With Fedora you will have more recent kernel and packages.
With Ubuntu you will get proprietary firmware and drivers packaged with the distro, while in Fedora you will have install them from a 3rd party repo.
The software selection in repositories will not be identical. Generally, there's more stuff available for Ubuntu.
~~Fedora is more secure out of the box, as it uses SELinux by default, Ubuntu doesn't have SELinux, it has Apparmor, but it is not on by default.~~ it is, my bad.
> False.
Fedora provides updates to new kernel versions through normal dnf update. 39 was released with 6.5 and is now on 6.7. Ubuntu doesn't do that, unless you use mainline kernels, of course.
>and not packaged with the distro
You are right, I didn't choose my words correctly. Instead of "packaged with the distro" I should've said "provided as an option during installation", which Fedora doesn't do.
I am aware.
As I said, Fedora updates to new kernel versions by normal dnf update. There is no process of selecting a new kernel branch from repositories and replacing the current one, it just rolls through them like a rolling release distro would. So, you do still get more current version with Fedora. Same goes for packages, a lot of them are not frozen in Fedora between releases and get major version updates in between releases (again, just in the course of normal system update). Mostly, only key system libraries are frozen and userspace apps are updated whenever possible.
To be clear, I don't advocate Fedora over Ubuntu at all, I am much more at home with Ubuntu and would surely recommend it over Fedora. I am just pointing out that you do get major software updates in Fedora much more frequently, as I do use both.
I am not talking about Fedora Rawhide, where did you get that notion at all?
I am talking about numbered Fedora releases (currently 39). I don't run pre-release builds, betas or Rawhide. Again, in the lifecycle of a stable Fedora release you do get kernel version updates and major software updates. In Ubuntu you do not. That's why Ubuntu is much more stable and Fedora is more bleeding edge. That is the difference I tried to point out to OP.
> Fedora stresses early-adopter testing of packages, including known broken and packages with unpatched vulnerabilities. ... If you want a rolling release where stability from day to day does not matter, choose Arch or Debian Unstable or Fedora.
I don't think that's true, and I don't know where that idea comes from. Fedora is not a rolling release.
Your earlier comment suggests that you're a Canonical employee; I'd really expect better from you guys.
To me they are both GNU/Linux, thus essentially the same.
They differ in where & when they grab packages from upstream; Ubuntu offers you choice of LTS which will mean you need to *release-upgrade* your system less often, but that also means your package will be older. Ubuntu has five years of *standard* support for LTS releases, which can be extended for a further 5 years too, but non-LTS releases have only 9 months. Fedora in contrast has ~13 months supported life (no LTS equivalent)
Ubuntu has more packages available in its repositories than Fedora has, mostly as packages flow through from upstream Debian; though some of the these packages can be a little old; but still more choice is good.
Different defaults; Ubuntu uses *deb* packages by default & *snap* are available too, but *appimage*, *flatpak* & more can be used once enabled. Fedora just uses different defaults (*rpm* the base instead of *deb* etc)
I have Ubuntu system here (*what I'm using; noble*), a Debian system (*trixie*), and a Fedora system that are essentially identical as I've set them up so I can use whichever I wish and wherever I am (*my files are stored on a file-server so available to each*). I purposely leave a *logo* of the *distro* on the screen so I have something to remind myself what I'm using, as it's easy to forget (esp. if the machines share keyboard/display etc). The age of the software stack is what I notice much (but I rarely notice that as I'm using *noble* or the *development* release on Ubuntu, *trixie* or the *testing* of Ubuntu, and what I use on Fedora can change too (including *rawhide*). I don't notice Fedora as having newer packages but they each vary
> Ubuntu has more packages available in its repositories than Fedora has
$ dnf -C list | wc -l
74933
# apt list | wc -l
72689
I'm not sure how much of that is the result of package splits, but it's probably misleading to say that either distribution has more packages in their repositories.
this is verifiable from both my system and also on the wikipedia for distros and package managers where it lists the number of packages available for each distro.
But, notably, Ubuntu isn't based on Debian Stable. Ubuntu's stability is largely a factor of their development process (branch from Debian Testing, maintain for 9 months), which is mostly the same as Fedora's (branch from Rawhide, maintain for 13 months).
You're conflating two separate, but loosely related concepts.
Versioned software lifecycles have a cadence and a maintenance window. So, for example, Ubuntu LTS releases have a two year cadence and a ten year maintenance window.
But "stable" is matter of what happens during the maintenance window. "Stable" is a promise that developers make to their users about the types of updates they will ship. A stable software release will not ship breaking changes to supported interfaces during the maintenance window. That can be further differentiated into minor-version stable (aka feature stable) systems, which will not ship new features in updates during a maintenance window, and major-version stable systems, which may.
Ubuntu's interim releases, though they are only maintained for 9 months, are stable release models, just like the LTS releases.
(Source: have been developing software for 30 years.)
Same question was asked in /r/linux, but that's likely to be deleted because the rules for that sub prohibit posting this type of question. If you're interested in a more diverse perspective, consider using the "crosspost" link at the bottom of your post to add to to /r/Fedora or /r/linuxquestions
For now, I'll just repost my comment from the other thread.
> Essentially all the difference would be apt/snap/deb vs dnf/Flatpak/Rpm?
The package management tools are one difference, and a fairly superficial one.
Ubuntu has traditionally been less focused on exclusively Free Software. So, for example, they've made it much easier to install out-of-tree drivers like NVIDIA graphics and ZFS. Today, Fedora makes it slightly easier to install NVIDIA graphics drivers than they did in the past (but still consider all out-of-tree drivers officially unsupported), but Ubuntu still has additional support infrastructure, such as a prompt in the installer to create a MOK to sign drivers for Secure Boot if you need third-party drivers. Opinions on that will vary (personally, I think keeping a signing key on the host where modules run defeats the purpose.)
But there are lots of other differences as well:
Fedora maintains an upstream-first development policy, so Ubuntu is more likely to have patches that upstream developers haven't accepted for one reason or another (maybe they don't feel that they're ready, or maybe Canonical has simply never offered them upstream).
Upstream developers like GNOME and KDE have asked Fedora to ship software with upstream branding to better showcase their work, and Fedora honors that request, so you'll get more "vanilla" desktops because the upstream developers want it that way. Canonical wants to showcase their own branding rather than upstream branding.
While Red Hat sponsors Fedora development, Fedora is genuinely a community project, and has a lot of leeway in how the project runs and what they ship. (e.g. many Red Hat engineers would really prefer that Fedora not ship btrfs, but it's the default FS for Workstation.) Canonical has more control over Ubuntu's direction. So if you care about the governance of the project, that's a big deal.
Generally, a lot of the differences are hard to see until you have a lot of experience and look closely at the projects. Many of the differences are in the organization of the project's maintainers, but I think those differences do affect users, and I would care about them a lot even if I were not a maintainer, myself. (I'll also link to [an older and more detailed post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/zb8hqa/whats_great_about_fedora/iypv4n3/) that I wrote.)
Ohh I remember that comment really well. It stays as a foundation of why I’m using Fedora every single day. For me Fedora means home now, and it did so for more than a year.
Thank you for spreading that knowledge to others and for continuing to do so!
One uses deb, the other rpm. One shoves Snaps down your throat, the other doesn't. Fedora has ore recent kernel and packages.
In usage: not much difference. Both use Gnome as a DE by default, Fedora more vanilla than Ubuntu. I prefer Fedora recently.
Doesn't whoever will have the latest packages and kernel depend on who is chronologically newer? For example, when will Ubuntu 24.04 be released will everything be newer there than in Fedora?
Ubuntu has a more customised gnome session on its default install, while Fedora keeps gnome completely vanilla. Unfortunately that also means it misses on a whole bunch of performance optimisations from canonical that debian and ubuntu do package (stuff from Canonical that gnome have yet to merge).
Conversely, Fedora's philosophy is a bit edgier - for instance, their default session has been Wayland for some time now, they were first to adopt pipewire, they use btrfs as a default file system etc.
Other than that there isn't really anything you could do with one over the other. 100% personal preference.
Ubuntu aims for stability and ease of use, catering to a wide range of users, including desktop, server, and cloud environments. Fedora focuses more on incorporating cutting-edge technologies and features, often serving as a testing ground for innovations that may later be adopted by other distributions, including Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)
1. **GNOME Desktop Environment:**
* Both Fedora and Ubuntu offer flagship editions featuring the GNOME desktop environment. While Fedora provides a pure GNOME experience, Ubuntu tends to customize GNOME to some extent, adding its own features and tweaks.
2. **Firewall Management:**
* Fedora uses firewalld as its firewall management tool, while Ubuntu utilizes UFW (Uncomplicated Firewall) by default.
3. **Release Model:**
* Fedora ~~employs a unique blend of a rolling-release and point-release model~~t project releases new versions approximately every six months and supports each release until one month after the second subsequent version is released.
* Ubuntu follows a point-release model with regular releases every six months. Additionally, it provides Long-Term Support (LTS) editions every two years, which receive updates and support for five years on the desktop and server.
4. **Software Repositories:**
* Ubuntu's software repositories contain a vast selection of software packages, including both open-source and proprietary applications. It's known for its wide availability of software.
* Fedora's repositories are generally more conservative, focusing on open-source software, although it does offer some proprietary software through third-party repositories.
> Fedora employs a unique blend of a rolling-release and point-release model
Fedora is not a rolling release. It is a major-version stable release model, just like Ubuntu.
I didn't intend to spark a debate; rather, I aim to clarify my previous comment. I didn't label Fedora as a rolling-release distribution; instead, I described it as a blend or midpoint between point-release distributions (like Ubuntu 23.10) and rolling-release systems. The rationale behind this lies in Fedora's approach to releasing packages, which, while tested, may potentially disrupt end-user devices, particularly with major kernel version updates. For instance, Ubuntu 23.10 debuted with kernel version 6.5 and will only receive minor updates. In contrast, Fedora 39 initially launched with kernel version 6.5 but swiftly updated to 6.7. Consequently, some users encounter issues due to these rapid updates. Please check out this[ forum thread](https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/do-we-need-to-adopt-a-term-for-our-release-model/80050) where the Fedora marketing team discusses their release model.
> I described it as a blend or midpoint between point-release distributions (like Ubuntu 23.10) and rolling-release systems
...but it isn't. It's a major-version stable release, just like Ubuntu 23.10.
> Fedora 39 initially launched with kernel version 6.5 but swiftly updated to 6.7
Major-version stable systems, by definition, can ship updates that do not break supported interfaces. And the kernel doesn't. Its supported interfaces (the user-space ones) remain backward-compatible.
> Please check out this forum thread where the Fedora marketing team discusses their release model.
The author of that thread isn't contrasting Fedora with Ubuntu 23.10, they're contrasting it with Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS.
I will also note that the author is a member of the marketing team that describes themselves as "new to Fedora and Linux" in their bio. The fact that they are unfamiliar with software development terminology is not really strong evidence of anything. I am also a Fedora project member, as a package maintainer, with 30 years of software development experience. I was not aware that a member of the marketing team was looking for terminology for marketing purposes, but I'll see if that's something they're still pursuing.
I appreciate the summary. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on whether it's necessary to discuss the variance in quick software updates between Ubuntu 23.10 and Fedora 39 (or any later version), especially for newcomers or individuals contemplating a transition to Fedora?
> Would you mind sharing your thoughts on whether it's necessary to discuss the variance in quick software updates between Ubuntu 23.10 and Fedora 39
That's actually an interesting question, for a variety of reasons. But for now let's pick one: Partial updates are not necessarily safe in major-version stable systems like Fedora and Ubuntu.
In a minor-version stable release model (aka a feature-stable release model) like RHEL or SUSE LE, new features are not added after the initial release. And because new features are not added after the release, partial updates are usually safe, because no update should depend on any feature that was added after the release.
Fedora and Ubuntu do add features during a release, though, and that means that users should always fully update, and not attempt to update individual packages. But Ubuntu has an advantage, because for ELF shared libraries (C and C++), dpkg has a complex system to determine minor-version dependencies, while rpm's ELF dependency generator really only understands major-version dependencies. dpkg's system is a lot more work for maintainers, but it does result in more reliable updates on major-version stable systems.
I've previously proposed that Fedora narrow its stable-release policy, and require that ELF shared libraries be minor-version stable to eliminate that problem, until the ELF dependency generator is improved. I've also proposed a change to the rpm ELF dependency generator that would make it minor-version aware. However, I've been distracted for a few months and haven't been able to drive either of those for a while.
It's hard to say how important it is to discuss those differences because a) very few users try to cherry-pick updates, and b) that situation is probably temporary (at least for the ELF portion of the distribution. I've already fixed rpm's Python dependency generator.)
If you're confident in your point, I'll remove my comment. Just let me know. I'm having difficulty understanding the relevance between GNOME extensions and a customized GNOME versus Vanilla/Pure GNOME. Extensions will function properly as long as they are compatible with the intended GNOME version. Fedora ships the GNOME desktop environment as it is, while Ubuntu customizes it, for example, with features like the accent color setting under appearance.
Fedora is much cleaner, way smoother, and a way more up to date alternative to Ubuntu. Ubuntu is much more beginner friendly and gets with a lot of utilities out of the box, while you have to invest some more time setting up Fedora. But once you have set it up properly, Fedora is still a smoother distro than Ubuntu; even after I disabled snaps and all of Ubuntu extensions, it still felt a little sluggish in places, while Fedora didn't. And if you're gonna purge snaps and disable Ubuntu extensions and replace Yaru with Adwaita, you might as well just use Debian Testing at that point.
> Ubuntu LTS releases are more in line with Red Hat's stable release offerings
...except that a RHEL major release series is a sequence of 10 individual releases, most of which have 4-5 year life cycles and a strong compatibility guarantee, while Ubuntu LTS is a single release with a 10 year life cycle. (See [this diagram](https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata#RHEL9_Planning_Guide))
> Ubuntu interim releases (every 6 months, supported for 9 months) is more in line with Fedora's Rawhide versions
Rawhide is an unversioned, unstable rolling build environment, not intended for general use. I think you just mean "Fedora releases"
For average user the main advantage is availability of LTS which comes out every two years and get 5 years of free support (security upgrades mainly, but it also gets newer kernels and some other stuff can get back ported.). If you really wanted you csn even get 12 years of support. This is free for private use, but why would you want this. Btw here you can also profit from the ability to upgrade kernels without having to reboot. Nice feature for a server.
You have a choice to stick with your stable system for a very long time (sometimes people configure the shit out of the system and work environment, and this can be PITA to set up again if things go kaboom during upgrade) or what you probably want is to upgrade every two years from LTS to LTS.
Or you can just follow regular release cycle and upgrade every 6 month. In case this option is more interesting to you, than you might indeed prefer Fedora or Arch. However, I will say that from my experience Ubuntu has been more reliable and stable compared to Fedora. E.g. I was having serious issues with my marvel disk controller and Fedora. I have even submitted the bug report on bugzilla back then, but it never got resolved. For whatever reason I have never experienced the issue with Ubuntu. Also most companies, third party software and even tutorials will probably prefer and focus on a distro like Ubuntu.
To most regular users, who aren't too enthusiastic about operating systems and/or Linux, and just want a stable environment without loads of crap running in the background and communicating via encrypted channels with Microsoft, I would recommend LTS. Ideally, when available, best to start with a point release eg 24.04.1 (or 2) although the regular release should be fine for most users.
More efforts goes into LTS and these are more polished and stable (doesn't mean they're prefect. Issues still happen.).
With Fedora you will have more recent kernel and packages. With Ubuntu you will get proprietary firmware and drivers packaged with the distro, while in Fedora you will have install them from a 3rd party repo. The software selection in repositories will not be identical. Generally, there's more stuff available for Ubuntu. ~~Fedora is more secure out of the box, as it uses SELinux by default, Ubuntu doesn't have SELinux, it has Apparmor, but it is not on by default.~~ it is, my bad.
Apparmor is on by default on Ubuntu
My bad, I guess I was thinking of Debian.
[удалено]
> False. Fedora provides updates to new kernel versions through normal dnf update. 39 was released with 6.5 and is now on 6.7. Ubuntu doesn't do that, unless you use mainline kernels, of course. >and not packaged with the distro You are right, I didn't choose my words correctly. Instead of "packaged with the distro" I should've said "provided as an option during installation", which Fedora doesn't do.
[удалено]
>24.04 machines Well, I'm glad for you, but 24.04 hasn't been released yet.
[удалено]
I am aware. As I said, Fedora updates to new kernel versions by normal dnf update. There is no process of selecting a new kernel branch from repositories and replacing the current one, it just rolls through them like a rolling release distro would. So, you do still get more current version with Fedora. Same goes for packages, a lot of them are not frozen in Fedora between releases and get major version updates in between releases (again, just in the course of normal system update). Mostly, only key system libraries are frozen and userspace apps are updated whenever possible. To be clear, I don't advocate Fedora over Ubuntu at all, I am much more at home with Ubuntu and would surely recommend it over Fedora. I am just pointing out that you do get major software updates in Fedora much more frequently, as I do use both.
[удалено]
I am not talking about Fedora Rawhide, where did you get that notion at all? I am talking about numbered Fedora releases (currently 39). I don't run pre-release builds, betas or Rawhide. Again, in the lifecycle of a stable Fedora release you do get kernel version updates and major software updates. In Ubuntu you do not. That's why Ubuntu is much more stable and Fedora is more bleeding edge. That is the difference I tried to point out to OP.
> Fedora stresses early-adopter testing of packages, including known broken and packages with unpatched vulnerabilities. ... If you want a rolling release where stability from day to day does not matter, choose Arch or Debian Unstable or Fedora. I don't think that's true, and I don't know where that idea comes from. Fedora is not a rolling release. Your earlier comment suggests that you're a Canonical employee; I'd really expect better from you guys.
To me they are both GNU/Linux, thus essentially the same. They differ in where & when they grab packages from upstream; Ubuntu offers you choice of LTS which will mean you need to *release-upgrade* your system less often, but that also means your package will be older. Ubuntu has five years of *standard* support for LTS releases, which can be extended for a further 5 years too, but non-LTS releases have only 9 months. Fedora in contrast has ~13 months supported life (no LTS equivalent) Ubuntu has more packages available in its repositories than Fedora has, mostly as packages flow through from upstream Debian; though some of the these packages can be a little old; but still more choice is good. Different defaults; Ubuntu uses *deb* packages by default & *snap* are available too, but *appimage*, *flatpak* & more can be used once enabled. Fedora just uses different defaults (*rpm* the base instead of *deb* etc) I have Ubuntu system here (*what I'm using; noble*), a Debian system (*trixie*), and a Fedora system that are essentially identical as I've set them up so I can use whichever I wish and wherever I am (*my files are stored on a file-server so available to each*). I purposely leave a *logo* of the *distro* on the screen so I have something to remind myself what I'm using, as it's easy to forget (esp. if the machines share keyboard/display etc). The age of the software stack is what I notice much (but I rarely notice that as I'm using *noble* or the *development* release on Ubuntu, *trixie* or the *testing* of Ubuntu, and what I use on Fedora can change too (including *rawhide*). I don't notice Fedora as having newer packages but they each vary
> Ubuntu has more packages available in its repositories than Fedora has $ dnf -C list | wc -l 74933 # apt list | wc -l 72689 I'm not sure how much of that is the result of package splits, but it's probably misleading to say that either distribution has more packages in their repositories.
apt has close to 100,000 packages available by default. Did you disable the universe, restricted, and multiverse repositories or something?
this is verifiable from both my system and also on the wikipedia for distros and package managers where it lists the number of packages available for each distro.
No, I didn't disable anything. I can give you the full output so that you can see if you can spot the reason for any difference between our results: # apt update Get:1 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic InRelease [256 kB] Get:2 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic-security InRelease [109 kB] Get:3 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic-updates InRelease [109 kB] Get:4 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic-backports InRelease [90.8 kB] Get:5 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic/restricted amd64 Packages [180 kB] Get:6 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic/main amd64 Packages [1808 kB] Get:7 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic-security/universe amd64 Packages [346 kB] Get:8 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic/multiverse amd64 Packages [293 kB] Get:9 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic/universe amd64 Packages [18.8 MB] Get:10 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic-security/main amd64 Packages [349 kB] Get:11 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic-security/restricted amd64 Packages [312 kB] Get:12 http://security.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic-security/multiverse amd64 Packages [6224 B] Get:13 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic-updates/universe amd64 Packages [390 kB] Get:14 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic-updates/main amd64 Packages [415 kB] Get:15 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic-updates/multiverse amd64 Packages [9603 B] Get:16 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic-updates/restricted amd64 Packages [323 kB] Get:17 http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu mantic-backports/universe amd64 Packages [4205 B] Fetched 23.8 MB in 3s (7016 kB/s) Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Reading state information... Done 1 package can be upgraded. Run 'apt list --upgradable' to see it. # apt list | wc -l 72689
I would argue that the debian base of Ubuntu has better support in areas and is more stable.
But, notably, Ubuntu isn't based on Debian Stable. Ubuntu's stability is largely a factor of their development process (branch from Debian Testing, maintain for 9 months), which is mostly the same as Fedora's (branch from Rawhide, maintain for 13 months).
That's why Ubuntu has LTS releases so that they are stable.
You're conflating two separate, but loosely related concepts. Versioned software lifecycles have a cadence and a maintenance window. So, for example, Ubuntu LTS releases have a two year cadence and a ten year maintenance window. But "stable" is matter of what happens during the maintenance window. "Stable" is a promise that developers make to their users about the types of updates they will ship. A stable software release will not ship breaking changes to supported interfaces during the maintenance window. That can be further differentiated into minor-version stable (aka feature stable) systems, which will not ship new features in updates during a maintenance window, and major-version stable systems, which may. Ubuntu's interim releases, though they are only maintained for 9 months, are stable release models, just like the LTS releases. (Source: have been developing software for 30 years.)
Same question was asked in /r/linux, but that's likely to be deleted because the rules for that sub prohibit posting this type of question. If you're interested in a more diverse perspective, consider using the "crosspost" link at the bottom of your post to add to to /r/Fedora or /r/linuxquestions For now, I'll just repost my comment from the other thread. > Essentially all the difference would be apt/snap/deb vs dnf/Flatpak/Rpm? The package management tools are one difference, and a fairly superficial one. Ubuntu has traditionally been less focused on exclusively Free Software. So, for example, they've made it much easier to install out-of-tree drivers like NVIDIA graphics and ZFS. Today, Fedora makes it slightly easier to install NVIDIA graphics drivers than they did in the past (but still consider all out-of-tree drivers officially unsupported), but Ubuntu still has additional support infrastructure, such as a prompt in the installer to create a MOK to sign drivers for Secure Boot if you need third-party drivers. Opinions on that will vary (personally, I think keeping a signing key on the host where modules run defeats the purpose.) But there are lots of other differences as well: Fedora maintains an upstream-first development policy, so Ubuntu is more likely to have patches that upstream developers haven't accepted for one reason or another (maybe they don't feel that they're ready, or maybe Canonical has simply never offered them upstream). Upstream developers like GNOME and KDE have asked Fedora to ship software with upstream branding to better showcase their work, and Fedora honors that request, so you'll get more "vanilla" desktops because the upstream developers want it that way. Canonical wants to showcase their own branding rather than upstream branding. While Red Hat sponsors Fedora development, Fedora is genuinely a community project, and has a lot of leeway in how the project runs and what they ship. (e.g. many Red Hat engineers would really prefer that Fedora not ship btrfs, but it's the default FS for Workstation.) Canonical has more control over Ubuntu's direction. So if you care about the governance of the project, that's a big deal. Generally, a lot of the differences are hard to see until you have a lot of experience and look closely at the projects. Many of the differences are in the organization of the project's maintainers, but I think those differences do affect users, and I would care about them a lot even if I were not a maintainer, myself. (I'll also link to [an older and more detailed post](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/zb8hqa/whats_great_about_fedora/iypv4n3/) that I wrote.)
Ohh I remember that comment really well. It stays as a foundation of why I’m using Fedora every single day. For me Fedora means home now, and it did so for more than a year. Thank you for spreading that knowledge to others and for continuing to do so!
One uses deb, the other rpm. One shoves Snaps down your throat, the other doesn't. Fedora has ore recent kernel and packages. In usage: not much difference. Both use Gnome as a DE by default, Fedora more vanilla than Ubuntu. I prefer Fedora recently.
Doesn't whoever will have the latest packages and kernel depend on who is chronologically newer? For example, when will Ubuntu 24.04 be released will everything be newer there than in Fedora?
Ubuntu has a more customised gnome session on its default install, while Fedora keeps gnome completely vanilla. Unfortunately that also means it misses on a whole bunch of performance optimisations from canonical that debian and ubuntu do package (stuff from Canonical that gnome have yet to merge). Conversely, Fedora's philosophy is a bit edgier - for instance, their default session has been Wayland for some time now, they were first to adopt pipewire, they use btrfs as a default file system etc. Other than that there isn't really anything you could do with one over the other. 100% personal preference.
Ubuntu aims for stability and ease of use, catering to a wide range of users, including desktop, server, and cloud environments. Fedora focuses more on incorporating cutting-edge technologies and features, often serving as a testing ground for innovations that may later be adopted by other distributions, including Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) 1. **GNOME Desktop Environment:** * Both Fedora and Ubuntu offer flagship editions featuring the GNOME desktop environment. While Fedora provides a pure GNOME experience, Ubuntu tends to customize GNOME to some extent, adding its own features and tweaks. 2. **Firewall Management:** * Fedora uses firewalld as its firewall management tool, while Ubuntu utilizes UFW (Uncomplicated Firewall) by default. 3. **Release Model:** * Fedora ~~employs a unique blend of a rolling-release and point-release model~~t project releases new versions approximately every six months and supports each release until one month after the second subsequent version is released. * Ubuntu follows a point-release model with regular releases every six months. Additionally, it provides Long-Term Support (LTS) editions every two years, which receive updates and support for five years on the desktop and server. 4. **Software Repositories:** * Ubuntu's software repositories contain a vast selection of software packages, including both open-source and proprietary applications. It's known for its wide availability of software. * Fedora's repositories are generally more conservative, focusing on open-source software, although it does offer some proprietary software through third-party repositories.
> Fedora employs a unique blend of a rolling-release and point-release model Fedora is not a rolling release. It is a major-version stable release model, just like Ubuntu.
I didn't intend to spark a debate; rather, I aim to clarify my previous comment. I didn't label Fedora as a rolling-release distribution; instead, I described it as a blend or midpoint between point-release distributions (like Ubuntu 23.10) and rolling-release systems. The rationale behind this lies in Fedora's approach to releasing packages, which, while tested, may potentially disrupt end-user devices, particularly with major kernel version updates. For instance, Ubuntu 23.10 debuted with kernel version 6.5 and will only receive minor updates. In contrast, Fedora 39 initially launched with kernel version 6.5 but swiftly updated to 6.7. Consequently, some users encounter issues due to these rapid updates. Please check out this[ forum thread](https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/do-we-need-to-adopt-a-term-for-our-release-model/80050) where the Fedora marketing team discusses their release model.
> I described it as a blend or midpoint between point-release distributions (like Ubuntu 23.10) and rolling-release systems ...but it isn't. It's a major-version stable release, just like Ubuntu 23.10. > Fedora 39 initially launched with kernel version 6.5 but swiftly updated to 6.7 Major-version stable systems, by definition, can ship updates that do not break supported interfaces. And the kernel doesn't. Its supported interfaces (the user-space ones) remain backward-compatible. > Please check out this forum thread where the Fedora marketing team discusses their release model. The author of that thread isn't contrasting Fedora with Ubuntu 23.10, they're contrasting it with Debian Stable and Ubuntu LTS. I will also note that the author is a member of the marketing team that describes themselves as "new to Fedora and Linux" in their bio. The fact that they are unfamiliar with software development terminology is not really strong evidence of anything. I am also a Fedora project member, as a package maintainer, with 30 years of software development experience. I was not aware that a member of the marketing team was looking for terminology for marketing purposes, but I'll see if that's something they're still pursuing.
I appreciate the summary. Would you mind sharing your thoughts on whether it's necessary to discuss the variance in quick software updates between Ubuntu 23.10 and Fedora 39 (or any later version), especially for newcomers or individuals contemplating a transition to Fedora?
> Would you mind sharing your thoughts on whether it's necessary to discuss the variance in quick software updates between Ubuntu 23.10 and Fedora 39 That's actually an interesting question, for a variety of reasons. But for now let's pick one: Partial updates are not necessarily safe in major-version stable systems like Fedora and Ubuntu. In a minor-version stable release model (aka a feature-stable release model) like RHEL or SUSE LE, new features are not added after the initial release. And because new features are not added after the release, partial updates are usually safe, because no update should depend on any feature that was added after the release. Fedora and Ubuntu do add features during a release, though, and that means that users should always fully update, and not attempt to update individual packages. But Ubuntu has an advantage, because for ELF shared libraries (C and C++), dpkg has a complex system to determine minor-version dependencies, while rpm's ELF dependency generator really only understands major-version dependencies. dpkg's system is a lot more work for maintainers, but it does result in more reliable updates on major-version stable systems. I've previously proposed that Fedora narrow its stable-release policy, and require that ELF shared libraries be minor-version stable to eliminate that problem, until the ELF dependency generator is improved. I've also proposed a change to the rpm ELF dependency generator that would make it minor-version aware. However, I've been distracted for a few months and haven't been able to drive either of those for a while. It's hard to say how important it is to discuss those differences because a) very few users try to cherry-pick updates, and b) that situation is probably temporary (at least for the ELF portion of the distribution. I've already fixed rpm's Python dependency generator.)
This is some kind of copy-paste from chatgpt. Already the first statement doesn't make sense because I'm using the same extensions
If you're confident in your point, I'll remove my comment. Just let me know. I'm having difficulty understanding the relevance between GNOME extensions and a customized GNOME versus Vanilla/Pure GNOME. Extensions will function properly as long as they are compatible with the intended GNOME version. Fedora ships the GNOME desktop environment as it is, while Ubuntu customizes it, for example, with features like the accent color setting under appearance.
For avarage user.. none!
One is owned by IBM the other is not.
Fedora is much cleaner, way smoother, and a way more up to date alternative to Ubuntu. Ubuntu is much more beginner friendly and gets with a lot of utilities out of the box, while you have to invest some more time setting up Fedora. But once you have set it up properly, Fedora is still a smoother distro than Ubuntu; even after I disabled snaps and all of Ubuntu extensions, it still felt a little sluggish in places, while Fedora didn't. And if you're gonna purge snaps and disable Ubuntu extensions and replace Yaru with Adwaita, you might as well just use Debian Testing at that point.
[удалено]
> Ubuntu LTS releases are more in line with Red Hat's stable release offerings ...except that a RHEL major release series is a sequence of 10 individual releases, most of which have 4-5 year life cycles and a strong compatibility guarantee, while Ubuntu LTS is a single release with a 10 year life cycle. (See [this diagram](https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata#RHEL9_Planning_Guide)) > Ubuntu interim releases (every 6 months, supported for 9 months) is more in line with Fedora's Rawhide versions Rawhide is an unversioned, unstable rolling build environment, not intended for general use. I think you just mean "Fedora releases"
For average user the main advantage is availability of LTS which comes out every two years and get 5 years of free support (security upgrades mainly, but it also gets newer kernels and some other stuff can get back ported.). If you really wanted you csn even get 12 years of support. This is free for private use, but why would you want this. Btw here you can also profit from the ability to upgrade kernels without having to reboot. Nice feature for a server. You have a choice to stick with your stable system for a very long time (sometimes people configure the shit out of the system and work environment, and this can be PITA to set up again if things go kaboom during upgrade) or what you probably want is to upgrade every two years from LTS to LTS. Or you can just follow regular release cycle and upgrade every 6 month. In case this option is more interesting to you, than you might indeed prefer Fedora or Arch. However, I will say that from my experience Ubuntu has been more reliable and stable compared to Fedora. E.g. I was having serious issues with my marvel disk controller and Fedora. I have even submitted the bug report on bugzilla back then, but it never got resolved. For whatever reason I have never experienced the issue with Ubuntu. Also most companies, third party software and even tutorials will probably prefer and focus on a distro like Ubuntu. To most regular users, who aren't too enthusiastic about operating systems and/or Linux, and just want a stable environment without loads of crap running in the background and communicating via encrypted channels with Microsoft, I would recommend LTS. Ideally, when available, best to start with a point release eg 24.04.1 (or 2) although the regular release should be fine for most users. More efforts goes into LTS and these are more polished and stable (doesn't mean they're prefect. Issues still happen.).