Hi all,
Which one do you think is better and for what reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora 9. Personally I like Fedora 9.
Alex Makhlin wrote:
Hi all,
Which one do you think is better and for what reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora 9. Personally I like Fedora 9.
Better for what? It is a matter of using the correct tool for the job.
Mikkel
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Alex Makhlin wrote:
Hi all,
Which one do you think is better and for what reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora 9. Personally I like Fedora 9.
Better for what? It is a matter of using the correct tool for the job.
Mikkel
They are both different in many ways. I don't wish to take much time of this forum to answer this question. Ubuntu seems to be the main choice of major computer companies but why? What is so far better in Ubuntu then Fedora 9?
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 04:10:31PM -0700, Alex Makhlin wrote:
They are both different in many ways. I don't wish to take much time of this forum to answer this question. Ubuntu seems to be the main choice of major computer companies but why? What is so far better in Ubuntu then Fedora 9?
It's not so much a matter of "better" in an absolute sense, as what's necessary to manage a system and/or network in a production environment.
Fedora is bleeding-edge, and volatile. It's expected to be; this is where the new stuff is first tried out for later release in the mainstream Redhat Enterprise. As such, there ARE going to be times it's unstable, or flat-out broken. It'll get fixed, but it's embarassing to have your web server or production application server go down until you can get a patch.
It also has an unacceptably short life-cycle. Production systems typically have a known and restricted set of business-related functions to support; once these work reliably, there's no real need to move to a new operating system until the current one is no longer supported, the hardware becomes too difficult to support (e.g., no more components from XYZ Computer Corp. are available), or needed peripherals aren't supported with drivers. Fedora has about a one-year lifecycle; this means a fiendish amount of work building and verifying a new release in a production environment, and it must be repeated on a too-frequent basis for most businesses.
For these, and other, reasons businesses tend to gravitate to RHE, Centos, Ubuntu, or other distributions that tend to be more stable out-of-the-box and have a long enough support cycle to prevent the churn of continually recertifying and upgrading production systems.
Fedora IS great for those who want to learn about--and, arguably, affect--current trends in Linux and Linux tools evolution and development. I would unhesitatingly recommend it to the professional or hobbyist who's trying to learn Linux/Unix in depth, or who needs capabilities that are currently in rapid evolution at the development edge (with, of course, caveats if this need is production-related.)
Hope this helps, -- Dave Ihnat President, DMINET Consulting, Inc. dihnat@dminet.com
Il giorno gio, 30/10/2008 alle 07.55 -0500, Dave Ihnat ha scritto:
It's not so much a matter of "better" in an absolute sense, as what's necessary to manage a system and/or network in a production environment.
Fedora is bleeding-edge, and volatile. It's expected to be; this is where the new stuff is first tried out for later release in the mainstream Redhat Enterprise. As such, there ARE going to be times it's unstable, or flat-out broken. It'll get fixed, but it's embarassing to have your web server or production application server go down until you can get a patch.
It also has an unacceptably short life-cycle. Production systems typically have a known and restricted set of business-related functions to support; once these work reliably, there's no real need to move to a new operating system until the current one is no longer supported, the hardware becomes too difficult to support (e.g., no more components from XYZ Computer Corp. are available), or needed peripherals aren't supported with drivers. Fedora has about a one-year lifecycle; this means a fiendish amount of work building and verifying a new release in a production environment, and it must be repeated on a too-frequent basis for most businesses.
For these, and other, reasons businesses tend to gravitate to RHE, Centos, Ubuntu, or other distributions that tend to be more stable out-of-the-box and have a long enough support cycle to prevent the churn of continually recertifying and upgrading production systems.
Fedora IS great for those who want to learn about--and, arguably, affect--current trends in Linux and Linux tools evolution and development. I would unhesitatingly recommend it to the professional or hobbyist who's trying to learn Linux/Unix in depth, or who needs capabilities that are currently in rapid evolution at the development edge (with, of course, caveats if this need is production-related.)
I agree with you, however, would also like to point out that personally I think Ubuntu is a compromise between RHE and Fedora. For a stable and safe business environment I would rather use Debian instead of Ubuntu.
Regards vince
vince wrote:
I agree with you, however, would also like to point out that personally I think Ubuntu is a compromise between RHE and Fedora. For a stable and safe business environment I would rather use Debian instead of Ubuntu.
Regards vince
I have to completely disagree with that. (At least the last part) I have a fairly large network (20+ systems, some SGI clusters) and I must say I have more trouble out of my Debian systems (put in before my time) than any other system I run. And we run everything from RHEL, SLES, Gentoo, Fedora and FreeBSD.
I wouldn't give a plug nickel to run another Debian system, ever. Using apt is fine, I can handle that. Dselect is crap, and personally I really hate how Debian handles upgrading packages (specifically config files).
I've had my 2 Debian boxes b0rk so often after installing patches because of that, that I rarely update them any longer. Fortunately, they are no longer production boxes, but I've yet to have time to blow them away and throw something useful on them.
Mark Haney ha scritto:
I have to completely disagree with that. (At least the last part) I have a fairly large network (20+ systems, some SGI clusters) and I must say I have more trouble out of my Debian systems (put in before my time) than any other system I run. And we run everything from RHEL, SLES, Gentoo, Fedora and FreeBSD.
I wouldn't give a plug nickel to run another Debian system, ever. Using apt is fine, I can handle that. Dselect is crap, and personally I really hate how Debian handles upgrading packages (specifically config files).
I've had my 2 Debian boxes b0rk so often after installing patches because of that, that I rarely update them any longer. Fortunately, they are no longer production boxes, but I've yet to have time to blow them away and throw something useful on them.
I do not think it is the case to be so drastic; there is no Linux distro without lacks (I tried and still I am trying a lot of them), and Debian is not perfect the same way as any other Linux distro, but it has a lot of values, too.
I believe that the simple facts that Debian is still one of the most popular distros and that there are many people happy with it (I am one of them) should mean something. On the other hand, I do not think that the simple fact that one had trouble with it (what kind of problems, then? Upgrading and configuring is one of the simpliest things to to in Debian, IMHO -- are you using Testing or Unstable?) can be a good reason to discredit the (free) job made by a lot of people (and here again I am one of them).
Just my 2 cents, vince
Mark Haney wrote:
vince wrote:
I agree with you, however, would also like to point out that personally I think Ubuntu is a compromise between RHE and Fedora. For a stable and safe business environment I would rather use Debian instead of Ubuntu.
Regards vince
I have to completely disagree with that. (At least the last part) I have a fairly large network (20+ systems, some SGI clusters) and I must say I have more trouble out of my Debian systems (put in before my time) than any other system I run. And we run everything from RHEL, SLES, Gentoo, Fedora and FreeBSD.
I wouldn't give a plug nickel to run another Debian system, ever. Using apt is fine, I can handle that. Dselect is crap, and personally I really hate how Debian handles upgrading packages (specifically config files).
I've had my 2 Debian boxes b0rk so often after installing patches because of that, that I rarely update them any longer. Fortunately, they are no longer production boxes, but I've yet to have time to blow them away and throw something useful on them.
I wouldn't make any judgments about ubuntu based on experience with debian. There are good reasons that ubunutu is more popular - and I don't imagine many people use dselect on it. The LTS versions are a nice compromise between fedora's fast pace and RHEL staleness (which may not be as bad these days since they are doing some major revision updates of some things).
However, there are conceptual differences in system administration so it is somewhat painful to jump back and forth between ubuntu and an RPM based system with redhat-style configuration frequently.
Overall the big win with ubuntu is that they've managed to get most of the packages you are likely to ever want into a set of pre-configured repositories that are generally consistent with each other. With RPM based systems you'll end up having to track down an assortment of 3rd party repositories that are not consistent so you'll end up with install conflicts or having to maintain different applications on different machines to isolate them.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:28:22AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
However, there are conceptual differences in system administration so it is somewhat painful to jump back and forth between ubuntu and an RPM based system with redhat-style configuration frequently.
True; but if you've lived in Unixland before, this is nothing new. BSD vs. SVR2 vs. AIX vs. Solaris... It's just part of the landscape.
Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat President, DMINET Consulting, Inc. dihnat@dminet.com
Dave Ihnat wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:28:22AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
However, there are conceptual differences in system administration so it is somewhat painful to jump back and forth between ubuntu and an RPM based system with redhat-style configuration frequently.
True; but if you've lived in Unixland before, this is nothing new. BSD vs. SVR2 vs. AIX vs. Solaris... It's just part of the landscape.
Sure, but there were reasons that SysV, AIX, Solaris, HPUX etc. didn't share the best way do everything. Among opensource builds of essentially the same upstream packages there's less excuse to maintain intentional differences.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:02:46AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Sure, but there were reasons that SysV, AIX, Solaris, HPUX etc. didn't share the best way do everything. Among opensource builds of essentially the same upstream packages there's less excuse to maintain intentional differences.
Less excuse, but the practical matter is that the differences do exist. If you're a hobbyist, pick your fave and learn it. If you're a professional in the field, you still need to learn as many of them as possible. C'est la vie.
Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat President, DMINET Consulting, Inc. dihnat@dminet.com
Dave Ihnat wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:02:46AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
Sure, but there were reasons that SysV, AIX, Solaris, HPUX etc. didn't share the best way do everything. Among opensource builds of essentially the same upstream packages there's less excuse to maintain intentional differences.
Less excuse, but the practical matter is that the differences do exist. If you're a hobbyist, pick your fave and learn it. If you're a professional in the field, you still need to learn as many of them as possible. C'est la vie.
Well, yeah... It's a good deal for consultants that make their living from things that are more complicated than necessary. Or people who keep writing basically the same books with the new way to do the same thing. But a waste of time for everyone else.
Les Mikesell wrote:
Dave Ihnat wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:28:22AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
However, there are conceptual differences in system administration so it is somewhat painful to jump back and forth between ubuntu and an RPM based system with redhat-style configuration frequently.
True; but if you've lived in Unixland before, this is nothing new. BSD vs. SVR2 vs. AIX vs. Solaris... It's just part of the landscape.
Sure, but there were reasons that SysV, AIX, Solaris, HPUX etc. didn't share the best way do everything. Among opensource builds of essentially the same upstream packages there's less excuse to maintain intentional differences.
You're right. We should just pick the best package manager and make everyone use it.</sarcasm>
Matt Flaschen
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Overall the big win with ubuntu is that they've managed to get most of the packages you are likely to ever want into a set of pre-configured repositories that are generally consistent with each other. With RPM based systems you'll end up having to track down an assortment of 3rd party repositories that are not consistent so you'll end up with install conflicts or having to maintain different applications on different machines to isolate them.
This is in my view the deal breaker in an enterprise setting.
~af
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Aldo Foot lunixer@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Overall the big win with ubuntu is that they've managed to get most of the packages you are likely to ever want into a set of pre-configured repositories that are generally consistent with each other. With RPM based systems you'll end up having to track down an assortment of 3rd party repositories that are not consistent so you'll end up with install conflicts or having to maintain different applications on different machines to isolate them.
This is in my view the deal breaker in an enterprise setting.
~af
And also has nothing to do with RPM itself.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Aldo Foot lunixer@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Overall the big win with ubuntu is that they've managed to get most of the packages you are likely to ever want into a set of pre-configured repositories that are generally consistent with each other. With RPM based systems you'll end up having to track down an assortment of 3rd party repositories that are not consistent so you'll end up with install conflicts or having to maintain different applications on different machines to isolate them.
This is in my view the deal breaker in an enterprise setting.
~af
And also has nothing to do with RPM itself.
Ultimately not. RPM is just a tool that goes out to get packages from a predefined location. Whether it finds or not what is looking for... that's another store. Let's just say that Ubuntu tries to ease the pain.
~af
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Aldo Foot lunixer@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Aldo Foot lunixer@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Overall the big win with ubuntu is that they've managed to get most of the packages you are likely to ever want into a set of pre-configured repositories that are generally consistent with each other. With RPM based systems you'll end up having to track down an assortment of 3rd party repositories that are not consistent so you'll end up with install conflicts or having to maintain different applications on different machines to isolate them.
This is in my view the deal breaker in an enterprise setting.
~af
And also has nothing to do with RPM itself.
Ultimately not. RPM is just a tool that goes out to get packages from a predefined location. Whether it finds or not what is looking for... that's another store. Let's just say that Ubuntu tries to ease the pain.
I think you should revise that statement and post it again as there is some error in it.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
And also has nothing to do with RPM itself.
Ultimately not. RPM is just a tool that goes out to get packages from a predefined location. Whether it finds or not what is looking for... that's another store. Let's just say that Ubuntu tries to ease the pain.
I think you should revise that statement and post it again as there is some error in it.
Oops! I meant to say "that's another story."
~af
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Aldo Foot lunixer@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:07 AM, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Aldo Foot lunixer@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Overall the big win with ubuntu is that they've managed to get most of the packages you are likely to ever want into a set of pre-configured repositories that are generally consistent with each other. With RPM based systems you'll end up having to track down an assortment of 3rd party repositories that are not consistent so you'll end up with install conflicts or having to maintain different applications on different machines to isolate them.
This is in my view the deal breaker in an enterprise setting.
~af
And also has nothing to do with RPM itself.
Ultimately not. RPM is just a tool that goes out to get packages from a predefined location. Whether it finds or not what is looking for... that's another store.
You must mean yum.
Let's just say that Ubuntu tries to ease the pain.
More package maintainers, laxer packing rules. That's all.
--- On Thu, 10/30/08, Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
From: Arthur Pemberton pemboa@gmail.com Subject: Re: Which one is better Ubuntu Or Fedora 9 To: "Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora." fedora-list@redhat.com Date: Thursday, October 30, 2008, 5:07 PM On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Aldo Foot lunixer@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 8:28 AM, Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Overall the big win with ubuntu is that
they've managed to get most of the
packages you are likely to ever want into a set of
pre-configured
repositories that are generally consistent with
each other. With RPM based
systems you'll end up having to track down an
assortment of 3rd party
repositories that are not consistent so you'll
end up with install conflicts
or having to maintain different applications on
different machines to
isolate them.
This is in my view the deal breaker in an enterprise
setting.
~af
And also has nothing to do with RPM itself.
A "big" guy in the rawhide business told me "use rawhide and you'll be constantly faced with dependency issues."
I love complexity but in programming languages and RDB.
Teamwork has brought me many great Fedora facilities and I appreciate the experts who provide.
Endless emails about whether a laptop will run Linux?
Buy the _____ thing and if it doesn't work, take it back!
Why waste weeks trying to do the impossible.
Maybe one could rewrite some of the software or drivers!
-- Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin ( www.pembo13.com )
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
Overall the big win with ubuntu is that they've managed to get most of the packages you are likely to ever want into a set of pre-configured repositories that are generally consistent with each other. With RPM based systems you'll end up having to track down an assortment of 3rd party repositories that are not consistent so you'll end up with install conflicts or having to maintain different applications on different machines to isolate them.
This is in my view the deal breaker in an enterprise setting.
~af
And also has nothing to do with RPM itself.
Yes, it is a project policy and philosophy difference that permits the repositories to be coordinated.
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:28:22 -0500 Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
However, there are conceptual differences in system administration so it is somewhat painful to jump back and forth between ubuntu and an RPM based system with redhat-style configuration frequently.
Yea, at work we keep a ever-growing web page on our local network with hints for translating back and forth between redhat and ubuntu style administration tasks.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:07:18AM -0400, Mark Haney wrote:
I have to completely disagree with that. (At least the last part) I have a fairly large network (20+ systems, some SGI clusters) and I must say I have more trouble out of my Debian systems (put in before my time) than any other system I run. And we run everything from RHEL, SLES, Gentoo, Fedora and FreeBSD.
One thing people working in Linux have to remember is that different versions of the same distro have had problems. The Linux environment has been evolving much faster than Unix--after all, Unix has had 30+ years to settle down (and believe me when I tell you in the early years in Unix I saw some really hairy problems!), while each new Linux distro is assembling a complex system from sometimes disparate components.
If your Debian systems are older, or weren't maintained in a consistent manner, I could easily see you having severe problems.
Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat President, DMINET Consulting, Inc. dihnat@dminet.com
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Alex Makhlin wrote:
Hi all,
Which one do you think is better and for what reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora 9. Personally I like Fedora 9.
Better for what? It is a matter of using the correct tool for the job.
Mikkel
The job is sir to have the best Linux environment. So which is better, Fedora OR Ubuntu?
Alex Makhlin wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Alex Makhlin wrote:
Hi all,
Which one do you think is better and for what reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora 9. Personally I like Fedora 9.
Better for what? It is a matter of using the correct tool for the job.
Mikkel
The job is sir to have the best Linux environment. So which is better, Fedora OR Ubuntu?
Sorry, your answer is insufficient to provide a detailed answer. The phrase "Best Linux Environment" has no qualifiers, provides no level of detail that would allow a salient and defendable answer. Your question could be equated to "where is the best weather?" Without providing qualifiers, the anser to both questions - yours and the one I just posed - remains - DEPENDS. bob
--- On Sun, 11/2/08, Alex Makhlin makhlina@gmail.com wrote:
From: Alex Makhlin makhlina@gmail.com Subject: Re: Which one is better Ubuntu Or Fedora 9 To: "Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora." fedora-list@redhat.com Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 8:48 AM Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Alex Makhlin wrote:
Hi all,
Which one do you think is better and for what
reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora
- Personally I like Fedora 9.
Better for what? It is a matter of using the correct
tool for the job.
Mikkel
The job is sir to have the best Linux environment. So which is better, Fedora OR Ubuntu?
--
Great Question :) Sorry to nose in on this question. But how about BOTH! Fedora for getting in recent/latest packages ie. kernel, gcc, glibc, ..., etc. Ubuntu LTS(Long Term Support), very useful help pages throughout the net(little more than Fedora), more support other than LTS, ..., etc., cutomized versions(Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Mythbuntu, ..., Ubuntu Christian Edition, Ubuntu Muslim Edition, ...)
Which is better Ford or Chevy? Wait there's also Dodge, Toyota, ..., great to have choices. Linux is like this also. I happen to agree with Mikkel on this one :)
"It is a matter of using the correct tool for the job."
Use them both or pick one of them. Whichever works best for you and helps you get the job done! :)
Blonde, or Brunette? Gnome/KDE? vi/emacs? Good/Evil?
Choices...., Obama or McCain (No real choice here), both are not the true will of the American people **** I know this does not belong here, but what the heck just to emphazise the point about choices ****
Regards,
Antonio
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Which one do you think is better and for what
reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora
- Personally I like Fedora 9.
Better for what? It is a matter of using the correct
tool for the job.
Mikkel
The job is sir to have the best Linux environment. So which is better, Fedora OR Ubuntu?
--
Great Question :) Sorry to nose in on this question. But how about BOTH! Fedora for getting in recent/latest packages ie. kernel, gcc, glibc, ..., etc. Ubuntu LTS(Long Term Support), very useful help pages throughout the net(little more than Fedora), more support other than LTS, ..., etc., cutomized versions(Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Mythbuntu, ..., Ubuntu Christian Edition, Ubuntu Muslim Edition, ...)
Which is better Ford or Chevy? Wait there's also Dodge, Toyota, ..., great to have choices. Linux is like this also. I happen to agree with Mikkel on this one :)
While having choices is nice, if you are going to make the inevitable internet car analogy, if one of the companies (Linux distros in general) only has about 1% of the total market to begin with, would you still think it was a good idea to fragment that into a bazillion models that can't be supported with interchangeable parts? You aren't talking Ford and Chevy here - it's more like DeLorian and Tesla.
The job is sir to have the best Linux environment.
So which
is better, Fedora OR Ubuntu?
--
Great Question :) Sorry to nose in on this question. But how about
BOTH!
Fedora for getting in recent/latest packages ie.
kernel, gcc, glibc, ..., etc.
Ubuntu LTS(Long Term Support), very useful help pages
throughout the net(little more than Fedora), more support other than LTS, ..., etc.,
cutomized versions(Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu,
Mythbuntu, ..., Ubuntu Christian Edition, Ubuntu Muslim Edition, ...)
Which is better Ford or Chevy? Wait there's also
Dodge, Toyota, ..., great to have choices. Linux is like this also. I happen to agree with Mikkel on this one :)
While having choices is nice, if you are going to make the inevitable internet car analogy, if one of the companies (Linux distros in general) only has about 1% of the total market to begin with, would you still think it was a good idea to fragment that into a bazillion models that can't be supported with interchangeable parts? You aren't talking Ford and Chevy here - it's more like DeLorian and Tesla.
Never had heard of Delorian or Tesla. Do they have 1% of the automobile industry. I have heard of Saturn, Hyundai, others not mentioned.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
Probably not a good idea, but they did it. If you read distrowatch, some people compared Ubuntu and Fedora along the same lines. Some swore by Ubuntu others by Fedora.
One point that they made was that Fedora did not have KFedora, GFedora, XFedora, ..., like Ubuntu has Kubuntu, Xubuntu, ..., At least Fedora is consistent in this regard. It is still Fedora underneath and many people appreciate that.
Regards,
Antonio
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Which is better Ford or Chevy? Wait there's also
Dodge, Toyota, ..., great to have choices. Linux is like this also. I happen to agree with Mikkel on this one :)
While having choices is nice, if you are going to make the inevitable internet car analogy, if one of the companies (Linux distros in general) only has about 1% of the total market to begin with, would you still think it was a good idea to fragment that into a bazillion models that can't be supported with interchangeable parts? You aren't talking Ford and Chevy here - it's more like DeLorian and Tesla.
Never had heard of Delorian or Tesla.
That was the point of using them as examples. They tried (and arguably succeeded) to build something new, different, and extreme, but it didn't work as a business. The Delorian is best known as the car in the "Back to the Future"movies. Tesla is building electric sports cars and hasn't quite failed yet but is consolidating and shut down their Detroit location.
Do they have 1% of the automobile industry. I have heard of Saturn, Hyundai, others not mentioned.
The Ford Edsel model might be a good match to what fedora does. Have you heard of that one? It stuck all the new technology available in 1957 into one car. Engineering-wise it was not bad at all, but it was such a flop in acceptance that the name became a joke.
--- On Sun, 11/2/08, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
From: Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com Subject: Re: Which one is better Ubuntu Or Fedora 9 To: olivares14031@yahoo.com Cc: "Community assistance, encouragement, and advice for using Fedora." fedora-list@redhat.com Date: Sunday, November 2, 2008, 10:21 AM Antonio Olivares wrote:
Which is better Ford or Chevy? Wait
there's also
Dodge, Toyota, ..., great to have choices. Linux
is like
this also. I happen to agree with Mikkel on this
one :)
While having choices is nice, if you are going to
make the
inevitable internet car analogy, if one of the
companies
(Linux distros in general) only has about 1% of
the total
market to begin with, would you still think it was
a good
idea to fragment that into a bazillion models that
can't
be supported with interchangeable parts? You
aren't
talking Ford and Chevy here - it's more like
DeLorian
and Tesla.
Never had heard of Delorian or Tesla.
That was the point of using them as examples. They tried (and arguably succeeded) to build something new, different, and extreme, but it didn't work as a business. The Delorian is best known as the car in the "Back to the Future"movies. Tesla is building electric sports cars and hasn't quite failed yet but is consolidating and shut down their Detroit location.
Do they have 1% of the automobile industry. I have
heard of Saturn, Hyundai, others not mentioned.
The Ford Edsel model might be a good match to what fedora does. Have you heard of that one? It stuck all the new technology available in 1957 into one car. Engineering-wise it was not bad at all, but it was such a flop in acceptance that the name became a joke.
Except for rawhide, Fedora does not stick all the new(latest) technology into the release. Take for instance kernel 2.6.27.X, it is still with
[olivares@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.26.6-79.fc9.x86_64
OpenOffice is still at 2.4.X currently updated to 2.4.2 since it was released by Sun, the most current being 3.0 which lives on rawhide :)
There have been a series of mails directed here, that where are the new packages for Fedora, and they might come in soon to a mirror near you :) I have 2.6.27, but compiled from kernel.org because Fedora is taking time and care to push the newest 2.6.27.4 or later kernel to work but it is definitely not ready yet, otherwise many would be running it now.
I had never heard of it :) I have checked wikipedia for it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edsel
But I prefer to ask a friend, who was an engineer for Ford, for 20+ years. He can tell me about it if he can remember back then. He liked the 57 Mercury and I don't know which other cars. I can ask him if he remembers the Edsel :)
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
Regards,
Antonio
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 12:21 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
The Delorian is best known as the car in the "Back to the Future"movies.
Ah, you mean the DeLorean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delorean)
poc
PS They used to make them a few miles from my parent's house in Belfast, till they went bankrupt (DeLorean, not my parents :-)
On Sunday 02 November 2008 01:21:04 pm Les Mikesell wrote:
really big snip
The Ford Edsel model might be a good match to what fedora does. Have you heard of that one? It stuck all the new technology available in 1957 into one car. Engineering-wise it was not bad at all, but it was such a flop in acceptance that the name became a joke.
Funny that you should mention the Edsel as it played a very important role in my life. In late February, 1958, I finished my active duty in the US Army, and returned to my home town (Detroit), I got my previous job back as a draftsman at a company that manufactured radiators and air conditioners for the auto industry. I was kind of lucky, because there was a recession at the time and jobs were scarce.
My first assignment was to prepare the layout drawings for the air conditioner/heater plenum assembly for the high end 1959 Edsel models which was the first American car to combine the heating and air conditioning units into one system. (For those unfamiliar with 1950's US automotive terminology, the plenum is the big molded plastic bit that channels the conditioned air to the various outlets in the passenger compartment.) It was a top priority job that had to be completed by early April with lots of overtime.
I put in 60 to 70 actual hours every week -- that works out to 70 to 85 hours on payday, so that when I got married in April, my bride and I owned very piece of furniture and appliances in our apartment, and had some bucks left over. Still got the couch, the wife and some other stuff, and they are still very useful. And comfortable. I'm pretty much worn out, though. And the money is gone. *Sigh*
-- cmg
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 12:21:04 -0600, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
work as a business. The Delorian is best known as the car in the "Back to the Future"movies.
Perhaps, but their owner's creative ideas in financing also got them a lot of noteriety at the time. That wouldn't get much play these days, while Back to the Future will show up on TV from time to time.
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 12:21:04 -0600, Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
work as a business. The Delorian is best known as the car in the "Back to the Future"movies.
Perhaps, but their owner's creative ideas in financing also got them a lot of noteriety at the time.
Subsequent versions of the story say he responded to government entrapment, but the relevant point was that his business wasn't producing what the market wanted or he wouldn't have needed money so badly.
That wouldn't get much play these days, while Back to the Future will show up on TV from time to time.
Yeah - it was cute - and actually used a lot of off-the shelf parts.
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 11:48 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: <snip..>
While having choices is nice, if you are going to make the inevitable internet car analogy, if one of the companies (Linux distros in general) only has about 1% of the total market to begin with, would you still think it was a good idea to fragment that into a bazillion models that can't be supported with interchangeable parts? You aren't talking Ford and Chevy here - it's more like DeLorian and Tesla.
...Going completely off topic here, but I do have to say that the Tesla is an _extremely_ cool car!
Once both the $$$ and my wife gives me permission, sign me up for one... :)
The Governator has one too.
Cheers,
Chris
-- =================================================== "With hurricanes, tornadoes, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?"
--Jay Leno
On Sun, 2008-11-02 at 11:48 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Antonio Olivares wrote:
Which one do you think is better and for what
reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora
- Personally I like Fedora 9.
Better for what? It is a matter of using the correct
tool for the job.
Mikkel
The job is sir to have the best Linux environment. So which is better, Fedora OR Ubuntu?
--
Great Question :) Sorry to nose in on this question. But how about BOTH! Fedora for getting in recent/latest packages ie. kernel, gcc, glibc, ..., etc. Ubuntu LTS(Long Term Support), very useful help pages throughout the net(little more than Fedora), more support other than LTS, ..., etc., cutomized versions(Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Mythbuntu, ..., Ubuntu Christian Edition, Ubuntu Muslim Edition, ...)
Which is better Ford or Chevy? Wait there's also Dodge, Toyota, ..., great to have choices. Linux is like this also. I happen to agree with Mikkel on this one :)
While having choices is nice, if you are going to make the inevitable internet car analogy, if one of the companies (Linux distros in general) only has about 1% of the total market to begin with, would you still think it was a good idea to fragment that into a bazillion models that can't be supported with interchangeable parts? You aren't talking Ford and Chevy here - it's more like DeLorian and Tesla.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
In that sense, Linux is like GM. They have one company, with subsideries that make cars for a range of folks. Fedora would be a Corvette, Ubuntu (no offense) like a Chevrolet. The Ubuntu versions would be the Impala, the Malibu, the S-10, etc.
About the 2% issue, since many forms of computational systems exist, and since consumer computers are the largest group, they all have right now the equivalent of a Volkswagen in postwar Germany. As one somewhat famous US Sci-Fi series has made somewhat famous -- Wait for it!!! Or you could say that Linux is like Postwar Japanese automobiles. Quality wins in the end. And I think that Quality is inherent in Linux, although it may not show to some folks quite yet, that will be the ultimate chooser of winners and losers.
Regards, Les H
Alex Makhlin wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Alex Makhlin wrote:
Hi all,
Which one do you think is better and for what reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora 9. Personally I like Fedora 9.
Better for what? It is a matter of using the correct tool for the job.
Mikkel
The job is sir to have the best Linux environment. So which is better, Fedora OR Ubuntu?
From a 'use' perspective you end up with pretty much the same applications with just some slight version differences that leapfrog each other based on the respective release dates.
The differences are in installation and administration procedures. Ubuntu has some funding that goes to improve the user experience and their policy permits coordination with repositories holding the additional packages you are likely to want, so overall it is likely to be easier for an unbiased user to install and maintain a system.
On the other hand, RHEL and its clones are the most popular server distributions and fedora shares much of same the administration procedures. So if you already maintain RH-style servers or are using Linux to learn those techniques but want a desktop distro instead, fedora might be a better fit.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
The job is sir to have the best Linux environment. So
which is better, Fedora OR Ubuntu?
From a 'use' perspective you end up with pretty much the same applications with just some slight version differences that leapfrog each other based on the respective release dates.
The differences are in installation and administration procedures. Ubuntu has some funding that goes to improve the user experience and their policy permits coordination with repositories holding the additional packages you are likely to want, so overall it is likely to be easier for an unbiased user to install and maintain a system.
On the other hand, RHEL and its clones are the most popular server distributions and fedora shares much of same the administration procedures. So if you already maintain RH-style servers or are using Linux to learn those techniques but want a desktop distro instead, fedora might be a better fit.
-- Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com
-- fedora-list mailing list
I like this explanation along with Mikkel's. Hope that Alex reads your explanation.
Regards,
Antonio
Alex Makhlin wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Alex Makhlin wrote:
Hi all,
Which one do you think is better and for what reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora 9. Personally I like Fedora 9.
Better for what? It is a matter of using the correct tool for the job.
Mikkel
The job is sir to have the best Linux environment. So which is better, Fedora OR Ubuntu?
Well, Fedora provides the best Linux environment for me on THIS machine. It does not provide an acceptable environment on my Stylistic 1000 with 24Mb of RAM and a 500Mb PCMCIA memory drive. But then, neither does Ubuntu.
Ubuntu would probably be a better environment for my 85 year old dad. Linux is not the best environment for My sister that does embroidery, because the software create designs, and put the designs on her machine will not run under Linux, and there is not Linux version. (It is a special format - you can not just take a .png or .jpg and load it.)
I have no idea what would provide the best Linux environment for you. It depends on a lot of factors, none of witch you have provided.
Mikkel
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 2:43 PM, Mikkel L. Ellertson <mikkel@infinity-ltd.com
wrote:
Alex Makhlin wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Alex Makhlin wrote:
Hi all,
Which one do you think is better and for what reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora 9. Personally I like Fedora 9.
Better for what? It is a matter of using the correct tool for the job.
Mikkel
The job is sir to have the best Linux environment. So which is better, Fedora OR Ubuntu?
Well, Fedora provides the best Linux environment for me on THIS machine. It does not provide an acceptable environment on my Stylistic 1000 with 24Mb of RAM and a 500Mb PCMCIA memory drive. But then, neither does Ubuntu.
Ubuntu would probably be a better environment for my 85 year old dad. Linux is not the best environment for My sister that does embroidery, because the software create designs, and put the designs on her machine will not run under Linux, and there is not Linux version. (It is a special format - you can not just take a .png or .jpg and load it.)
I have no idea what would provide the best Linux environment for you. It depends on a lot of factors, none of witch you have provided.
Mikkel
A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Is this turning into a religious war?
infact on my computer none of them provide best linux environment i downloaded fedora 9 burned iso image to cd, cd boots perfectly but hangs in middle way in case of ubuntu i got free media from canonical ,i installed it easily but there is sound problem which has not been solved yet from past six days,and the problem is that songs are playing but there is no sound although i unmuted everything and my system meet all the recommended requirements like 1 GB OF RAM ETC
Armin Moradi wrote:
Is this turning into a religious war?
Nope - just trying to point out that there is no correct answer to the OPs question. It depends on too many factors for the answer to be the same in all situations. The OP has not given us enough information to even take a guess on what would be best for him.
Mikkel
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Armin Moradi wrote:
Is this turning into a religious war?
Nope - just trying to point out that there is no correct answer to the OPs question. It depends on too many factors for the answer to be the same in all situations. The OP has not given us enough information to even take a guess on what would be best for him.
Mikkel
My original question was based on the fact that Ubuntu is used on either pre installed Linux systems and on what they call "Linux friendly" computers which Ubuntu is recommended for. So my question is why did they choose Ubuntu? What makes it so special? I personally like Fedora far better for my own personal reasons. I don't even touch my Vista Ultimate 64 partition any more. But again, why is the mainstream market choosing Ubuntu?
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 11:17 -0800, Alex Makhlin wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Armin Moradi wrote:
Is this turning into a religious war?
Nope - just trying to point out that there is no correct answer to the OPs question. It depends on too many factors for the answer to be the same in all situations. The OP has not given us enough information to even take a guess on what would be best for him.
Mikkel
My original question was based on the fact that Ubuntu is used on either pre installed Linux systems and on what they call "Linux friendly" computers which Ubuntu is recommended for. So my question is why did they choose Ubuntu? What makes it so special? I personally like Fedora far better for my own personal reasons. I don't even touch my Vista Ultimate 64 partition any more. But again, why is the mainstream market choosing Ubuntu?
---- because...
1. You can always purchase support from Canonical (cannot purchase support from Fedora)
2. Fewer installed packages, less fuss, less things to go wrong on Ubuntu on a typical install whereas Fedora will comparatively install a kitchen sink
3. Off-shore distribution skirts restrictions that create problems because of US patents
Craig
On 11/04/2008 02:56 PM, Dave Ihnat wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 12:31:51PM -0700, Craig White wrote:
because...
<snip>
And:
- The Ubuntu life cycle is much longer than Fedora, making it more stable for production environments.
I don't particularly buy that argument. If you are looking for stability in production environments, then you need to compare the Enterprise distributions, such as RHEL and CentOS. With Ubuntu you can chose LTS or Normal, and you can purchase a support contract. Fedora (and OpenSuSe for that matter) is not intended for a corporate production environment. It includes all the bells and whistles because the user community demands these where a corporate production desktop or server needs more stability. I currently run Ubuntu (8.10 Intrepid Ibex) on my personal laptop, Fedora 9 on my corporate HP Integrity (IA64) Workstation, and Fedora 9 on my x86_64 desktop at home. I happen to like the fact that Ubuntu has a decent LiveCD with an easy installer. Fedora and OpenSuSE are more traditional in that they provide more bits on the installation media. Aditionally, it is my perception that both Red Hat and Novel give more back to the OpenSource community. I know that Red Hat and SuSE both has a number of kernel developers on staff.
But, in the original question, which one is better, Fedora 9 or Ubuntu, I could not begin to answer that, and I use them both every day.
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Jerry Feldman gaf@blu.org wrote:
On 11/04/2008 02:56 PM, Dave Ihnat wrote:
On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 12:31:51PM -0700, Craig White wrote:
because...
<snip>
And:
- The Ubuntu life cycle is much longer than Fedora, making it more stable for production environments.
I don't particularly buy that argument
Even though, I believe that was the major factor. I would be strongly against an OEM putting Fedora on regular user desktops anyways. Ubuntu has a much more versatile user support infrastructure, and a lot more stable pace than Fedora. Both of these reasons lead to me not using it, but are also good reasons for an OEM (especially a lazy one) to use.
So Ubuntu on Dells is a good thing. That itself does not make it better than Fedora.
Frankly, Fedora and Ubuntu are different enough that I don't think they can be compared at all to say that either is better.
I probably should stay out of this... But...
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 11:17 -0800, Alex Makhlin wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Armin Moradi wrote:
Is this turning into a religious war?
Nope - just trying to point out that there is no correct answer to the OPs question. It depends on too many factors for the answer to be the same in all situations. The OP has not given us enough information to even take a guess on what would be best for him.
Mikkel
My original question was based on the fact that Ubuntu is used on either pre installed Linux systems and on what they call "Linux friendly" computers which Ubuntu is recommended for. So my question is why did they choose Ubuntu? What makes it so special? I personally like Fedora far better for my own personal reasons. I don't even touch my Vista Ultimate 64 partition any more. But again, why is the mainstream market choosing Ubuntu?
IMHO (take it for what it's worth)...
Fedora has been accused of being "Beta", which is very wrong. It's not beta at all but it is EA. But it's not EA in the sense of "Early Availability", which you see from a lot of commercial outfits like Sun. It's more EA as in "Early Adopters" where we get more of the newest toots and whistles, whether they're fully baked and prime time or not. It's really for people who are not afraid to climb under the hood (to get back to the auto analogy) and tinker and tune, if you have to or if you want to (as oppose to some distributions where you don't have a choice).
Ubuntu, OTOH, is really geared for the "non-gearheads". You might not see as many toots and whistles (but I'm really impressed with what I do see) but it will have a lot more than RHEL (which is more server oriented) and it will be pretty darn stable and supported over a much longer life cycle (big support pluses).
Fedora is stable but does still pop enough surprises on me that I would not recommend it to my non-techie friends (and only some of my techie-friends, depending on their talent and predisposition to pester me). I would (and do) recommend Ubuntu in a heartbeat. I have an old high school friend who is a school bus driver who was given some old machines. Would I plague her with Fedora and have her figure out what went wrong when something goes bump and I don't know what hardware she has in the bucket? I don't think so. I'm installing Ubuntu on a machine right now for my daughter and wouldn't hesitate to do the same for either of my grandsons. I don't think I would give them Fedora. Certainly not F10 or F9. I'm a little less hesitant about F8, but that's already nearing its end of life with F10 coming out. That's not the cycle I want any of them on, upgrading their machines every 6-12 months or be SOL on updates. Nope, wrong answer. Right answer for me, wrong answer for them. My son on the other hand is just as proficient as I am and keeps a stable of various Fedora systems and servers running.
I work on Fedora, I use Fedora, I debug Fedora and I develop for Fedora. But I would not recommended for others who are not into the same level or interest of techie and geeky stuff that I'm into.
Oh, and there are a LOT more distributions I use. I found another threat about a forensic Fedora distribution amusing when we have already NST (Network Security TookKit) which is a forensic toolkit CD based on (now) Fedora 8. I use that extensively and have forensic CD's preinstalled in all my remote servers with serial consoles. Different distribution, different purpose, different target audience. I've also used Knoppix and Slackware where they fit the job. One size does NOT fit all.
A hammer will drive a screwdriver but it doesn't make you a carpenter (usually expressed "when all you have is a hammer, all problems start looking like nails"). When ever someone asks "is this better or is that better" the answer is generally "yes" and then "no" and then "it depends on what you want to use it for - define your conditions". And I will stand on that for this as well. Which is better? Both and neither. Depending upon purpose and conditions or circumstances one can argue each is better and one can argue that neither are appropriate (I would use neither in the forensic case).
Mike
Michael H. Warfield wrote:
I probably should stay out of this... But...
On Tue, 2008-11-04 at 11:17 -0800, Alex Makhlin wrote:
Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
Armin Moradi wrote:
Is this turning into a religious war?
Nope - just trying to point out that there is no correct answer to the OPs question. It depends on too many factors for the answer to be the same in all situations. The OP has not given us enough information to even take a guess on what would be best for him.
Mikkel
My original question was based on the fact that Ubuntu is used on either pre installed Linux systems and on what they call "Linux friendly" computers which Ubuntu is recommended for. So my question is why did they choose Ubuntu? What makes it so special? I personally like Fedora far better for my own personal reasons. I don't even touch my Vista Ultimate 64 partition any more. But again, why is the mainstream market choosing Ubuntu?
IMHO (take it for what it's worth)...
Fedora has been accused of being "Beta", which is very wrong. It's not beta at all but it is EA. But it's not EA in the sense of "Early Availability", which you see from a lot of commercial outfits like Sun. It's more EA as in "Early Adopters" where we get more of the newest toots and whistles, whether they're fully baked and prime time or not. It's really for people who are not afraid to climb under the hood (to get back to the auto analogy) and tinker and tune, if you have to or if you want to (as oppose to some distributions where you don't have a choice).
Ubuntu, OTOH, is really geared for the "non-gearheads". You might not see as many toots and whistles (but I'm really impressed with what I do see) but it will have a lot more than RHEL (which is more server oriented) and it will be pretty darn stable and supported over a much longer life cycle (big support pluses).
Fedora is stable but does still pop enough surprises on me that I would not recommend it to my non-techie friends (and only some of my techie-friends, depending on their talent and predisposition to pester me). I would (and do) recommend Ubuntu in a heartbeat. I have an old high school friend who is a school bus driver who was given some old machines. Would I plague her with Fedora and have her figure out what went wrong when something goes bump and I don't know what hardware she has in the bucket? I don't think so. I'm installing Ubuntu on a machine right now for my daughter and wouldn't hesitate to do the same for either of my grandsons. I don't think I would give them Fedora. Certainly not F10 or F9. I'm a little less hesitant about F8, but that's already nearing its end of life with F10 coming out. That's not the cycle I want any of them on, upgrading their machines every 6-12 months or be SOL on updates. Nope, wrong answer. Right answer for me, wrong answer for them. My son on the other hand is just as proficient as I am and keeps a stable of various Fedora systems and servers running.
I work on Fedora, I use Fedora, I debug Fedora and I develop for Fedora. But I would not recommended for others who are not into the same level or interest of techie and geeky stuff that I'm into.
Oh, and there are a LOT more distributions I use. I found another threat about a forensic Fedora distribution amusing when we have already NST (Network Security TookKit) which is a forensic toolkit CD based on (now) Fedora 8. I use that extensively and have forensic CD's preinstalled in all my remote servers with serial consoles. Different distribution, different purpose, different target audience. I've also used Knoppix and Slackware where they fit the job. One size does NOT fit all.
A hammer will drive a screwdriver but it doesn't make you a carpenter (usually expressed "when all you have is a hammer, all problems start looking like nails"). When ever someone asks "is this better or is that better" the answer is generally "yes" and then "no" and then "it depends on what you want to use it for - define your conditions". And I will stand on that for this as well. Which is better? Both and neither. Depending upon purpose and conditions or circumstances one can argue each is better and one can argue that neither are appropriate (I would use neither in the forensic case).
Mike
Hi and thank you for your clear answer,
Yes I agree that Fedora 9 is not a Beta or an EA. I find Fedora 9 to be a great distribution and am looking forward to Fedora 10. Fedora 9 still has a few bugs but we are all working on them and they do get resolved quite quickly. As far as I concluded, I am sticking with Fedora.
On Wed, 2008-10-29 at 15:45 -0700, Alex Makhlin wrote:
Hi all,
Which one do you think is better and for what reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora 9. Personally I like Fedora 9.
I'm sure we all prefer Ubuntu, that's why we hang out on the Fedora list.
I think you need to rephrase the question. What exactly to you want to know?
poc
Alex Makhlin wrote:
Which one do you think is better and for what reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora 9. Personally I like Fedora 9.
In my personal experience, the 'buntus are not as mature as Fedora (don't have the professional backing of Red Hat); servers are painfully slow, so net installation and updating are gruellingly lengthy and tedious; and they lack the sophistication of rpm and yum, having to make due with the deficient and awkward apt system (on two attempts at installing a 'buntu, the initial update right after the CD install failed).
Aside from that, in my estimation, once you have a distro configured and installed to your preferences, it's really all just Linux (nearly all distros offer the same packages we already know and use from Fedora). Fedora is said to be more cutting edge, meaning that some pre-release packages and early versions of programs might make it into Fedora before another distro picks it up, but this varies from one distro to another.
Personally, I am used to where Fedora keeps the configuration files and any non-Fedora/RedHat-based distro is difficult for me, when it comes to trying to solve configuration problems. I have spent years learning this way of doing things and don't see the point of reinvesting all those years in another system, in order to ultimately get essentially what I've already got.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:24:16 -0600 Petrus de Calguarium kwhiskerz@gmail.com wrote:
Alex Makhlin wrote:
Which one do you think is better and for what reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora 9. Personally I like Fedora 9.
In my personal experience, the 'buntus are not as mature as Fedora (don't have the professional backing of Red Hat); servers are painfully slow, so net installation and updating are gruellingly lengthy and tedious; and they lack the sophistication of rpm and yum, having to make due with the deficient and awkward apt system (on two attempts at installing a 'buntu, the initial update right after the CD install failed).
Your mileage WILL vary with experience. I run both and find non of what the OP mentions above to be true (pertaining to the negative notation of 'buntu - of course, "'buntu" is generic - the Op is not specifying what distro in particular - thus I default to the original question of Ubuntu. However, I will lend some credence to the reference of the other variants, they certainly are not as far along as the parent OS, meaning Ubuntu).
Aside from that, in my estimation, once you have a distro configured and installed to your preferences, it's really all just Linux (nearly all distros offer the same packages we already know and use from Fedora). Fedora is said to be more cutting edge, meaning that some pre-release packages and early versions of programs might make it into Fedora before another distro picks it up, but this varies from one distro to another.
Not entirely true - Fedora is the Beta-Ground for RedHat. If it flies and works with the Fedorans, then it most likely will make it into RedHat.
That being said, if you don't mind the occasional breakage that comes with running Fedora (let me specify - the latest, greatest version of Fedora. I'm not talking about the older versions).
Personally, I am used to where Fedora keeps the configuration files and any non-Fedora/RedHat-based distro is difficult for me, when it comes to trying to solve configuration problems. I have spent years learning this way of doing things and don't see the point of reinvesting all those years in another system, in order to ultimately get essentially what I've already got.
Here again, your mileage WILL vary. By staying with one OS (IE: Microsoft), or one Linux distro, you limit your marketability (that of course only applies if you work in an industry where you are either an admin or provide support). The above comment however, works well if your a home user.
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:24:16 -0600 Petrus de Calguarium kwhiskerz@gmail.com wrote:
and they lack the sophistication of rpm and yum, having to make due with the deficient and awkward apt system
Huh? Synaptic is the one reason I might consider switching to ubuntu. You want to talk deficient and awkward, compare packagekit to synaptic and decide which is deficient.
Tom Horsley wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:24:16 -0600 Petrus de Calguarium kwhiskerz@gmail.com wrote:
and they lack the sophistication of rpm and yum, having to make due with the deficient and awkward apt system
Huh? Synaptic is the one reason I might consider switching to ubuntu. You want to talk deficient and awkward, compare packagekit to synaptic and decide which is deficient.
I would like bugzilla.redhat.com to know what is consider deficient in the latest packagekit. You probably mean gpk-application, the GNOME frontend to packagekit since packagekit is just a library and not directly comparable to synaptic.
Moreover, apt-rpm and synaptic are already available in the Fedora repo and switching distributions for it doesn't make much sense for this reason.
Rahul
I would like bugzilla.redhat.com to know what is consider deficient in the latest packagekit. You probably mean gpk-application, the GNOME frontend to packagekit since packagekit is just a library and not directly comparable to synaptic.
Moreover, apt-rpm and synaptic are already available in the Fedora repo and switching distributions for it doesn't make much sense for this reason.
Rahul
Well, one of the reasons could be better font rendering in Ubuntu , but there are patched rpm with ubuntu rendering available for Fedora.
D.
David Hláčik wrote:
Well, one of the reasons could be better font rendering in Ubuntu , but there are patched rpm with ubuntu rendering available for Fedora.
Are you referring to some of the freetype font hinting which is patent encumbered? If so, a rpmfusion package is available for that. Ubuntu hasn't done any specific patching in that area afaik.
Rahul
Are you referring to some of the freetype font hinting which is patent encumbered? If so, a rpmfusion package is available for that. Ubuntu hasn't done any specific patching in that area afaik.
Well that is not true , they patched cairo , freetype, libXft with patented bytecode hinting , please check that topic http://www.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t=186789
Regards,
D.
David Hláčik wrote:
Are you referring to some of the freetype font hinting which is patent encumbered? If so, a rpmfusion package is available for that. Ubuntu hasn't done any specific patching in that area afaik.
Well that is not true , they patched cairo , freetype, libXft with patented bytecode hinting , please check that topic http://www.fedoraforum.org/forum/showthread.php?t=186789
Seems odd to require changes so deep down in the stack for just font rendering but thanks anyway. Useful info.
Rahul
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 05:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I would like bugzilla.redhat.com to know what is consider deficient in the latest packagekit.
In current Fedora 9.92/rawhide, it's completely busted: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467976
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 05:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I would like bugzilla.redhat.com to know what is consider deficient in the latest packagekit.
In current Fedora 9.92/rawhide, it's completely busted: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467976
Discussion was about Fedora 9 however and no, it is not "completely busted" as I have yet to see that problem on rawhide that I have been running for months now.
Rahul
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 18:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 05:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I would like bugzilla.redhat.com to know what is consider deficient in the latest packagekit.
In current Fedora 9.92/rawhide, it's completely busted: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467976
Discussion was about Fedora 9 however and no, it is not "completely busted" as I have yet to see that problem on rawhide that I have been running for months now.
Enable rpmfusion, if you want to see this breakdown.
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 18:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 05:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I would like bugzilla.redhat.com to know what is consider deficient in the latest packagekit.
In current Fedora 9.92/rawhide, it's completely busted: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467976
Discussion was about Fedora 9 however and no, it is not "completely busted" as I have yet to see that problem on rawhide that I have been running for months now.
Enable rpmfusion, if you want to see this breakdown.
I have rpmfusion - both the development repos enabled already. I just don't see it.
Rahul
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 19:47 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 18:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 05:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I would like bugzilla.redhat.com to know what is consider deficient in the latest packagekit.
In current Fedora 9.92/rawhide, it's completely busted: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467976
Discussion was about Fedora 9 however and no, it is not "completely busted" as I have yet to see that problem on rawhide that I have been running for months now.
Enable rpmfusion, if you want to see this breakdown.
I have rpmfusion - both the development repos enabled already. I just don't see it.
Try Add/Remove software and try to install them.
I can deterministically reproduce this breakdown. Shall I video tape it, if you don't want to believe me?
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 19:47 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 18:33 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 05:43 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
I would like bugzilla.redhat.com to know what is consider deficient in the latest packagekit.
In current Fedora 9.92/rawhide, it's completely busted: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=467976
Discussion was about Fedora 9 however and no, it is not "completely busted" as I have yet to see that problem on rawhide that I have been running for months now.
Enable rpmfusion, if you want to see this breakdown.
I have rpmfusion - both the development repos enabled already. I just don't see it.
Try Add/Remove software and try to install them.
I can deterministically reproduce this breakdown. Shall I video tape it, if you don't want to believe me?
I doubt if it is a case of "not wanting to believe you". I think it is a simple case of "it works here". Maybe if he said "it works here and I'm scratching my butt trying to figure out why" it would have sounded better?
I can't begin to count the number of times something worked for me and not for others....and when I finally found the difference I was relived.
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Try Add/Remove software and try to install them.
I can deterministically reproduce this breakdown. Shall I video tape it, if you don't want to believe me?
Did I say, I did not believe you? I am just saying I can't reproduce the problem and I just did a installation of a package install to confirm that it works fine and it did.
So it might be something to do with the configuration of repositories in your system or we have different versions. You might want to post to packagekit list with more details.
# rpm -qa | grep -i packagekit
PackageKit-yum-plugin-0.3.9-1.fc10.i386 PackageKit-glib-0.3.9-1.fc10.i386 PackageKit-yum-0.3.9-1.fc10.i386 gnome-packagekit-0.3.9-4.fc10.i386 PackageKit-udev-helper-0.3.9-1.fc10.i386 PackageKit-0.3.9-1.fc10.i386
# yum repolist Loaded plugins: list-data, refresh-packagekit repo id repo name status livna-development Livna for Fedora Core 9.92 - i386 - Deve enabled : 56 rawhide Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental package enabled : 11,415 rpmfusion-free-rawhi RPM Fusion for Fedora 9.92 - Free - Rawh enabled : 409 rpmfusion-nonfree-ra RPM Fusion for Fedora 9.92 - Non-Free - enabled : 153 repolist: 12,033
Rahul
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 20:08 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Try Add/Remove software and try to install them.
I can deterministically reproduce this breakdown. Shall I video tape it, if you don't want to believe me?
A Video has been taped (unfortunately of very low quality). *.avi available on request.
Did I say, I did not believe you? I am just saying I can't reproduce the problem and I just did a installation of a package install to confirm that it works fine and it did.
So it might be something to do with the configuration of repositories in your system or we have different versions. You might want to post to packagekit list with more details.
# rpm -qa | grep -i packagekit
PackageKit-yum-plugin-0.3.9-1.fc10.i386 PackageKit-glib-0.3.9-1.fc10.i386 PackageKit-yum-0.3.9-1.fc10.i386 gnome-packagekit-0.3.9-4.fc10.i386 PackageKit-udev-helper-0.3.9-1.fc10.i386 PackageKit-0.3.9-1.fc10.i386
Identical to what I have, except that I also have PackageKit-gstreamer-plugin-0.3.9-1.fc10.i386 installed.
# yum repolist Loaded plugins: list-data, refresh-packagekit repo id repo name status livna-development Livna for Fedora Core 9.92 - i386 - Deve enabled : 56 rawhide Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental package enabled : 11,415 rpmfusion-free-rawhi RPM Fusion for Fedora 9.92 - Free - Rawh enabled : 409 rpmfusion-nonfree-ra RPM Fusion for Fedora 9.92 - Non-Free - enabled : 153 repolist: 12,033
# repo id repo name status rawhide Fedora - Rawhide - Developmental package enabled : 11,414 rpmfusion-free-rawhi RPM Fusion for Fedora 9.92 - Free - Rawh enabled : 409 rpmfusion-nonfree-ra RPM Fusion for Fedora 9.92 - Non-Free - enabled : 153
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 5:27 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
I can deterministically reproduce this breakdown. Shall I video tape it, if you don't want to believe me?
I have a rawhide laptop going here... got the error dialog referred to in the bug...exactly once.
if I use add/remove interface...to install something new I get the dialog on first attempt an install acction from rpmfusion. Second attempt goes through. Subsequent attempts at install seem to work for me regardless of repository. Not sure what's going on. I can't seem to reproduce it beyond that first dialog.
The update interface seems to work since I'm pretty sure I've eaten some updates from rpmfusion recently, but its hard to be sure, I'd have to force an update situation.
-jef
Tom Horsley wrote:
Huh? Synaptic is the one reason I might consider switching to ubuntu. You want to talk deficient and awkward, compare packagekit to synaptic and decide which is deficient.
I have never had rpm, yum or PackageKit crash on me, but that is a signature trait of Synaptic. It generally crashes about halfway into downloading about 400 MB of updates, messes up the package list of pending updates in the process, and it becomes impossible to resume the update. And add to that, that in getting the 400 MB, you just spent about 2-3 hours waiting and still didn't get the system updates. I speak from experience and have done the procedure more than 2 or 3 times, with the same frustrating result, and not with the same release or installation media.
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
Tom Horsley wrote:
Huh? Synaptic is the one reason I might consider switching to ubuntu. You want to talk deficient and awkward, compare packagekit to synaptic and decide which is deficient.
I have never had rpm, yum or PackageKit crash on me, but that is a signature trait of Synaptic. It generally crashes about halfway into downloading about 400 MB of updates, messes up the package list of pending updates in the process, and it becomes impossible to resume the update. And add to that, that in getting the 400 MB, you just spent about 2-3 hours waiting and still didn't get the system updates. I speak from experience and have done the procedure more than 2 or 3 times, with the same frustrating result, and not with the same release or installation media.
Can't you still just: apt-get update apt-get upgrade in a terminal window and save the GUIness for when you want to pick a new package or two?
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 21:54:31 -0500 Les Mikesell lesmikesell@gmail.com wrote:
Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
Tom Horsley wrote:
Huh? Synaptic is the one reason I might consider switching to ubuntu. You want to talk deficient and awkward, compare packagekit to synaptic and decide which is deficient.
I have never had rpm, yum or PackageKit crash on me, but that is a signature trait of Synaptic. It generally crashes about halfway into downloading about 400 MB of updates, messes up the package list of pending updates in the process, and it becomes impossible to resume the update. And add to that, that in getting the 400 MB, you just spent about 2-3 hours waiting and still didn't get the system updates. I speak from experience and have done the procedure more than 2 or 3 times, with the same frustrating result, and not with the same release or installation media.
Can't you still just: apt-get update apt-get upgrade in a terminal window and save the GUIness for when you want to pick a new package or two?
Dag burn it, Les, there you go again using logic ;)
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 08:34:38PM -0600, Petrus de Calguarium wrote:
I have never had rpm, yum or PackageKit crash on me, but that is a signature trait of Synaptic.
With all respect, that's not universal. I've had absolute reliable Synaptic/apt/dpkg performance on four Ubuntu systems--one server, one laptop, and two desktops. Perhaps your experience is with earlier releases of Ubuntu?
The only iffy things I've had happen under Ubuntu are automatic support for exotic disk/controller configurations (and that was readily fixed by understanding Grub), and support for nVidia proprietary drivers (so what's new.)
Cheers, -- Dave Ihnat President, DMINET Consulting, Inc. dihnat@dminet.com
Tom Horsley wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:24:16 -0600 Petrus de Calguarium kwhiskerz@gmail.com wrote:
and they lack the sophistication of rpm and yum, having to make due with the deficient and awkward apt system
Huh? Synaptic is the one reason I might consider switching to ubuntu. You want to talk deficient and awkward, compare packagekit to synaptic and decide which is deficient.
Hi
Have you tried yumex? I think it's pretty nice. I prefer "yum" than apt-get, apt-cache, dpkg, etc.
Regards
Marcelo
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:18:40 +0000 "Marcelo M. Garcia" marcelo.maia.garcia@googlemail.com wrote:
Have you tried yumex? I think it's pretty nice. I prefer "yum" than apt-get, apt-cache, dpkg, etc.
Yep, in fact I use yumex in preference to the packagekit gui when I need to search for stuff and want to do a random collection of package installs, but my primary command is just the cli "yum update" command :-).
However, the synaptic GUI (at least on modern ubuntu systems) is the only package management GUI that ever just made sense to me out of the box with no learning curve, and it does stuff no other gui seems to do, like downloading more than one package at a time (so when one is stuck on a slow server, it doesn't backup all the rest), and allowing me to search on just package name, or on descriptions as well as names, etc.
Tom Horsley wrote:
However, the synaptic GUI (at least on modern ubuntu systems) is the only package management GUI that ever just made sense to me out of the box with no learning curve, and it does stuff no other gui seems to do, like downloading more than one package at a time
This depends on the backend capability and not just the gui
(so when one is stuck on a slow server, it doesn't backup all the rest), and allowing me to search on just package name, or on descriptions as well as names, etc.
gpk-application does this as well.
Rahul
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Tom Horsley tom.horsley@att.net wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:24:16 -0600 Petrus de Calguarium kwhiskerz@gmail.com wrote:
and they lack the sophistication of rpm and yum, having to make due with the deficient and awkward apt system
Huh? Synaptic is the one reason I might consider switching to ubuntu. You want to talk deficient and awkward, compare packagekit to synaptic and decide which is deficient.
rpm -> deb yum -> apt
Package kit is being adopted across all major distros.
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:14:51 -0500 "Arthur Pemberton" pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
Package kit is being adopted across all major distros.
You mean it is being ported across all major distros, not the same as being adopted :-).
Tom Horsley wrote:
On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 10:14:51 -0500 "Arthur Pemberton" pemboa@gmail.com wrote:
Package kit is being adopted across all major distros.
You mean it is being ported across all major distros, not the same as being adopted :-).
There is no porting per say of PackageKit at all. It is designed to be cross platform. Other distributions merely write their own backends using the common API. So adoption is more correct.
Rahul
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Alex Makhlin makhlina@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Which one do you think is better and for what reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora 9. Personally I like Fedora 9.
None is better than the other. The notion is that *buntu is easier to setup and maintain..
The question has been asked many times in this forum in one way or another. The answer is always that Fedora is cutting edge and be prepared to fix things.
The release cycle is something to consider. See *buntu's here http://www.ubuntu.com/products/ubuntu/release-cycle The current release is schedule to go all the way to 2013.
See Fedora's here http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/Overview "New releases of Fedora are released from the rawhide collection at approximately six month intervals." The next release is next month.
Consider also the user support base and the resources available for either distro.
~af
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:45:18 -0700 makhlina@gmail.com (Alex Makhlin) wrote:
Hi all,
Which one do you think is better and for what reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora 9. Personally I like Fedora 9.
I'll tell you the same thing here that I tell folks in the #fedora IRC channel:
Both distros have live media. Why don't you download them and try out each and decide for yourself which one you like?
kevin
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:45:18 -0700 makhlina@gmail.com (Alex Makhlin) wrote:
Hi all,
Which one do you think is better and for what reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora 9. Personally I like Fedora 9.
I'll tell you the same thing here that I tell folks in the #fedora IRC channel:
Both distros have live media. Why don't you download them and try out each and decide for yourself which one you like?
kevin
Good advice.
I was installing Linux for a friend, and figured I'd give them Ubuntu as I it would hopefully be easier for them than Fedora. Tried the LiveCD, kept freezing up (requiring hard restarts). Did an install figuring I just needed to update to a new kernel, pre and post full system update, still kept hard freezing. So I went back to old faithful Fedora.
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 10:20 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:45:18 -0700 makhlina@gmail.com (Alex Makhlin) wrote:
Both distros have live media. Why don't you download them and try out each and decide for yourself which one you like?
Good advice.
Yep.
I was installing Linux for a friend, and figured I'd give them Ubuntu as I it would hopefully be easier for them than Fedora. Tried the LiveCD, kept freezing up (requiring hard restarts). Did an install figuring I just needed to update to a new kernel, pre and post full system update, still kept hard freezing. So I went back to old faithful Fedora.
This doesn't mean much. It can be an arbitrary small detail (E.g. a kernel or a packaging bug on a DVD), which may spoil everything in a particular scenario, esp. on a machine, which never has seen Linux before.
I recently tried to install Fedora 9 on a brand new machine and ended up as you did with Ubuntu. Any attempts to install FC9 failed in very early stages of installing. I resorted to trying FC10-Beta2, which at least enabled me to boot and to install. Now, I am experiencing the "fun" of rawhide ;)
If I were consequent, I would now give Ubuntu or openSUSE a try :)
Ralf
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Ralf Corsepius rc040203@freenet.de wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 10:20 -0500, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:45:18 -0700 makhlina@gmail.com (Alex Makhlin) wrote:
Both distros have live media. Why don't you download them and try out each and decide for yourself which one you like?
Good advice.
Yep.
I was installing Linux for a friend, and figured I'd give them Ubuntu as I it would hopefully be easier for them than Fedora. Tried the LiveCD, kept freezing up (requiring hard restarts). Did an install figuring I just needed to update to a new kernel, pre and post full system update, still kept hard freezing. So I went back to old faithful Fedora.
This doesn't mean much. It can be an arbitrary small detail (E.g. a kernel or a packaging bug on a DVD), which may spoil everything in a particular scenario, esp. on a machine, which never has seen Linux before.
True. Didn't help that I got no useful help on IRC though.
Arthur Pemberton wrote:
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Kevin Fenzi kevin@scrye.com wrote:
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 15:45:18 -0700 makhlina@gmail.com (Alex Makhlin) wrote:
Hi all,
Which one do you think is better and for what reasons. Ubuntu or Fedora 9. Personally I like Fedora 9.
I'll tell you the same thing here that I tell folks in the #fedora IRC channel:
Both distros have live media. Why don't you download them and try out each and decide for yourself which one you like?
kevin
Good advice.
I was installing Linux for a friend, and figured I'd give them Ubuntu as I it would hopefully be easier for them than Fedora. Tried the LiveCD, kept freezing up (requiring hard restarts). Did an install figuring I just needed to update to a new kernel, pre and post full system update, still kept hard freezing. So I went back to old faithful Fedora.
Yeah, well, I discovered for me, the freezup is caused by screensaver. When you boot up, go directly to screensaver and disable it completely. After that - it stayed up all night and into the next day and to the evening. One thing I like about the Ubuntu LiveCD is that they included partition manager - something that is lacking in Fedora's F9 LiveCD but then again, Ubuntu lacks mkinitrd which is available in F9. So, I guess it is the small difference. Also, as for F9, they have newer applications for which Ubuntu is "behind" for example parition manager they have does not support labeling and Nautilus is older - but then again Ubuntu has a longer shelf-life and of course you have to wait for newer updates if and when they become available or build it yourself.
I guess from my standpoint Ubuntu is very good with support, they are somewhat more stable and not a fast-moving target which could upset people who don't want instability too quick and too soon (like my kids or Mom and Pop who are computer illiterate)
Both Ubuntu and Fedora are fabulous, but I am still a die-hard Fedorian ;)
Dan
-
Aldo Foot -
Alex Makhlin -
Antonio Olivares -
Armin -
Arthur Pemberton -
bob smith -
Bruno Wolff III -
Carroll Grigsby -
Chris -
Christopher A Williams -
Craig White -
Dan Thurman -
Dave Ihnat -
David Hláčik -
Ed Greshko -
Fred Silsbee -
Howard Howell -
Jef Spaleta -
Jerry Feldman -
kanhiya deswal -
Kevin Fenzi -
Les Mikesell -
Marcelo Garcia -
Mark Haney -
Matthew Flaschen -
Michael H. Warfield -
Mikkel -
Patrick O'Callaghan -
Petrus de Calguarium -
Rahul Sundaram -
Ralf Corsepius -
Tom Horsley -
Vincenzo Campanella