Fedora vs Ubuntu

LinuxConfig ^ | 25 May 2018 | Nick Congleton

[ShadowAce]

Introduction

Ubuntu and Fedora are both among the top desktop Linux distributions, but they are very different. Fedora is Redhat's testing ground, and it's geared more towards developers and system administrators. On the other hand, Ubuntu is Canonical's primary product, and it tries to please everyone.

Lineage

Both Ubuntu and Fedora descend from titans in the Linux world. Ubuntu is the child of Debian, and Fedora is a clone of Redhat Linux, which evolved into Redhat Enterprise Linux(RHEL). Both distributions still carry many of the hallmarks of their family trees.

They both have their respective families' package managers, package formats, repository formats, and filesystem structures. All of those things differ greatly between the Debian family tree and the Redhat one.

Package Managers

Ubuntu and Fedora have very different package managers and packaging formats. They're both very good, but they function differently.

Ubuntu uses Apt, the Advanced Package Tool, which it inherited from Debian. Apt is one of the larger and more powerful Linux package managers out there, and it's been around for a while. Apt works with the .deb package format. .deb packages archive their files in format specific for Debian based distributions.

Apt can do a lot of things, but it usually requires explicit instruction. When you want to update your repositories, for example, you need to tell Apt to update.

$ sudo apt update
$ sudo apt install firefox

Fedora initially used Yum, the Yellowdog Update Manager, which the Redhat distributions got from the now defunct Yellowdog Linux to manage their .rpm packages.

Newer versions of Fedora use the DNF package manager. It functions exactly the same way that Yum did, but with the dnf command. Under the hood, there are some reliability, speed, and usability improvements that DNF a logical evolution from Yum.

Both DNF and Yum are more automated and intuitive. Whenever you install a package with DNF, it automatically updates repository data to pull the latest version available.

# dnf install firefox

Installers

Ubuntu and Fedora have very different installer. That said, they're both among the most modern installers in the tech world as a whole, not just Linux.

Ubuntu's installer was one of the original features that set it apart from Debian. Ubuntu's installer is designed to simplify and streamline the process of getting up and running with Ubuntu, and it excels at just that.

Fedora shares its Anaconda installer with the rest of Redhat's operating systems, but Fedora always has the latest version. The Anaconda installer allows for a lot of flexibility. If you don't want to get too far into things, Anaconda can be simple.

However, if you want to totally customize your system during the install, Anaconda lets you do just about anything. In fact, Anaconda is one of the only Linux installers that lets you choose from loads of software and pre-arranged bundles to install with the rest of the system. This way, your system is ready to use the second it first boots up.

Repositories

Compared to Ubuntu's Fedora's repositories are tiny. There's just no getting around it. Fedora doesn't offer nearly as much software as Ubuntu does. This is partly because Fedora has a strict "free software only" policy, but it's also because there just isn't as much software packaged for Fedora by default.

There is an excellent community around Fedora that packages for third party repositories, but Ubuntu still has more.

If you're a developer, or you only need a core set of software that you know Fedora has, great. Otherwise, you might run into trouble getting what you need.

Release Cycles

At first, it would seem like Ubuntu and Fedora have roughly the same release cycles. Both try to release a new version every six months, but there are a lot more details to take into account that actually separate the two quite a lot.

Ubuntu releases it's regular desktop versions once every six months. Those versions include incremental upgrades to just about everything on the system, and they're intended mostly for desktop users. Every fifth release is an LTS version of Ubuntu. Those are supported officially for five years, and they're intended mostly for servers and workstations. LTS releases receive mostly security updates and bug fixes, rather than software upgrades.

Fedora also releases about once every six months, but they're notorious for missing their release schedule just about every time. Fedora releases always contain the absolute latest software, and can be somewhat buggy and unstable at first. Fedora only really targets desktop and workstation users, so stability takes a back seat to new and cool features. Fedora will continually upgrade software, including core system components, for the duration of the release. In a way, it works like a rolling release distribution.

Corporate Backing

Both Fedora and Ubuntu are backed by huge corporations. Fedora has Redhat behind it, and Ubuntu has Canonical. These different distributions don't quite fit into the same place within their respective corporation's ecosystem, though.

Fedora is the testing ground for Redhat. All of the latest features that Redhat is developing for it's server distributions and the Linux ecosystem as a whole make their appearance in Fedora first. Redhat doesn't offer official support for Fedora. Instead they refer to it as a community project.

Ubuntu is Canonical's primary product. Everything that Canonical develops revolves around Ubuntu. They do offer commercial support for the LTS Ubuntu releases and work with hardware partners for support and certification.

Closing Thoughts

Both Ubuntu and Fedora make excellent desktop distributions. Their use cases and ecosystems are somewhat different, though.

Ubuntu comes from the Debian family, and it's the primary operating system developed by Canonical. Ubuntu's varied release cycle makes it somewhat of a jack of all trades, and it can fit nearly any use case.

Fedora is Redhat's testbed, and it's a great choice for developers and administrators working with Redhat systems. It has a much narrower ecosystem, and would feel out of place on anything but a desktop or workstation.

[bgill]

[Boomer]

If you are coming from Windows, and want a Debian-compatible distro, Linux Mint is probably the most suitable overall.

Agreed. It's the shortest learning curve and it just works. If my computer were a server it could probably run months before needing a restart. As a stand-alone home computer being used 8-10 hours a day for a vast array of programs and app's; restarting it once a month or every 6 weeks is plenty.

I've often wondered why Windows was never as stable and user-friendly as Linux Mint when MS has billions of dollars and thousands of people working on their product vs the hundreds working on Linux. Plus Linux is free vs Windows being a pay product that constantly needs updating to patch all the security holes and bad code. One would think it would be the opposite.

Conclusion: Windows uses the customer as its testing base. It's also a better target for hackers and wannabe hackers.

[Conan the Librarian]

My issue with all (that I have tried) versions of Linux is getting Wine to run my Windows programs well.

There are just some things that aren’t produced with Linux in mind.

Is there a version that does better using Wine that others?

[ShadowAce]

My first question is what Windows programs are you trying to run?

[upchuck]

I ditched Windows 7 for Linux Mint. Works better than Windows.

I'm hoping to do the same. My hangup is certain Windows programs I use a lot. Like financial and mapping software. To my knowledge neither of these programs has a Linux counterpoint. Suggestions? Maybe dual boot?

[Dalberg-Acton]

WINE may run those programs within Linux. Dual boot is okay or you could install Windows in Virtual Box so you don’t have to keep rebooting your PC.

[Dalberg-Acton]

Which version of WINE?
I have a Windows program (Caligari Truespace) that I got to run by installing a newer version of WINE and running one actual Windows DLL.

[Conan the Librarian]

Several, mainly Cartes du Ceil (an astronomy program), a number of games, and some TV software (and there may be a linux solution to that problem).

I haven’t tried in a while, but, should do so.

[Conan the Librarian]

When I have time to give it a go, I will try this.

The only version of Linux I had any real luck with was Knoppix 6.2 (the last one I could find). The hard disk died in my laptop and I couldn’t afford to buy a new one at the time. So I was running Koppix off of a CD and then a thumb drive.

Thanks for everyone’s advice though.

[Conan the Librarian]

And I just noted that Knoppix is now up to 8.1. I may have to give that another go.

[M Kehoe]

Drudge wears a fedora.

Sorry.

5.56mm

[ConservativeMind]

I am a Mint fan and user, too.

[ConservativeMind]

Knoppix was my first non-college foray into Linux.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I think I’m using KDE. Never had any issues so I never tried another.

[upchuck]

Thanks.

[dayglored]

Kinda strange there's no mention of CentOS. If one is going for the RedHat family, Fedora is the leading (if not bleeding) edge distro. But if one wants RedHat's legendary stability, and doesn't want to pay the premium for RHEL, CentOS is RHEL with free community support.

Any thoughts on why this was ignored by the author?

[ShadowAce]

Kinda strange there's no mention of CentOS.

I can post that article, too, if you wish

[dayglored]

LOL, if I weren't sneak-posting from work, I would have taken the time to browse the linuxconfig.org site, and would have discovered the family of comparison articles. No need to post that one article separately, now that I know it's there.

That site is a great resource! Thanks!

[Fedora]

Fedora is a clone of Redhat Linux

I am not!

[ShadowAce]

I am not!

LOL! The article is wrong on that. Fedora is Red Hat's test bed. It is very far out front on RHEL. In fact RHEL 7.5 (current version) is running kernel 3.10.x, while Fedora is currently running 4.16.15.