Fedora

[flip-mode]

Anyone using this? I just got the VM installed and these are the first things I notice:

1. It's huge. Install image is 3.5GiB. Installed and updated system uses 6.1GiB of disk.
2. Despite being huge, some things aren't there - I can't instal Virtualbox Guest Additions due to missing kernel headers and missing other things.

Compare to Ubuntu: 3.1GiB install size, Vbox GA installs with no trouble.

This leads to a feeling of being slightly unthrilled. Work's website host wants to use Fedora10 when we upgrade our server. I wonder if I can talk him into using Ubuntu 8.04.

[just brew it!]

2. Despite being huge, some things aren't there - I can't instal Virtualbox Guest Additions due to missing kernel headers and missing other things.

Hmm... I've been trying to figure out why you had problems with this when I didn't. I think maybe it is because I checked all the installation options when I did the initial install; the headers probably came in with the developer tools.

But I think the take-home message is pretty simple: unless you want to deal with the foibles of Fedora (or some other "hardcore" distro like Debian or Gentoo), Ubuntu is the way to go these days.

[Synchromesh]

But I think the take-home message is pretty simple: unless you want to deal with the foibles of Fedora (or some other "hardcore" distro like Debian or Gentoo), Ubuntu is the way to go these days.

QFT!

[shank15217]

Fedora is even more bleeding edge than gentoo. Actually I dont see the point of gentoo but anyways if you are using bleeding edge distros you better be very familiar with Linux internals.

[Game_boy]

Fedora is even more bleeding edge than gentoo. Actually I dont see the point of gentoo but anyways if you are using bleeding edge distros you better be very familiar with Linux internals.

And you shouldn't use them for servers. If you want Red Hat for servers, use CentOS.

[flip-mode]

Isn't Fedora10 supposedly pretty patched up by now?

[bthylafh]

But I think the take-home message is pretty simple: unless you want to deal with the foibles of Fedora (or some other "hardcore" distro like Debian or Gentoo), Ubuntu is the way to go these days.

Isn't SuSE supposed to be pretty friendly too?

[just brew it!]

Isn't Fedora10 supposedly pretty patched up by now?

Well... yes. But you're still dealing with a distro which is effectively the alpha test platform for RHEL.

For a mission critical server I'd go with Ubuntu LTS (currently 8.04), Debian "stable", or RHEL/CentOS. For a non-critical server, yeah Fedora (or a non-LTS Ubuntu release) is perfectly fine. My home file server has been running Fedora for several years (but will soon be switched to Ubuntu simply because I'm using Ubuntu on my desktop, and would prefer to get everything onto a common platform).

[just brew it!]

Isn't SuSE supposed to be pretty friendly too?

Yes.

I haven't touched it in a few years though; I suppose I should give it another try. FWIW I vastly prefer the apt-based package management system used by Debian, Ubuntu, and their derivatives to Redhat's RPM-based system (which SuSE also uses). Apt "just works", whereas I've seen quite a few software installation foul-ups on Fedora which are quite clearly the fault of RPM and the tools layered on top of it.

[bthylafh]

Isn't SuSE supposed to be pretty friendly too?

Yes.

I haven't touched it in a few years though; I suppose I should give it another try. FWIW I vastly prefer the apt-based package management system used by Debian, Ubuntu, and their derivatives to Redhat's RPM-based system (which SuSE also uses). Apt "just works", whereas I've seen quite a few software installation foul-ups on Fedora which are quite clearly the fault of RPM and the tools layered on top of it.

Likewise. I'm trying OpenSUSE 11.1 in a VM right now, and I think I like Ubuntu better. The latter seems more polished and better able to stay out of your way, plus as you mentioned apt-get wins.

[fpsduck]

I tried F10 once for desktop usage and I love it.
Now F11 is out and I'm about to install it again.

[bitvector]

But I think the take-home message is pretty simple: unless you want to deal with the foibles of Fedora (or some other "hardcore" distro like Debian or Gentoo), Ubuntu is the way to go these days.

I wouldn't lump Debian in with Fedora and Gentoo for the level of foibles. Sure, Debian doesn't have a slick GUI+live system installer and brown themes with naked people singing kumbaya, but it certainly has a high level of care applied to packaging and system evolution. Fedora and Gentoo explicitly try to stay at the bleeding edge of everything, so you experience a lot more breakage and hiccups. And along that dimension, I'd argue Ubuntu pushes the envelope more than Debian testing/unstable (e.g. 3D desktop effects by default, NetworkManager without static IPs, PulseAudio, GRUB2 without support for booting Windows, etc.).

Isn't SuSE supposed to be pretty friendly too?

Some people seem to think so, but SuSE was the one Linux distro I never could stand just from using it.* YaST/YaST2 just makes me want to vomit. Why is it so slow? And it loves to molest everything in /etc. I was testing an OpenSuSE netinstall once in a VM image with 256MB of RAM and received an error: "Your computer does not have enough memory to run YaST." Seriously? The packaging tool won't even start up on a machine with 256MB of RAM? That was the only distro in the set of installer images I was preparing (Debian, Ubuntu, RHEL, CentOS, Fedora, Mandriva, Gentoo, Arch, OpenSuSE) that refused to install on a 256MB VM.

* Gentoo is close, but it's more that I can't stand an obnoxious subset of vocal Gentoo users.

[dustyjamessutton]

I put Ubuntu 9.04 on one of my desktop machines and I will say it is much easier to use than any time I've ever used Fedora. On Ubuntu, things are more likely to "just work". And to be quite honest, it may not be as easy to configure as a Mac, but once you have everything set up right, it does mostly everything a Mac will do, for free. I also prefer the Compiz-Fusion window effects in Gnome compared to Mac OS X's special desktop effects. The only complain I have with Ubuntu is I cant get sound over SPDIF, and there is always tearing when watching videos. That and I can't play World of Warcraft on it, at least I haven't figured out how to do it. Fedora is such a pain that I gave up on it years ago, and after reading recent reviews about it, I haven't been convinced to try it since.

[flip-mode]

Thanks dusty, I've already got Ubuntu installed six ways from Sunday: on machines at work and home, on virtual machines at work and home, 8.04 desktop, 8.04 server, and 9.04 desktop, and today I am going to be putting 9.04 desktop on my laptop. Ubuntu shall be my distro of choice for now, but I am still going to be toying with others.

[[SDG]Mantis]

I tried F10 once for desktop usage and I love it.
Now F11 is out and I'm about to install it again.

I think that it is a matter of preference. Most of the core of Fedora is stable. I'm not sure that I'd choose it for a production environment server because it has bells and whistles which aren't strictly necessary. But I've been using Fedora since it first started. I've used most of the versions at least a little...though I've tended not to push my own home server to the new distro as fast as they've come out. Heck, I still have a box running FC7.

For desktop usage, I strongly prefer Fedora to Ubuntu...that's a personal preference. I'd rather have the latest bells and whistles for a desktop installation. I don't want to have to install by hand rather than the package manager if I want to new Firefox or Thunderbird for my desktop.

[just brew it!]

I wouldn't lump Debian in with Fedora and Gentoo for the level of foibles. Sure, Debian doesn't have a slick GUI+live system installer and brown themes with naked people singing kumbaya, but it certainly has a high level of care applied to packaging and system evolution.

I should have been clearer about what I meant. I agree Debian's "foibles" are different.

Fedora and Ubuntu both suffer at times from being too bleeding edge. Broken stuff makes it into the official releases on a semi-regular basis.

Debian (provided that you stick with the "stable" branch) doesn't suffer from "bleeding edge brokenness" syndrome. It can, however, be somewhat daunting for people who are still relatively new to Linux; it seems to be aimed more at the Linux "power user" who is willing to dive into the deep end and really understand what's going on under the hood. Because of its conservative approach, it also lags other distros quite a bit on features; for a desktop, you may actually want some of the more bleeding edge features, even if they are not as stable.

Fedora and Gentoo explicitly try to stay at the bleeding edge of everything, so you experience a lot more breakage and hiccups. And along that dimension, I'd argue Ubuntu pushes the envelope more than Debian testing/unstable (e.g. 3D desktop effects by default, NetworkManager without static IPs, PulseAudio, GRUB2 without support for booting Windows, etc.).

Yes, NetworkManager pisses me off. It amazes me that Ubuntu has managed to go through two release cycles and it is still half-broken; at least it sort of works now in 9.04 (but it is still busted to the point that you're probably better off ripping it out and manually editing the network configuration if you need a static IP).

I don't know what you're referring to regarding the Windows boot support though. I just set up a Windows / Ubuntu 9.04 dual-boot system the other day, and it seemed to work fine.

[bitvector]

I don't know what you're referring to regarding the Windows boot support though. I just set up a Windows / Ubuntu 9.04 dual-boot system the other day, and it seemed to work fine.

It's a 9.10 issue. 9.04 still uses the 1.xx Grub.

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/revi ... lpha-2.ars
"The bootloader is another major component that has been rolled over to the next generation in Karmic. The alpha 2 release ships with GRUB 2, the next-generation of GNU's GRUB bootloader. ... There are still some aspects of GRUB 2 that are not yet working properly in this alpha release, the most notable of which is support for booting other operating systems."

Sure it's an alpha, but they've said they're definitely going to use GRUB2 by default in 9.10 final and I seriously wonder if it's ready for prime-time after having tried to use it on various occasions.

[just brew it!]

I don't know what you're referring to regarding the Windows boot support though. I just set up a Windows / Ubuntu 9.04 dual-boot system the other day, and it seemed to work fine.

It's a 9.10 issue. 9.04 still uses the 1.xx Grub.

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/revi ... lpha-2.ars
"The bootloader is another major component that has been rolled over to the next generation in Karmic. The alpha 2 release ships with GRUB 2, the next-generation of GNU's GRUB bootloader. ... There are still some aspects of GRUB 2 that are not yet working properly in this alpha release, the most notable of which is support for booting other operating systems."

Sure it's an alpha, but they've said they're definitely going to use GRUB2 by default in 9.10 final and I seriously wonder if it's ready for prime-time after having tried to use it on various occasions.

Seems to me lack of daul-boot support would be a "must be fixed before final release" type of bug. But then again, I would've said the same thing about the network management tools that shipped with 8.10.

[flip-mode]

I would've said the same thing about the network management tools that shipped with 8.10.

Funny this should be the topic of conversation right now since it is exactly the issue I am dealing with at the moment as I get 9.04 installed on me's lappy.

[MarkD]

I had no problems at all with F10 on my Thinkpad.

We use RedHat on servers at work, so it's worthwhile trying Fedora to see what's coming at us in newer releases of Red Hat. You need to understand going in that the zeal to include nothing that is not open will cause you to have to do some more work as opposed to other distros. I like Fedora, but will concede it is not the best choice for people who don't want to know much about an Operating System beyond what to click on.