Fedora 10 vs Ubuntu 8.10

[metatron]

I have been hearing lately that the newest release of Ubu is quite similar to FC10. I wanted to hear what some of you who had tried the FC10 beta and Ubu 8.10 have to say about the comparisons.
I am waiting for the official release of 10 to definitely install that, but I wanted to install another distro, rather than waste that vast space in my hard drive. If they're similar enough, I might not waste my time installing Ubuntu and I might consider something else.

[bob]

*Sigh* Oh okay. We normally shut down Ubuntu vs. Fedora threads and point to the Search feature and tell people to look at 100+ response posts. However, periodically, with a new version, it's worthwhile (or a time-waster) to compare/contrast the two. This, then, will be the DEFINITIVE thread on whatchathink about them.

[metatron]

Sweet I posted something definitive. Just a note, I have read through very many of those <Insert Distro here> vs Fedora threads and the only thing I got about the new version is that it is similar to FC10, but without much explanation of the similarities. Sorry, I thought my thread was covering new enough ground, to open a new thread. But at least it's definitive and that's always cool.

[Demz]

i have Ubuntu8.10 . i dunno if i'll change,, ..the brown doesnt really grab me to much http://www.thecodingstudio.com/opens...ntrepid%20Ibex Cant really post Fedora Screenshot URL yet till its final

[metatron]

Besides color scheme, how would you compare the two latest versions of the distros?

[scottro]

Fair enough, you definitive guy you. Shucks, you guys won the World Series, so that entitles you to some consideration.

Similarities:
Both are Gnome centric.
Both have graphical bootup by default and have several, fairly important programs tied into the user taking the default Gnome installation, requiring the user who chooses to use another desktop to have some knowledge.
Both have graphical package managers, but command line package managers are easily used.

Both come, by default, without tools for installing 3rd party, source based programs, but both make it relatively easy to install such tools with a few simple commands (or using graphical package managers.)

Both do a fairly good job at choosing sane defaults for the inexperienced newcomer.
Both consider the user to be relatively stupid when compared to Arch, Gentoo, the BSDs or any of the "old-fashioned" distros, of which very few remain.

Differences:
Fedora is RedHat based, Ubuntu, though its own distribution by now, is Debian based.
The backend package management tool is quite different--Fedora uses rpm and yum while Ubuntu uses dpkg and apt or aptitude.

Ubuntu's stated number one bug is that MS is more popular. Therefore, one of its primary goals at which it often succeeds, is to provide a smooth user experience. (However, look around these forums for folks who migrated to Fedora because something worked that didn't work in Ubuntu).

Fedora's stated goal is to be a testing, developer's distro, so it will often put in programs that really aren't ready for prime time. It's probably less stable than Ubuntu, which is the downside of trying to be there with the latest before it's the greatest.

This is specifically stated in various places around their website. While I've only seen it stated on bugzilla and mailling lists, there is also the factor that they will, in an effort to test something, sometimes put it in before thoroughly seeing if it will break other popular programs.

This is not irresponsibility on their part (as a rule), it is the result of wanting to be a testing, developer's distribution.
Therefore, there is (often) more of a risk in upgrading Fedora than there is in upgrading Ubuntu. (Again, there are numerous exceptions to this.)

As an example, pulse-audio. Fedora put it in a bit too quickly, and in its earliest incarnations (and even now at times) it broke sound for non-Gnome users. In Ubuntu's case, aside from putting a big warning about it on one of the site's main pages, all it broke was volume control for non-Gnome users. Again, Ubuntu is more concerned, in theory at least, with giving the users a practical alternative to Windows.

Ubuntu's basically brown, Fedora's basically blue, though this is easy enough to change.

Fedora has you set a root password, then forbids you to log in as root in the default settings, while Ubuntu uses sudo, discouraging the use of a root password. Fedora seems to be leaning this way however, with one step being giving the user all the default paths (such as /sbin and /usr/sbin) that were only given root by default in previous versions.

Getting really specific, if you have the AR5007EG wireless card, Fedora is supporting it by default out of the box, while Ubuntu is blacklisting that kernel module, making it necessary to use their backports to get it working. Their logic is that many people with the card were previously using versions of the kernel that didn't support the card, and putting the module in a default installation will cause conflicts with the users' existing configuration. This is part of, in my opinion, their goal of providing a Windows like experience. It's also something for which Debian is well know, usually providing a seamless upgrade.

Ubuntu has a wider range of packages in their collections. Debian, and by extension, Ubuntu, is said to have the largest number of optional programs of all the Linux distributions. In practice, this usually doesn't matter.

Fedora tends to have a rockier upgrade path, and though it can be done, and is getting easier, with new tools to smooth the way, the official recommendation, at least prior to F9 (I haven't been keeping up with official policy on this lately) that the safest way to do it was to back up your data and do a clean installation.
Fedora will often have newer packages (see above.) For example, I believe that Ubuntu 8.10's default OpenOffice is still the 2.x version, though by adding another repository to your apt sources, you can get version 3.x. Fedora 10 is including 3.x by default.

Honestly--to a new user, there really aren't that many differences, save in the general appearance. They both make an effort to make it relatively easy for the newcomer, though Fedora will take chances, some good, some bad.

As someone once said, you tend to not remember your chemistry homework from high school, but never forget your first kiss. So, all the reading in the world won't really explain exactly what differences you'll find on your hardware. As both provide live CDs, I'd really recommend that you try both and then decide. You might find for example, that for whatever reason, possibly unexplainable, Fedora Just Works(TM) with your hardware and Ubuntu doesn't, or vice versa.

[Demz]

Default wallpaper is much much better than Ubuntu's ..i think Plymouth is a Huge improvement over RHGB

[metatron]

Thanks for really going into it. From what you're saying, and here's what I've been thinking, due to my own web research, one reason to have both of these distros might be because Ubuntu is "safer" and Fedora is more cutting edge. So Ubuntu might be good to try more stuff out on, with a better chance of working out, while Fedora, with more frequent updates is better for trying out new stuff and to have fun playing around with. Would that be a fair assessment?

And yeah, we had a big parade after the world series and got out of class early for every game of the series, I don't expect any special favors other than that. I mean unless you guys really want to.

[Wayne]

Fedora 8, 9 and 10 snapshot and Ubuntu are very similar in that none of them work here

Wayne

Posting from from OpenSUSE 11

[bob]

Personally, if I wanted to install a stable system that I could always rely on, it would be Debian. Packages are a bit old, sometimes, but it's never going to break on you. Ubuntu's a fun 'extra' that you can relate to newbies with, but Fedora's the challenge that's daily waiting for you. Just as you get it all set and working perfectly, there's some update that borks a dozen packages and then you're off and running on a half-day challenge. That's how we learn and keep from being bored silly.

[scottro]

Quit whining Mr. SuSE guy. (That's to Wayne, for those who haven't followed his misadventures.)
@metatron, being from NY, I have to grudgingly congratulate you--the Mets managed to do it again, though this time, it was bullpen injuries.
Anyway, in many ways, yes, your assessment is pretty accurate. I actually use F10/Rawhide for most of what I do on a laptop (where I really only require vpnc to work), but with Ubuntu, when I want to try out a new program, I usually put it on Ubuntu first.

In my case, though, there are other reasons. I mainly keep it around because a couple of my users have it, and I like to be able to answer their questions. I don't do too much with it, going with its defaults, so it's far more likely to work relatively well.

My Fedora installation is the one that I test with, and have also set up with my preferred window manager, fluxbox, etc, so it's probably a bit less resiliant, and might, if I put on some new program that I don't yet fully know how to use, require more work.

All in all, I'd say your concise assessment is pretty accurate. Fedora is more for having fun, and being able to say, Oh snap, it broke again, without getting bent out of shape. It's also good for seeing new features that you can expect to find soon in other distributions, such as the 2.6.27 kernel (although that's becoming more common) OpenOffice 3, (though that too is becoming more common), etc.

[metatron]

Yes, at first I was a bit intimidated by Fedora but I decided to persist. I'm really happy that I did because I have so much fun playing with it. But the more I learn with Fedora, the more curious I get about the other distros. I hear all the time about the other ones being less challenging than Fedora and I think "well what's the fun in that?" So far I'm leaning toward Ubuntu, so far I think mainly because of the popularity. Another one that's piqued my interest was Mint, just out of curiousity, and OpenSUSE because I have to do an externship at Novell, but that's not the point of this thread.

[JN4OldSchool]

Mint is simply a polished Ubuntu without all the brown and bugs.

Mint 5 Elyssa is a reworked Hardy, Mint 6 will be released very very soon and is a reworked intrepid. You can use Ubuntu (by default it does) and debian repos in Mint and basically do anything you like combining all three. It really is pretty neat. I started with Elyssa Xfce but really couldnt describe what distro I now have as I have Intrepid, Hardy, Lenny, Sid and Mint packages all going on.

[metatron]

So maybe if I'm looking for a very stable distro to counteract my Fedora experience, and I was looking at Ubuntu anyway, Mint might be the way to go?

[Wayne]

Mint 6 is still in beta I think... I posted about it recently....

Wayne