what is the difference between ubuntu and fedora

Its all linux.. I guess. is there any difference between fedora and ubuntu. fedora's artwork is good:p. ubuntu's large number of packages and supportive community is the best in the world:p. instead of I,seeing fedora vs ubuntu. why shouldn't i use both of them together, so that i can use both fantastic artwork and large number of packages.

If i use so, what may be the difficulties and incompatibilities i may face....:p what are the advantages and disadvantages if i use so...

luckydeveloper said: Its all linux.. I guess. is there any difference between fedora and ubuntu. fedora's artwork is good:p. ubuntu's large number of packages and supportive community is the best in the world:p. instead of I,seeing fedora vs ubuntu. why shouldn't i use both of them together, so that i can use both fantastic artwork and large number of packages.

If i use so, what may be the difficulties and incompatibilities i may face....:p what are the advantages and disadvantages if i use so...

It's actually probably a good idea to try both so you can get a feel of both. If you like fedora look just install kde for ubuntu (kubuntu) as for the artwork just do a search on google and add it. However if artwork is all you care about I don't see that as enough reason.

I have used Fedora and it is a nice feeling OS however I find it to be far less compatible than ubuntu. Furthermore Fedora is a redhat project so the support that you have with ubuntu wont be as prevalent.

As far as I am concerned fedora is just a way for Redhat to make the community that they had when Redhat was free, happy.

thats Just my 2 Cents

i got this from the fedora forums

fedora is leaned more towards developers and testing software whereas ubuntu is leaned more toward the average user and stable software

if you want the latest greatest and you dont mind the occasional bug that needs fixing try fedora

if you want a system that just works and you dont like fixing things try ubuntu

source http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=204215

Seems like a reasonable explanation to me, I surely don't like wasting time trying to fix things.

The last Fedora release was really good and I haven't had any stability issues with it. That being said the biggest difference between Ubuntu and Fedora is the package management and the use of RPM vs. Deb packages

I keep trying Fedora...I like to play around sometimes. I loved the Fedora 9 64 bit install I had with KDE it ran great however I just couldn't stand RPM. Might seem funny that something like a package manager would make you switch but it did.

I tend to agree with the comment on the stability difference with Ubuntu. The great thing about Live CD's you can try it without losing anything.

d

I am trying Ubuntu for the first time after using Fedora for many years. Out of the door I think I prefer Fedora's "yum" package manager to Debian's "APT." Of course this might be premature given that since it's new it's not all that comfortable.

I'd used RedHat 7 and RedHat 8 for a time. By the time I "went back" to playing around with Linux (I'd also used some other distros, too), RedHat had made the transition and now Fedora Core 1 was out.

I really liked the visual styling of RH8/FC1 and FC2, but it started to loose some of it's luster for me as it went forward. But, that being said, I still liked Fedora.

I'd agree with the earlier poster that, at least "back in the day", it seemed like a lot of software had issues and wouldn't run without help. The problem is that, in approaching Linux as a "normal computer user", I was in no way prepared to even figure out why the app was breaking, let alone how (specifically), and forget about figuring out how to fix it.

Of all the distributions I'd used up to the point I first tried Ubuntu, it was always the case that at least some number of apps didn't work at all (they would abort on launch). Now, don't get me wrong, the "community approach" is fine and all, but I felt that if someone was going to go to the trouble of putting out a "professional" distribution, then at a minimum all the associated apps should at least *open*.

I've never had the degree of problems with Ubuntu that I've had with other distros, period. Obviously, newer releases work better and more flawlessly than older ones, but Ubuntu at it's worst has still given me a user experience better than most others at their best.

This all being said, I do have the Nadoka engine installed, because there still are a few stylistic differences on Fedora that I really prefer.

And isn't it the great thing about Linux that you don't have to "throw the baby out with the bath water" when there's some detail you don't quite like?

MikeTheC said: I'd used RedHat 7 and RedHat 8 for a time. By the time I "went back" to playing around with Linux (I'd also used some other distros, too), RedHat had made the transition and now Fedora Core 1 was out.

I really liked the visual styling of RH8/FC1 and FC2, but it started to loose some of it's luster for me as it went forward. But, that being said, I still liked Fedora.

I'd agree with the earlier poster that, at least "back in the day", it seemed like a lot of software had issues and wouldn't run without help. The problem is that, in approaching Linux as a "normal computer user", I was in no way prepared to even figure out why the app was breaking, let alone how (specifically), and forget about figuring out how to fix it.

Of all the distributions I'd used up to the point I first tried Ubuntu, it was always the case that at least some number of apps didn't work at all (they would abort on launch). Now, don't get me wrong, the "community approach" is fine and all, but I felt that if someone was going to go to the trouble of putting out a "professional" distribution, then at a minimum all the associated apps should at least *open*.

I've never had the degree of problems with Ubuntu that I've had with other distros, period. Obviously, newer releases work better and more flawlessly than older ones, but Ubuntu at it's worst has still given me a user experience better than most others at their best.

This all being said, I do have the Nadoka engine installed, because there still are a few stylistic differences on Fedora that I really prefer.

And isn't it the great thing about Linux that you don't have to "throw the baby out with the bath water" when there's some detail you don't quite like?

I have to agree with this to some extent. I like Ubuntu, and I like the idea, but for goodness sake does it have to be such a maintenance chore to run?

I only run Ubuntu (actually XUbuntu at work), and it isn't too bad, although I do leave the "Upgarde Distro" button well alone for a month after a new release. My parents and my cousin both use Ubuntu and the number of times the thing has broken on them... The recent Jaunty upgade is a case in point: the terminal broke (pretty bad as I couldn't ssh in to fix anything), the NVidia driver went amiss and I had to install the latest one from the NVidia site (which will cause problems when the kernel gets upgraded next) and to make matters worse tracker complained of a corrupted index and shot the CPU usage up to 100%. Now all of these problems happened at once after the upgrade, you know it's actually pertty hard to even move the mouse when you don't have a good graphics driver and the CPU is at 100%.

The worst bit is that their computer is one of those Dell preinstalled desktops... in other words that hardware should work better than most.

I'm mostly a Gentoo Linux user, and of course Gentoo is not without its problems (actually the reason I use xubuntu at work). I wouldn't think of recommending Gentoo to a "average desktop user" (although I have thought of giving it to my parents and managing their system by SSH) but they do get some things right.

By having a "rolling release" which doesn't have a huge number of packages being upgraded simulatenously it's much easier to tell what actually caused a breakage, and it's much less likely that you'll causee a series of breakages simultaneously. With computers getting faster, and going multicore, compiling from source is much less noticeable. I'll add in something else, which has always been controversial, but my Gentoo box *feels* much faster than my Aunt's Ubuntu box, my cousin's, my parents and my work machine (all of those computers are actually newer and better equipted than my home box).

I am considering getting my parents to try Fedora now. They are getting more and more impatient with the constant breakages ("It's like having to walk with crutches"). I probably should have stopped upgrading their computer after the LTS release.

I think if Ubuntu wants to improve it really needs to get a few things sorted. I think they need to release when they are actually ready to release, rather than sticking to strickly to a 6-month release cycle. Perhaps a stable 1-year release, with a testing/development 6-month release inbetween would be better (along the lines of 2.5(devel) 2.6(stable)). Let some things be a rolling component: like proprietary graphics drivers. I shouldn't have to leave the package manager to install a new version of the graphics driver. I think they should embrace the companies who have chosen to ship Ubuntu preinstalled by actually testing Ubuntu - thoroughly - on that hardware, and not just testing the release but also the upgrade process from the preinstalled version to the new version. Also, a minor point that I hadn't noticed until I had it pointed out to me, the default theme is a bit clunkly-like and the buttons a bit big.

What do others think?

Fedora has a lot of good stuff in it, except their Mono stack really it is very well maintained and they do important work to further Linux. You get rapid evolving software but surprisingly it doesn't seem to affect stabililty much, in fact I often find that things work nicer in Fedora simply because they keep even the stable releases updated so you get all the latest fixes.

I love yum and RPM is a much nicer format to work with as a package maintainer (but still not right).

There is much to love about Fedora, as a user you get lovely doses of dew fresh software. Every package is very actively maintained and often by people who are or works closely with upstream. The maintainers care which is important, no issue really gets to linger unlike in so many other distros. Fedora very often aims for solving a problem the right way, even if that solution is hard, will take time and require things to be broken for a while. This earns them more hate than they deserve for it, Linux is a better platform for their boldness and if they didn't do it either we would be at a standstill or someone else would have to.

The downsides definitely include a some what poor and incomplete Mono stack, also you don't get much support outside of ix86/x86_64 (PPC is officially supported but it is largely a lie these days). There also isn't much direction outside here and now, no grand scheme for what we need to fix - where we want to go and what the vision is for the future of computing. The target audience and what products to offer are also ill defined, leading to some confusion in the way Fedora evolves.

The governance model is firmly a meritocracy, but there is a sense of elitism and entitlement that can scare new and old contributors alike. It is very political, unless you enjoy that sort of thing stay a user. You will often see lenghty flamewars on seemingly odd topics (like if a cursor should blink), this is just the nature of Fedora.

I think Fedora is a vital part of the Linux ecosystem, many of the maintainers are great people who care deeply about their work. That shines through in the distribution. As a user you find a home that is well cared for, it comes with everything you can, legally, ask for (and then some care of rpmfusion.org). You get to be part of shaping Linux and you get early access to some exciting technologies.