What are the main differences between Fedora and Ubuntu? [Please keep it civil!]

[papuccino1]

Don't mean to start a flame war or anything.

Recently I've read about the launch of Fedora 10 on Digg and I though to myself that I should give it a try.

So last night I downloaded both Ubuntu and Fedora 10 as ISO files and currently I'm installing Ubuntu on my VMachine. I'll do the same with Fedora after.

I'm really curious right now though! :P

Would you guys mind telling me what makes Fedora different from Ubuntu? Aesthetics OR Functionality-wise.


Thanks for your time.

[halitech]

basically, the main difference is the package systems they use. Fedora is based on RedHat and uses rpm files to install programs. Ubuntu is based on Debian and uses deb files. As far the underlying system, both basically the same. As far as what you see, basically the same. Main difference that I know of is how they install programs and the way they are installed initially.

[zmjjmz]

Fedora tends to be more cutting edge with its software.
Not a technical difference, but a philosophical one.

[uncholowapo]

Fedora is blue colored and Ubuntu is poop colored.....

[ghindo]

The package management system is obviously different.

There are obviously several more minor differences, but that list could go on for a while.

[papuccino1]

The package management system is obviously different.

How so? Care to elaborate a bit for a newbie [to rpm files]?

[picturefreedom]

accoring to somebody, package management have always been the same , in that most of them manage dependencies. they are jsut different on how they are made.

[binbash]

When you open a thread at ubuntuforums, you will get what you want or at least 10 replies in a day.When you open it at fedora community it may take weeks.You REALLY miss that :)

Also, fedora's artwork is cool and kde team rocks

[picturefreedom]

When you open a thread at ubuntuforums, you will get what you want or at least 10 replies in a day.When you open it at fedora community it may take weeks.You REALLY miss that :)

Yes, because community is the distro... /sarcasm :lolflag:

[wrtpeeps]

Don't mean to start a flame war or anything.

Recently I've read about the launch of Fedora 10 on Digg and I though to myself that I should give it a try.

So last night I downloaded both Ubuntu and Fedora 10 as ISO files and currently I'm installing Ubuntu on my VMachine. I'll do the same with Fedora after.

I'm really curious right now though! :P

Would you guys mind telling me what makes Fedora different from Ubuntu? Aesthetics OR Functionality-wise.


Thanks for your time.

You will find everything in Ubuntu is actually super-simplified/dumbed-down compared to other linux distros.

Part of the reason it's so popular actually.

[init1]

Hrm haven't tried Fedora since the first release. It's probably much different now ;)

[kevdog]

Is it just me, or does anyone also hate rpm distro's? I really hate that package management system. apt (debian/ubuntu) is far more flexible. I heard other good things about PacMan too.

That is just my two cents.

But I do like Fedora's color scheme better. I'm definitely no poop-color fan!

[cardinals_fan]

Is it just me, or does anyone also hate rpm distro's? I really hate that package management system. apt (debian/ubuntu) is far more flexible. I heard other good things about PacMan too.

That is just my two cents.

But I do like Fedora's color scheme better. I'm definitely no poop-color fan!
RPM is an ancient package manager no longer in common use. YUM, urpmi, and zypper have swept its last dregs away.

I personally hate APT with a passion. Tazpkg and Pacman are both excellent.

[kevdog]

Any reason for your loathing of the apt system -- other than its a royal pain in the butt to make debs?

[cardinals_fan]

Any reason for your loathing of the apt system -- other than its a royal pain in the butt to make debs?
I also dislike the output from the CLI interface. It's unnecessarily ugly and confusing.

[Sunnz]

Ubuntu have the shipit thing the Fedora doesn't, no free CD in the mail for Fedora.

[cb951303]

fedora doesn't have a package like "ubuntu-restricted-extras", and a lot of non-free software are not in the repos. So if you want to install codecs, flash, ms fonts etc. you should find the repo containing them and install them one by one. At least that was the case when I tried fedora 9.
But also fedora has the biggest community repo: http://rpmfusion.org/

[Solicitous]

In terms of actually using the system, package management is different. I have found this site http://polishlinux.org/choose/comparison/?distro1=Fedora&distro2=Ubuntu that does give a comparative list of differences between the two - I don't really know how much truth is there, but an interesting read anyway.

[blithen]

Fedora is blue colored and Ubuntu is poop colored.....

...Not needed.

[Sunnz]

fedora doesn't have a package like "ubuntu-restricted-extras", and a lot of non-free software are not in the repos. So if you want to install codecs, flash, ms fonts etc. you should find the repo containing them and install them one by one. At least that was the case when I tried fedora 9.
But also fedora has the biggest community repo: http://rpmfusion.org/
Well usually a repo contain many non-free software you need, it is not like you need a different repo for every piece of software you want to install.

[cb951303]

Well usually a repo contain many non-free software you need, it is not like you need a different repo for every piece of software you want to install.

nope, what I meant was, you have to choose the packages one by one. in ubuntu you just install ubuntu-restricted-extras and that's all :)

[aaaantoine]

I tried out Fedora 10 as a LiveUSB stick yesterday. There are quite a few differences.

- Fedora uses RPM packaging, Ubuntu uses DEB packaging.
- The default color schemes, obviously. This is purely subjective.
- There are a great number of subtle differences in the Gnome environment between Fedora and Ubuntu. Fedora breaks its Preferences menu into sub menus while Ubuntu does not. Fedora has four workspaces by default, while Ubuntu has two. In Fedora, Nautilus has no toolbars, while Ubuntu offers toolbars for navigation.
- Ubuntu enables Compiz by default. Either Fedora doesn't, or the open source ATI drivers are a fickle mistress.
- Speaking of such drivers, Ubuntu offers the Restricted Drivers manager ("System->Administration->Hardware Drivers" as of 8.10), which includes such convenient tools as a 1-click install for the Broadcom BCM43xx firmware. Fedora appears to not offer such a component.
- Fedora 10 has Kernel-based modesetting, which is an important new feature for graphics. Unfortunately, KMS isn't supported in the ATI drivers yet, so I cannot attest to its awesomeness other than what I've heard.
- Ubuntu uses sudo by default. The Fedora/non-sudo equivalent is to type "su -c 'insert command here'", but this uses a central root password.
- For some reason, Fedora doesn't have wget installed by default, at least not in the Live environment.

That's all I've noticed so far.

[blazercist]

nope, what I meant was, you have to choose the packages one by one. in ubuntu you just install ubuntu-restricted-extras and that's all :)



Ok, thats not correct the way you've said it... ubuntu-restricted-extras is a metapackage for several other packages which is just a collection of codecs which decode restricted formats.

Fedora also has metapackages which contain a number of actual packages, what Fedora does not have is ANY restricted format codecs in its official repositories. But those codecs are available from third party repos.

I don't use Fedora, I don't like RPM.

[Swarms]

...Not needed.

I am not siding with anybody here, but poop=brown, so he is not exactly lying?

[cb951303]

Ok, thats not correct the way you've said it... ubuntu-restricted-extras is a metapackage for several other packages which is just a collection of codecs which decode restricted formats.

Fedora also has metapackages which contain a number of actual packages, what Fedora does not have is ANY restricted format codecs in its official repositories. But those codecs are available from third party repos.

I don't use Fedora, I don't like RPM, but don't spread the wrong info.


I know that ubuntu-restricted-extras is a meta package, and I already told that fedora doesn't include restricted codec formats and all... And I surely didn't spread any wrong information. I recommend you to read my first post with the second one. that should clear what you have in mind :popcorn:

[igknighted]

When you open a thread at ubuntuforums, you will get what you want or at least 10 replies in a day.When you open it at fedora community it may take weeks.You REALLY miss that :)

Also, fedora's artwork is cool and kde team rocks

Yes, but all 10 of those ubuntuforums posts will be asking you for the same config file, often not even a relevant one. The fedoraforums post will almost certainly be helpful in answering your question.

I think the biggest difference is in philosophy. Fedora is a showcase for the latest and greatest free software available (free as in open source). This means you usually see new technology in fedora a release cycle before othe distros. Also you tend to get a little more instability that comes with living on the bleeding edge (especially with upgrading app versions mid-release), and the focus on free software only means that it isn't as easy to use non-free stuff (fedora itself wont touch anything non-free or legally iffy software... you need RPMFusion for that).

Ubuntu is about providing a linux-based windows replacement (see bug #1). This means older, more stable software. It means that there is a lot of effort put forth to enable non-free software and drivers. It also tends to have a lot services loaded by default making the system more "bloated" if you will, and slower to boot.

EDIT: The difference between YUM/Packagekit and Apt/Synaptic is trivial. The actual words you type to launch the command and the extension at the end of the files are really the only differences to the end user.

[jseiser]

I really hate that package management system. apt (debian/ubuntu) is far more flexible. I heard other good things about PacMan too.


I am not defending rpm, because it has its problems. but apt is just as bad. pacman is the best I have used so far. that and ports systems.



$ sudo apt-get autoremove --purge cpufrequtils libcpufreq0
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
cpufrequtils* libcpufreq0* xfce4-cpufreq-plugin* xfce4-goodies*
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 4 to remove and 163 not upgraded.
After this operation, 266kB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]? y
(Reading database ... 67313 files and directories currently installed.)
Removing cpufrequtils ...
dpkg (subprocess): unable to execute pre-removal script: Permission denied
dpkg: error processing cpufrequtils (--purge):
subprocess pre-removal script returned error exit status 2
dpkg (subprocess): unable to execute post-installation script: Permission denied
dpkg: error while cleaning up:
subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 2
Removing xfce4-goodies ...
Removing xfce4-cpufreq-plugin ...
Removing libcpufreq0 ...
dpkg (subprocess): unable to execute post-removal script: Permission denied
dpkg: error processing libcpufreq0 (--purge):
subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 2
Errors were encountered while processing:
cpufrequtils
libcpufreq0
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
$ sudo apt-get -f install cpufrequtils libcpufreq0
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
cpufrequtils is already the newest version.
libcpufreq0 is already the newest version.
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 163 not upgraded.
2 not fully installed or removed.
Need to get 12.4kB of archives.
After this operation, 0B of additional disk space will be used.
Get:1 http://ftp.us.debian.org sid/main libcpufreq0 004-2 [12.4kB]
Fetched 12.4kB in 0s (31.5kB/s)
Selecting previously deselected package libcpufreq0.
(Reading database ... 67297 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace libcpufreq0 004-2 (using .../libcpufreq0_004-2_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement libcpufreq0 ...
dpkg (subprocess): unable to execute old post-removal script: Permission denied
dpkg: warning - old post-removal script returned error exit status 2
dpkg - trying script from the new package instead ...
dpkg (subprocess): unable to execute new post-removal script: Permission denied
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libcpufreq0_004-2_i386.deb (--unpack):
subprocess new post-removal script returned error exit status 2
dpkg (subprocess): unable to execute new post-removal script: Permission denied
dpkg: error while cleaning up:
subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 2
Errors were encountered while processing:
/var/cache/apt/archives/libcpufreq0_004-2_i386.deb
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)


^-- just a for instance

[igknighted]

I am not defending rpm, because it has its problems. but apt is just as bad. pacman is the best I have used so far. that and ports systems.



$ sudo apt-get autoremove --purge cpufrequtils libcpufreq0
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
The following packages will be REMOVED:
cpufrequtils* libcpufreq0* xfce4-cpufreq-plugin* xfce4-goodies*
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 4 to remove and 163 not upgraded.
After this operation, 266kB disk space will be freed.
Do you want to continue [Y/n]? y
(Reading database ... 67313 files and directories currently installed.)
Removing cpufrequtils ...
dpkg (subprocess): unable to execute pre-removal script: Permission denied
dpkg: error processing cpufrequtils (--purge):
subprocess pre-removal script returned error exit status 2
dpkg (subprocess): unable to execute post-installation script: Permission denied
dpkg: error while cleaning up:
subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 2
Removing xfce4-goodies ...
Removing xfce4-cpufreq-plugin ...
Removing libcpufreq0 ...
dpkg (subprocess): unable to execute post-removal script: Permission denied
dpkg: error processing libcpufreq0 (--purge):
subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 2
Errors were encountered while processing:
cpufrequtils
libcpufreq0
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)
$ sudo apt-get -f install cpufrequtils libcpufreq0
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
cpufrequtils is already the newest version.
libcpufreq0 is already the newest version.
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 163 not upgraded.
2 not fully installed or removed.
Need to get 12.4kB of archives.
After this operation, 0B of additional disk space will be used.
Get:1 http://ftp.us.debian.org sid/main libcpufreq0 004-2 [12.4kB]
Fetched 12.4kB in 0s (31.5kB/s)
Selecting previously deselected package libcpufreq0.
(Reading database ... 67297 files and directories currently installed.)
Preparing to replace libcpufreq0 004-2 (using .../libcpufreq0_004-2_i386.deb) ...
Unpacking replacement libcpufreq0 ...
dpkg (subprocess): unable to execute old post-removal script: Permission denied
dpkg: warning - old post-removal script returned error exit status 2
dpkg - trying script from the new package instead ...
dpkg (subprocess): unable to execute new post-removal script: Permission denied
dpkg: error processing /var/cache/apt/archives/libcpufreq0_004-2_i386.deb (--unpack):
subprocess new post-removal script returned error exit status 2
dpkg (subprocess): unable to execute new post-removal script: Permission denied
dpkg: error while cleaning up:
subprocess post-removal script returned error exit status 2
Errors were encountered while processing:
/var/cache/apt/archives/libcpufreq0_004-2_i386.deb
E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1)


^-- just a for instance

You can't compare rpm and apt... they don't do the same thing. It's apples and oranges. In fedora's case, yum is the equivalent to apt. Other rpm-based distro's have their own (zypper for suse, urpmi for mandriva).

Actually, for all the criticism that suse takes for package management, as far as resolving dependencies it is probably the best out there of all the mainstream distros (note: i do not consider arch a mainstream distro)

[Simian Man]

I actually prefer using yum to manage my system than apt for several reasons:

Searching the repositories with 'yum search' does not need root privelages whereas 'apt-cache search' does
'yum search' and 'yum install' are shorter than 'apt-cache search' and 'apt-get install'
The output from yum is easier to read


These don't matter when you use the GUI frontend, but I rarely do. People who bash rpm without reason are usually just repeating what they heard from other people who were themselves spreading FUD.

Also regarding the community, the experienced user to clueless newbie ratio is significantly higher in the Fedora community.

[CrucifiedEgo]

I actually prefer using yum to manage my system than apt for several reasons:

Searching the repositories with 'yum search' does not need root privelages whereas 'apt-cache search' does
'yum search' and 'yum install' are shorter than 'apt-cache search' and 'apt-get install'
The output from yum is easier to read


These don't matter when you use the GUI frontend, but I rarely do. People who bash rpm without reason are usually just repeating what they heard from other people who were themselves spreading FUD.

Also regarding the community, the experienced user to clueless newbie ratio is significantly higher in the Fedora community.

Sorry, but a few corrections:
1: aptitude search does not require root/sudo
2: I use bash aliases personally. psearch='yum search'='aptitude search ditto install/update/remove/upgrade
3: Indeed.

Thanks to those that pointed out that rpm==dpkg, not apt. yum is perfectly acceptable (though for some reason it caused me nothing but trouble on centos4 boxes.)

Also, to clarify another point, the windows-explorer like interface can be enabled in nautilus by selecting 'open all in browser windows' in the preferences dialog. The default settings are still different of course (and relevant to this post).

[tgalati4]

In Fedora10, yum seems much faster than previous versions (Well, Fedora 7 was the last time I tried it.) Now yum and apt-get seem almost equal in speed.

Plan on about 2 hours of customizing and adding codecs and common 3rd-party applicaitons (like Adobe Reader) that come working out of the box in Linux Mint. I don't know if there is a respun Fedora10 with all of that stuff already installed and configured. That would be helpful for wider desktop adoption.

And yes, the graphical boot is cool. But the graphical login manager switches to a different resolution, so there is still some mode-switching going on.

[cb951303]

And yes, the graphical boot is cool. But the graphical login manager switches to a different resolution, so there is still some mode-switching going on.

of course there is mode switching. the important thing is that now, it's done by kernel

[lisati]

You will find everything in Ubuntu is actually super-simplified/dumbed-down compared to other linux distros.

Part of the reason it's so popular actually.
Ever noticed that geeks with a passion will spend hours and hours trying to shave a few seconds off a program's run time?

I also dislike the output from the CLI interface. It's unnecessarily ugly and confusing.
Some of us here grew up on machines which required you to use a CLI or set up a text-based GUI.

[cardinals_fan]

Some of us here grew up on machines which required you to use a CLI or set up a text-based GUI.
That's no excuse for unpleasant output. Every other package manager I've used has cleaner CLI output. I'm a CLI addict, and I will not use a package manager with sloppy and hard-to-read output like apt-get/aptitude.

[mr.farenheit]

yeah between the whole color scheme thing and the deb/rpm setup. fedoras been around longer and prolly will continue to be so i have a little more faith in fedora than ubuntu.

[uljanow]

I think, the main difference is that Fedora emphasizes freedom over features. E.g. the freetype library which handles fonts doesn't contain code that enables subpixel-rendering because it's patentet in the U.S. . Installing proprietary software like googleearth, fglrx or codecs is inconvenient compared to Ubuntu.
But what I do like about Fedora are the security enhancements (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Security/Features). Fedora is a good distro but regarding the desktop Ubuntu is better ;) .

[T2manner]

A difference I've noticed, and the really only reason that I'm not using Fedora instead of Ubuntu, is the File Browser SUCKS.
Yes, it is Nautilus, but the way they have it setup is horrible.
Not only is it a bare window with little to no options, when you open a folder, it opens a new window for that foler.
Horrible

[Sorivenul]

A difference I've noticed, and the really only reason that I'm not using Fedora instead of Ubuntu, is the File Browser SUCKS.
Yes, it is Nautilus, but the way they have it setup is horrible.

System > Preferences > Personal > File Management

Select the "Behavior" tab, and make sure you check the option "Always open in browser windows".

[Unicast]

A difference I've noticed, and the really only reason that I'm not using Fedora instead of Ubuntu, is the File Browser SUCKS.
Yes, it is Nautilus, but the way they have it setup is horrible.
Not only is it a bare window with little to no options, when you open a folder, it opens a new window for that foler.
Horrible

That bugged me for a while until I did exactly what Sorivenul suggests. Very strange default set-up if you ask me.

[igknighted]

That bugged me for a while until I did exactly what Sorivenul suggests. Very strange default set-up if you ask me.

it's the gnome default, that is why it is used.

[rugbert]

I tried out Fedora 10 as a LiveUSB stick yesterday. There are quite a few differences.


- Speaking of such drivers, Ubuntu offers the Restricted Drivers manager ("System->Administration->Hardware Drivers" as of 8.10), which includes such convenient tools as a 1-click install for the Broadcom BCM43xx firmware. Fedora appears to not offer such a component.


UGH, I was really hoping to get back to F10 but this alone will keep me with Ubuntu

[igknighted]

UGH, I was really hoping to get back to F10 but this alone will keep me with Ubuntu

This will NEVER be a part of Fedora, as it goes against the distribution's philosophy of packaging non-free code. Also, red-hat legal prevents the distribution from pointing to repo's that have patent-encumbered code (so fedora themselves cannot recommend RPM-Fusion). The install of all of this stuff is very simple though, I don't think you gain anything from a "Restricted Driver Manager" at all.

[phenity]

I strongly dislike the default window manager settings in Fedora. Ubuntu's file manager settings are more like windows´ settings which makes it easier to switch over from as well.

[ibutho]

If you would like to try a version of Fedora that includes multimedia codecs by default, take a look at Omega Desktop (https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-announce-list/2008-December/msg00007.html). Its a community respin of Fedora 10.

[azwar]

when we start talking about differences, sure some of us will start crazy and start to point out some provoke wording (my distro has the bleeding edge software, my distro is most stable, apt-cache-search is longer than yum-search). ha ha h ah ah ah ah ah!!!!

Well, why don't you see the differences between distros make it a unique distros and not a copy-paste distro. It's good to have a choice in your life. I choose Ubuntu because its good but not because that Fedora sucks.

can we compare the distro side by side. sure we can. because a distro is just a compilation of GNU tools + distro philosophy. any bug should be send as bug report. a distro will give back the modification code to the source code maintainer. That will benefits all of use as the end users. This is the never ending development process for FOSS.

Both distros are community oriented if some software crashes just send the bug report and take part in their community.

[Strelz]

I have one machine with Fedora and one with Ubuntu. I think that Ubuntu is overall much easier to use for someone like me who is only interested in getting my applications written with a minimum of system level fuss.

I do have a question. If I want to replace my Fedora with Ubuntu, can I just download Ubuntu from the web directly over Fedora? Or will I have a problem with the drivers? I don't care about saving any data or project files.

[doobiest]

RPM based distros suck.. Its an opinion I guess but redhat package management is inherently flawed in my eyes.

Also They're opensource/licensing is different.

Someone commented on ubuntu being dummed down, fedora is too and I think it's a good thing. I'm a very command line oriented user. Everything I do at work is on linux servers with no GUI.

I like that from the graphical end of ubuntu it's clean and tidy and they don't put an emphasis on lots of graphical based configuration. I like my standard GUI functionality and dip into a terminal when I actually want to set things up.

Plus out of the box usage is great. A workstation is the last place I want to spend out tweaking. A server, that's a little different since I'll want everything to be as optimized and as stable as possible. Even though optimization and stability rarely go hand in hand (gentoo :P)

So Ubuntu as a workstation Rocks. And Debian as a server rocks. I don't like ubuntu lamp so much. Plus they put out updates so often I fear for stability.

[Sorivenul]

RPM based distros suck..
An opinion, but nonetheless a blanket statement. I personally fine the RPM implementations in Fedora an OpenSUSE to be quite excellent.

Also They're opensource/licensing is different.
How so? I know their philosophy about free and nonfree software is different than Ubuntu's, but so are many other distributions.

Someone commented on ubuntu being dummed down, fedora is too and I think it's a good thing. I'm a very command line oriented user. Everything I do at work is on linux servers with no GUI.
I don't think Fedora is "dumbed down". It is arguably easy to set up and use, though configuration can be somewhat different. This is the price users pay when switching from Debian-based distributions, IMO. Not a negative, just different.

I like that from the graphical end of ubuntu it's clean and tidy and they don't put an emphasis on lots of graphical based configuration. I like my standard GUI functionality and dip into a terminal when I actually want to set things up.
I think that Fedora meets these descriptions, also. I feel more like using the terminal when I'm in a graphical Fedora session than I do in Ubuntu, but again, just me.

Plus out of the box usage is great. A workstation is the last place I want to spend out tweaking. A server, that's a little different since I'll want everything to be as optimized and as stable as possible. Even though optimization and stability rarely go hand in hand (gentoo :P)

I run a simple server on my Fedora system and it works fine, if not better than my Ubuntu server, though not as well as my FreeBSD server. Fedora's "out-of-the-box" use, for me, is comparable to Ubuntu, minus restricted drivers and formats. I also disagree with the stability argument regarding Gentoo; the USE flags are fine but most users don't ever fully understand them, and since about late 2006, early 2007, Gentoo has hardly felt stable to me.

Plus they put out updates so often I fear for stability.
A a test-bed for RedHat, this should hardly be a surprise. However, I've never felt fear over stability, even though implementations of some programs in F7 and F9 had bugs at times.

NOTE:
I obviously use Fedora, but am not an avid "fanboy". I just feel Fedora deserves a bit more credit than it has been given in recent times, especially with the release of F10. The comments I have made in this post have no intent to offend, simply offer my different stance, which we are all entitled to.

Cheers!

[doobiest]

...

[doobiest]

For starters, you're kinda right I am completely biased. I will always pick any debian derived distro over redhat.

As such I like Debian, Ubuntu, Knoppix and so on. I do not like Redhat/Centos, Fedora, Mandriva and so on. My only hands on exposure to Redhat is servers at work, there's thousands of them, and we only use Redhat/Suse because of their support contract. None of the actual employees would use it for they're own use.

An opinion, but nonetheless a blanket statement. I personally fine the RPM implementations in Fedora an OpenSUSE to be quite excellent.

How long have you been using redhat? I was using it way back before the days of yum and halfway decent package management. Back in those days debian was already much more mature with dselect and so on. RPMs just sucked and you were better off to compile from source most of the time. To this day I still prefer dpkg/apt to yum


How so? I know their philosophy about free and nonfree software is different than Ubuntu's, but so are many other distributions.


Call it philosophy or whatever you choose, I call it legal. Of course each distro has difference stances on open/closed source and copyrighted material, I never meant to imply otherwise. I'm just saying I like ubuntu's stance on copyrighted material and open source better. There's plenty of comparisons if you google it, I'm not going to. An easy to follow example about opensource and copyrighter standards is the classic with debain and firefox when they had to re-brand the firefox logo because it violates debian's license agreements. Each distro takes a legal stand on what they will and wont do, granted you can proceed to 'do it' yourself and they'd have no say. I believe that this will become increasingly important in the future and prevent certain distros from getting into lawsuits with large software vendors, like microsoft.

Wouldn't it if one day you're distro is just no longer supported because they lost a court case and got shut down? Truthfully I think both ubuntu and fedora would get thrown in the fire.



I don't think Fedora is "dumbed down". It is arguably easy to set up and use, though configuration can be somewhat different. This is the price users pay when switching from Debian-based distributions, IMO. Not a negative, just different.

I think that Fedora meets these descriptions, also. I feel more like using the terminal when I'm in a graphical Fedora session than I do in Ubuntu, but again, just me.


OK what I was trying to say is that Ubuntu and Fedora are pretty much equal in this sense. Without a doubt they are both meant to be very userfriendly and uncomplicated when it comes to the the GUI. They both run essentially the same gnome desktop out of the box. I was more so commenting on someone else post when they were comparing these to other distros.


I run a simple server on my Fedora system and it works fine, if not better than my Ubuntu server, though not as well as my FreeBSD server. Fedora's "out-of-the-box" use, for me, is comparable to Ubuntu, minus restricted drivers and formats.


I never said anything about running ubuntu as a server and I never would. Not a serious server. I would use Debian vs. Redhat as a server and I would use Ubuntu vs. Fedora as a desktop and because I favor debian over redhat in any instance. In fact if ubuntu didnt exist I would not use Fedora I would build a debian desktop. Until ubuntu I rocked a debian desktop which was fine, just Ubuntu maintained a lot of what I liked in debian and made it less effort to get results


I also disagree with the stability argument regarding Gentoo; the USE flags are fine but most users don't ever fully understand them, and since about late 2006, early 2007, Gentoo has hardly felt stable to me.


Glad we Agree there

My comment here was to compare how with distro's like gentoo it's very encouraging to compile all your software from source and try to obtain a highly optimized build. It is cool to say, I have the fast box around, by a fraction of a second. But this is inherently unstable due to the limited amount of testing and debugging that can be done compared to an organized effort. Where as debain for example only puts out releases once every six months. They may not have the latest and greatest version of each software package, but it's as stable and secure as they can make it, and that's something I can stand behind. Even though Ubuntu LAMP is debian based they dont adhere to the same standards so I wouldn't trust it as a server, and I mean real servers, not the one under my desk. You can't take risks like that in the production world. I'll tell you one thing no real service provider would host their services on gentoo, I know that first hand..


*Likewise no offense to anyone. I probably should have started my own thread entitled, Why I love Debian servers and Ubuntu workstations :P

[igknighted]

How long have you been using redhat? I was using it way back before the days of yum and halfway decent package management. Back in those days debian was already much more mature with dselect and so on. RPMs just sucked and you were better off to compile from source most of the time. To this day I still prefer dpkg/apt to yum

When was the last time you really used Fedora? Yum is such a vastly different beast than it was even a year ago that I honestly don't care what your experience was many years ago... it simply has no relevance today. Today, right now, apt is almost the same as it was the first time I used Ubuntu with 6.06, while Yum is light years better.


Call it philosophy or whatever you choose, I call it legal. Of course each distro has difference stances on open/closed source and copyrighted material, I never meant to imply otherwise. I'm just saying I like ubuntu's stance on copyrighted material and open source better. There's plenty of comparisons if you google it, I'm not going to. An easy to follow example about opensource and copyrighter standards is the classic with debain and firefox when they had to re-brand the firefox logo because it violates debian's license agreements. Each distro takes a legal stand on what they will and wont do, granted you can proceed to 'do it' yourself and they'd have no say. I believe that this will become increasingly important in the future and prevent certain distros from getting into lawsuits with large software vendors, like microsoft.

Wouldn't it if one day you're distro is just no longer supported because they lost a court case and got shut down? Truthfully I think both ubuntu and fedora would get thrown in the fire.

Fedora's philosophy/legal policies are at least as stringent as Debian's, and so are OpenSuse's. Nothing non-free or of questionable legality is even packaged in Fedora (or OpenSuse), which in many ways makes them even more safe (Debian packages much this stuff)

You had mentioned before that you had a fundamental difference between debian packages and rpm's that made you feel debian packages were superior. I have not found one in my research, what is that fundamental flaw?

[doobiest]

1) If you read carefully you'd see I'm talking about from the origin of redhats package management up until today. And you would read that I use Yum on production servers. But you should know the Yum on an enterprise server is the same a Yum on Fedora. At least I hope you're aware of that before you reply. Same as how dselect on debian is the same as on ubuntu.

And to note I only use Fedora when my friends at work need help doing something on it. So You'd think I'd know a bit about it since I use it enough to know I don't want to use it.

2) If you read carefully you'd see I'm talking about deb packages and the maturity of deselect compared to the maturity of rpm's. Debain's package management has had for a long time the functionality that yum and rpm's have finally achieved

3) Debians policies are not the same as Fedoras. I would like to point out I prefer Ubuntu's choice to package non-free software the way that it does.

4) If you want me to install something over apt and then something over yum and paste the output of both onto this page I guess I can. As stated this is opinion based on what I have to provide as input and the output I get back from both systems.



** Good point because this is very relevant to this thread's topic. How is Yum lightyears better?

[doobiest]

Last note if you google rpm vs dev you will find pages of debate which end in stale mates. So we don't need to continue this on here. It really is personal preference I guess. I think you'll find that most long time users that have spent a lot of time on both sides of the fence will back Debs.

Secondly apt vs. yum. You can use yum on ubuntu. if it's so great why isn't it the default? I wouldn't mind a discussion continuing on about this because I really don't see what's so great about yum and why you say it's better.

[Sorivenul]

I wouldn't mind a discussion continuing on about this because I really don't see what's so great about yum and why you say it's better.
If we're not careful we'll get this thread moved to Recurring Discussions. :D

In short, and IMO, three words:
command line output

This is the kicker for me when it comes to yum, and a large part of why I prefer it to the dpkg/apt-get/aptitude system. Your mileage may, of course, vary.

Lucky for all of us Linux is about choice.

[igknighted]

1) If you read carefully you'd see I'm talking about from the origin of redhats package management up until today. And you would read that I use Yum on production servers. But you should know the Yum on an enterprise server is the same a Yum on Fedora. At least I hope you're aware of that before you reply. Same as how dselect on debian is the same as on ubuntu.

Ok, Yum from RHEL5/Centos5 (I've used both) is very old. Compared to fedora it has very slow dependency resolution and not as many plugins to expand its functionality.

2) If you read carefully you'd see I'm talking about deb packages and the maturity of deselect compared to the maturity of rpm's. Debain's package management has had for a long time the functionality that yum and rpm's have finally achieved

So since 5 years ago deb's were better, that means they are better now? I fail to see this logic...

3) Debians policies are not the same as Fedoras. I would like to point out I prefer Ubuntu's choice to package non-free software the way that it does.

I honestly don't care if they are packaged by the distro, or in respected community repo's (RPM Fusion, etc.). I can see how Ubuntu's way is easier for new users who don't want to add a repo, and I can see how Fedora's is safer for protecting packages and protecting the distro from legal threats. My point before was that you claimed Fedora's policies were a legal threat, while I feel that Fedora's policies are legally _more_ bulletproof than Debian or Ubuntu.

4) If you want me to install something over apt and then something over yum and paste the output of both onto this page I guess I can. As stated this is opinion based on what I have to provide as input and the output I get back from both systems.

Install the latest fedora, configure Yum with a few proper plugins and try installing some stuff. Then come tell me with a straight face that it isn't _at least_ as good as apt, especially for someone who is CLI oriented and apt has such, ahem, readable output.

-----

You clearly haven't used a modern (rhel/centos are NOT modern versions of Yum) version of Yum. Give that a shot, and read up on configuring Yum with plugins (presto, fastestmirror, protectbase, etc.) to get it firing on all cylinders... then come back and let us know if it is still as you remember.

[djhyland]

In short, and IMO, three words:
command line output

Oh god, yes. I enjoy being able to read the output from my yum commands. I can't say the same for running apt...I can decipher it, but on first glance, it's illegible gibberish.

[doobiest]

Man I'm done with this thread, I'm talking about preference and what makes me happy. I do use yum on fedora as I've explained i've used it on both fedora, rhel and suse.

Why doesn't Ubuntu use Yum by default instead of apt if it's so awesome? It is an option.

And the for 'logic' behind backing debs.. I'm not sure why you fail to see it. If a company makes a product.. any product. and it's tried and tested, good quality and been solid for ages. Then another company produces a similar product which sucks *** at first, but eventually steps up to speed. Even if that company starts to get an edge on the original one, I'm not going to switch, I'm still going to back the 'O.G.' product.

It's like comparing a good car company to Kia. Sure these days they actually do make some good quality cars with all the features.. but I'm not going to buy one.. No offense to kia owners ;-)

Anyway I'm unsubscribing from this thread, you sound angry, I'm not and I don't care anymore.

[igknighted]

Why doesn't Ubuntu use Yum by default instead of apt if it's so awesome? It is an option.

Fedora could use apt as well, if it is so awesome, why don't they?

[koperry]

I've been using fedora since it was fedora core 5 and have alternated to the ubuntu releases as well.

I think I'm more of a fedora fan but ubuntu seems to be more polished right out of the box where it does take a little tweaking to get fedora where you want it.

I have learned quite a bit about using Linux by configuring fedora. I usually add the flash repository and rpm fusion.
Java is set up using the command line and the self extracting rpm.

Yum is a lot better than it was a while back with some nice plugins such as yum-fastestmirror, akmod-nvidia, etc. I do like the one click package add from yumex, no second click necessary to confirm dependencies.

Fedora will send an update through from time to time that will mess things up for you but most of the fedora crowd enjoys getting under the hood to fix it.

I really enjoy the differences in both, even the color.

I think it's a toss up depending on what you want and how much you want to tinker.