Ubuntu vs Fedora ?

[doublefish_jobs]

Ubuntu is more suited for standalone installations, a more like single user desktop computing,

generally Fedora has many components which easily makes it a better OS for Servers, as well as Office Developer machines.

[johnnathan]

Fedora and Ubuntu have evolved same structure. The difference is that Ubuntu provide an open-source alternative to Windows and Office and focus on usability improvements, while Fedora create a Linux-based operating system that showcases the latest in free and open source software.

[UzuNarU]

Just a few days ago I was actually re-installing my webserver...thanks to a php virus due to poor security >.<

I installed Fedora 12, never have I been so aggravated by a Linux OS ever. So I downloaded and installed Ubuntu, Installation was a breeze. Running SUDO commands actually work, in Fedora it kept telling me I wasn't in the list of SUDOERS. Then while trying to install the TNT2 Riva drivers from nVidia it continuously told me I wasn't running the installer as root. It was just more simple to get the results I was looking for. In my case LAMP, nginx is now used by default in the latest Ubuntu release, but as I am not familiar with it I still prefer Apache as my HTTP Server app.

[justbrandon]

I've tested Ubuntu and Fedora before and overall, I'd have to go with Fedora.

[markdean]

Just a few days ago I was actually re-installing my webserver...thanks to a php virus due to poor security >.<

I installed Fedora 12, never have I been so aggravated by a Linux OS ever. So I downloaded and installed Ubuntu, Installation was a breeze. Running SUDO commands actually work, in Fedora it kept telling me I wasn't in the list of SUDOERS. Then while trying to install the TNT2 Riva drivers from nVidia it continuously told me I wasn't running the installer as root. It was just more simple to get the results I was looking for. In my case LAMP, nginx is now used by default in the latest Ubuntu release, but as I am not familiar with it I still prefer Apache as my HTTP Server app.

"...in Fedora it kept telling me I wasn't in the list of SUDOERS..."

This is real easy to fix. Simply add your username to the /etc/sudoers file...simply add this:
<username> ALL=(ALL) ALL
to the file then you can sudo all you want.

Personally, I like to control what is in conf files rather than have it automatically done, so I add it if necessary.

Actually, the first thing I do on *buntu is run sudo su - , then set the root password so I can su to root when needed.

[blud]

Fedora and Ubuntu are different distributions, which can run the same exact software. The major difference being their package management system, and their "default" configuration. Fedora seems to follow the old adage that an operating system shouldn't give a user "too much power". It requires you to go through and determine how much power "normal" users get by default. Ubuntu on the other hand, takes a page out of the OS X book, and sets the primary user "defaults" so that they can run privileged commands, and uses sudo to do so.

It really is a personal preference on which you like better, many sysadmins believe the first approach is better for servers, but most "users" like the second method. This may or may not be related to the way people have been accustomed to operating systems because it is a similar mentality that Windows takes with it's privileges.

Giving "Users" the power to do things without making them think about the level of privileges required to actually do it, could open them up to being more vulnerable, where as requiring them to know "everything" that is required to run a task, would make it more secure. The issue with the second, is most people just want to "use" their computer, and not "Administer" their computer, which puts a bad taste in their mouth.

Basically, If your going for usability, Ubuntu does it better, but if your going for learning about Linux, Fedora is probably the better choice.

[cpatrick08]

Fedora uses rpm and Ubuntu uses deb

[hyperbyte]

i use fedora is good when i use ubuntu pc stuck 3.4pentium with HT is sooo strange

[hyperbyte]

fedora is good for development c/c++ etc. have many suite in this way

[NIPUN DE SILVA]

Fedora is better than ubuntu free edition because many development tools have to be downloaded

[markdean]

I'm going piggy back and to blud's post that Linux is Linux, KDE is KDE, Gnome is Gnome, etc.

Keep in mind that that both of these distributions are Linux and can run the exact same software as blud pointed out. The idea that one has "more" than the other or there is somehow software that runs on one but not the other, simply isn't true. It may be true in some case that for an obscure program there is only package for one or the other, i.e. rpm or deb, but all GNU programs can be compiled to run on any Linux and doing so is very trivial nowadays. There's even utilities to convert an .rpm to a .deb and vice verse.

Now, to the point of one of the posts, there may be more things installed by default on a Fedora system than Ubuntu, but then again, Ubuntu chooses to use CDs where Fedora is distributed on a DVD (or some 6 or 7 CDs-yuck!). As far as I know, the only thing you get with an official Ubuntu DVD is more languages.

Distros are really philosophical choices that the disto owner or consortium makes. And choosing one over the other often says a lot about the person who chooses one over another. And that's not a bad thing at all. It's all about choice, and to me, the more choices I have the better.

For instance, Red Hat, which sponsors the Fedora project, is leery of bundling anything that has some sort of non-free (as in speech) encumbrances (i.e. multimedia codecs, closed source drivers (nVidia, wireless)) and they seem to make it a bit harder to install those to make your stuff work. They are like Debian in that regard. Although I will say that they have come a long way. But you really can't blame them. They are a big corporation and if they did include something that was not free to distribute, you got to know they'd be hit with a lawsuit pretty quick.

Ubuntu on the other hand, is really trying for the desktop market in a big way (and their server versions are pretty good too). Shuttlworth has also admitted that they are not a democracy and make default decisions for the end user (for example, they've no longer install Gimp but now install Inkscape as the default image editor). You aren't stuck with those decisions since it's still a Linux distro and a quick trip to the software repositories is all it takes to add or remove any programs you want. But they are so focused on that, that they announced a few months back their "100 paper cuts" initiative. These are small, annoying bugs or usability issues that can hinder adoption of Linux by some. And some of those are things like wireless and multimedia support. I run Ubuntu on my laptop for one reason: it was so easy to install and everything worked out of the box or I only had one button to push to go get whatever was needed to make it work. I support Red Hat Enterprise Linux (and other UNIX and Linux based servers) for a living but I just wanted my laptop to work and I didn't want to spend days on forums to make it so. Ubuntu works great for that. Now, the button switch thing was annoying, but only took a few minutes to fix. But I've tweaked it so much that it really looks more like a Fedora system than Ubuntu. Again, choices.

Then there's Slackware and Gentoo, which really make no decisions for you and you get to pretty much make your own. I use those for fun poking around of the internals of Linux kind of like Linux From Scratch.

As for which distro is a better for programming, that to me is a silly question. They all have the same programs, be it a GUI IDE or C/C++ or even nasm if you like to get down and dirty with an assembler.

I'm also not sure what is meant by the "ubuntu free edition"-there isn't a non-free edition. You can purchase support from Canonical if you want, but Ubuntu is free to download and if you are really tapped out financially, they'll even send you a CD for free.

So rather than ask Ubuntu vs Fedora, really, download them both (or Mint or Depian, or Mandriva, SUSE, whatever) boot them up, use them at the same time in a VM and then ask yourself which one you like.

[Stefano Mtangoo]

It is greatly personal preference.
But as for me I will vote for ubuntu!
That doesn't mean Fedora cant do the Job. I hink the issue should be Gnome vs KDE

[reubenj90]

Both fedora and ubuntu have a huge following and plenty of support is available for both distos. I have used both Ubuntu and Fedora and i have to say that i enjoyed using both immensely.

I did struggle when i was installing fedora onto my laptop, but installing ubuntu seemed a little easier. Maybe it was because i had no prior experience in linux installations. But i still prefer fedora to ubuntu probably because its a tad bit more challenging to use.

[Stefano Mtangoo]

I did struggle when i was installing fedora onto my laptop, but installing ubuntu seemed a little easier. Maybe it was because i had no prior experience in linux installations. But i still prefer fedora to ubuntu probably because its a tad bit more challenging to use.

I agree with you in that Ubuntu have things simplified. Installation is breeze and simple :)

[AnujMore]

Fedora kicks ass. With a DVD and all those brand new sparkling development tools, you cant ask for more. Until Fedora 12 you can choose between KDE and GNOME, but for some reason they came out with two versions of Fedora for Fedora 13.

[khakilang]

They are totally 2 different consortium or company that decide what package to be included in their Distro. That decision help the end user especially the newbies to convert to Linux as painless as possible. As a newbie I find Ubuntu easier to use as compare to Fedora. But than things may change.

[Stefano Mtangoo]

give me my Ubuntu :)

[Rigved]

Actually, the first thing I do on *buntu is run sudo su - , then set the root password so I can su to root when needed.

On a different note, this is the worst thing that one can do.

The whole point of not having a Superuser is to enhance System Security. If there is no Superuser, then there is no Superuser password. If there is no such password, then there is no possibility of an un-authorised person gaining complete root-level access using this account. Always use sudo for administrative purposes. It's just 4 extra letters+password: big difference if one has to type these constantly!

I always create a new Desktop user who does not have administrator privileges and use this account for normal use. I can always switch to the admin account to perform tasks such as system update.

Coming back to the question at hand, I would go with Ubuntu. I have Fedora at my college. It's very 'weird' to use, as I come from a Windows background (Gaming freak!).

Plus, Ubuntu and Fedora are somewhat like wrappers. One of the main point of this debate is Debian vs Red Hat, the Linux cores of these two Operating Systems.

Some more differences:
- Ubuntu has more packages available than Fedora.
- Ubuntu (sponsored by Canonical) has a larger package maintainer team than Fedora (sponsored by Red Hat). This ensures better quality of the packages in Ubuntu, which have to follow a stricter Debian package quality guideline than Fedora).
- Ubuntu package manager (APT) is much better than Fedora's (YUM). I will not get into the details here, it's readily available on the web.
- Ubuntu is currently in a more mature stage than Fedora.
- and many more advantages of using Debian/Ubuntu over RedHat/Fedora. Just google Debian vs Red Hat!

I hope this information was useful!

[Clanky]

su v. sudo - on a single user machine there is no real advantage to using sudo over su-c, on a machine with multiple users then sudo should be used and can be done so easily in both Ubuntu and Fedora.

APT v. YUM - a matter of personal preference, to state that one is better than the other especially without backing up your claim is ridiculous. Both have advantages and disadvantages, just because you prefer APT doesn't make it better

Debian v. RHEL - see above

Canonical v. RedHat - I was going to put see above, but on second thoughts are you seriously suggesting that Canonical are somehow a bigger player in the Linux field than RedHat? Pull the other one, it has bells on.

It is incredible that someone with so obviously little knowledge of either system feels qualified to compare the two.

[Rigved]

APT vs YUM - I did mention that information on this is readily available. Here are a few:

yum Pros:
Comes with Fedora by default.
Widely supported by many RPM repositories.
Fairly easy to roll your own repository.

yum Cons:
No "pinning" or other mechanisms for backing out updates.
Somewhat confusing to create a hierarchy of "trust," in terms of which repositories to use for which packages.
No graphical update/management tool.

apt Pros:
Somewhat wider support across distributions (since its a Debian tool)
Synaptic, a graphical GUI for doing updates.
"Pinning" support, and uninstall support.

apt Cons:
Not a base part of the FC package set.
Perhaps a slightly higher learning curve to use effectively.

Canonical vs Red Hat: Secondly, I apologize if my statement was misleading. I was merely mentioning facts (who sponsors who). The main point of difference here is the size of the package manager teams and also of the stricter quality guidelines set for Debian package deployment.
In fact, it is because of these stricter quality measures that Ubuntu is always slightly behind in terms of updated software. The packages require a larger amount of time to be tested thoroughly, but when they are finally released into the Ubuntu repositories, they are "very stable".

[Clanky]

packagekit / kpackagekit are GUI based front ends for YUM, although it has to be said that they are just about as awful as synaptic.

I am not a huge believer in using GUIs within Linux, it's not how Linux wass initially intended to be used and often ends up as a patch up job. Again neither one is really better in any quantifiable terms than the other, as with all things linux most of it comes down to personal preference and what works best with your particular hardware.

For me, I prefer Fedora, I think it is more Linux like in it's implementation of things whereas I feel that Ubuntu tries to hard to copy Windows and OSX, that does not however invalidate anyone else's opinion.

[Stefano Mtangoo]

For me, I prefer Fedora, I think it is more Linux like in it's implementation of things whereas I feel that Ubuntu tries to hard to copy Windows and OSX, that does not however invalidate anyone else's opinion.

That's why I did delete my Vista partition only to load Ubuntu Lucid lynx. However your statement is incomplete IMHO. I think it should go like
Ubuntu tries to hard to copy Windows and OSX, while preserving basic linuxish :)
Fedora was my first encounter with and all I can say is wonderful too!

[Tauseefkhan]

Fedora is user friendly and ubuntu not much :)

[Stefano Mtangoo]

Fedora is user friendly and ubuntu not much :)

Whaaaaaaat? :icon_eek:
Have you used both? Why have you come to the conclusion?

[Rigved]

Fedora is user friendly and ubuntu not much :)

I found it the other way around.

But given time, if I get used to Fedora I would definitely have said that I find Fedora more user-friendly.

I think it comes down to personal preference and how much more time you spend on one system as compared to another.

[Stefano Mtangoo]

I think it comes down to personal preference and how much more time you spend on one system as compared to another.

Final nail on coffin :)

[osirisgothra]

Ubuntu seems to have the problem of either expecting users to have really old or really new hardware, there are consistent holes in the driver databases which is a big no. Fedora has the advantage over several things: rpm which it seems, many high end software developers prefer for some reason. Go look how much crap you have to go through to install Maya on ubuntu, and then it still crashes often enough to hate it. I have never been able to get the proprietary drivers to function properly (nvidia), and support for ATI Radeon is either super old or super new... Consistency, Cooperation between HW/SW devs, Contracts, and Unity (pun!), these are things that every distro lacks and unfortunately are the very things most linux development teams embrace. They however call it "freedom", "independence", "open source", and "variety". Call it what you will, it still is making things hard...

[umair4a1]

If you want to use a rpm based Distribution then you should go for CentOS. Fedora is generally used for experimental basis,so you will found a new version in each 6 months. On the other hand ubuntu (LTS) versions 12.04, 14.04 etc. are avaialble which gives a technical support for more thn 4 years.