How is this really any different than Debian-based distros (or really other distro families)? Debian and its derivatives do many things in "the Debian way" (e.g. don't edit grub's menu.lst, edit the comments and run update-grub). I prefer the Debian way because I'm used to it, but that's not a flaw of distros that don't work the same. And as far as RPMs go, I don't really like the format, but dependency problems really aren't that big of a deal any more now that RHEL/Fedora use yum for dependency resolution and there's a proliferation of external repositories. You only really run into dependency problems when you go off the beaten path and try to grab random rpms directly and install them. Now, that said, yum is slow and a memory hog and it's fragile, so that's terrible and I still prefer apt, but it does alleviate the dependency problems.notfred wrote:My problem with the RedHat stuff is it seems to do a lot of things in specialised RedHat ways - e.g. "run this config tool"
I wouldn't play up this issue too much. I still recommend Ubuntu above the others, but not because of that angle. You may have had a great experience, and it "just works" for some people, but most people have some number of issues with Ubuntu and sometimes when they switch, they are just trading one issue for another. Our LUG probably does 40-50 Ubuntu installs a year and the fraction of them that "just work" isn't very high (when "just work" is to the level of expectation of the users). Subjectively I can't say it's higher than Fedora, because we don't do a large enough number of Fedora installs to have a decent sample.lex-ington wrote:I still consider myself a beginner, but made the switch from Fedora to Ubuntu because everything should "just work". Why shouldn't it work?
Edit: I should probably clarify that about 3/4 of the installs we do at LUG are on laptops. I'd expect the rate of installs that "just work" out of the box without fiddling would be higher if we had more desktops.
