.2634a mod_ssl/2.8.19 OpenSSL/0.9.7a 18-Oct-2004 66.98.139.68 EV1Servers
Linux Apache/1.3.31 (Unix) mod_auth_passthrough/1.8 mod_log_bytes/1.2 mod_bwlimited/1.4 PHP/4.3.8 FrontPage/5.0.2.2634a mod_ssl/2.8.19 OpenSSL/0.9.7a 13-Oct-2004 64.235.230.194 Lunarpages

I do find it interesting that the Ubuntu forums are apparently being hosted on a server running Fedora. :shock: :grin:

No flamming or trolling intended here, but... <putting flame retardant suit on>

http://fedoraforums.org was running Apache on FreeBSD when last queried at 8-Apr-2005 01:19:25 GMT - refresh now Site Report
OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
FreeBSD Apache/1.3.33 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.8.22 OpenSSL/0.9.7d PHP/4.3.11 FrontPage/5.0.2.2510 8-Apr-2005 216.32.75.178 Layered Technologies, Inc.
Linux Apache 3-Feb-2005 69.33.100.28 MegaPath Networks Inc.

I do find it interesting that the Fedora forums are apparently being hosted on a server running FreeBSD, and even switched from Linux to do so. :shock: :grin:

asimon
April 13th, 2005, 08:19 AM
No flamming or trolling intended here, but... <putting flame retardant suit on>

http://fedoraforums.org was running Apache on FreeBSD when last queried at 8-Apr-2005 01:19:25 GMT - refresh now Site Report
OS Server Last changed IP address Netblock Owner
FreeBSD Apache/1.3.33 (Unix) mod_ssl/2.8.22 OpenSSL/0.9.7d PHP/4.3.11 FrontPage/5.0.2.2510 8-Apr-2005 216.32.75.178 Layered Technologies, Inc.
Linux Apache 3-Feb-2005 69.33.100.28 MegaPath Networks Inc.

I do find it interesting that the Fedora forums are apparently being hosted on a server running FreeBSD, and even switched from Linux to do so. :shock: :grin:

How about using the right url? fedoraforum.org is still running on Linux (and guess what distro they use?). fedoraforums.org (which has nothing to do with fedoraforum.org is now running on Windows).

tom-ubuntu
May 18th, 2005, 09:30 PM
Hello everybody

I am thinking about switching my family's PC's to Ubuntu aswell. Right now, they all are running FC3. But I am getting tired of doing new installation with every release.

What do you think about your experience: Is Ubuntu better - easier to work with - for a normal user using email, internet, office tasks and a little bit of multimedia then Fedora?

The PC's are not the newest ones, so if Ubuntu is really faster, I think it would be really worth it. Your experiences?

Thanks for any replies!
Joe

BAshworth
May 18th, 2005, 10:05 PM
[personal opinion. may vary from yours]

What finally led me to remove my Fedora Core 3 install was that each release would see the same issues, and there was never any work done to correct them. Sound was always muted out of the box, Windows partitions would never boot, drive access was geared to it's lowest settings as a precautionary measure, Mozilla, and not Firefox by default for Gnome, etc...

I realize that Fedora was basically the unstable and testing version of the standard Red Hat, but it would have been nice if they had to put a little more attention to correcting, or at least addressing, the issues in some of the bug reports before moving on to the next release.

[/end personal opinion]

The version of Yum in FC3 is much much faster than previous versions. Just thought I'd throw that in, since Yum was the main reason I stayed with FC for as long as I did. :D

az
May 18th, 2005, 10:34 PM
"The reason Fedora seems slower is probably the current overhead in SELinux, once Ubuntu adopts that as well we will see the same 5-10% drop in performance"

I think the performace gap is a lot more than five or ten percent.

Why would Ubuntu adopt SElinux? I could see them giving you the option, but not as a default kernel for a desktop!

mrtaber
May 18th, 2005, 10:55 PM
On my work computer, I'm running RHEL 4 WS, and using VM Ware, running Ubuntu 5.04, FC 3, FC 4 Test 3, CentOS 4 (virtually indistinguishable from RHEL 4 except for branding), and Windows XP Pro. I think for my home computer, I'm leaning very strongly towards Ubuntu. The only thing I'm having a hard time adjusting to is the update schedule...I'm used to Red Hat's continuous updates. The Backports project (thanks JDong!) takes care of a lot of these concerns.

My main gripe with Fedora is what a pain in the derriere it is getting multimedia going. Then you start mixing repositories, and before you know it, you can play MP3s and play DVDs, but your machine doesn't feel as stable...

I have some pretty fast machines, so Fedora never seemed sluggish to me (though Ubuntu is noticeably more responsive!).

Mark :)

emperor
May 18th, 2005, 11:39 PM
Fedora Core 4 should be much faster due to 2 changes:

1. GCC 4.0 compiler
2. Optimized now for P4 class CPU's


From the release notes for FC4 test 3:
========================
"Fedora Core 4test3 is optimized for Pentium 4 CPUs, but also supports
earlier CPUs (such as Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III,
and including AMD and VIA variants). This approach has been taken
because Pentium-class optimizations actually result in reduced
performance for non-Pentium-class processors, and Pentium 4 scheduling
is sufficiently different (while making up the bulk of today's
processors) to warrant this change."

GarySaved
May 19th, 2005, 12:36 AM
"The reason Fedora seems slower is probably the current overhead in SELinux, once Ubuntu adopts that as well we will see the same 5-10% drop in performance"

I think the performace gap is a lot more than five or ten percent.

Why would Ubuntu adopt SElinux? I could see them giving you the option, but not as a default kernel for a desktop!

I may be confused, but isn't SElinux a NSA produced security enhancement?

I tend to be very leary of anything uncle Sam puts out. What checks are involved before accepting it?

bruizer
May 19th, 2005, 12:52 AM
Package management is 100x better with a Debian based distro. I finally left RedHat when I got tired of getting stuck in dependency hell after a fresh install of FC2 ](*,) . I found it easier to just install Warty a few months back, and have since been loving life!

Psquared
May 19th, 2005, 01:22 AM
I installed and used FC2 for about 6 months. I didn't know any better, but it was a good distro to cut my Linux teeth on. It was actually on fedoraforums.org that I first heard about Ubuntu. Ubuntu had a stable distro with the latest version of Gnome and KDE before FC and all I heard were raves about it - even on the FC forum!!

I liked FC2 because you could add just about anything and I never had any stability issues. However, it felt bloated. Ubuntu is more streamlined, feels faster --- but there are limits as to what software you can install and each release is not updated like FC. FC2 had 3 kernel updates during the time I used it.

On balance I prefer Ubuntu although I might give FC4 a try.

emperor
May 19th, 2005, 10:23 PM
On balance I prefer Ubuntu although I might give FC4 a try.

I too will give FC4 a try when it is released. I may alternate between FC and Ubuntu. Both distros are similar in the fact that both use their free versions to produce an Enterprise based product that they can sell for big bucks! Both can also use the apt package manager. The main difference is that FC is rpm based and Ubuntu deb based. Both distro's do not really support multimedia directly either.

My only real problem with Ubuntu Hoary is that my saa1734 card quit operating properly on March 23, after an update, The Dev's are uninteresting in looking into the problem since they do not support tvtime or any other tv viewer. So, my conclusion is that Ubuntu is targeted at business installations really. This reality will become clearer as time goes by!

Anyway, it will be interesting to see what works and what doesn't under FC4.

Overall, I think both Ubuntu and Fedora Core are fine distros! They are my favorites so far!

defkewl
May 20th, 2005, 07:07 AM
Wow cool. Ubuntuforums on Fedora and we're still debating which one is better than the other.

pdk001
May 20th, 2005, 07:35 AM
i've used to fedora core serises for a couple of months till i found that ubuntu
ubutnu is a lighter than fedora and simple to install

asimon
May 22nd, 2005, 05:07 PM
Regarding this SELinux makes my computer slow argument:
If you stick with the targetted mode, which is the default on Fedora, there will be no performance impact on your typical desktop system, because it then only monitors specific daemons and not everything. And on a typical desktop system, it just doesn't really matter if the few daemons which run there loose a little bit performance.

elsewhere
May 22nd, 2005, 05:58 PM
I find the whole Fedora vs. Ubuntu argument a little odd, it's really apples and oranges since both projects have different objectives.

Fedora Core is a testbed for technologies that will eventually find their way into their commercial enterprise release. In return for basically beta-testing those technologies, users get a pre-packaged distro that includes bleeding-edge technology and is generally farther ahead than other popular distros. Having said that, by it's nature one should expect there to be useability issues, quirks etc. It's a trade-off. I don't think RH or even any of the third-party articles, information etc. I've read have ever positioned Fedora Core as suitable for everyday "production" use as a desktop (although many people do use it that way).

Ubuntu is focused on a powerful, easy-to-deploy release that "just works", and it does a fantastic job of that. Ubuntu's technology is tested and then frozen for stable release, it's not constantly updated and tweaked between releases. This makes it a stable, reliable platform. As well, being focused as a desktop release, it doesn't pre-install many of the workstation / server apps you would find in a RH / Fedora install since they are simply not needed (although easily accessible if need be).

I chose FC3 when looking for a fulltime linux distro specifically because it was cutting edge, and was almost disappointed to find that it installed on my laptop perfectly, recognizing all of my hardware including wifi. I was looking to gain some sink-or-swim experience from troubleshooting and resolving issues. Even suspend to ram worked without tweaking. I never really experienced the dependency hell people refer to, although I will admit that yum is somewhat lacking in comparison to apt (I won't even mentioned up2date). Interestingly, a promising new app manager called pmmanager was released shortly before I switched away, looked very similar in principal and operation to synaptic.

I switched to Kubuntu because I wanted to try a KDE-based distro. KDE support in FC3 is non-existent, other than having it available as a desktop option. I'm very impressed with Kubuntu, installation was painless and it works very well. Most importantly, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to someone looking to try a distro for the first time. Ubuntu is certainly less "bloated" using far less resources than FC3 but again, given the different objectives of the two distros that's to be expected.

Both distros need a little tweaking after install for best performance. RH has too many services running by default at boot, but that's quickly modified with the services manager which speeds up boot time considerably and frees up resources. Kubuntu's boot time was obscene compared to FC3, but once I worked around the dhcp / networking issue it flies. If I had to draw one major difference for me, I would say that I find k/ubuntu is more ubseable and streamlined, but FC3 easier to tweak.

Really, to me, it's going to boil down to what a user wants from their distro but they should go in with both eyes open before tackling FC3. I found it to be a great distro, never had stability issues and will try out FC4 one's it's out the door, but everyone else's mileage may vary particularly depending upon the type and age of their hardware.

Anyways, just wanted to throw my inconclusive (since I'm a fan of both distros) $0.02 in...

Cheers,
KV

poofyhairguy
May 22nd, 2005, 08:28 PM
I find the whole Fedora vs. Ubuntu argument a little odd, it's really apples and oranges since both projects have different objectives.


Its because they are the two big Gnome distros I believe.

Optimal Aurora
May 23rd, 2005, 07:40 PM
Well its not a little odd...

I in my honest opinion like fedora for its super stable nature and it was the first linux I ever used. With that said I have had my own hard times with Up2date not updating perl because anaconda installed perl-5.8.5 (twice), why (don't know). The dependency issues as well. Although I learnt to use it still even with dependency problems, I got tire of it every now and then. Oh and one more problem, where ubuntu comes right out of the installation process being able to play cds on my system with sound, fedora doesn't I need to buy a sound card and a sound cable to connect to my 2 cd and dvd burn drives. (Go figure). Oh and also, KDE is only like the 3.3.1 version, and practically not updated since. And GNOME is 2.8.0, while the first ubuntu I used was 2.9.??... I stop using it recently because it had gotten to a point that it wouldn't let me shutdown properly (This is the same problem we had at my college while using Fedora Core 1 and I was recently using Fedora Core 3) :twisted: .

I like Ubuntu because its the latest GNOME desktop as well as the CD player works with my system and its built in sound card. The user interface isn't the blinding brightness that Bluecurve is. The same ability that fedora has to share apps with GNOME that are really KDE applications. And unlike Fedora, you don't have to download 2.7GBs to get to the install point (only one 600MB CD-R) and don't have to install non-sense apps that are never going to be used by you. Oh, but I do have some headaches with Ubuntu (well its not ubuntu but Kubuntu) its really unstable to be ubuntu. Oh and I love this feature, I am using a AMD Athlon64 and loving it. In fedora you can only use the generic kernel, well in Ubuntu I have to admit for what I do you can tell that the optimized kernel (AMD64-K8 ) is a whole lot faster and more stable.

So for it being so long, but those are my thoughts on the subject. :grin:

kvidell
May 23rd, 2005, 07:57 PM
I used Core 3 on my main desktop for awhile... That was after Debian Unstbale... I _really_ likid it.
It's a good distrobution.
I think I will limit my use of it to servers/firewall+routers though. It seems like a well build distrobution for those.
I'm using hoary as a server right now (it's got VMWare running in a VNC session that I nab using stupid ssh tricks and some other cool stuff (render farm, etc))... I'm not sure how I'm liking it so far, but it's definitely not bad.

So far my observation is that Hoary is a great distro for laptops... I'm not sure what I think of it as a desktop os though. I may integrate that box back to Debian Unstbale though.

We'll see! :)
- Kev

Optimal Aurora
May 23rd, 2005, 08:10 PM
I...I think I will limit my use of it to servers/firewall+routers though. It seems like a well build distrobution for those...
- Kev
That was how I was introduced to linux, I am a Network Administrator student and we used Fedora 1 and hopefully soon Fedora 4 for Servers and Firewalls, but for individual workstation or personal desktop, (Lindows and Linspire said it best) Debian is perfect for the personal desktop.

bk452
May 26th, 2005, 01:03 PM
Prior to using Ubuntu, I was a user of Red Hat Linux (from version 6.2 and up into Fedora Core). I switched away from Red Hat because of its lack of innovation when it came to its releases. There was not too much of a difference between Red Hat 9 and Fedora Core 2.

So what made you change, former Fedora users? :D

A community that can explain things in plain language as opposed to geek speak.