PDA

View Full Version : Fedora 13 vs Ubuntu 10.04


anantg
24th March 2010, 09:13 PM
Ubuntu 10.04 is about to release and Fedora 13 is the next big thing. Those who really did a test on the Ubuntu 10.04 Beta and Fedora 13 alpha, I would like to know which is more feature rich and stable.

Regards,
Anant
Redhat Linux Fedora 12
Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7500 @ 2.20GHz, 2 cores

bob
24th March 2010, 09:22 PM
(moved to Fedora 13 Development Branch)

smr54
24th March 2010, 10:47 PM
Skype, videos and Japanese input work equally well on both. Those are about the only things I've compared.

Slightly better wireless speed (very rough benchmark, just used iperf) on Ubuntu, but it was not noticeable in actual use.

When they both work as expected, it's more or less 6 of 1, half a dozen of the other. Oh, Ubuntu now has buttons on the left side of the window to close by clicking an X. A friend of mine, who works for Ubuntu in QA, asked me what I thought---I hadn't noticed them, because I always use keyboard shortcuts (or type exit in a terminal). Apparently it's really annoying some people, but there is a fix for it.

No real differences if you take the default on both--they're both Gnome desktops. A gnome is a gnome is a gnome to paraphrase Gertrude Stein.

AdamW
25th March 2010, 12:50 AM
F13 Beta is not yet released.

smr54
25th March 2010, 02:09 AM
In that case, pat yourself on the back, because, thanks to your efforts (and of course, many others) it hasn't felt like an alpha for awhile.

rockdoctor
27th March 2010, 10:25 PM
The BIG difference (for me, on my desktop machine, onboard Nvidia 9100 graphics) comes down to one thing - the nouveau driver. In what will be F13, the nouveau driver just works. In what will be Ubuntu 10.04, the nouveau driver does not work.

zeoli
6th April 2010, 11:47 AM
I've tested alpha 13 and was not able to use CCRMA rt core.

Does anybody knows if this will be fixed in the final version ?

Patrick

l815
29th April 2010, 02:01 AM
Fedora's Pulse setup seems to work much smoother for me. Ubuntu's always pops and makes strange noises at times.
Alsa seems a bit snappier.

But Fedora is missing the easy install of external apps (think Ubuntu's PPA's). Things like Kupfer aren't in the repo nor have a rpm.

I'm stuck in the middle :/
I like Ubuntu for the easy and flexibility it offers
I like Fedora for it's smooth performance and vanilla offering with sane default configurations.
(Arch goes here too, but I'll keep it on topic ;p)

dartdog
29th April 2010, 03:23 AM
Well I did way more testing than I intended or hoped.... I spent more than a week with Ubuntu during the beta 2 to RC1 stage and could never get a good install that lasted and more frustrating ,, It would blow the system to kingdom come, no boot no recovery possible..

Now I am running an old gateway 1.4 ghx laptop so it is old hardware I admit.... but after Ubuntu blew up It would not even allow me to reintialize the disk and start from scratch,, that sent me over here to Fedora 13..

I figured after what I had been through that the beta was the place to start.. but It was/is not quite ready enough with the repos particularly to get all the stuff I want/need for sw development so I dropped back to Fedora 12 and it is looking good,, I miss some of the niceties in 13 but it seems that I'll get them soon enough once the repos catch up and things settle down.. In the meantime just from a stability and ease of installation Fedora is it for me..

andrewthomas
29th April 2010, 04:26 AM
I've been testing both 10.04 and f13 from the alpha stage and have not had any problems with either one. On the Ubuntu side, I had one update that knocked out my desktop effects for one day, but besides that, I haven't had any problems on either distro. It all comes down to a matter of personal preference. They are both pretty solid in my opinion. openSUSE 11.3, on the other hand, is a big bowl of soup at this time.

AdamW
29th April 2010, 05:06 PM
"but It was/is not quite ready enough with the repos particularly to get all the stuff I want/need for sw development so I dropped back to Fedora 12 and it is looking good"

That seems odd. There's no reason F12 repos should have more in them than F13, in particular. Could you be more specific about what you missed with F13? Thanks!

dartdog
29th April 2010, 08:00 PM
Well the one that broke my back was no Mercurial,,for source control but there were others. Can't remember now...although I had git and svn,, needed Mercurial for some python work,, for auto downloads of packages.. I'll try to remember the others...

Stanca
29th April 2010, 08:49 PM
I am using both of them,side by side,and I noticed the fact that both are pretty quite stable enough but F13 seems to be faster for me,especially Firefox 3.6.3 x64.The flashplugin is more unstable in Ubuntu Amd64 crashing very often.

limaunion
30th April 2010, 12:34 AM
I wonder if F13 will boot as fast as Ubuntu 10.04.

Check this very interesting link where three boot benchmarks were performed with different netbooks: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=ubuntu_lucid_final&num=1

RahulSundaram
30th April 2010, 06:57 AM
Well the one that broke my back was no Mercurial,,for source control but there were others. Can't remember now...although I had git and svn,, needed Mercurial for some python work,, for auto downloads of packages.. I'll try to remember the others...

Mercurial is there in Fedora 13 of course

$ rpm -q mercurial

mercurial-1.5.1-1.fc13.i686

Goddard
2nd May 2010, 09:54 PM
I was curious how Fedora handles connections via nic cards.

I did speed comparisons and between Ubuntu and Feodra and Fedora gave me at least 10 mb faster down speed.

I just used speed test's website.

smr54
2nd May 2010, 10:10 PM
This *might* depend upon card and kernel for each. I've found, for example, that Ubuntu seemed to be faster with an Atheros 928x card.

These were rough tests using iperf, and practically speaking, I don't notice any real difference between them when web browsing.

AdamW
3rd May 2010, 12:58 PM
yeah, it's likely dependent on card and driver, and also can depend on kernel TCP configuration to some extent (large window size, for instance).

sej7278
3rd May 2010, 08:22 PM
speedtest.net is hardly a valid test for network card speed, its over the internet for a start so prone to routing issues (and how faster is your connection if it made a 10mbps difference?!)

iperf is a good way of checking on the lan, but you'd need two similarly configured machines for it to be a valid test (otherwise too many variables between configurations).

testing wireless speed is pretty pointless - again too many things that can interfere with radio signals like your phone or your microwave oven!

Goddard
3rd May 2010, 09:37 PM
well would be pretty easy to do with virtual box and both distros using the command you gave right?

sej7278
3rd May 2010, 10:38 PM
well would be pretty easy to do with virtual box and both distros using the command you gave right?

no, virtualisation is notoriously bad for benchmarking.

Goddard
3rd May 2010, 11:38 PM
If both OSs are running on the same base how can the tests be wrong?

sej7278
4th May 2010, 12:12 AM
If both OSs are running on the same base how can the tests be wrong?

being virtualised will make the results unrealistic - especially as they will both be going through the same network card!

do it on two identical physical servers using iperf or similar over the lan, otherwise forget it, the scientific method will be out the window.

Goddard
4th May 2010, 01:27 AM
being virtualised will make the results unrealistic - especially as they will both be going through the same network card!

do it on two identical physical servers using iperf or similar over the lan, otherwise forget it, the scientific method will be out the window.

I see how it could be unrealistic, but you would still be able to tell the benefits of each in comparison to these unrealistic results...I would think...Right? If you run Fedora and it uses the network card virtually and get some crazy weird number and consistently gets that same number then if you run ubuntu and it consistently gets a lower number that it would be safe to say Fedora performs better in this area with such and such chipset with such and such kernel with such and such network card?

I will try the other method and see what happens with each. I would also assume a live cd would give unrealistic results.

screamin_jesus
7th May 2010, 07:15 AM
Fedora's Pulse setup seems to work much smoother for me. Ubuntu's always pops and makes strange noises at times.
Alsa seems a bit snappier.

But Fedora is missing the easy install of external apps (think Ubuntu's PPA's). Things like Kupfer aren't in the repo nor have a rpm.

I'm stuck in the middle :/
I like Ubuntu for the easy and flexibility it offers
I like Fedora for it's smooth performance and vanilla offering with sane default configurations.
(Arch goes here too, but I'll keep it on topic ;p)

Pretty much this. In ubuntu i get crackling and stuff when I turn up the volume in totem/vlc none of that in fedora. Ubuntu also does one other really annoying thing, when I boot my laptop (or even come back from suspend) I have to manually connect to my wireless network AND type my pass. Fedora just nicely autoconnects. Fedora seems faster on my machine as well.

Ubuntu has a nicer ui than fedora, the system tray seems a lot more sane when there is a lot of icons due to the nice clean monochrome icons and the applet that combines chat/email ect.. fedora gets to look like an insane jumbled mess in the notification area when I have lots of stuff open. Ubuntu's repos have more stuff and ppa's are something I definitely miss in fedora (although at least fedora has better updated packages negating some of the need for them.)

bennachie
11th May 2010, 09:38 AM
For beginners in particular, and end-users with no special interest in the OS in general, the order would be Mint, Ubuntu, Fedora. Reverse the order for those with a tendency to geekiness.

It wouldn't be hard for Fedora to match Ubuntu in ease of use, since the issues that give rise to the above judgment are minor ones (I think that Mint is a very focused distro, and thus, within its parameters, a very successful one - basically, ease of use outweighs all other considerations).

For example, the Fedora Gnome LiveCD lacks even a token set of office applications (and, while I like KDE, I doubt that many would cite KOffice as one of the key reasons for using KDE). That means that most users have to begin their career with Fedora by navigating a (not very friendly) package manager to download OpenOffice.

PCLinux gets round this very simply by placing a "Get OpenOffice" script right there on the default desktop. Very easy to do, but perhaps not quite in alignment with the established Fedora philosophy. Perhaps for similar reasons, in dual and triple boot situations, where the new user, anxious to reassure themselves that their trusted XP installation has not vanished from the face of the earth, has to keep hitting a key during the boot process before finding that they can, after all, return to that fairly awful environment should they so wish. This arises simply because the default time-out has been set to zero, and fixing that requires at least some minimal acquaintance with the command-line interface.

Fedora 13 is, at heart, a very solid piece of kit, and its stability at RC2 level is a credit to all concerned with its development. It would surely be worth making a concerted effort to tackle these and a few other essentially minor, but often disconcerting, UI issues while developing Fedora 14, with the aim of making the distro just a bit more approachable to inexperienced end users.

RahulSundaram
11th May 2010, 09:57 AM
Fedora 13 is, at heart, a very solid piece of kit, and its stability at RC2 level is a credit to all concerned with its development. It would surely be worth making a concerted effort to tackle these and a few other essentially minor, but often disconcerting, UI issues while developing Fedora 14, with the aim of making the distro just a bit more approachable to inexperienced end users.

Any improvements should be ideally be suggested via bugzilla or the mailing lists so that it reaches the appropriate developers. The GRUB timeout should have been increased in a dual boot scenario and has been filed here

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590661

If it was filed earlier, it would have been fixed by now. It appears noone else who noticed it before filed it. We might have to delay to release to accommodate the fix. Although you don't have to fall back into the command line to fix it. system-config-boot works fine for a graphical means of doing that.

leigh123linux
11th May 2010, 10:00 AM
Any improvements should be ideally be suggested via bugzilla or the mailing lists so that it reaches the appropriate developers. The GRUB timeout should have been increased in a dual boot scenario and has been filed here

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590661

If it was filed earlier, it would have been fixed by now. It appears noone else who noticed it before filed it. We might have to delay to release to accommodate the fix. Although you don't have to fall back into the command line to fix it. system-config-boot works fine for a graphical means of doing that.


It was, they just ignored it :(

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=541315

RahulSundaram
11th May 2010, 10:11 AM
Hi Leigh,

We are talking about two different things. Increasing the timeout by default is not likely going to happen. I am talking about an increase in default ONLY in a multi-boot scenario.

leigh123linux
11th May 2010, 10:19 AM
Hi Leigh,

We are talking about two different things. Increasing the timeout by default is not likely going to happen. I am talking about an increase in default ONLY in a multi-boot scenario.


I multi-boot (Linux only) and the timeout is always set to 0 :( which makes it hard to select other distros.

RahulSundaram
11th May 2010, 10:23 AM
Hi

I have reported that already now. It should not be confused with the general timeout.

leigh123linux
11th May 2010, 10:26 AM
Hi

I have reported that already now. It should not be confused with the general timeout.


I think a lot of users confused the two in the bugreport that I linked.

RahulSundaram
11th May 2010, 10:29 AM
Hi

Yes but as I already indicated, the bug report you linked is a request to change the timeout by default while the bug report I have filed is a request to change it only in a multi-boot scenario. I am sure you understand the difference.

dragonbite
11th May 2010, 02:02 PM
It's a little like comparing apples to oranges because the focus of the distributions are very different. Ubuntu is taking pains to make the "user experience" the best and eliminate the complexity of Linux. In return, though, experienced Linux users may feel they are loosing control and tweak-ability. Fedora seems more focused on this second group and less on the "user experience" even though they are making Fedora smoother and smoother (an indicator that Open Source projects are getting more and more mature?).

So far, my experience with Ubuntu 10.04 has been mixed. On my desktop it installed and runs fine, my laptop is another matter. The biggest changes that I've run across in Ubuntu 10.04 (as in, it "effects" me positively or negatively) includes
The buttons on the left side. Not a show-stopper, just gives me a moment of moving the mouse around until I get used to it.
UbuntuOne allows syncronizing any folder in your home directory, not just the UbuntuOne. So if I share my Pictures or Documents, then when I put something in there they should (theoretically) sync up with the UbuntuOne cloud directory. I am going to test this further with my Projects folder so I have a backup of my works-in-progress (and access from one Ubu machine to another)
UbuntuOne's Music store. It's fairly limited but a good start. I would have prefered if it offerend to do Ogg or MP3 format because if I get a music player that plays Ogg then I'm probably abandoning MP3 except for outside-world compatibility reasons.
** THIS IS THE BIG ONE! ** My laptop has Intel graphics, and so the LiveCD/LiveUSB does NOT boot up. It's a known bug but they haven't fixed it yet (haven't tested Fedora 13 yet though). I can boot up by adding i915.modeset=1 in the startup line but that's not a complete success. I get booted up to a terminal now, and have to run startx to get Gnome started. Updates are supposed to be helping with it, but at the same time they break the tweaks you have to put in to get it running.


I haven't tried to make sure it works better or worse with my webcam, or printed, or gotten too much into it yet.

Fedora has a few things that I liked in 12 that I hope continues in 13
use of OpenFWWF for wireless. Never has my Broadcom wireless card worked out-of-the-box until Fedora 12 (not even Windows ;) )
Smooth crashes and easy bug-reporting
Up-to-date applications (I get spoiled when using up-to-date applications and then I go to the desktop which is using a few versions old)
Seems to allow for more control over how open-source or not-open-source I want the system to be set up. If I want it fully OS, then I can, but if I want proprietary stuff to make things work then that's my choice
One the desktop, the Nvidia drivers work nicely without having to go with the proprietary blobs
I just hope to not run across the Intel graphic issue which is show-stopping me on my laptop (unless, of course, it gives the ability to convince my wife I need a new laptop... ;) )

smr54
11th May 2010, 03:45 PM
For what it's worth, seems as if the bug report Leigh mentioned is getting a little more attention, which, IMNSHO, it should, so this confusion is probably a good thing, though it will probably still be ignored, with no explanation as to why someone thinks 0 timeout is a good idea.

Ubuntu now seems to have the same idea, I know that a few Ubuntu using friends have complained that it gets a bit difficult getting to grub to add those lines.

I guess it's an idea that Fedora and Ubuntu got from Mac and Windows, (though it's pretty easy to get to a terminal on OS X bootup).

It's a bit ironic how the newer systems, with their improvements, have so much trouble, between the two of them, with a good number of Intel, ATI, and NVidia cards, whereas CentOS can boot all three of them without any issues.


Despite my grouchiness this morning, there is no denying that both have made MAJOR strides in hardware support, as well as ease of use.

bennachie
11th May 2010, 10:55 PM
@SMR54

Well, I'm impressed (and happy) that, even at this late stage, the "zero timeout in a multiple-boot situation" may get fixed. Fingers crossed.

The broader problem you mention relates to the (arguably inevitable) transition from "legacy Grub" to "Grub2", which has already been made by Ubuntu, Mint and Sabayon. The Grub2 framework offers, in principle, a more powerful, better integrated approach, but remains something of a work in progress. Hopefully, better GUI-based customisation tools will emerge as other distributions make the transition.

Nobody has yet matched the boot configuration tool provided (for legacy Grub only, of course) by Mandriva. Perhaps, when (and if, I suppose, giving the current financial woes of the company) that distro switches to Grub2, an equally elegant solution will emerge for the newer platform.

Babylon5Nut
12th May 2010, 05:04 PM
I've been a fairly regular user of Ubuntu for the past few years (though by no means a "power user" of Linux by any stretch) and 10.04 ran fairly solidly. The reason I'm running Fedora 13 atm instead is because Scribus runs better on it and openSUSE than Ubuntu, and I wanted to see how the latest iterations of each held up.

Someone up-thread commented (now, true, their post is a bit dated at this moment) that openSUSE 11.3 is a bowl of soup. Well, it's not horrible, but definitely it has its own share of issues. Thus far, Fedora 13 (beta? RC?) is at least as stable and solid as Ubuntu 10.04. Again, I'm running it primarily for the benefit of having a better user experience in running Scribus.

Now what is of real interest to me is how well yum holds up. In my experience, it has taken something catastrophic to cause apt-get to fail, whereas getting yum to die has been comparatively "easy". As a consequence, even though there's always been a soft spot in my heart for yum (it was the first automated package manager I'd used) I have a great deal more trust and confidence in apt-get.

C'mon, Fedora 13, change my mind! :)

wangmaster
15th May 2010, 03:41 PM
This is going to be a long post, so apologies in advance.

I've been pretty much a power user of Linux since 1992 (SLS, Slackware, Red Hat, Debian, Gentoo, Ubuntu/Fedora, all in that order).

Red Hat and Gentoo were probably my longest stints with my previous distro being Gentoo for about 5 years (switched at Fedora 10).

Gentoo was moving too slowly for my tastes, and started to deviate in ways I didn't like from the Gentoo of old, so I embarked on a "new" Linux distro search and spent months reading up on the various features in Ubuntu, Fedora, and OpenSUSE. I was quite surprised to see feature-wise Fedora rising to the top, since when I left Red Hat Linux, I had started to get quite disillusioned with it (I won't go there, because that's old history).

I didn't consider pure performance numbers at all. In my experience, no distro in general is significantly faster than the other, and if it is in one area, I'll find another area where another distro is faster. Plus, the few percentage points here and there don't really bother me when I've got 2/4/8 core systems with 4GB ram minimum :).

I had the following requirements, not necessarily in the following order:
1) multi-arch x86_64/64 environment (I use ALOT of 32-bit 3rd party binary only applications for work)
2) package dependency tracking and removal
3) orphaned package cleanup
4) bleeding edge packaging
5) easy upgrade process
6) minimal customizations to upstream software.

Of the 6 requirements I had, the three distros broke out this way.
Ubuntu:
1) yes, sort of. Unfortunately, it did not have a full multi-arch environment since dpkg doesn't support it, and worst of all /usr/lib and /lib are symlinked to the default OS architecture (lib64 or lib32), which allows for library inconsistencies depending on the base install architecture. They only pre-package a subset of 32-bit libraries and rely on user contributed getlibs to grab 32-bit libraries (and unfortunately getlibs isn't perfect, and also libraries installed by getlibs are not updated properly by package management)
2-3) apt has the BEST package dependency tracking and removal and orphaned package cleanup period. It just works and I loved it
4) Ubuntu is bleeding edge enough, but if a new release isn't out by feature freeze date of the distro, it doesn't get included until 6 months later. Not a huge problem though
5) upgrades are pretty easy. This is also where #3 fits in, orphaned package tracking is amazing
6) of the three, ubuntu easily customizes their software the most, and not always with the best results.

OpenSUSE
1) yes, full multi-arch, proper /lib /usr/lib symlinking. YAY for RPM!!
2-3) dependency tracking exists, but not automatic dependency removal and no real orphaned package tracking. There were some manual tools, but required some extra scripting. There were a few bug proposals to add this, but the timeframe was 3 or 4 releases down the road.
4) similar to ubuntu in that package versions were frozen at feature freeze date. Release cycles seem to miss the 6 month window alot.
5) upgrades are NOT easy. In fact, their wiki recommended reinstalling. Lack of orphaned package removal made cleanup afterwards a pain.
6) they seem to deviate from upstream a bit more than fedora. Things look more like I'm used to with gentoo running vanilla packages

Fedora
1) yes, full multi-arch, proper /lib /usr/lib symlinking. YAY for RPM!!
2-3) dependency tracking exists with yum, automatic dependency removal of non-manually installed packages seems to actually work, although I found some inconsistencies that I haven't been able to reproduce or resolve reliably, but overall not as good as apt, but acceptable, especially with package-cleanup --leaves. package-cleanup --orphans provides for orphan package lists.
4) versions freeze just prior to release (which makes sense, no sense in adding development/testing packages while you're busy with final QA before a release) but many things get backported later on, such as KDE 4.4. Not everything, but more bleeding edge than either suse or ubuntu.
5) upgrades are WAY WAY better than back in the Red Hat days, especially due to the package-cleanup. I upgraded from F12 to F13 and needed about 15 minutes with package-cleanup and yum and find -name "*.rpmnew". preupgrade works well, not as nice as Ubuntu's on the fly upgrade, but on the fly upgrades kinda scare me :) I never use my ubuntu machines while they're upgrading. Even upgrade from DVD image works well (I did the F10-F11 upgrade that way)
6) upstream package changes seem to be for reasonable functional reasons, and less style and "because we can" reasons. I can't really quantify this exactly, but it's the feel I got.

So with the above in mind, Fedora won out on my work workstation, my personal desktop, and my laptop and unless something drastically changes, will remain my preferred "desktop" distribution.
Ubuntu, I use on my home server and mythtv box. I would use Fedora on my home server, but Fedora requires some manual stripping down at this point, where Ubuntu has a nice pre-canned stripped down server edition. Oh, and LTS is awesome (yeah yeah, I know Fedora ain't about LTS, and it really should not be or else many of my other requirements wouldn't be satisfied :) )

Anyways, I know not everyone has the same requirements as me, but with the main requirements I had, this is why Fedora won for me. It's kind of weird though, after all these years to "go back" to Red Hat (sorta) but not really :)

Ouagadougou Photos on Instagram - Saint Petersburg - Albania Travel Photos on Instagram -