Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Fedora vs. Ubuntu

Filed under
Linux
Ubuntu

As newer Ubuntu users become more accustomed to their desktop experience, occasionally they decide to try something different—like Fedora. With my previous article, I took a stern look at OpenSUSE vs. Ubuntu. So in this article, I'll explore the differences between Fedora and Ubuntu, along with examining areas where each distribution excels or fails.

Installation Made Simple

One area where both Ubuntu and Fedora have done a great job is in making sure that the operating system's installation is as simple as possible. With both distributions, selecting the desired partitions and continuing with the installation is as easy as clicking "next."

Where things differ, however, is when you're selecting your ISO to download. Fedora provides you with the GNOME desktop, whereas Ubuntu relies on Unity. Both share some things, but for the most part, they're very different user experiences. Personally, I found Unity to be on par with a vanilla GNOME installation, as each provide much of the same functionality.

rest here




dear, dear

Geez, seems like anyone can write these days, blogs be blessed.

"Nothing against Fedora—it's fine—but it just simply doesn't have a well-defined niche these days."

Fedora is a LOCOMOTIVE for a LOT of open source software! A good deal of testing and development (if not most) for the linux kernel, Xorg, Wayland, Gnome and apps, systemd, KVM, libvirt, lxc (and even xen), openstack, freeipa, Libreoffice and COUNTLESS other projects equally important is done on Fedora; not to mention it is THE test bed and source of the "one true" enterprise distro (RHEL). How's that for a "well-defined niche"?

Maybe the author should learn how to "rpm -i adobe-repo.rpm" instead of writing a 2 page of whining.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Review: Ubuntu 15.04

Perhaps that’s a sign that it’s time for Canonical to take the opposite tack to Microsoft and move to less frequent releases, or at least less arbitrarily timetabled ones. Ubuntu is stable enough now not to need constant updating, and in this case waiting on the Linux 4 kernel would have made for a much more compelling release. Canonical’s engineers, meanwhile, could benefit from spending more time working on long-promised upgrades, and less time patching and polishing half-baked versions of things for a biannual release. If you’re looking for a free, friendly and powerful OS for desktops and servers, Ubuntu is still an easy Linux distribution to recommend. But even for established Ubuntu users this update is neither practically nor emotionally compelling. If Canonical seriously wants Ubuntu to make more of a mainstream impact, Ubuntu 15.04 – a barely necessary update rolled out to serve a timetable rather than a strategy – is precisely the sort of thing it needs to stop releasing. Read more

Parsix 8.0 Test 2 Is Based on Debian Testing and GNOME 3.16

Parsix GNU/Linux, a live and installation DVD based on the testing packages from the Debian project that's using GNOME as the desktop, is now at version 8.0 Test 2 and is ready for download and testing. Read more

Ubuntu MATE Will Offer a Choice Between Ubuntu Software Center and App Grid

Ubuntu MATE devs recently decided to remove the Ubuntu Software Center from the default installation. The decision was met with some resistance, but a lot of users expressed their support for the removal of the Ubuntu Software Center. Now, the team has explained what are they putting in its place. Read more

Remembering Nóirín Plunkett

Our thoughts are with everyone who loved Nóirín, everyone who worked with them, everyone who went to their talks or learned from their writing, everyone who met them at a conference, everyone for whom they made the open source and technical communities a better place. Read more