Ubuntu 9.10 vs Fedora 12 - Revision history

DavidM at 15:53, 26 November 2009

2009-11-26T15:53:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:53, 26 November 2009
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Ubuntu has many more packages available. This makes setup much easier in many cases. After an install, the system is much more complete, with things like spellcheck working out of the box. Ubuntu has very nice accommodation for multimedia codecs, in most cases within an application you can install a system package to provide functionality. With Fedora, you have to track it all down.		Ubuntu has many more packages available. This makes setup much easier in many cases. After an install, the system is much more complete, with things like spellcheck working out of the box. Ubuntu has very nice accommodation for multimedia codecs, in most cases within an application you can install a system package to provide functionality. With Fedora, you have to track it all down.

	Ubuntu has a ~~too simple~~ or ~~much more~~ complex Compiz (3d desktop) configuration, ~~which~~ can lead to trouble as settings conflict with each other. I like the effects and where they might lead, but today the only really useful one is zoom, which got disabled in Ubuntu and trying to get it working again was a mess. Fedora's configuration is much simpler but you lose access to features. I just wanted zoom, so I'm happy with Fedora, but I miss many of the neato (but not neccessarily useful) settings. Probably they can be configured with some digging. Unfortunately the default keyboard shortcuts for switching virtual desktops doesn't work with Compiz enabled out of the box, they haven't solved the fundamental Gnome - Compiz configuration divide.		Ubuntu has a basic or quite complex Compiz (3d desktop) configuration, Fedora's range too simple or quite complex. The quite complex configuration tool can lead to trouble as settings conflict with each other. I like the effects and where they might lead, but today the only really useful one is zoom, which got disabled in Ubuntu and trying to get it working again was a mess. Unfortunately the default keyboard shortcuts for switching virtual desktops doesn't work with Compiz enabled out of the box, they haven't solved the fundamental Gnome - Compiz configuration divide. So on Fedora I had to install the complex configuration tool and gingerly adjust the settings.

			While doing this I realize that Flash doesn't respond to input properly under Compiz in either distro, which is yet another reason to get out of the Adobe binary universe.

	Because it's more configured out of the box, Ubuntu is "bloatier." I really didn't want [http://www.gnome.org/projects/tomboy Tomboy], which loads the entire [http://www.mono-project.com/ Mono] toolchain. But because there are more packages available, I can set up things like my notebook features without compiling on Ubuntu.		Because it's more configured out of the box, Ubuntu is "bloatier." I really didn't want [http://www.gnome.org/projects/tomboy Tomboy], which loads the entire [http://www.mono-project.com/ Mono] toolchain. But because there are more packages available, I can set up things like my notebook features without compiling on Ubuntu.
Line 23:		Line 25:
	Fedora is doing some interesting stuff with SELinux, but putting up a dialog box explaining how to edit policy files when you want to do something as simple as file a bug report feels like being dumped onto a dirt road, at best.		Fedora is doing some interesting stuff with SELinux, but putting up a dialog box explaining how to edit policy files when you want to do something as simple as file a bug report feels like being dumped onto a dirt road, at best.

	Fedora has some updated versions of some system files, but they're both running the same kernel version.		Fedora has some updated versions of some system files, none of which means much to me, but they're both running the same kernel version.

	I never cared for the Red Hat image, which Fedora carries on. I like Debian's image but Ubuntu is overdone to me (I've seen [http://images.google.ca/images?q=hands+circle this] one too many times, and I'm not an appreciator of sound schemes in general~~), despite admiring their goals (and product~~).		I never cared for the Red Hat image, which Fedora carries on at least in name. I like Debian's image but Ubuntu is overdone to me (I've seen [http://images.google.ca/images?q=hands+circle this] one too many times, and I'm not today an appreciator of sound schemes in general).

	~~I hope the above is useful to some people.~~ Distros have come a long way, I think the next generation may be near perfect, the main issues remaining will be around application support, with hopefully fine profiles describing configurations for hardware combinations. I hear rumours of a packaging system that will work across distros, that would be terrific so the focus can shift to getting the low level, system oriented stuff right, toward very open and inclusive, educational, adaptable functional integration between all levels of features, with participatory, situated documentation~~. That would be a modern OS~~.		Distros have come a long way, I think the next generation may be near perfect, the main issues remaining will be around application support, with hopefully fine profiles describing configurations for hardware combinations becoming available so it's easier to configure particular systems. I hear rumours of a packaging system that will work across distros, that would be terrific so the focus can shift to getting the low level, system oriented stuff right, toward very open and inclusive, educational, adaptable functional integration between all levels of features, with participatory, situated documentation.

	Originally posted at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/ubuntu-9.10-vs.-fedora-12-766227/page2.html#post3765705		Originally posted at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/ubuntu-9.10-vs.-fedora-12-766227/page2.html#post3765705

DavidM at 03:01, 24 November 2009

2009-11-24T03:01:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:01, 24 November 2009
Line 27:		Line 27:
	I never cared for the Red Hat image, which Fedora carries on. I like Debian's image but Ubuntu is overdone to me (I've seen [http://images.google.ca/images?q=hands+circle this] one too many times, and I'm not an appreciator of sound schemes in general), despite admiring their goals (and product).		I never cared for the Red Hat image, which Fedora carries on. I like Debian's image but Ubuntu is overdone to me (I've seen [http://images.google.ca/images?q=hands+circle this] one too many times, and I'm not an appreciator of sound schemes in general), despite admiring their goals (and product).

	I hope the above is useful to some people. Distros have come a long way, I think the next generation may be near perfect, the main issues remaining will be around application support. ~~A tool like~~ I hear rumours of a packaging system that will work across distros, that would be terrific so the focus can shift to getting the low level, system oriented stuff right, toward very open and inclusive, educational, adaptable functional integration between all levels of features, with participatory, situated documentation. That would be a modern OS.		I hope the above is useful to some people. Distros have come a long way, I think the next generation may be near perfect, the main issues remaining will be around application support, with hopefully fine profiles describing configurations for hardware combinations. I hear rumours of a packaging system that will work across distros, that would be terrific so the focus can shift to getting the low level, system oriented stuff right, toward very open and inclusive, educational, adaptable functional integration between all levels of features, with participatory, situated documentation. That would be a modern OS.

	Originally posted at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/ubuntu-9.10-vs.-fedora-12-766227/page2.html#post3765705		Originally posted at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/ubuntu-9.10-vs.-fedora-12-766227/page2.html#post3765705

DavidM at 03:00, 24 November 2009

2009-11-24T03:00:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:00, 24 November 2009
Line 25:		Line 25:
	Fedora has some updated versions of some system files, but they're both running the same kernel version.		Fedora has some updated versions of some system files, but they're both running the same kernel version.

	I never cared for the Red Hat image, which Fedora carries on. I like Debian's image but Ubuntu is ~~just a~~ overdone to me (I've seen [http://images.google.ca/images?q=hands+circle this] one too many times, and I'm not an appreciator of sound schemes in general), despite admiring their goals (and product).		I never cared for the Red Hat image, which Fedora carries on. I like Debian's image but Ubuntu is overdone to me (I've seen [http://images.google.ca/images?q=hands+circle this] one too many times, and I'm not an appreciator of sound schemes in general), despite admiring their goals (and product).

	I hope the above is useful to some people. Distros have come a long way, I think the next generation may be near perfect, the main issues remaining will be around application support. A tool like I hear rumours of a packaging system that will work across distros, that would be terrific so the focus can shift to getting the low level, system oriented stuff right, toward very open and inclusive, educational, adaptable functional integration between all levels of features, with participatory, situated documentation. That would be a modern OS.		I hope the above is useful to some people. Distros have come a long way, I think the next generation may be near perfect, the main issues remaining will be around application support. A tool like I hear rumours of a packaging system that will work across distros, that would be terrific so the focus can shift to getting the low level, system oriented stuff right, toward very open and inclusive, educational, adaptable functional integration between all levels of features, with participatory, situated documentation. That would be a modern OS.

	Originally posted at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/ubuntu-9.10-vs.-fedora-12-766227/page2.html#post3765705		Originally posted at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/ubuntu-9.10-vs.-fedora-12-766227/page2.html#post3765705

DavidM at 02:59, 24 November 2009

2009-11-24T02:59:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:59, 24 November 2009
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Because it's more configured out of the box, Ubuntu is "bloatier." I really didn't want [http://www.gnome.org/projects/tomboy Tomboy], which loads the entire [http://www.mono-project.com/ Mono] toolchain. But because there are more packages available, I can set up things like my notebook features without compiling on Ubuntu.		Because it's more configured out of the box, Ubuntu is "bloatier." I really didn't want [http://www.gnome.org/projects/tomboy Tomboy], which loads the entire [http://www.mono-project.com/ Mono] toolchain. But because there are more packages available, I can set up things like my notebook features without compiling on Ubuntu.

	~~If forced to choose,~~ I prefer the aesthetics and brand messaging of Fedora. I find Ubuntu's use of brown and weird interstitial pages (logging in, etc) to be ugly, although due to the amateur way graphics and design are treated in these communities they both have a long way to go.		I prefer the aesthetics and brand messaging of Fedora. I find Ubuntu's use of brown and weird interstitial pages (logging in, etc) to be ugly, although due to the amateur way graphics and design are treated in these communities they both have a long way to go.

	Neither distro seems to know how to manage something that maintains core technical facility and looks great while providing enhancements - why not keep the console boot up messages but make them interesting and easy to refer to, don't cover them with a logo.		Neither distro seems to know how to manage something that maintains core technical facility and looks great while providing enhancements - why not keep the console boot up messages but make them interesting and easy to refer to, don't cover them with a logo.

	Fedora's desktop icons remind me of Windows 95. Ubuntu 9.10 ~~was~~ heading in a better direction with some of the gnome icons, more subtle and refined.		Fedora's desktop icons remind me of Windows 95. Ubuntu 9.10 seems to be heading in a better direction with some of the gnome icons, more subtle and refined. But the drums sound effects are a bit over the top.

	I decided to try Fedora because there are some issues running Ubuntu that cause basic wireless problems. I'd hoped Fedora wouldn't have these problems, but it turns out it does.		I decided to try Fedora because there are some issues running Ubuntu that cause basic wireless problems. I'd hoped Fedora wouldn't have these problems, but it turns out it does.
Line 24:		Line 24:

	Fedora has some updated versions of some system files, but they're both running the same kernel version.		Fedora has some updated versions of some system files, but they're both running the same kernel version.

			I never cared for the Red Hat image, which Fedora carries on. I like Debian's image but Ubuntu is just a overdone to me (I've seen [http://images.google.ca/images?q=hands+circle this] one too many times, and I'm not an appreciator of sound schemes in general), despite admiring their goals (and product).

	I hope the above is useful to some people. Distros have come a long way, I think the next generation may be near perfect, the main issues remaining will be around application support. A tool like I hear rumours of a packaging system that will work across distros, that would be terrific so the focus can shift to getting the low level, system oriented stuff right, toward very open and inclusive, educational, adaptable functional integration between all levels of features, with participatory, situated documentation. That would be a modern OS.		I hope the above is useful to some people. Distros have come a long way, I think the next generation may be near perfect, the main issues remaining will be around application support. A tool like I hear rumours of a packaging system that will work across distros, that would be terrific so the focus can shift to getting the low level, system oriented stuff right, toward very open and inclusive, educational, adaptable functional integration between all levels of features, with participatory, situated documentation. That would be a modern OS.

	Originally posted at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/ubuntu-9.10-vs.-fedora-12-766227/page2.html#post3765705		Originally posted at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/ubuntu-9.10-vs.-fedora-12-766227/page2.html#post3765705

DavidM at 02:41, 24 November 2009

2009-11-24T02:41:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:41, 24 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I've run Debian since the mid 90s. I started running Ubuntu a few years ago for an easier to maintain desktop, including 9.10. I decided to try Fedora due to some problems on [[Thinkpad T400S \| my notebook]] running Ubuntu. I used to compile kernels and a lot of software, but I don't want to now unless I must due to the time overhead and advantages of maintained packages, but I do want to find an OS that can be truly mainstream without losing the low level features.		I've run Debian since the mid 90s. I started running Ubuntu a few years ago for an easier to maintain desktop, including 9.10. I decided to try Fedora due to some problems on [[Thinkpad T400S \| my notebook]] running Ubuntu. I used to compile kernels and a lot of software, but I don't want to now unless I must due to the time overhead and advantages of maintained packages, but I do want to find an OS that can be truly mainstream without losing the low level features.

	Ubuntu has many more packages available. This makes setup much easier in many cases. After an install, the system is much more complete, with things like spellcheck working out of the box. Ubuntu has very nice ~~accomodation~~ for multimedia codecs, in most cases within an application you can install a system package to provide functionality. With Fedora, you have to track it all down.		Ubuntu has many more packages available. This makes setup much easier in many cases. After an install, the system is much more complete, with things like spellcheck working out of the box. Ubuntu has very nice accommodation for multimedia codecs, in most cases within an application you can install a system package to provide functionality. With Fedora, you have to track it all down.

	Ubuntu has a too simple or much more complex Compiz (3d desktop) configuration, which can lead to trouble as settings conflict with each other. I like the effects and where they might lead, but today the only really useful one is zoom, which got disabled in Ubuntu and trying to get it working again was a mess. Fedora's configuration is much simpler but you lose access to features. I just wanted zoom, so I'm happy with Fedora, but I miss many of the neato (but not neccessarily useful) settings. Probably they can be configured with some digging. Unfortunately the default keyboard shortcuts for switching virtual desktops doesn't work with Compiz enabled out of the box, they haven't solved the fundamental Gnome - Compiz configuration divide.		Ubuntu has a too simple or much more complex Compiz (3d desktop) configuration, which can lead to trouble as settings conflict with each other. I like the effects and where they might lead, but today the only really useful one is zoom, which got disabled in Ubuntu and trying to get it working again was a mess. Fedora's configuration is much simpler but you lose access to features. I just wanted zoom, so I'm happy with Fedora, but I miss many of the neato (but not neccessarily useful) settings. Probably they can be configured with some digging. Unfortunately the default keyboard shortcuts for switching virtual desktops doesn't work with Compiz enabled out of the box, they haven't solved the fundamental Gnome - Compiz configuration divide.
Line 7:		Line 7:
	Because it's more configured out of the box, Ubuntu is "bloatier." I really didn't want [http://www.gnome.org/projects/tomboy Tomboy], which loads the entire [http://www.mono-project.com/ Mono] toolchain. But because there are more packages available, I can set up things like my notebook features without compiling on Ubuntu.		Because it's more configured out of the box, Ubuntu is "bloatier." I really didn't want [http://www.gnome.org/projects/tomboy Tomboy], which loads the entire [http://www.mono-project.com/ Mono] toolchain. But because there are more packages available, I can set up things like my notebook features without compiling on Ubuntu.

	If forced to choose, I prefer the ~~aesethetics~~ and brand messaging of Fedora. I find Ubuntu's use of brown and weird interstitial pages (logging in, etc) to be ugly, although due to the amateur way graphics and design are treated in these communities they both have a long way to go.		If forced to choose, I prefer the aesthetics and brand messaging of Fedora. I find Ubuntu's use of brown and weird interstitial pages (logging in, etc) to be ugly, although due to the amateur way graphics and design are treated in these communities they both have a long way to go.

	Neither distro seems to know how to manage something that maintains core technical facility and looks great while providing enhancements - why not keep the console boot up messages but make them interesting and easy to refer to, don't cover them with a logo.		Neither distro seems to know how to manage something that maintains core technical facility and looks great while providing enhancements - why not keep the console boot up messages but make them interesting and easy to refer to, don't cover them with a logo.
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Fedora's desktop icons remind me of Windows 95. Ubuntu 9.10 was heading in a better direction with some of the gnome icons, more subtle and refined.		Fedora's desktop icons remind me of Windows 95. Ubuntu 9.10 was heading in a better direction with some of the gnome icons, more subtle and refined.

	I decided to try Fedora because there are some issues ~~with the way the~~ Ubuntu ~~kernel is tweaked~~ that ~~causes~~ wireless problems~~. That's critically important~~. I'd hoped Fedora ~~would~~'t have these problems, but it turns out it does.		I decided to try Fedora because there are some issues running Ubuntu that cause basic wireless problems. I'd hoped Fedora wouldn't have these problems, but it turns out it does.

	wlagn 0000:03:00.0: Error setting new RXON (-28)		wlagn 0000:03:00.0: Error setting new RXON (-28)

DavidM at 02:35, 24 November 2009

2009-11-24T02:35:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:35, 24 November 2009
Line 13:		Line 13:
	Fedora's desktop icons remind me of Windows 95. Ubuntu 9.10 was heading in a better direction with some of the gnome icons, more subtle and refined.		Fedora's desktop icons remind me of Windows 95. Ubuntu 9.10 was heading in a better direction with some of the gnome icons, more subtle and refined.

	I decided to try Fedora because there are some issues with the way the Ubuntu kernel is tweaked that causes wireless problems. That's critically important. ~~Hopefully~~ Fedora ~~won~~'t have these problems, but it ~~hasn't been long enough to say yet~~.		I decided to try Fedora because there are some issues with the way the Ubuntu kernel is tweaked that causes wireless problems. That's critically important. I'd hoped Fedora would't have these problems, but it turns out it does.

			wlagn 0000:03:00.0: Error setting new RXON (-28)
			iwlagn 0000:03:00.0: No space for Tx
			iwlagn 0000:03:00.0: Error sending REPLY_TX_POWER_DBM_CMD: enqueue_hcmd failed:

	Fedora was supposed to have improved Pulse Audio setup. Pulse Audio has been a big problem in transition, and I have problems with 5.1 sound on my [[media PC]]. Unfortunately PA seems to have basic problems on my notebook in Fedora.		Fedora was supposed to have improved Pulse Audio setup. Pulse Audio has been a big problem in transition, and I have problems with 5.1 sound on my [[media PC]]. Unfortunately PA seems to have basic problems on my notebook in Fedora.
Line 21:		Line 25:
	Fedora has some updated versions of some system files, but they're both running the same kernel version.		Fedora has some updated versions of some system files, but they're both running the same kernel version.

	I hope the above is useful to some people. Distros have come a long way, I think the next generation may be near perfect, the main issues remaining will be around application support. I hear rumours of a packaging system that will work across distros, that would be terrific so the focus can shift to getting the low level, system oriented stuff right, toward very open and inclusive, educational, adaptable functional integration between all levels of features, with participatory, situated documentation. That would be a modern OS.		I hope the above is useful to some people. Distros have come a long way, I think the next generation may be near perfect, the main issues remaining will be around application support. A tool like I hear rumours of a packaging system that will work across distros, that would be terrific so the focus can shift to getting the low level, system oriented stuff right, toward very open and inclusive, educational, adaptable functional integration between all levels of features, with participatory, situated documentation. That would be a modern OS.

	Originally posted at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/ubuntu-9.10-vs.-fedora-12-766227/page2.html#post3765705		Originally posted at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/ubuntu-9.10-vs.-fedora-12-766227/page2.html#post3765705

DavidM at 15:21, 22 November 2009

2009-11-22T15:21:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:21, 22 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I've run Debian ~~from~~ the mid 90s ~~to now~~. I started running Ubuntu a few years ago for an easier to maintain desktop, including 9.10. I decided to try Fedora due to some problems on [[Thinkpad T400S \| my notebook]] running Ubuntu. I used to compile kernels and a lot of software, but I don't want to now unless I must due to the time overhead and advantages of maintained packages, but I do want to find an OS that can be truly mainstream without losing the low level features.		I've run Debian since the mid 90s. I started running Ubuntu a few years ago for an easier to maintain desktop, including 9.10. I decided to try Fedora due to some problems on [[Thinkpad T400S \| my notebook]] running Ubuntu. I used to compile kernels and a lot of software, but I don't want to now unless I must due to the time overhead and advantages of maintained packages, but I do want to find an OS that can be truly mainstream without losing the low level features.

	Ubuntu has many more packages available. This makes setup much easier in many cases. After an install, the system is much more complete, with things like spellcheck working out of the box. Ubuntu has very nice accomodation for multimedia codecs, in most cases within an application you can install a system package to provide functionality. With Fedora, you have to track it all down.		Ubuntu has many more packages available. This makes setup much easier in many cases. After an install, the system is much more complete, with things like spellcheck working out of the box. Ubuntu has very nice accomodation for multimedia codecs, in most cases within an application you can install a system package to provide functionality. With Fedora, you have to track it all down.

DavidM at 15:19, 22 November 2009

2009-11-22T15:19:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:19, 22 November 2009
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Ubuntu has a too simple or much more complex Compiz (3d desktop) configuration, which can lead to trouble as settings conflict with each other. I like the effects and where they might lead, but today the only really useful one is zoom, which got disabled in Ubuntu and trying to get it working again was a mess. Fedora's configuration is much simpler but you lose access to features. I just wanted zoom, so I'm happy with Fedora, but I miss many of the neato (but not neccessarily useful) settings. Probably they can be configured with some digging. Unfortunately the default keyboard shortcuts for switching virtual desktops doesn't work with Compiz enabled out of the box, they haven't solved the fundamental Gnome - Compiz configuration divide.		Ubuntu has a too simple or much more complex Compiz (3d desktop) configuration, which can lead to trouble as settings conflict with each other. I like the effects and where they might lead, but today the only really useful one is zoom, which got disabled in Ubuntu and trying to get it working again was a mess. Fedora's configuration is much simpler but you lose access to features. I just wanted zoom, so I'm happy with Fedora, but I miss many of the neato (but not neccessarily useful) settings. Probably they can be configured with some digging. Unfortunately the default keyboard shortcuts for switching virtual desktops doesn't work with Compiz enabled out of the box, they haven't solved the fundamental Gnome - Compiz configuration divide.

	Because it's more configured out of the box, Ubuntu is "bloatier." I really didn't want [www.gnome.org/projects/tomboy Tomboy], which loads the entire [www.mono-project.com/ Mono] toolchain. But because there are more packages, I can set up things like my notebook features without compiling on Ubuntu.		Because it's more configured out of the box, Ubuntu is "bloatier." I really didn't want [http://www.gnome.org/projects/tomboy Tomboy], which loads the entire [http://www.mono-project.com/ Mono] toolchain. But because there are more packages available, I can set up things like my notebook features without compiling on Ubuntu.

	If forced to choose, I prefer the aesethetics and brand messaging of Fedora. I find Ubuntu's use of brown and weird interstitial pages (logging in, etc) to be ugly, although due to the amateur way graphics and design are treated in these communities they both have a long way to go.		If forced to choose, I prefer the aesethetics and brand messaging of Fedora. I find Ubuntu's use of brown and weird interstitial pages (logging in, etc) to be ugly, although due to the amateur way graphics and design are treated in these communities they both have a long way to go.

DavidM at 15:15, 22 November 2009

2009-11-22T15:15:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:15, 22 November 2009
Line 1:		Line 1:
			I've run Debian from the mid 90s to now. I started running Ubuntu a few years ago for an easier to maintain desktop, including 9.10. I decided to try Fedora due to some problems on [[Thinkpad T400S \| my notebook]] running Ubuntu. I used to compile kernels and a lot of software, but I don't want to now unless I must due to the time overhead and advantages of maintained packages, but I do want to find an OS that can be truly mainstream without losing the low level features.
	I've run Debian from the mid 90s to now. I started running Ubuntu a few years ago for an easier to maintain desktop, including 9.10. I decided to try Fedora due to some problems on my notebook running Ubuntu. I used to compile kernels and a lot of software, but I don't want to now unless I must due to the time overhead and advantages of maintained packages, but I do want to find an OS that can be truly mainstream without losing the low level features.

	Ubuntu has many more packages available. This makes setup much easier in many cases. After an install, the system is much more complete, with things like spellcheck working out of the box. Ubuntu has very nice accomodation for multimedia codecs, in most cases within an application you can install a system package to provide functionality. With Fedora, you have to track it all down.		Ubuntu has many more packages available. This makes setup much easier in many cases. After an install, the system is much more complete, with things like spellcheck working out of the box. Ubuntu has very nice accomodation for multimedia codecs, in most cases within an application you can install a system package to provide functionality. With Fedora, you have to track it all down.
Line 6:		Line 5:
	Ubuntu has a too simple or much more complex Compiz (3d desktop) configuration, which can lead to trouble as settings conflict with each other. I like the effects and where they might lead, but today the only really useful one is zoom, which got disabled in Ubuntu and trying to get it working again was a mess. Fedora's configuration is much simpler but you lose access to features. I just wanted zoom, so I'm happy with Fedora, but I miss many of the neato (but not neccessarily useful) settings. Probably they can be configured with some digging. Unfortunately the default keyboard shortcuts for switching virtual desktops doesn't work with Compiz enabled out of the box, they haven't solved the fundamental Gnome - Compiz configuration divide.		Ubuntu has a too simple or much more complex Compiz (3d desktop) configuration, which can lead to trouble as settings conflict with each other. I like the effects and where they might lead, but today the only really useful one is zoom, which got disabled in Ubuntu and trying to get it working again was a mess. Fedora's configuration is much simpler but you lose access to features. I just wanted zoom, so I'm happy with Fedora, but I miss many of the neato (but not neccessarily useful) settings. Probably they can be configured with some digging. Unfortunately the default keyboard shortcuts for switching virtual desktops doesn't work with Compiz enabled out of the box, they haven't solved the fundamental Gnome - Compiz configuration divide.

	Because it's more configured out of the box, Ubuntu is "bloatier." I really didn't want Tomboy, which loads the entire Mono toolchain. But because there are more packages, I can set up things like my notebook features without compiling on Ubuntu.		Because it's more configured out of the box, Ubuntu is "bloatier." I really didn't want [www.gnome.org/projects/tomboy Tomboy], which loads the entire [www.mono-project.com/ Mono] toolchain. But because there are more packages, I can set up things like my notebook features without compiling on Ubuntu.

			If forced to choose, I prefer the aesethetics and brand messaging of Fedora. I find Ubuntu's use of brown and weird interstitial pages (logging in, etc) to be ugly, although due to the amateur way graphics and design are treated in these communities they both have a long way to go.

	If forced to choose, I prefer the aesethetics and brand messaging of Fedora. I find Ubuntu's use of brown and weird interstitial pages (logging in, etc) to be ugly, although due to the amateur way graphics and design are treated in these communities they both have a long way to go. Neither distro seems to know how to manage something that maintains core technical facility and looks great while providing enhancements - why not keep the console boot up messages but make them interesting and easy to refer to, don't cover them with a logo.		Neither distro seems to know how to manage something that maintains core technical facility and looks great while providing enhancements - why not keep the console boot up messages but make them interesting and easy to refer to, don't cover them with a logo.

	Fedora's desktop icons remind me of Windows 95. Ubuntu 9.10 was heading in a better direction with some of the gnome icons, more subtle and refined.		Fedora's desktop icons remind me of Windows 95. Ubuntu 9.10 was heading in a better direction with some of the gnome icons, more subtle and refined.
Line 14:		Line 15:
	I decided to try Fedora because there are some issues with the way the Ubuntu kernel is tweaked that causes wireless problems. That's critically important. Hopefully Fedora won't have these problems, but it hasn't been long enough to say yet.		I decided to try Fedora because there are some issues with the way the Ubuntu kernel is tweaked that causes wireless problems. That's critically important. Hopefully Fedora won't have these problems, but it hasn't been long enough to say yet.

	Fedora was supposed to have improved Pulse Audio setup. Pulse Audio has been a big problem in transition, and I have problems with 5.1 sound on my media PC. Unfortunately PA seems to have basic problems on my notebook in Fedora.		Fedora was supposed to have improved Pulse Audio setup. Pulse Audio has been a big problem in transition, and I have problems with 5.1 sound on my [[media PC]]. Unfortunately PA seems to have basic problems on my notebook in Fedora.

	Fedora is doing some interesting stuff with SELinux, but putting up a dialog box explaining how to edit policy files when you want to do something as simple as file a bug report feels like being dumped onto a dirt road, at best.		Fedora is doing some interesting stuff with SELinux, but putting up a dialog box explaining how to edit policy files when you want to do something as simple as file a bug report feels like being dumped onto a dirt road, at best.
Line 20:		Line 21:
	Fedora has some updated versions of some system files, but they're both running the same kernel version.		Fedora has some updated versions of some system files, but they're both running the same kernel version.

	I hope the above is useful to some people. Distros have come a long way, I think the next generation may be near perfect, the main issues remaining will be around application support. I hear rumours of a packaging system that will work across distros, that would be terrific so the focus can shift to getting the low level, system oriented stuff right.		I hope the above is useful to some people. Distros have come a long way, I think the next generation may be near perfect, the main issues remaining will be around application support. I hear rumours of a packaging system that will work across distros, that would be terrific so the focus can shift to getting the low level, system oriented stuff right, toward very open and inclusive, educational, adaptable functional integration between all levels of features, with participatory, situated documentation. That would be a modern OS.

	Originally posted at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/ubuntu-9.10-vs.-fedora-12-766227/page2.html#post3765705		Originally posted at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/ubuntu-9.10-vs.-fedora-12-766227/page2.html#post3765705

DavidM: Created page with ' I've run Debian from the mid 90s to now. I started running Ubuntu a few years ago for an easier to maintain desktop, including 9.10. I decided to try Fedora due to some problems...'

2009-11-22T14:47:00Z

Created page with ' I've run Debian from the mid 90s to now. I started running Ubuntu a few years ago for an easier to maintain desktop, including 9.10. I decided to try Fedora due to some problems...'

New page

I've run Debian from the mid 90s to now. I started running Ubuntu a few years ago for an easier to maintain desktop, including 9.10. I decided to try Fedora due to some problems on my notebook running Ubuntu. I used to compile kernels and a lot of software, but I don't want to now unless I must due to the time overhead and advantages of maintained packages, but I do want to find an OS that can be truly mainstream without losing the low level features.

Ubuntu has many more packages available. This makes setup much easier in many cases. After an install, the system is much more complete, with things like spellcheck working out of the box. Ubuntu has very nice accomodation for multimedia codecs, in most cases within an application you can install a system package to provide functionality. With Fedora, you have to track it all down.

Ubuntu has a too simple or much more complex Compiz (3d desktop) configuration, which can lead to trouble as settings conflict with each other. I like the effects and where they might lead, but today the only really useful one is zoom, which got disabled in Ubuntu and trying to get it working again was a mess. Fedora's configuration is much simpler but you lose access to features. I just wanted zoom, so I'm happy with Fedora, but I miss many of the neato (but not neccessarily useful) settings. Probably they can be configured with some digging. Unfortunately the default keyboard shortcuts for switching virtual desktops doesn't work with Compiz enabled out of the box, they haven't solved the fundamental Gnome - Compiz configuration divide.

Because it's more configured out of the box, Ubuntu is "bloatier." I really didn't want Tomboy, which loads the entire Mono toolchain. But because there are more packages, I can set up things like my notebook features without compiling on Ubuntu.

If forced to choose, I prefer the aesethetics and brand messaging of Fedora. I find Ubuntu's use of brown and weird interstitial pages (logging in, etc) to be ugly, although due to the amateur way graphics and design are treated in these communities they both have a long way to go. Neither distro seems to know how to manage something that maintains core technical facility and looks great while providing enhancements - why not keep the console boot up messages but make them interesting and easy to refer to, don't cover them with a logo.

Fedora's desktop icons remind me of Windows 95. Ubuntu 9.10 was heading in a better direction with some of the gnome icons, more subtle and refined.

I decided to try Fedora because there are some issues with the way the Ubuntu kernel is tweaked that causes wireless problems. That's critically important. Hopefully Fedora won't have these problems, but it hasn't been long enough to say yet.

Fedora was supposed to have improved Pulse Audio setup. Pulse Audio has been a big problem in transition, and I have problems with 5.1 sound on my media PC. Unfortunately PA seems to have basic problems on my notebook in Fedora.

Fedora is doing some interesting stuff with SELinux, but putting up a dialog box explaining how to edit policy files when you want to do something as simple as file a bug report feels like being dumped onto a dirt road, at best.

Fedora has some updated versions of some system files, but they're both running the same kernel version.

I hope the above is useful to some people. Distros have come a long way, I think the next generation may be near perfect, the main issues remaining will be around application support. I hear rumours of a packaging system that will work across distros, that would be terrific so the focus can shift to getting the low level, system oriented stuff right.

Originally posted at http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/ubuntu-63/ubuntu-9.10-vs.-fedora-12-766227/page2.html#post3765705