What's the better of Fedora than Ubuntu

[mocqueanh]

Many sites always make rpm package for Fedora and Red Hat users, the dont make .deb for Debian and Ubuntu. I dont understand why they do it. Many times, i have to install from source code or edit source of rpm file if the alien command converted but cant install on Ubuntu because some particular installion of Fedora

Perhap Fedora is more popular than Debian ? but Debian is one of the longest-live Linux distro, so what's the better of Red Hat + Fedora than Debian + Ubuntu ?

[thisllub]

I am using Fedora 7 on this computer. Fedora isn't better than Ubuntu, just different.
This is the first version of Fedora that has lasted more than a week on my computer, My laptop has Ubuntu / Enlightenment.
I think you have a few things wrong.
Apt is the best package manager.
Debian based distros are definitely the best and (x) Ubuntu is the most up to date of them.

[LightB]

No, you're wrong. I would say Ubuntu is more popular than Fedora and I see plenty of Ubuntu .deb all over the place. I couldn't even get a Fedora 7 iso when it came out a few weeks ago because I kept getting corrupt images. I'll have to try again soon when a respin is released. It seems Fedora is growing in popularity and the hosting community couldn't handle the traffic. Like I said, Ubuntu is more popular and can still handle the traffic, obviously. Of course it didn't help any that they only released DVD isos.

As far as literally answering the question on what is better about it. Well I'll just give one example which affected me. Fedora has better configuration of some things (that you get repo style of course), for example scim. At least Fedora 6 does.

[Spr0k3t]

The reason why you see more RPM packages than DEBs is due to the number of developers supporting one over the other. It does not amount to the popularity of the distros by the users.

[zgornel]

Get source --> Compile. Create your own package.

[luca_linux]

The Artwork!
Sorry guys, but that brown is the first thing I change after installing Ubuntu...

Anyway, I'm kinda kidding, the artwork is surely not that important and surely not what I care of too much when choosing a distro.
RPM system is more sofisticated and technically better (in my opinion) but extremely slow because of the platform itself. Huge steps have been made in this latest release of Fedora, but that's not enough yet.

[AndyCooll]

Furthermore, the use of rpm's has an element of history to it since it was the first standard packaging system. Plenty of distros use this format other than Fedora. Mandriva and SuSe for instance.

Anyway, you can always convert the package using Alien.

:cool:

[starcraft.man]

I don't think that either is better. I think Ubuntu is very good at what it does. It's a very well designed stable and complete (but not always bleeding edge in presentation) distro that fits on one CD, it is based on the most powerful (IMO) package system and has a the best support/community out there. Fedora is different, they're goals aren't the same, they get more bang for the buck out of the install and are extremely customizable but in doing so sacrifice time (its a long install IMO) and they require a larger media set (DVD), They really aim I guess to make it so that you can begin using it and have it almost entirely customized after the install, whereas with Ubuntu there are less packages on the one CD and you will thus spend time tweaking and installing things into your system.

Thats how I see it, their goals are different and thus they are different. I've tried Fedora and I'm still on Ubuntu. I just like the way I am set up and can't use something inferior to apt/deb.

[ssam]

a few years ago redhat was considered one of the best distros for new users. (ie before the enterprise/fedora split). i would not be surprised if fedora had more users that ubuntu (though i don't know where you would get the figures.)

its possible that fedora users are more likely to be programmers than ubuntu users.

RPMs are simpler to make than DEBs. the pay off is that deb based package managers tend to be more reliable (though rpm systems have got a lot better than they used to be)

[ButteBlues]

I don't think that either is better. I think Ubuntu is very good at what it does. It's a very well designed stable and complete (but not always bleeding edge in presentation) distro that fits on one CD, it is based on the most powerful (IMO) package system and has a the best support/community out there. Fedora is different, they're goals aren't the same, they get more bang for the buck out of the install and are extremely customizable but in doing so sacrifice time (its a long install IMO) and they require a larger media set (DVD), They really aim I guess to make it so that you can begin using it and have it almost entirely customized after the install, whereas with Ubuntu there are less packages on the one CD and you will thus spend time tweaking and installing things into your system.

Thats how I see it, their goals are different and thus they are different. I've tried Fedora and I'm still on Ubuntu. I just like the way I am set up and can't use something inferior to apt/deb.
As of Fedora 7, they've gone to a model similar to Ubuntu's regarding installs: LiveCDs that install for GNOME and KDE, and then a DVD for the folks who want to pick all the stuff they're installing. It's quite nice.

---

I'm on Fedora now. For a long while, I was strictly Ubuntu. openSUSE 10.2, Fedora Core 6... they just didn't do it for me. But Fedora 7 really has. The attention to detail and the level of polish is just ace - and was worth it enough for me to stick with it rather than reinstall Gutsy Alpha 1.

[starcraft.man]

As of Fedora 7, they've gone to a model similar to Ubuntu's regarding installs: LiveCDs that install for GNOME and KDE, and then a DVD for the folks who want to pick all the stuff they're installing. It's quite nice.

Oh didn't see that, went straight for the DVD when I got my copy of fedora 7. Ok, thanks for pointing out.

[mech7]

i would not be surprised if fedora had more users that ubuntu (though i don't know where you would get the figures.)


I think you are right they seem to have a bigger community too..

Ubuntu: Currently Active Users: 4369 (658 members and 3711 guests)

Fedora: Currently Active Users: 6039 (257 members and 5782 guests)


Sorta funny as ubuntu biggest feature is supposedly it's community :)

[zugu]

Get source --> Compile. Create your own package.

You're assuming people have time and resources to spend on downloading sources, compiling, solving dependency issues, testing etc. Or you just want to let us know how 1337 you are, because you're compiling your own packages. If you can help or say something constructive, you should do it, by all means. If not, I think you should refrain from posting.

[starcraft.man]

I think you are right they seem to have a bigger community too..

Ubuntu: Currently Active Users: 4369 (658 members and 3711 guests)

Fedora: Currently Active Users: 6039 (257 members and 5782 guests)


Sorta funny as ubuntu biggest feature is supposedly it's community :)

Interesting that the Ubuntu forums have almost 3(I guess its closer to 2.5) times the amount of users actually logged in... just a thought.

[luca_linux]

Interesting that the Ubuntu forums have almost 3(I guess its closer to 2.5) times the amount of users actually logged in... just a thought.
Yeah, that makes a real community. ;)

[christhemonkey]

RPMs are normally distributed as the rpm based distros have traditionally been employed in workplaces.


AFAIK anyway,

[forrestcupp]

RPM system is more sofisticated and technically better (in my opinion) but extremely slow because of the platform itself.

Boy, you're probably in the minority with that opinion. The apt system with its deb's were created because of how crappy rpm's are. RPM's and their dependency hell.

[Johnsie]

Here's my opinion of debs:

As a programmer I found making .debs extremely tedious. I write software for Windows and Linux. Windows makes it much easier for me to deploy my software using the standard setup.exe and a built in updater in my programs. When deploying my software to Ubuntu I had to research the .deb file format and it took quiet some time to get a working .deb ready. I'm not sure how rpms work but I sure know that .debs aren't the best solution for a software developer.

From a user perspective atp-get is nice because it automatically updates stuff.... but only if the repository maintainer can be bothered updating the repo. As a developer I want to control when new versions are released so I use my own update system that I am comfortable with. I've seen other programs that have their own specific repositories but adding new repositories to the systems repository list is not always a good idea.


What I want to see: A wizard/program that makes creating debs quick and easy or developers.

[peterbrewer]

Fedora's package management is to slow for me. Debian is much more reliable and much more efficient.

[ButteBlues]

Boy, you're probably in the minority with that opinion. The apt system with its deb's were created because of how crappy rpm's are. RPM's and their dependency hell.
And that was quite a long time ago.

In this day and age, YUM is really vastly improved. In this installation, even though I've been installing and compiling things left and right, I've not hit a spot of dependency hell. Which really shows that the Yum developers DO give a damn about things like dependencies.

[notwen]

I've played w/ CentOS and yum hasn't had any issues, dependency or package wise yet. RPMs have certanly came a long way, sure beats Red Hat and Mandrake back in 2002. =]

[plb]

You also have to remember that while Ubuntu may have the desktop share, Fedora/RH/SuSe hold the server share. Redhat was actually my first distro, this was some time ago back before it cost money and long before there was a Fedora. Back then it was quite nice.