What is Digg?89 Comments
- evillawngnome, on 08/04/2008, -2/+65Wow, that was the worst linux distro article i have ever read. Allow for me to summarise:
The author is familiar with Red Hat Fedora and Ubuntu.
MP3s codecs can be installed in either distribution.
Everything else he says in regards to one distro or the other is in general terms; he never gets into the concrete feature differences of each one.
Buried to hell for being such a lame grasp for attention. "I'll use the word "linux"! That will get people here in droves!" - mohtasham, on 08/03/2008, -0/+27I had fedora 3 and 4 installed on my computer back in the day. Since Ubuntu 7.10 I switched to ubuntu. Ubuntu has been evolving since that and I'm pretty comfortable with that. But, I'm pretty sure Fedora has been evolved as well. In my opinion they're pretty much same. I guess most Linux distros are alike. The only major difference between them can be their package managers. I'm pretty sure if I install any Linux on my computer, after a few days they will be all alike.
- Crath, on 08/03/2008, -6/+21I recently made the switch from WinXP to Ubuntu 8.04 and I am very impressed. Good article, reassured that I made the right decision on picking my linux distro.
- evillawngnome, on 08/04/2008, -0/+11The about page for the author's website puts everything in perspective:
"A large number of people who maintain a Weblog (including and especially myself) do not really have anything important or interesting to say. Too often when people do write something that catches the attention of readers, the level of credibility is impossible to gauge. What is truth and what is mere opinion, or worse yet: what is slander? There can be no “objective basis for truth” found within the vast majority of weblog content.
This was the origin of JourNihilism (Journal Nihilism); meaningless composition with no objective basis for truth." - mrjit, on 08/04/2008, -7/+18Apt > Yum
- MaxIsBored, on 08/04/2008, -0/+11This article proves nothing other than the fact that this guy knows nothing about linux. Burried for innacurate information.
- rahulsundaram, on 08/04/2008, -0/+10Comparing rpm with apt-get is a clueless thing to do.
cat /etc/fedora-release
Fedora release 9 (Sulphur)
# yum info apt
Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit
Available Packages
Name : apt
Arch : i386
Version : 0.5.15lorg3.94
Release : 3.fc9
Size : 1.0 M
Repo : fedora
Summary : Debian's Advanced Packaging Tool with RPM support
URL : http://apt-rpm.org/
License : GPLv2+
Description: APT-RPM is a port of Debian's apt tools for RPM based
: distributions. It provides the apt-get utility that provides a
: simple, safe way to install and upgrade packages. APT features
: complete installation ordering, multiple source capability and
: several other useful features. - Birukun, on 08/04/2008, -0/+10Buried - this article sucked!
- sq2shooter, on 08/04/2008, -0/+9I have Ubuntu installed on a Vaio laptop. Been using it for a year and a half (since Edgy Eft). It works perfectly. My knowledge of the command line = 0.
- dcherryholmes, on 08/04/2008, -1/+10@KillerKellerjr:
"Linux users need to come up with a similar way to install, how about a *.inst or something similar and they download from a webpage and click on it to install. I use Ubuntu and am very comfortable with all aspects but I am a power user not an average user."
If you download a .deb and click on it, that is exactly what happens: it gets installed. How can you be an Ubuntu "power user" and not know this? Wander around www.getdeb.net and download a deb to try it yourself. - brnews, on 08/04/2008, -1/+10What a superfluous article. It boasts a great task on its title and delivers close to nothing afterward. To sum it up: Just another post for the sake of posting.
Buried for making me look and actually thinking that someone would take such a task to an interesting depth of analysis. - thedude42, on 08/04/2008, -0/+9buried for being seriously uninformative. Front page why?
- laughandsing, on 08/04/2008, -0/+9way to be a douche
- misconfig, on 08/04/2008, -1/+9I could not agree more.
- darkchild, on 08/04/2008, -1/+9RPM is does not do the same job as APT-GET, so comparing them is pointless in my opinion. RPM is similar to Debians underlying package management system which is DPKG. They have more or less the same problems and thats why tools like apt-get, yum, zypper etc exist.
- ramenite, on 08/04/2008, -1/+9This is one of the great things about Linux...That there IS a choice...
If you don't like one distribution, you can change to another. All those programs you're running? Yes, they will still run on another distribution. It lets you choose your OS environment based upon its merits, not just because you're tied to certain programs. Linux distributions have to compete with each other on their merits, not because of software lock-in. I can buy a Linux version of software, and decide I don't like Ubuntu and change to Fedora. It will still work.
Counter this idea with Windows. Vista has been a flop for various reasons--not all of them valid I'll add. But if you want to run Windows you only have two options. Stay with XP, or upgrade to Vista. There's no one else making a "Windows" that you can move to. Only reason TO use Windows is the software lock-in. Does ANYONE use Windows strictly on it's on merits?
There's a lot of differences between Fedora, Ubuntu, Mandriva, etc. All have their pluses and minuses. At least I have a CHOICE on one to pick, and not have something shoved down my throat. - Raz0rEdge, on 08/04/2008, -0/+7Wow, that's a perspective? Saying you've used Fedora and Ubuntu and suggesting Ubuntu for Windows users and Fedora as the more stable distro? Please..what great insight has this brought to the muddled distro talk??
- cawpin, on 08/04/2008, -2/+9Except that yum doesn't come even near solving all the dependency problems. It just doesn't work. I tried Fedora 9 and ran into a dependency problem in the first hour of using it. It has never happened with Ubuntu, never.
- dosware, on 08/04/2008, -0/+7Then just use gui Synaptic rather than the command line. Nothing more brain-dead easy for a noob than Synaptic. No need to locate a program on the Internet, and then figure out how to download it, and then follow proprietary install process which may- or may not- be clear. When looking at the entire process of program management (finding a program, downloading, installing, uninstalling), Synaptic makes typical Windows app management appear chaotic in comparison.
- randeepjalli0, on 08/04/2008, -0/+6Ubuntu has auto install using preseed... as far as the difference in config files ill give you that, the /etc/inittab thing , i assume you want to change what runlevel you start at... here is a quick post from google:
"If you create your own /etc/inittab file, Ubuntu will honour it.
To change your runlevels the Ubuntu way look in /etc/init.d/ which contains startup scripts. Then look in /etc/rc#.d/ which contains symlinks to scripts in /etc/init.d/. The name of the symlinks determines what will be started/stopped and in what order. Look in the README file in any of the /etc/rc#.d/ directories for details.
The # in the /etc/rc#.d/ is the runlevel number.
To stop GDM from loading in runlevel 2 (Ubuntu default runlevel) rename /etc/rc2.d/S30gdm to /etc/rc2.d/K70gdm
The S tells Ubuntu to start the process, and the K tells Ubuntu to kill it. The number is the order in which it should be started/stopped.
Have a look at the man page for update-rc.d which can be used to create/update/remove the init script symlinks for you.
EDIT: You can also install the Boot-Up Manager (BUM) which is a graphical tool to configure runlevels. It's in the repositories." - T8erT0T, on 08/04/2008, -0/+5Good, I'm glad I'm not the only one with a perplexed look on my face after reading this dribble saying, "...really?"
This article sets the bar incredibly low for anything that could be considered an insight/review.
Which is better peanut butter or jelly?
Peanut butter is good if you aren't allergic to peanuts.
Jelly is silly. - Plotinus, on 08/04/2008, -7/+12@Crath: I agree with everything you're saying however I think you're underestimating the impact of a bad package manager. Compare rpm hell to the joy of apt-get. Then put yourself in the position of a windoze user who's just made the switch. Would you hang around for the sometimes endless, recursive problems outlined here, http://www.germane-software.com/~ser/Files/Essays/ ... or would you head back to the security blanket of your tired, proprietary OS?
Apt-get is smoother than standard windoze installs which is exactly what you need to pull them away from the dark side. - RetepNamenots, on 08/04/2008, -2/+7I've never tried Fedora - but for those of you who have tried Ubuntu, I would highly recommend that you try Linux Mint.
It's a customised version of Ubuntu that has all the things like codecs to play DVDs, flash etc, pre-installed so that you don't have to do any configuration to use it.
I reinstalled OS X, Windows XP and Linux Mint onto my PC - Windows required me to install drivers for all of my hardware, OS X was just bitchy about partitioning, but Mint installed absolutely everything (graphics card; 8800GTX & 22" widescreen 1680x1050 resolution automatically, wireless card worked out of the box, same with sound)...
I haven't had to touch the command line with Mint, but it would have been a completely different story with vanilla Ubuntu. - kenplaysviola, on 08/04/2008, -0/+4Thanks for the info. It's those differences that cause me to get frustrated because something that I am used to is not there. I usually have to Google it up or look on the Ubuntu forums, and even then, your mileage may vary!
I just want to be clear in saying that neither distro is objectively better than the other, but that they have a few things that are done differently. And yes, the article in the link was a horrible comparison between Fedora and Ubuntu - KillerKellerjr, on 08/04/2008, -6/+10Don't be so ignorant, basic windows users don't want to launch a terminal command line and then run a APT-GET command to install a program. No matter what you think or how simple it may be they just want to download a file and open it to install it. That is what they are use to and a vast majority think it is way to complicated to install from a command line. Linux users need to come up with a similar way to install, how about a *.inst or something similar and they download from a webpage and click on it to install. I use Ubuntu and am very comfortable with all aspects but I am a power user not an average user. Just my 2 cents.
- kenplaysviola, on 08/04/2008, -1/+5As a Red Hat Certified Engineer, I can tell you that sometimes it can be a real headache and frustration when working with Ubuntu servers because there are some slight differences. No /etc/inittab, Apache configuration stored somewhere else, GRUB rescue mode slightly different, kernel compilation, RPM vs DEB packages, YUM vs APT-GET, Red Hat's auto install Kickstart vs Ubuntu's ??????, /etc/networking files stored elsewhere, etc...
- TehDoctor, on 08/04/2008, -1/+4What about synaptic/kpackage/adept?
You don't need the console. Obviously you are not that much of a power user if you didn't know those were on your system. Ubuntu also offers the add/remove programs list, which is much more "grandma friendly" than even the nice apt GUIs.
Please explain how searching around google for some shareware piece of ***** that hopefully doesn't have spyware, spam mailers, adware, rootkits and a keylogger to get something that hopefully installs properly without needing dependencies (or bloating the system and clogging my internet tubes by fat-packaging everything it needs) or getting into DLL-hell and hopefully actually uninstalls later on is better than going to a centralized app where all the software has been tested and digitally signed by the third party you trust enough to make your OS.
I'm not saying all software is like that on Windows, but a lot is. And I'm not saying every package is there in the repos, but most are. On windows, the common case is the pain in the ass case. On Linux it's the exact opposite. - javaroast, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3These types of terms have been around for almost as long as Personal Computing ie Trash-80 for the TRS-80, Commode Door for Commodore, more recently Itanic for Itanium. I suspect they'll be around for a lot longer.
- jjustin01, on 08/04/2008, -2/+5Are we not at a point in time where we can finally move past the use of "windoze" or "M$"? The terms have been around forever. Most things on the Internet die off within a few years and yet these terms have managed to stick around forever.
Sorry, but I picture some teen in their computer lab at school every time I see those terms used in forums and comments. It certainly doesn't come across as someone who is educated enough to leave valued feedback. - HarryBauzonia, on 08/04/2008, -0/+3I prefer Fedora, but I also like the additional non-free goodies like mp3 support.
After installation, I go here:
http://www.mjmwired.net/resources/mjm-fedora-f9.ht ...
...and follow his procedure. It doesn't take long, and when I'm done I can do all the multimedia stuff I ever wanted. It may be an additional step that some of you would prefer not to take, but it does result in a very nice Linux distro that does it all. - javaroast, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2At this point in the game Balla79 is correct. New features start in Fedora and migrate to RHEL. Just like you found in your research. But on the other hand Fedora was originally based off of Redhat 9.
- theodenking, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Ditto, I wouldn't dream of going back to Windows.
- xinsomn1ax, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3This article is somewhat inaccurate, I would not make a choice between Ubuntu or Fedora for these reasons.
To install non-free codecs in Fedora 9 you have to install Livna Repository with “rpm -ivh http://rpm.livna.org/livna-release-9.rpm” (from the Terminal). After this, you will find all the non-free codecs (lame, flash plugin, eccetera) in the Package Manager. - mohtasham, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Certainly there are some minor difference between them. But after a few days you can adjust to it. I used gentoo for a short period of time. I made it exactly like my ubuntu. The only bad thing about gentoo was that it was very time consuming and I didn't have enough time when I installed it. I guess if you know Linux, you shouldn't have any trouble with any of its distros, even with gentoo.
- linksus, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2LIES,
I have to agree ubuntu is good for first timers however i perfer fedora.
I dont think Apt & Yum are too different to say what one is better, They both do what they are meant to do and both do it fine. - Plotinus, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Fair points all, if expressed with the usual tact and diplomacy of the internet. ^^ I stand corrected and have dugg you all up.
- tomarocco, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2If you're talking server I'm talking Slackware.
- almighty, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Buried as not only lame, but seriously lame.
- dcherryholmes, on 08/04/2008, -1/+3I think homing in on minor points of diction while willfully ignoring the larger point portrays a lack of education.
How about them apples? - tdwester, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2Fedora live cd's have an installer now.
- P373Y, on 08/04/2008, -0/+2or an .rpm file.
- tomarocco, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Exactly. I'll bet he's had to google around or navigate an OEM's hellish website searching for a Windows driver.
- HarryBauzonia, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Non-free means closed-source.
It doesn't mean you have to pay money for it. - dcherryholmes, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1@jjustin1:
"When someone, regardless of how skillful they craft their words, forms a comment filled with childish and immature catch phrases and/or terms, they portray themselves as childish, uneducated or immature."
It's your opinion that they are those things. Considering how many people apparently have no clue about the very tangible, damaging practices MSFT has engaged in, connoting that fact with a simple two-character phrase "M$" IMO subtly reinforces the point without requiring every post to contain a de-railing rant. Personally I just use "MSFT" which are the letters used to denote them on the stock exchange. It probably goes *whoosh* to most people, a few people get, and -- primarily -- I get to type something shorter and quicker than "Microsoft."
In the end, I think whinging about other people using "M$" is even more pointless than using the characters themselves. The thing to focus on is the substance of the post, not the form nor what you (probably mistakenly) infer about the poster's character. Let ideas stand or fall on their own merit and move on. - Balla79, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1How can Fedora be based on a future release of Redhat? The next Redhat release will be based on a Fedora which has already been released. As you said: Fedora is the test release for the next Redhat release. Like Vista is based on Longhorn and not the other way around. What Fedora is a trademark of and sponsored by, doesn't prove anything.
- Culyt, on 08/05/2008, -1/+2I just gave Fedora 9 a quick try as a longish time Ubuntu user and was somewhat disappointed, I had previously given Fedora 7 a go and liked it although preferred Ubuntu. Fedora seems to be the distro of choice around here with people I know at uni using it and the uni systems themselves (the desktop Linux boxen anyway, the main server is Solaris and a lot of the systems are thin clients into it).
Just from the first 5min without really getting into anything in depth, the art seem to have gone down hill with this release (although I skipped Fedora 8), The DNA theme and Hot Air Balloon theme from previous releases was awesome, but the Fedora 9 background is horrible 'waves' and very blurry on my hires screen, I understand the background changes colour based on the time of day but it seems to have impacted the quality and its a gimmick I would likely get bored of quickly. The window borders are this horrible close to cyan blue colour with a fairly bad basic design even if you ignore the colour, it looks like one of those themes that a 13 year old designed or a coder with no art talent one of those themes that you come across looking for decent themes and think its horrible, except its been made the default theme of a major distribution.
I think one problem might be that they seem to change artwork with every release so its not always going to be consistently good, might be worth just choosing a artwork style and sticking with it until a better one comes along, this seems to be the Ubuntu method which is working ok.
Networking failed to run on the Live CD which I have never had problems with on any other system (Except for WindowsXP but that's a driver issue and works with a SP3 slipstream, also an old Solaris build but the OpenSolaris seemed to work fine), I haven't tested the hard drive install yet so its possible it was just the LiveCD. The Network manager in it doesn't seem as complete as in Ubuntu but I haven't really looked at it in detail.
One thing I love and wish Ubuntu would steal is the starting Xorg before starting system services, it makes the boot much slicker since you get straight to graphics only needing to do the basic hardware detection before hand. Artwise the grub splash image and other splash screens also looked good from an aesthetics perspective (I wish Ubuntu would get a grub splash already), also the logos and such but a lot of it is probably fairly unchanged from the older versions.
I can't yet comment on long term system stability, performance, community or under the hood stuff since I haven't really used it other than the LiveCD for install. Also I don't know how much effort flash/mp3/nvidia/compiz installation/setup is, although under Ubuntu its very easy and automated so I can't see it being much better.
F9 Borders screenshot: http://foss.it.brighton.ac.uk/downloads/02Screensh ...
F9 Destop (except imagine it streched to 1920x1200 that I see on my system): http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Installing-Fed ...
F7 for comparison: http://video.linux-noob.com/screenshots/fedora/7/d ...
☢ - matthobbs05, on 08/05/2008, -0/+1A real man wouldn't be arguing about Linux distros on Digg.
- javaroast, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Fedora also has the netinstall CD at 114 Megs as well as install CD's. If you have a halfway decent internet connection the netinstall is really the way to go.
- SteveMax, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1In this regard, nothing beats Suse's "One click install". You click a link, it adds the needed repositories and installs the latest version of the software you want. This is very close to what Windows users are used to (finding stuff on the Web and installing it from that page), but still with package management goodness. This includes both open source and proprietary stuff, in the most bizarre possible packagings.
(Of course it leaves you with the same disadvantage as when you search for stuff on the Web: you can plausibly add a compromised one click install,and your system would be instantly lost. As always, the user needs to take care of what they add, how they add and from where they add. Business as usual, no matter the OS.) - prammy, on 08/04/2008, -0/+1Making a deb is not that hard.
http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/336 -
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
