Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Ubuntu or Fedora

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    92

    Default

    I think in a lot of ways Ubuntu is a better 1st choice.
    I've heard lots of yum horror stories, plus I think the Ubuntu community it a lot more beginner friendly.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Just because ubuntu is more beginner friendly does not mean it's power user hostel, because it's not. Even though some people would like you to thank that, so you'll pick their distro and everyone that does not is a "lame n00b". That's all just nonsense. They are both linux distros, with not much different other than makeup and default packages!

    I like fedora a lot and one of my servers has RHEL 5 on it right now. Although compared to apt, yum is painfully slow to use. For me, on the desktop that is a deal backer because I install and uninstall a lot of stuff.
    Also when I put RHEL 5 on my laptop after it first came out "stable" it kernel panicked after reboot. The laptop was using and older all intel chip set that no other distro has kernel panicked with. So needless to say I was not impressed with that.

    So as a desktop I really feel ubuntu is the way to go. But if you need the DoD certified coolness that Red hats SELinux provides that's the way to go, although ubuntu has apparmor, all I know is it was forked from SElinux. I don't know how different it is, have not played with either that much.

    All and all, it's best to just try both and see what fits your taste.
    Last edited by daniel of sarnia; 03-28-2008 at 11:30 PM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    MN, United States
    Posts
    285

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daniel of sarnia View Post
    Just because ubuntu is more beginner friendly does not mean it's power user hostel, because it's not. Even though some people would like you to thank that, so you'll pick their distro and everyone that does not is a "lame n00b". That's all just nonsense. They are both linux distros, with not much different other than makeup and default packages!
    Very true, I have never considered any distribution a true newbie distribution. Well except the ones that look exactly like Windows with the start button and all, but I guess each to their own.

    I've throughly used Gentoo, Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, and Slackware. Only distribution I never got around to trying was SuSE/OpenSuSE. I can say this about all of them, they all have their ups and downs. Although Ubuntu seems to have less of them, at least out of the box. Debian and Ubuntu are practically identical since Ubuntu is based on Debian, except there are some small differences. Mainly just with what comes out of the box and what doesn't.

    Basically Tsabo, your other option and best option as already said is probably just picking up a few live cds for various distributions and find the one for you. Although I'm willing to bet you would probably like Ubuntu the best.

    Keep in mind, underneath the package manager, and all of the software in any distribution, Linux is Linux.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daniel of sarnia View Post
    But if you need the DoD certified coolness that Red hats SELinux provides that's the way to go, although ubuntu has apparmor, all I know is it was forked from SElinux. I don't know how different it is, have not played with either that much.

    All and all, it's best to just try both and see what fits your taste.
    Just factual correction here... So the thread isn't tainted with misconceptions if it ever comes up as a reference in the future.

    AppArmor was a security suite that Novell came up with to compete against the SELinux Security package developed principally by the NSA. AppArmor is NOT a fork of SELinux thus they have different designs. Though ultimately their goals may be similar.

    The one major difference that would effect casual users is that Novell layed off the entire AppArmor team in 2007 vs. SELinux which is actively maintained. I haven't read anything that Canoical has picked up the slack there either... so I really wonder why Canoical would base its security solution for a LTS release on unmaintained software.


    Other Notes ----
    If you ever get into the theory behind open source software you'd probably enjoy Redhat/Fedora's view on it more than Canonical... Redhat seems to do more for open source than Canonical. (JBoss, IcedTea, etc.. vs. Landscape, Launchpad, etc..) Reading some comments from Mark Shuttleworth about the open sourcing "process" of Launchpad really leave one desiring.. Last I heard it was akin to the standard BS Steve Ballmer used to bash open source back in the 90s! Only difference is that is coming from a linux company...

    But hey, I'm probably a little bias... I've been using RH products for years without a hitch and love what they do for the community.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koolmanoncampus View Post
    Just factual correction here... So the thread isn't tainted with misconceptions if it ever comes up as a reference in the future.

    AppArmor was a security suite that Novell came up with to compete against the SELinux Security package developed principally by the NSA. AppArmor is NOT a fork of SELinux thus they have different designs. Though ultimately their goals may be similar.

    The one major difference that would effect casual users is that Novell layed off the entire AppArmor team in 2007 vs. SELinux which is actively maintained. I haven't read anything that Canoical has picked up the slack there either... so I really wonder why Canoical would base its security solution for a LTS release on unmaintained software.


    Other Notes ----
    If you ever get into the theory behind open source software you'd probably enjoy Redhat/Fedora's view on it more than Canonical... Redhat seems to do more for open source than Canonical. (JBoss, IcedTea, etc.. vs. Landscape, Launchpad, etc..) Reading some comments from Mark Shuttleworth about the open sourcing "process" of Launchpad really leave one desiring.. Last I heard it was akin to the standard BS Steve Ballmer used to bash open source back in the 90s! Only difference is that is coming from a linux company...

    But hey, I'm probably a little bias... I've been using RH products for years without a hitch and love what they do for the community.
    I herd it was a fork I swear I red it some were. But your probably right. Also apparmor has been in ubuntu since 7.10, not just now in their LTS. It's also a little misleadings to day that it is unmaintained. It is, buy open suse and ubuntu community members.

    Launchpad is just a collaboration web site, are any of red hats web sites open sourced? Let alone this one or one like google. Frankly who cares, it's just a custom lamp stack. I don't mean to rage one web developers, me being one, but not much they do is novel or that hard to repeat. There just is not that much value in it.
    Also you're being unfair to the ubuntu development team, they work really hard to get stuff upstream. Stuff like upstart, and features in gnome. Ubuntu just does not have as many people as rad hat, and they have only been doing this since 2004. They also don't charge for their LTS like rad hat does. So give them a brake.

    Fedora also likes to be high and mighty that they don't use proprietary software, but last release they put in a codec manager, to buy fluendo codecs. Which now they are taking out I here. Also they use proprietary firmware like everyone else to get thinks like wifi runing. What's the difference, look I'd like everything I use to be open source. That's why I use linux. But when your just using close software to enable the use of open software, what's the big deal. Your just nit picking because you don't like ubuntu. I hardly think you don't use one bit of close software, between flash, firmware, codecs, and 3d video. What's the difference if you enable it. Or like ubuntu the os asks you IF you'd like to enable it. This is all just bickering and bias nit picking in my eyes.

    I'm using both ubuntu and rad hat right now, which I have been for years. So don't be mad for me calling out people just name calling. Childish...

    Tsabo, like me and other people have been saying, just pick up different live CDs and see what's best for you. There is a new version of ubuntu and fadora coming out at the end of this April to keep your eyes open for.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daniel of sarnia View Post
    Launchpad is just a collaboration web site, are any of red hats web sites open sourced? Let alone this one or one like google. Frankly who cares, it's just a custom lamp stack. I don't mean to rage one web developers, me being one, but not much they do is novel or that hard to repeat. There just is not that much value in it.
    Also you're being unfair to the ubuntu development team, they work really hard to get stuff upstream. Stuff like upstart, and features in gnome. Ubuntu just does not have as many people as rad hat, and they have only been doing this since 2004. They also don't charge for their LTS like rad hat does. So give them a brake.
    I don't think it's giving ubuntu a hard time for being hypocritical on open source software.

    They market their launchpad software as the solution to develop open source software... I am under the belief open source software shouldn't be built maintained or otherwise dependent on proprietary software.

    Fedora also likes to be high and mighty that they don't use proprietary software, but last release they put in a codec manager, to buy fluendo codecs. Which now they are taking out I here. Also they use proprietary firmware like everyone else to get thinks like wifi runing. What's the difference, look I'd like everything I use to be open source. That's why I use linux. But when your just using close software to enable the use of open software, what's the big deal. Your just nit picking because you don't like ubuntu. I hardly think you don't use one bit of close software, between flash, firmware, codecs, and 3d video. What's the difference if you enable it. Or like ubuntu the os asks you IF you'd like to enable it. This is all just bickering and bias nit picking in my eyes.
    Firmware is different from drivers. Firmware is more tied to the hardware, and could theoretically be hardware. Codecs are more patent-encumbered... which is a different issue.

    Using binary blobs(drivers,flash, etc.) to fill in gaps in free software isn't a long term solution. It doesn't help the community to not aide developing free drivers. The problems most people have with Linux whether they use Ubuntu/Fedora/SuSE or whatever is the trials of binary blobs that don't work well with the fast pace of linux.




    I'm using both ubuntu and rad hat right now, which I have been for years. So don't be mad for me calling out people just name calling. Childish...
    I don't get what you mean here. Can you explain it?

    Tsabo, like me and other people have been saying, just pick up different live CDs and see what's best for you. There is a new version of ubuntu and fadora coming out at the end of this April to keep your eyes open for.
    Yeah this is good advice.

    Whatever though, these conversations are always endless discussions between users of either distro.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    10

    Default

    Didn't take long for the smoke to start, next comes the flames.

    I tried suse 9 way back, and it was usable, I bet opensuse is very nice. ?

    Have you looked at this site?

    http://www.distrowatch.com/

    It has some page rankings in the right column.
    Last edited by c247; 03-29-2008 at 06:33 PM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koolmanoncampus View Post
    I don't think it's giving ubuntu a hard time for being hypocritical on open source software.

    They market their launchpad software as the solution to develop open source software... I am under the belief open source software shouldn't be built maintained or otherwise dependent on proprietary software.
    That's true, and fedora was selling fluendo codecs though their codec buddy app, which all are proprietary, regardless of whether they are legal or not. Who's hypocritical now!


    Quote Originally Posted by koolmanoncampus View Post
    Firmware is different from drivers. Firmware is more tied to the hardware, and could theoretically be hardware. Codecs are more patent-encumbered... which is a different issue.
    But most of it is not hardware, it's microcode written in c. Your point is moot. Like I said before, the fluedo codecs are not "patent-encombered" they are just proprietary software, that fedora was "hypocritically" selling for fluendo.

    Quote Originally Posted by koolmanoncampus View Post
    Using binary blobs(drivers,flash, etc.) to fill in gaps in free software isn't a long term solution. It doesn't help the community to not aide developing free drivers. The problems most people have with Linux whether they use Ubuntu/Fedora/SuSE or whatever is the trials of binary blobs that don't work well with the fast pace of linux.
    I never said that was not true, I Only asked what is the difference if the os enabled it or the user, when company's like nvidia give no other choice. You also are clearly avoiding my question or whether you hold yourself up to the some "moral" standard and only use free software.




    Quote Originally Posted by koolmanoncampus View Post
    I don't get what you mean here. Can you explain it?
    No problem, you equated Mark Shuttleworth to Steve Balmer. Which is frankly just childish name calling. Especially considering he has played a big part in helping enable literally millions of users more easily get a hold of free software.

    Quote Originally Posted by koolmanoncampus View Post
    Yeah this is good advice.

    Whatever though, these conversations are always endless discussions between users of either distro.
    Again, agreed!

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by c247 View Post
    Didn't take long for the smoke to start, next comes the flames.
    Ahh yes, why people can't just use what works for them and not resort to name calling is always so much fun /sarcasm

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by koolmanoncampus View Post
    Just factual correction here... So the thread isn't tainted with misconceptions if it ever comes up as a reference in the future.
    So lets get some facts straight.

    AppArmor was a security suite that Novell came up with to compete against the SELinux Security package developed principally by the NSA.
    Wrong, AppArmor debuted in 1998-2003 in Immunix. On May 10, 2005, Novell acquired Immunix.On January 10, 2006, Novell released it as opensource under the GPL 2.

    so I really wonder why Canoical would base its security solution for a LTS release on unmaintained software.
    AppArmor is still maintained and developed by it's original developers with Crispin Cowan at lead developer with his startup company Mercenary Linux. The last recent maintenance release was Feb 15th of this year.
    Last edited by deanjo; 03-30-2008 at 12:09 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •