Ubuntu 9.10 vs Fedora 12

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 [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.

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, 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