Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 3rd Jun 2008 08:12 UTC, submitted by stonyandcher
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Recently we've seen the releases of both Ubuntu 8.04 'Hardy Heron' as well as Fedora 9 'Sulphur', to mostly positive reviews. PCWorld Australia decided to pitch these two popular Linux distributions against one another.
Thread beginning with comment 316798
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Good Call
by noamsml on Tue 3rd Jun 2008 11:11 UTC in reply to "Good Call"
noamsml
Member since:
2005-07-09

Um, no.

First of all, Fedora is hardly the best distro for experienced users. Such a distro would be Arch or Debian. However, beyond that, Ubuntu has some clear advantages from fedora, starting from the fact that apt is (from my experience) vastly superior to yum, continuing with the much bigger support base and the larger amount of packages in the official repositories, and finishing up with the fact that Fedora's "newer technologies" tend to be on the unstable side.

In addition, you claim RH is the "granddady of all modern mainstream Linux distributions". This is patently false. Ubuntu, Knoppix, (insert countless LiveCDs here), MEPIS and others are all Debian-based. In addition, there's Arch, Slackware and Gentoo, which all use their package management own system.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Good Call
by Bitterman on Tue 3rd Jun 2008 12:35 in reply to "RE: Good Call"
Bitterman Member since:
2005-07-06

Um, no.

First of all, Fedora is hardly the best distro for experienced users. Such a distro would be Arch or Debian.


I think he meant best distro for experienced users between Fedora/Ubuntu


However, beyond that, Ubuntu has some clear advantages from fedora, starting from the fact that apt is (from my experience) vastly superior to yum,

Could you elaborate? Cause apt offers nothing significant over yum the only difference im aware of is actually on the other side in that yum can handle different architectures.
Maybe yum is slow?
[root@turtle ~]# time yum -y update
Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit
fedora | 2.4 kB 00:00
livna | 2.1 kB 00:00
updates | 2.3 kB 00:00
Setting up Update Process
No Packages marked for Update

real 0m6.637s
user 0m3.845s
sys 0m0.319s

Is 6 seconds really a problem for you? And im not even using fastmirror package or cache.


continuing with the much bigger support base and the larger amount of packages in the official repositories, and finishing up with the fact that Fedora's "newer technologies" tend to be on the unstable side.

new technologies are unstable for both of them reguardless. look at network manager or pulse audio I heard gripes from many Ubuntu users about the stability even though Fedora tested it first.

I just dont see big differences between these distros as far as software.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Good Call
by dbodner on Wed 4th Jun 2008 02:34 in reply to "RE[2]: Good Call"
dbodner Member since:
2007-07-01

I think he meant best distro for experienced users between Fedora/Ubuntu


I believe the correct term for that would be 'better', not 'best', hence the confusion.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Good Call
by apoclypse on Tue 3rd Jun 2008 12:54 in reply to "RE: Good Call"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Um, no.

First of all, Fedora is hardly the best distro for experienced users. Such a distro would be Arch or Debian. However, beyond that, Ubuntu has some clear advantages from fedora, starting from the fact that apt is (from my experience) vastly superior to yum, continuing with the much bigger support base and the larger amount of packages in the official repositories, and finishing up with the fact that Fedora's "newer technologies" tend to be on the unstable side.

In addition, you claim RH is the "granddady of all modern mainstream Linux distributions". This is patently false. Ubuntu, Knoppix, (insert countless LiveCDs here), MEPIS and others are all Debian-based. In addition, there's Arch, Slackware and Gentoo, which all use their package management own system.


While we all know that RedHat isn't the "granddaddy " of them all in-terms of heritage, we all must admit that the vast majority of things that we take for granted now in Linux has come from the RedHat camp. At leats that is what I think he meant. It would be nice if someone would do the same thing to for fedora that Ubuntu has, namely take the latest release of Fedora, chisel at it until its stable enough and more user friendly then release. If Ubuntu can do it with Debian there is no reason why someone can't do the same with Fedora. That is all Fedora really needs stabilization and attention to detail. That is the only real thing that Ubuntu offers (I'm an Ubuntu user and will probably never budge, but I want all distros to succeed) but its very important and I think its the reason why Ubuntu is where its at today.

Reply Parent Score: 3