Greetings everyone!

Sorry about my title choice, please rest assured that I don't mean to offend anyone. I wasn't really sure about which section of this forum I was supposed to post my question, so I chose here, but if it isn't the right place, I apologize.

So here's the deal:

I'm just confused. Since Ubuntu Hardy Heron is out, all I read in Linux news and blogs is how this is THE OS, practically the best thing since sliced bread. I also read about how Ubuntu is aimed at desktops and how Red Hat is not. Ever since I began using Linux, Fedora has always been the main OS on my computers, but if Red Had isn't aiming at desktops, what is Fedora supposed to be? Is my sticking with Fedora something that is futile? Am I missing something by not adopting Ubuntu? I know that the best way to find out would be to try it and see if I like it better, but I want to know your opinion.

Also, please, don't interpret this as some stupid ranting. I don't want to start any flame war about "My OS is better than yours...", I have too much respect for this forum to do that. I just want to know what you people think.

Thank you

In 11 days Fedora 9 will be coming out. You will then hear in your news and blogs how it is "THE OS" and the best thing since whatever "the best thing before sliced bread was invented but not quite as good as the wheel" was. That's what makes news on those sites, reports of the latest distro release. Personally, I don't care which disto people use. If they get off of Windows, they are making the world a better place.

My 2 pennies,

Forrest

This is where livecds come in handy. Download it and take it for a test drive. Personally I still find Fedora (on balance) to be the best for my desktop, but I know many who have switched to Mint or PClos(sp) (very few have gone Ubuntu).

That being said I am at odds with Fedora with their dropping long term (legacy) support. Installing a new version on servers every year or running an OS without at least security updates was just unacceptable. When support was dropped for FC5 I moved my servers to Centos5.0. It has at least a 5 year support life. My main desktop is still Fedora (8).

All my servers are running Solaris 10, but if I had any Linux servers they would be CentOS or RH. My desktops will be Fedora as long as it is around. I've used Kubuntu as well, but I just don't like it as much (perhaps it's the 12 years with a RH distro that is influencing me). I still think Yggdrasil was a cool name for a distro though. Ah, memories...

Forrest

I seriously doubt that. Unlike Fedora, Ubuntu Linux has pretty much established itself (for the very least in the public opinion) as "The" GUI-centered distribution. Check out a site like Digg, FreeBSD releases don't even make the front page, but every little "How to rename a file via command-line under Ubuntu" article does. [EDIT: I'm not saying Digg is the ultimate authority, but it does tend to show what users want/like]

I don't use Fedora, nor Ubuntu, so I think I can call myself "pretty much objective". The OP stated a question that I too had in me for some time, but knowing that asking such a question would quickly lead to: 1. A flame war; 2. Try them and decide kind of talks, I did not bother asking it myself.

I -have- tried Fedora. I -have- tried Ubuntu. I ended up not liking either because at the end of the day I'm pretty much a computer minimalist.

The question remains: let's say you don't have rpm-based experience, nor deb-based experience. Let's say your work does not involve using some rpm/deb based distribution. What does Fedora do better than Ubuntu? Sure, Fedora can't be the best of the two for everyone. Ubuntu can't be the best of the two for everyone.. no problem. But are there -any- features which make Fedora more attractive to -any- users (keeping in mind the experience/work assumptions above) when compared to Ubuntu?

P.S.: The whole "best to reinstall if you want to upgrade" thing is a major drawback for Fedora IMNSHO.

I wasn't trying to imply Fedora is better than Ubuntu by my statement. I was commenting on the state of the Media. They are always trying to get bigger and more exciting stories every week. If the question had been the other way around, I would have said that about Hardy Heron. In my mind, they are pretty much equal. Neither requires me to compile software (something I'm more than capable of, yet feel it a waste of my time so prefer not to have to). I don't typically use a GUI to administer my boxes (because historically they haven't worked as well as hand editing the config file, so i got used to doing that), so I'm not sure which distro's admintools work better. For me, the main problem I have with Ubuntu is that the config files aren't necessarily in the places I'm expecting (like the package management differences, not something that would affect a new user). At least one thing Fedora has going for it is the support you will get from me. It will be just a smidgen better than the support you will get from me for other distros .

Like I said earlier, I don't care which distro someone chooses. I think fighting over which is best is silly. It's like fighting over which color is the best (green is, and I don't want to hear differently). They are ALL Linux, and they are ALL Great!

Forrest

p.s. What are you talking about with the "best to reinstall..." thing?

Well yes, I totally agree with you. I've tried different Linux flavors in the past simply to realize that no matter which one I use, I always end up doing the same things on them, I only have to do them a bit differently from one version to the other. So to me they're practically all the same and the one I decide to stick with is just a matter of personal preference. I suppose it's also like that for everybody. But when they say that one version is aimed at desktops while the other is not, what is that supposed to mean?

(And GREEN??? Are you kidding? It's nothing but a cheap derivative of the one true real color: BLUE)

A distro that is aimed at desktops will spend more time on desktop artwork, GUI configuration tools, end user applications, and things like that. A server distro will put less emphasis on those things and more emphasis on making sure the server software (database servers, web servers, mail servers, etc) works in a stable way. Furthermore, servers should be built to be able to do the same thing for years, and therefore need long term support. If a server goes down, many people are affected. If a desktop goes down, typically only one is. Desktops need to be stable, but they typically have a shorter OS lifespan due to users wanting to upgrade to get the latest capability of newer software.

HTH

Forrest

(Green is NOT a cheap derivative of blue. It combines the goodness of blue with the goodness of yellow)

I see. Well now that makes things much clearer to me. Thanks for answering my question.

At first what I thought this desktop/non-desktop orientation meant was that we would see Fedora getting lamer on desktops with time compared to other distros such as Ubuntu. But still, does this mean that one should expect less "desktop functionalities" (if I may call them that way) or more bugs in them in Fedora than, say, Ubuntu? Or that one should expect more risks of server failure with Ubuntu than Fedora (even though "failure" isn't something that I tend to associate with Linux)?


(Right, it is so good that you need two colors to make it. Face it, green is nothing without blue!)

introuble

I agree that this is a PITA. However if one upgrades enough machines it is generally agreed this is the best method(on Fedora). There is a RUMOR that F10 MAY be set up to avoid this.

After trying many distros over the years I settled on Fedora. For me it works in a logical (with the occasional WTF did they do it that way) and consistent manner. Yet, I still download 5-10 liveCds a year to see what may bet better. Just like shoes, better depends on the individual and what he is doing.

(Oh, and Graple is far superior to green or blue.)

Which Fedora docs state that is a "best practice"? Just my experience but ast year I upgraded from FC6 to F7 to F8. Without any problems.

Ahhhhhhh. This is refreshing, Forrest! Fanboyism is rampant, and it helps nobody. Nice to hear somebody talking sense.




And this, of course, is an Absolute Truth, beyond any question or discussion!

From: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DistributionUpgrades

I think many people are misrepresenting what Red Hat said a few weeks ago. They did not say they were giving up on the desktop. What they said was that they had no plans to create a consumer oriented desktop distro (i.e. on packaged in nifty boxes that you can buy on amazon etc). They plan to concentrate their efforts on the business and enterprise sector with their server and desktop products as well as their global desktop product which is aimed at resellers in emerging markets.

As for Ubuntu, there is always a lot of hype a few weeks before and after a release. Its nothing new and this is due partly to the good marketing skills of the guys at Canonical and the free press they get from main stream tech media, bloggers and some of the newbs that hang out on digg.

Clear. Thanks Lazlow.