Fedora vs. Ubuntu [Archive]

mattyh

November 8th, 2004, 09:09 PM

I had intentions of waiting to return to linux until Fedora Core 3 came out after my distaste for Mandrake 10.1. But, then I kept hearing about Ubuntu, so I figured I'd give it a whirl. Man, this is by far the only Linux variant I've used that works, as near to flawlessly as windows does for me. I love the look, I love how I can get things to work if need be, w/o banging my head on the wall. I just feel now like there is no need for me to try out Fedora. I'm pretty much happy where I sit.

ubuntu-geek

November 8th, 2004, 09:13 PM

jwb

November 8th, 2004, 10:16 PM

I really enjoyed Fedora 1 and 2. Still, there were some small details that I didn't like.

Ubuntu addressed all those. And did some things I liked about Fedora even better.

I may try out FC3 on a secondary box, just to see what they're doing with that. But I seriously doubt FC3 would replace Ubuntu on my box.

Rancoras

November 8th, 2004, 11:08 PM

Is there any reason to switch back?
I hat less trouble with Ubuntu than with Fedora.

Sounds to me like you answered your own question ;)

zenwhen

November 8th, 2004, 11:26 PM

Fedora is what Windows users use when they want to use Linux. It's gui tools leave no room for real interaction and never force the user to do much outside of X.

Since these users never get under the hood of Linux and realize why it is such a powerful and extensible operating system, they never see Linux as much more than a decent desktop alternative. Fedora users are Windows users who are trying Linux. They never get past that step.

Ubuntu doesn't have a tool for configuring every last setting. Just most of the common ones. Eventually when running Ubuntu you will be forced to edit a config file, or compile something from source. You will be forced out of X to do something. You will get a glimpse at least of whats under this shiny Gnome desktop. You may even come to find out why you should want to run Linux, instead of wanting to run Linux just because you are less likely to get a virus or get stick with some spyware.

On that note, I think every Linux user, or potential Linux user should run Slackware for a few months. After a few months of tracking down every dependency and compiling almost everything form source, moving to Ubuntu feels like moving into your own little piece of heaven.

With what I learned from running Slackware, I can tackle any issue that arises on my Ubuntu system. With tools like apt, I have a lot less of those issues to deal with.

Should anyone go BACK to Fedora? No. If they feel they NEED to try something they should try Slackware. Coming back to Ubuntu from Slackware would be quite the homecoming. You would be coming home with some useful skills as well. :D

jdodson

November 9th, 2004, 01:28 AM

I see no reason to :D I installed the Fedora core 3 final on my test box this morning.. Poked around and reformated back to running Hoary development. I wasnt all that impressed.

My 2 cents..

thats cool, seemed to me that fedora core 3 was just a more stable version of fedora core 2 with newer packages. to be fair, i prefer fedora/redhat on a server than ubuntu. i guess i am just more farmiliar with fedora/redhat and i usually install it on machines with no internet connection. though my primary box is now my server(ubuntu) and i have configured all the services to work really well. so fedora/redhats presence in my server space might be time limted just like its desktop offering was :D

though i have to admit, something is still cool about having a few hundred packages on media you can install right away. then again something is much cooler about having thousands of packages on the internet you can install right away. ;)

Lovechild

November 9th, 2004, 01:42 AM

ubuntu-geek

November 9th, 2004, 01:53 AM

You trolls have got to stop, you are ruining Ubuntu for a lot of people - I see no problem with Fedora, infact I just replaced my last Ubuntu setup with FC3 because currently it provides me with an easier, more complete system. I don't want to install packages left and right to get full Danish support just as one simple thing. Now that this mean I feel the need to resort to namecalling, not at all I appricate all the effort that has gone into Ubuntu, but I see lots of room for improvement.
Ouch.. trolls.. Before this thread gets out of hand, its important to remember both versions, FC3 and Ubuntu Warty have their own unqiue feature sets and one or the other will work for different people on different levels.

In the end its up the user themselves to decide what they want to run. Personally I like the fact Ubuntu requires only 1 cd and I dont get the bloat that comes with fedora. But thats my own preference.

I dont see how this thread is ruining Ubuntu for anyone, its simply a discussion of ubuntu vs fedora core.

Maybe someone needs todo a side by side comparison of Ubuntu and Fedora :)

eNiNjA

November 9th, 2004, 02:01 AM

Fedora makes me feel fat.

FLeiXiuS

November 9th, 2004, 04:20 AM

Fedora makes me feel fat.

That was my only problem with fedora, my /lib directory was 3-4 times as big with a stock install. Fedora was an amazing distrobution because of its configuration tools / server utilities. Now that it's out i will upgrade my server but my desktop will remain Ubuntu.

Jspired

November 9th, 2004, 06:11 AM

I've used both and each have their advantages. For me, I find I'm able to work in Ubuntu. In Fedora, I am constantly making adjustments and "playing." Each serve their purpose, but on my main machine, I'll stick with Ubuntu.

HungSquirrel

November 9th, 2004, 07:14 AM

On that note, I think every Linux user, or potential Linux user should run Slackware for a few months.
Couldn't agree more. While I no longer use Slack, it will have a special place in my heart for being the distro that weaned me off the GUI and made me learn to fix problems using the CLI. Now when problems crop up I can generally solve them myself rather quickly.

rupert

November 9th, 2004, 08:24 AM

thx for the replies,
nice discussion.
If people only miss the GUI config tools,
YAST and Anaconda are open source,
so maybe someone ports them.
I would like to see SAX, a X configtool on ubuntu.

rupert

Lovechild

November 9th, 2004, 01:50 PM

That was my only problem with fedora, my /lib directory was 3-4 times as big with a stock install. Fedora was an amazing distrobution because of its configuration tools / server utilities. Now that it's out i will upgrade my server but my desktop will remain Ubuntu.
let me just understand this, because you use say.. 50megs more on one distro of your 160GB drive which cost you next to nothing you dislike it..

Have you heard of Peanute Linux or Damn Small, it might be for you.

im_ka

November 9th, 2004, 04:00 PM

Couldn't agree more. While I no longer use Slack, it will have a special place in my heart for being the distro that weaned me off the GUI and made me learn to fix problems using the CLI. Now when problems crop up I can generally solve them myself rather quickly.

yea it's cool to do slack, arch or gentoo. because then you know what's happening behind the gui's.

i like distros that work out of the box but you can still tweak it if needed. if i wasn't using ubuntu, i'd be using fedora. mainly because of gnome. but (the original) apt just rulz! :)

November 9th, 2004, 07:51 PM

Fedora and mandrake are so so slow. I could never figure out why there were so unpleasantly sluggish. Not to mention that I never ran mandrake without it crashing. (Had it for one week)

I remember the first time I booted Knoppix and though "How does it manage to be this fast and run from a cd?"

Besides, Red Hat is pretty much proprietairy software. With Ubuntu, it is easy to have a 100 percent free system. That is most important!

jwb

November 11th, 2004, 02:43 PM

Fedora makes me feel fat.

Me too!

Or maybe it was that Hardee's sausage, egg, biscuit and gravy bowl with a large order of tater tots on the side and a couple of cinnamon-raisan biscuits and two OJ's and a large coffee. (urp)

Do these jeans make my butt look big?

No..... it's definetly Fedora.

;-)

HiddenWolf

November 11th, 2004, 04:45 PM

I kept Fedora on my system for 4 hours, ubuntu has been running 24/7 for two weeks now.

While fedora's graphical configuration and install make for a painless ride, I found I was very very limited making it do what I wanted it to do. It made me feel a windows user. Adjusting to the OS, instead of vice versa.

Ubuntu gives a lot more freedom, and versatility.
For me, Fedora was the distrubution that shipped with too much bloat, but still couldn't offer me the configuration of programs I was looking for.

This as opposed to ubuntu, which offers functionality and versatility.

The real selling piont for me was apt-get

mark

November 11th, 2004, 05:23 PM

Well, I have installed Fedora Core 3 and set up grub so I can easily switch between it and Ubuntu...and I'm finding that FC3 is being sorely underused. I guess Ubuntu has spoiled me. As ever was, there are pros & cons for both sides, but here're my immediate impressions:

1 - Ubuntu feels "lighter" & quicker. This is consistent with my impression when I first switched from FC2 to Ubuntu. I have not done any extensive "tweaking" with FC3 - but then neither have I done so with Ubuntu.
2 - I prefer the "minimalist" desktop of Ubuntu.
3 - Software updates/installations - again, the nod goes to Ubuntu. apt and Synaptic are simply much faster than yum and up2date . While it would be nice to have a desktop notification tool such as FC3 provides, it's not a critical lack - years ago, I got used to manually checking for updates for my OS. As to dpkg versus rpm . I don't have enough experience with the former for a valid opinion.
4 - Display functionality - here, I have to go with FC3. It provided "out-of-the-box" support for my preferred resolution (1152x864) - something I have not been able to accomplish with Ubuntu's display manager (yet!). I look forward to the switch to Xorg with Hoary.
5 - Support - Ubuntu. Both distros rely heavily on community support, but Ubuntu has Canonical backing - something Red Hat does not offer for FC. Let me also say that both the FC and Ubuntu communities have done an outstanding job in this respect - I've seen very little of the "RTFM" attitude and flaming that I have seen elsewhere.

This is not a complete comparison, nor was it intended to be. As I said, just my impressions and opinions. There is no "perfect" OS - but the great thing about Linux is that the choices are there for everyone. While one size does not fit all, I find that Ubuntu fits me well enough.

jdodson

November 11th, 2004, 05:25 PM

Fedora and mandrake are so so slow. I could never figure out why there were so unpleasantly sluggish. Not to mention that I never ran mandrake without it crashing. (Had it for one week)

Yeah i feel you on this one. I found Ubuntu to be signifigantly faster(sorry folks i dont benchmark:). It was a night and day difference. My main computer is an older comp P3 900MHZ 256M Ram, 40G drive, etc. Fedora would crawl along, I tried ubuntu and it was signifigantly faster.

Besides, Red Hat is pretty much proprietairy software. With Ubuntu, it is easy to have a 100 percent free system. That is most important!

ummmm, ok so you are wrong on this one. the logo is trademark of redhat,
check this link for info on that one. (http://fedora.redhat.com/about/name.html) however there is no non-open source software in fedora at all to my knowledge. the dont do .mp3s as ubuntu doesnt do mp3s. check this link to find out about thier project goals (http://fedora.redhat.com/about/objectives.html). in those goals they state quite clearly 'Build the operating system exclusively from open source software.' they open sourced anaconda, and ALL the redhat specific tools, etc. i think fedora beats ubuntu on the server end. however ubuntu beats fedora IMHO on the desktop end.

though to be fair i am using ubuntu as a server anyway :mrgreen:

jdodson

November 11th, 2004, 05:30 PM

5 - Support - Ubuntu. Both distros rely heavily on community support, but Ubuntu has Canonical backing - something Red Hat does not offer for FC.

mehm, well i think i respectfully disagree. see redhat does support the fedora project. they put out patches and security fixes at a very steady rate that would keep a production server out of harms way. the only cavat is that redhat EOL's fedora in 1 year. then the distro that was EOLed gets sent to the fedora legacy project(still supporting redhat 7.3 and 9.0 and fedora core 1.0 with updates, etc). the fedora legacy project is indirectly supported by redhat and supported more largely by a community that keeps patches flowing at a decent rate to keep servers decently updated. the fedora legacy project EOLs stuff after they see fit(even though they have a timeline).

cannical supports ubuntu for 18 months after release to my knowledge.

so as far as it seems to me, redhat wins with the fedora support game. but it really doesnt matter much as whenever ubuntu releases a new version i will reinstall :mrgreen:

mark

November 11th, 2004, 06:27 PM

mehm, well i think i respectfully disagree. see redhat does support the fedora project. they put out patches and security fixes at a very steady rate that would keep a production server out of harms way. the only cavat is that redhat EOL's fedora in 1 year. then the distro that was EOLed gets sent to the fedora legacy project(still supporting redhat 7.3 and 9.0 and fedora core 1.0 with updates, etc). the fedora legacy project is indirectly supported by redhat and supported more largely by a community that keeps patches flowing at a decent rate to keep servers decently updated. the fedora legacy project EOLs stuff after they see fit(even though they have a timeline).

cannical supports ubuntu for 18 months after release to my knowledge.

so as far as it seems to me, redhat wins with the fedora support game. but it really doesnt matter much as whenever ubuntu releases a new version i will reinstall :mrgreen:
Hmm...maybe it's the wording. I keep seeing warnings that:
The Fedora Project is not a supported product of Red Hat, Inc.
Red Hat, Inc. is not responsible for the content of other sites. This is from the copyright notice at the bottom of the Fedora Project home page. Perhaps I should have said that Canonical states their intention of support while Red Hat distances themselves from Fedora.

Either way, you're right - I typically do a clean install with a new release, as well<g>.

jdodson

November 11th, 2004, 06:36 PM

what they mean by that is that they provide no support as in you can call them to get help or pay for help. they distance themselves from the product as fedora is their testbed distro that they provide no "support" as in you cant buy any. however they support it with patches and fixes. if you want official support then you have to purchase redhat enterprise linux. you are right though, support is a weird term.

mr_ed

November 11th, 2004, 08:34 PM

so as far as it seems to me, redhat wins with the fedora support game. but it really doesnt matter much as whenever ubuntu releases a new version i will reinstall :mrgreen:

So you won't just be changing your /etc/apt/sources.list to Hoary and doing an apt-get dist-upgrade?

Is it not going to be a seamless transition? I thought that that's one of the beauties of apt-get.

jdodson

November 11th, 2004, 08:48 PM

So you won't just be changing your /etc/apt/sources.list to Hoary and doing an apt-get dist-upgrade?

Is it not going to be a seamless transition? I thought that that's one of the beauties of apt-get.

good point. i had considered it, i wont be doing it for a few reasons. no upgrade is ever painless. i think it would be safer for me to tar up my home directory, save it elsewhere and then reinstall because i dont want to deal with the upgrade headaches. the next upgrade is going to be a big deal moving from xfree to xorg and many other changes, i know ubuntu developers are going to take much time to make it a seamless transition and i bet for most users it will be fine, however "personally" i will just reinstall. ubuntu is the quickest gnu/linux install i have ever done, basically it amouts to install the OS, open synaptic, select around a gazillion packages, wait a few hours, configure apache/mysql/php, un tar my home, tweak a few gnome gui things, and viola, time to rock. that whole process takes around 4-12 hours,............. then again, apt-getting the next version is way faster. actually now that i think about it, i guess i will just apt-get the upgrade and if problems arise than can not be fixed, reinstall. :-&
:D

adbak

November 12th, 2004, 09:43 AM

4 - Display functionality - here, I have to go with FC3. It provided "out-of-the-box" support for my preferred resolution (1152x864) - something I have not been able to accomplish with Ubuntu's display manager (yet!). I look forward to the switch to Xorg with Hoary.

sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86

I believe that is the command that you use to set up your X again. Keep Enter-ing through the defaults and eventually you'll get to a screen where you'll be able to select the resolutions that you want. Hit the spacebar in the 1152x864 option and then cycle through to the end and voilá, you're done. Well, you have to reboot, but then you're done.

Klunk

November 12th, 2004, 02:12 PM

sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86

Well, you have to reboot, but then you're done.

I thought you could go to the login screen and hit ctrl+alt+backspace and it would resize the screen.

mark

November 12th, 2004, 02:50 PM

sudo dpkg-reconfigure xserver-xfree86

I believe that is the command that you use to set up your X again. Keep Enter-ing through the defaults and eventually you'll get to a screen where you'll be able to select the resolutions that you want. Hit the spacebar in the 1152x864 option and then cycle through to the end and voilá, you're done. Well, you have to reboot, but then you're done.
adbak - please see http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=3912 - I've gone through this procedure many times & I still can't get the 1152x864 res. Any ideas as to what I might be doing wrong?

Mark

HiddenWolf

November 13th, 2004, 08:39 PM

I thought you could go to the login screen and hit ctrl+alt+backspace and it would resize the screen.

You should be able to

arnieboy

June 25th, 2005, 05:33 AM

Ubuntu is spicy hot tandoori chicken and fedora core 3 is a bland american McChicken sandwich

crashtest

June 25th, 2005, 06:08 AM

Ubuntu is spicy hot tandoori chicken and fedora core 3 is a bland american McChicken sandwich

Ah... riiiight.. So that would make fedora core 4 what? Just curious.

The Gray Hat

June 25th, 2005, 06:39 AM

I say Ubuntu is the way to go, I love the Debian Base and it's just a lot smoother and cleaner than Fendora in my opinion.

Lovechild

June 25th, 2005, 10:03 AM

Ah... riiiight.. So that would make fedora core 4 what? Just curious.

Using that analogy: FC4 is a 5-course meal at the finest resturant in town with the best wines the world has to offer and the cutest looking waiters.

UbuWu

June 25th, 2005, 12:00 PM

Using that analogy: FC4 is a 5-course meal at the finest resturant in town with the best wines the world has to offer and the cutest looking waiters.

Where they try out all sorts of new ingredients before before using them in the real restaurant. ;-)

Lovechild

June 25th, 2005, 02:50 PM

Where they try out all sorts of new ingredients before before using them in the real restaurant. ;-)

I would say comparable to The Fat Duck (http://www.fatduck.co.uk/)

qalimas

June 25th, 2005, 05:55 PM

Ubuntu and Fedora are my two favorite distros. I don't trust anything but Fedora as a server, I just feel comfortable with it, nothing else. However, for a *normal* desktop, I like to use Kubuntu or Ubuntu. I do try to introduce some through Fedora though, due to all the programs, they can always choose what they like best and I can set them up a K/Ubuntu box and apt them all the programs they want.

Fedora was my desktop before Ubuntu. Ubuntu was also the first Debian based OS I installed (I use Knoppix often). I didn't realize how stable and quick Debian was, and I simply love apt-get, along with synaptic I love it more than YUM.

For me it's
Desktop: K/Ubuntu
Server: Fedora

spednik

June 25th, 2005, 06:54 PM

As someone who uses both everyday, i Think Ubuntu is better on most counts. I use ubuntu on my laptop, and Fedora Core 4 on my desktop. The boot-up time on ubuntu is significantly faster, I like apt-get better than yum, my wireless was much easier to set up on ubuntu, and getting multimedia to work in fedora was not a good experience. I could see fedora working better as a server though, and the stock desktop is a little nicer looking, but i think ubuntu is the better distro, for most users anyways.

tarek

June 23rd, 2007, 04:28 AM

humm .... google search got me here ... I tried Fedora 7 live cd for 10 min and that was enough time for me to keep Ubuntu. I tried Fedora before, like 3 years ago, it was slow and full of extra stuff and unfortunately it still is. Before that I used Redhat 8 and 9 which I personally think even though they are old they are better than Fedora!

I was curious about Linux but couldn't find an easy and simple dist to start with, so always trying different dist like Mandrake which wasn't bad until I started programming, Mandrake was more of a transition phase so Redhat 9 was the Linux dist I used to learn more about Linux.

I was a Windows user until Ubuntu came out and I converted! :) Ubuntu rocks with its apt-get and light-weight desktop. I'm running it on my desktop but still have Windows on my laptop since some drivers aren't supported.

Ubuntu forced me to edit files and set settings using the command line which I like now more than the GUI tools.

From my experience I say Ubuntu wins ... but that's just me

tk

TBOL3

June 23rd, 2007, 04:35 AM

Wow, really old topic. I'll bet that most of the stuff in it is no longer resolvent. :)

angryfirelord

July 19th, 2007, 10:34 PM

Both are really good distros. Of course, there are some key differences:

1.) Installer: Ubuntu is simple, but Fedora's installer allows you to choose packages and looks nicer.
2.) Speed: Running day-to-day applications feels the same on both systems. However, Ubuntu tends to boot up/shut down twice as fast as fedora can.
3.) Package updates: Fedora updates its packages a lot faster than Ubuntu. However, Ubuntu is meant to be a more stable system, so it doesn't change as fast. Kind of a tie here. This includes security updates as well.
4.) Package management/number of packages: Ubuntu wins here. Enabling all repos in Ubuntu gives you 20000 packages, whereas fedora is somewhere between 5000-6000. apt-get/aptitude is also a lot faster than yum & I think that's the main reason people use Ubuntu.
5.) Commitment to open source: Not that Ubuntu has done anything bad, but Fedora doesn't include any non-free software whatsoever. This is remarkable for such a popular distro.

I prefer Ubuntu because I like doing things The Debian Way. Some may want Fedora because it gives them access to the latest Red Hat technologies. Either way, it's still Linux all the same.