Core Difference Between Fedora & uBuntu?

Replies

• 

  Aashish Joshi

  I find ubuntu's package manager, Synaptic much better as compared to Feroda's Yum!
  
  Also, default desktop for fedora is KDE, and I'm a GNOME guy. I find the GNOME interface much more pleasant!
• 

  Reya

  The installers of fedora have lot of packages(size of the file is large) when compared to ubuntu.
  
  It is easier to find RPM packages(Which fedora has) in google compared to ubuntu DEB packages.
  
  It is easy to install softwares like flash and drivers in ubuntu than with fedora.
• 

  Kishan Gupta

  The_Big_K

  I'm not comparing the specific versions here (we may, if needed) but I'm looking for the core differences between these two popular unix based operating systems. I'm more interested from the end user perspective. Anyone?

  Hello BIG_K, I found this on #-Link-Snipped-#. And I am agree to these :
  
  
  Similarities:
  Both are Gnome centric.
  Both have graphical bootup by default and have several, fairly important programs tied into the user taking the default Gnome installation, requiring the user who chooses to use another desktop to have some knowledge.
  Both have graphical package managers, but command line package managers are easily used.
  
  Both come, by default, without tools for installing 3rd party, source based programs, but both make it relatively easy to install such tools with a few simple commands (or using graphical package managers.)
  
  Both do a fairly good job at choosing sane defaults for the inexperienced newcomer.
  Both consider the user to be relatively stupid when compared to Arch, Gentoo, the BSDs or any of the "old-fashioned" distros, of which very few remain.
  
  Differences:
  Fedora is RedHat based, Ubuntu, though its own distribution by now, is Debian based.
  The backend package management tool is quite different--Fedora uses rpm and yum while Ubuntu uses dpkg and apt or aptitude.
  
  Ubuntu's stated number one bug is that MS is more popular. Therefore, one of its primary goals at which it often succeeds, is to provide a smooth user experience. (However, look around these forums for folks who migrated to Fedora because something worked that didn't work in Ubuntu).
  
  Fedora's stated goal is to be a testing, developer's distro, so it will often put in programs that really aren't ready for prime time. It's probably less stable than Ubuntu, which is the downside of trying to be there with the latest before it's the greatest.
  
  This is specifically stated in various places around their website. While I've only seen it stated on bugzilla and mailling lists, there is also the factor that they will, in an effort to test something, sometimes put it in before thoroughly seeing if it will break other popular programs.
  
  This is not irresponsibility on their part (as a rule), it is the result of wanting to be a testing, developer's distribution.
  Therefore, there is (often) more of a risk in upgrading Fedora than there is in upgrading Ubuntu. (Again, there are numerous exceptions to this.)
  
  As an example, pulse-audio. Fedora put it in a bit too quickly, and in its earliest incarnations (and even now at times) it broke sound for non-Gnome users. In Ubuntu's case, aside from putting a big warning about it on one of the site's main pages, all it broke was volume control for non-Gnome users. Again, Ubuntu is more concerned, in theory at least, with giving the users a practical alternative to Windows.
  
  Ubuntu's basically brown, Fedora's basically blue, though this is easy enough to change.
  
  Fedora has you set a root password, then forbids you to log in as root in the default settings, while Ubuntu uses sudo, discouraging the use of a root password. Fedora seems to be leaning this way however, with one step being giving the user all the default paths (such as /sbin and /usr/sbin) that were only given root by default in previous versions.
  
  Getting really specific, if you have the AR5007EG wireless card, Fedora is supporting it by default out of the box, while Ubuntu is blacklisting that kernel module, making it necessary to use their backports to get it working. Their logic is that many people with the card were previously using versions of the kernel that didn't support the card, and putting the module in a default installation will cause conflicts with the users' existing configuration. This is part of, in my opinion, their goal of providing a Windows like experience. It's also something for which Debian is well know, usually providing a seamless upgrade.
  
  Ubuntu has a wider range of packages in their collections. Debian, and by extension, Ubuntu, is said to have the largest number of optional programs of all the Linux distributions. In practice, this usually doesn't matter.
  
  Fedora tends to have a rockier upgrade path, and though it can be done, and is getting easier, with new tools to smooth the way, the official recommendation, at least prior to F9 (I haven't been keeping up with official policy on this lately) that the safest way to do it was to back up your data and do a clean installation.
  Fedora will often have newer packages (see above.) For example, I believe that Ubuntu 8.10's default OpenOffice is still the 2.x version, though by adding another repository to your apt sources, you can get version 3.x. Fedora 10 is including 3.x by default.
  
  Honestly--to a new user, there really aren't that many differences, save in the general appearance. They both make an effort to make it relatively easy for the newcomer, though Fedora will take chances, some good, some bad.
  
  As someone once said, you tend to not remember your chemistry homework from high school, but never forget your first kiss. So, all the reading in the world won't really explain exactly what differences you'll find on your hardware. As both provide live CDs, I'd really recommend that you try both and then decide. You might find for example, that for whatever reason, possibly unexplainable, Fedora Just Works(TM) with your hardware and Ubuntu doesn't, or vice versa.
• 

  eternalthinker

  Ubuntu is designed to be utterly simple for normal users.
  
  In a KDE software (usually in Fedora) you can find a large number of options to customize every aspect. In Ubuntu (or GNOME), this is boiled down to the very essentials. So the UI is not cluttered and easily drives the new user to what they want.
  
  This is a core reason why Ubuntu is more readily accepted in places getting started with linux.
• 

  Aashish Joshi

  @eternalthinker: you have a very valid point.
  
  Have you guys seen the new interface included with Ubuntu 11.04, the Unity interface its called I think. It's made Ubuntu even more simple to navigate for the novice user! 😀
• 

  Kaustubh Katdare

  I liked the unity interface too. Looks like Fedora might be worth giving a try.