4 ms·

Noob question: Are there any unique characteristics of the different Linux distros (Arch vs Fedora vs Debian vs Ubuntu)? What makes you use one over the other?

siddhant 10y ago
Arch Wiki has a nice page on this - https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_compared_to_other_distributions https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_compared_to_other_...
dangerlibrary 10y ago
Arch - bare minimum for a running system comes installed, a lot of user control. Fedora - bleeding edge technologies tend to show up here before any other major distros Debian - (I have no experience using vanilla debian, so ... n/a?) Ubuntu - stable LTS releases and broad hardware support if you are willing to put up with/replace canonical's weird unity bullshit and non-oss software.
- Arcsech 10y ago
  To add to this: CentOS/RHEL: Aimed at enterprise use, so it's often slow to get package updates (but quick to get security updates), but is very very stable.
- Retr0spectrum 10y ago
  Arch is also fairly bleeding-edge in terms of packages. Debian is pretty much the same as Ubuntu, without all the "weird unity bullshit and non-oss software".
- snuxoll 10y ago
  Also, Fedora is the incubator for the GNOME and FreeDesktop projects. It's not just that it is bleeding edge, but it is the distribution used by the developers behind these projects. Fedora releases are essentially synced to new releases of GNOME, so if you're a GNOME user like me it may be a good choice if you always want the latest and greatest.
grep4master 10y ago
Ubuntu is based on Debian; it's designed to be more user friendly, easier to use; but it's also less "pure" in the way it handles non-oss packages. Fedora is RedHat-based and it's the community-supported, bleeding edge version of RedHat/CentOS. If you're looking for a desktop OS, Fedora and Ubuntu will do well. I haven't played around with Arch.
chrisper 10y ago
Debian and Ubuntu use .deb packages and use apt to install packages. Fedora uses .rpm packages and dnf to install packages. Not sure what Arch uses. Fedora is backed by Red Hat (an American company) while Ubuntu is backed by Canonical (not American). Fedora is more bleeding edge than Ubuntu. Fedora has SELinux with good policies by default and Ubuntu has App-Armor, but I think disabled by default. One would use Fedora when developing software for servers (CentOS / RHEL). Ubuntu, however, has more packages in the repositories, so it is more end-user friendly.
- Karunamon 10y ago
  Arch uses its own homegrown package manager, called Pacman. Link for ungoogleable name: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/pacman https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/pacman
mindcrime 10y ago
A couple of big things: 1. package manager. Historically you could make something of a divide between "Red Hat derived distros" that used RPM/Yum (and now DNF) for package management, and the "Debian derived distros" that used apt for package management. Other distros like Gentoo, Slack, etc. were characterized by their own unique approaches to managing packages. 2. Locations of important files. Different distros sometimes vary in terms of where the put "stuff". Is a given thing under /opt, or /usr, or /var, etc? And once you get used to a certain layout, you tend to want to stick with what you already know. On point (1) above, there was a long period of time when apt was widely held up as being objectively better than rpm/yum, and it probably was. But I think many (most) people would argue that that time is far in the past, and that now the distinction between apt and rpm/yum/dnf is purely a subjective matter of taste. Yeah, a few diehards will argue that point one way or the other, but realistically, either approach is fine. Debian and Fedora are also characterized by their focus on including only Free software, although their are some distinctions between exactly what either will/will not ship. Ubuntu (a Debian derivative) was famous early on for making it easy to install non-free things, like codecs for playing back mp3 files, etc. I don't really know much about Arch (never used it), but those are some of the things that define the different threads in the "distro wars".
timkeller 10y ago
This page is a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributi... And this may help to answer your second question: https://www.linux.com/news/best-linux-distros-2016 https://www.linux.com/news/best-linux-distros-2016
Santosh83 10y ago
So far I've been a happy user of Ubuntu 14.04 LTS. It "just works" for the most part, and allows me to focus on other stuff. But sadly I can't say the same for the latest Ubuntu LTS (16.04). Showstopper bugs prevented me from booting the DVD in the first place. Once that was worked around, the Live system failed to even establish a standard DSL connection. Instead of spending another day working around that one too, I'm back with 14.04 for now. Ubuntu stability seems to be slowly worsening, which is sad because they are the only big player with a major focus on the desktop. Fedora is a testing ground for a server focused OS. Debian does it all but lacks that final 5% polish. OpenSUSE might be my next stop.
- alyandon 10y ago
  I know this doesn't help you now but usually it is best to wait for the .1 release of a new LTS (in this case, 16.04.1) before updating from the previous one. I did a test upgrade from 14.04 to 16.04 on a workstation that I didn't care about and it was an unmitigated disaster of broken packages.
rkangel 10y ago
Reasons vary and this is a long. You're best off understanding the main families too - Debian based (e.g. Ubuntu) and RedHat based (RHEL, Fedora, CentOS). My personal feelings in short form: Ubuntu - User friendly. Good workstation out the box particularly for media (I use it for an HTPC). Good for people newer to Linux. Debian - Solidly reliable. Is the base underneath Ubuntu, and as such has a lot less stuff in by default, thereby giving you the flexibility to set it up how you want. RHEL - Provides good corporate support, costs money. Fedora - A cutting edge, free, RedHat. I now mostly use this. At work we end up having to use RedHat on some workstations (so makes sense to use Fedora for places where we can't), and some servers need securing with SELinux (which is only really feasibly on the RedHat family). Arch - Gives you ultimate customisability at the cost of effort (think of it at one end of an axis with Ubuntu at the other and Debian in the middle).
pekk 10y ago
Distros have different packaging systems and tend to vary in things like where files are located. The interesting differences are about the process used to allow in a new version of a package.
sandGorgon 10y ago
Redhat employs most of the kernel, systemd and gnome developers. So Fedora is kind of a stable bleeding edge distribution - you can go completely bleeding edge (arch) or very stable (rhel / debian) . Ubuntu is a fairly opinionated distribution built by canonical - it does not necessarily be at the bleeding edge for anything. I gave just recently switched over from Ubuntu to fedora and have had a much better experience - especially on my latest Skylake Xps laptops with nvme ssd.
AdmiralAsshat 10y ago
Fedora usually has a more up-to-date kernel than Debian or Ubuntu. This typically makes its hardware support better. Anecdotally, I've had three laptops that I've tried to load Linux onto: -1) 2010 Toshiba Qosmio -2) 2013 Chromebook Pixel -3) 2015 Dell XPS 13 9343 I tried a bunch of different distros and DE's (Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Linux Mint: Debian Edition, ElementaryOS, Fedora, etc.) Everything ran okay on the old Toshiba, but on both the Chromebook Pixel and the Dell XPS--both of which have very Hi-DPI displays--Fedora was the only one I tried on them that mostly worked out of the box vis-a-vis display, keyboard, and trackpad settings. So I've mostly tended to stick with that. The omission of non-free drivers can sometimes cause problems, however. The Dell laptop uses a proprietary Broadcom wifi driver, so that won't work out-of-the-box in Fedora due to it being non-free. I've debated just tearing out the wifi card and replacing it with an Intel one to avoid dealing with that headache.
old-gregg 10y ago
My $0.02: For the desktop, Ubuntu has a huge thing going for it: proper font rendering configured by default. Every other distro looks like you're back in the 90s, to get decent fonts you're expected to patch libraries or/and fine-tune fontconfig (and enjoy your efforts break or get broken by OS updates). But Ubuntu by default renders text better than OSX or Windows, in my humble opinion. Just make sure to install TrueType fonts from Windows and Mac (Consolas is a must, IMO). For educational purposes Arch would be my pick because it uses completely different (and vastly simplified) "flat" configuration. Most of the system config is stored in just one file. Also, the Arch documentation, the community and default behavior make it easy to see what's under the hood, yet keep it simple and approachable. If one's goal is to understand how a Linux distro is assembled of various components and how they fit together, Arch is hard to beat. CentOS/RHEL are great for understanding a typical default server environment used by most enterprises. For example if your goal is to learn SELinux or systemd, that's what I would recommend.
- ferbivore 10y ago
  Arch hasn't been using rc.conf for quite some time. It uses systemd and all the complexity that involves, just like every other major distribution.
- arrakeen 10y ago
  > proper font rendering configured by default for what it's worth, i did not find this to be the case when i recently installed Ubuntu 16.04 and had to do a lot of fontconfig tweaking. the major issue being the firefox UI fonts not matching that of the desktop environment
- sandGorgon 10y ago
  Fedora 24 fixes the font rendering issue. it was a legal thing rather than a technical thing. Gnome 3.20 and fedora 24 is simply beautiful. Running it on a XPS 13 has been a brilliant experience.
  - moosingin3space 10y ago
    Fedora user at home, and I'm very excited to hear that! I might end up upgrading sooner rather than later.

siddhant 10y ago

Arch Wiki has a nice page on this - https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_compared_to_other_distributions https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_compared_to_other_...

dangerlibrary 10y ago

Arch - bare minimum for a running system comes installed, a lot of user control. Fedora - bleeding edge technologies tend to show up here before any other major distros Debian - (I have no experience using vanilla debian, so ... n/a?) Ubuntu - stable LTS releases and broad hardware support if you are willing to put up with/replace canonical's weird unity bullshit and non-oss software.

Arcsech 10y ago
To add to this: CentOS/RHEL: Aimed at enterprise use, so it's often slow to get package updates (but quick to get security updates), but is very very stable.
Retr0spectrum 10y ago
Arch is also fairly bleeding-edge in terms of packages. Debian is pretty much the same as Ubuntu, without all the "weird unity bullshit and non-oss software".
snuxoll 10y ago
Also, Fedora is the incubator for the GNOME and FreeDesktop projects. It's not just that it is bleeding edge, but it is the distribution used by the developers behind these projects. Fedora releases are essentially synced to new releases of GNOME, so if you're a GNOME user like me it may be a good choice if you always want the latest and greatest.

grep4master 10y ago

Ubuntu is based on Debian; it's designed to be more user friendly, easier to use; but it's also less "pure" in the way it handles non-oss packages. Fedora is RedHat-based and it's the community-supported, bleeding edge version of RedHat/CentOS. If you're looking for a desktop OS, Fedora and Ubuntu will do well. I haven't played around with Arch.

chrisper 10y ago

Debian and Ubuntu use .deb packages and use apt to install packages. Fedora uses .rpm packages and dnf to install packages. Not sure what Arch uses. Fedora is backed by Red Hat (an American company) while Ubuntu is backed by Canonical (not American). Fedora is more bleeding edge than Ubuntu. Fedora has SELinux with good policies by default and Ubuntu has App-Armor, but I think disabled by default. One would use Fedora when developing software for servers (CentOS / RHEL). Ubuntu, however, has more packages in the repositories, so it is more end-user friendly.

Karunamon 10y ago
Arch uses its own homegrown package manager, called Pacman. Link for ungoogleable name: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/pacman https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/pacman

mindcrime 10y ago

A couple of big things: 1. package manager. Historically you could make something of a divide between "Red Hat derived distros" that used RPM/Yum (and now DNF) for package management, and the "Debian derived distros" that used apt for package management. Other distros like Gentoo, Slack, etc. were characterized by their own unique approaches to managing packages. 2. Locations of important files. Different distros sometimes vary in terms of where the put "stuff". Is a given thing under /opt, or /usr, or /var, etc? And once you get used to a certain layout, you tend to want to stick with what you already know. On point (1) above, there was a long period of time when apt was widely held up as being objectively better than rpm/yum, and it probably was. But I think many (most) people would argue that that time is far in the past, and that now the distinction between apt and rpm/yum/dnf is purely a subjective matter of taste. Yeah, a few diehards will argue that point one way or the other, but realistically, either approach is fine. Debian and Fedora are also characterized by their focus on including only Free software, although their are some distinctions between exactly what either will/will not ship. Ubuntu (a Debian derivative) was famous early on for making it easy to install non-free things, like codecs for playing back mp3 files, etc. I don't really know much about Arch (never used it), but those are some of the things that define the different threads in the "distro wars".

timkeller 10y ago

This page is a good overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Linux_distributi... And this may help to answer your second question: https://www.linux.com/news/best-linux-distros-2016 https://www.linux.com/news/best-linux-distros-2016

Santosh83 10y ago

So far I've been a happy user of Ubuntu 14.04 LTS. It "just works" for the most part, and allows me to focus on other stuff. But sadly I can't say the same for the latest Ubuntu LTS (16.04). Showstopper bugs prevented me from booting the DVD in the first place. Once that was worked around, the Live system failed to even establish a standard DSL connection. Instead of spending another day working around that one too, I'm back with 14.04 for now. Ubuntu stability seems to be slowly worsening, which is sad because they are the only big player with a major focus on the desktop. Fedora is a testing ground for a server focused OS. Debian does it all but lacks that final 5% polish. OpenSUSE might be my next stop.

alyandon 10y ago
I know this doesn't help you now but usually it is best to wait for the .1 release of a new LTS (in this case, 16.04.1) before updating from the previous one. I did a test upgrade from 14.04 to 16.04 on a workstation that I didn't care about and it was an unmitigated disaster of broken packages.

rkangel 10y ago

Reasons vary and this is a long. You're best off understanding the main families too - Debian based (e.g. Ubuntu) and RedHat based (RHEL, Fedora, CentOS). My personal feelings in short form: Ubuntu - User friendly. Good workstation out the box particularly for media (I use it for an HTPC). Good for people newer to Linux. Debian - Solidly reliable. Is the base underneath Ubuntu, and as such has a lot less stuff in by default, thereby giving you the flexibility to set it up how you want. RHEL - Provides good corporate support, costs money. Fedora - A cutting edge, free, RedHat. I now mostly use this. At work we end up having to use RedHat on some workstations (so makes sense to use Fedora for places where we can't), and some servers need securing with SELinux (which is only really feasibly on the RedHat family). Arch - Gives you ultimate customisability at the cost of effort (think of it at one end of an axis with Ubuntu at the other and Debian in the middle).

pekk 10y ago

Distros have different packaging systems and tend to vary in things like where files are located. The interesting differences are about the process used to allow in a new version of a package.

sandGorgon 10y ago

Redhat employs most of the kernel, systemd and gnome developers. So Fedora is kind of a stable bleeding edge distribution - you can go completely bleeding edge (arch) or very stable (rhel / debian) . Ubuntu is a fairly opinionated distribution built by canonical - it does not necessarily be at the bleeding edge for anything. I gave just recently switched over from Ubuntu to fedora and have had a much better experience - especially on my latest Skylake Xps laptops with nvme ssd.

AdmiralAsshat 10y ago

Fedora usually has a more up-to-date kernel than Debian or Ubuntu. This typically makes its hardware support better. Anecdotally, I've had three laptops that I've tried to load Linux onto: -1) 2010 Toshiba Qosmio -2) 2013 Chromebook Pixel -3) 2015 Dell XPS 13 9343 I tried a bunch of different distros and DE's (Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Linux Mint: Debian Edition, ElementaryOS, Fedora, etc.) Everything ran okay on the old Toshiba, but on both the Chromebook Pixel and the Dell XPS--both of which have very Hi-DPI displays--Fedora was the only one I tried on them that mostly worked out of the box vis-a-vis display, keyboard, and trackpad settings. So I've mostly tended to stick with that. The omission of non-free drivers can sometimes cause problems, however. The Dell laptop uses a proprietary Broadcom wifi driver, so that won't work out-of-the-box in Fedora due to it being non-free. I've debated just tearing out the wifi card and replacing it with an Intel one to avoid dealing with that headache.

old-gregg 10y ago

My $0.02: For the desktop, Ubuntu has a huge thing going for it: proper font rendering configured by default. Every other distro looks like you're back in the 90s, to get decent fonts you're expected to patch libraries or/and fine-tune fontconfig (and enjoy your efforts break or get broken by OS updates). But Ubuntu by default renders text better than OSX or Windows, in my humble opinion. Just make sure to install TrueType fonts from Windows and Mac (Consolas is a must, IMO). For educational purposes Arch would be my pick because it uses completely different (and vastly simplified) "flat" configuration. Most of the system config is stored in just one file. Also, the Arch documentation, the community and default behavior make it easy to see what's under the hood, yet keep it simple and approachable. If one's goal is to understand how a Linux distro is assembled of various components and how they fit together, Arch is hard to beat. CentOS/RHEL are great for understanding a typical default server environment used by most enterprises. For example if your goal is to learn SELinux or systemd, that's what I would recommend.

ferbivore 10y ago
Arch hasn't been using rc.conf for quite some time. It uses systemd and all the complexity that involves, just like every other major distribution.
arrakeen 10y ago
> proper font rendering configured by default for what it's worth, i did not find this to be the case when i recently installed Ubuntu 16.04 and had to do a lot of fontconfig tweaking. the major issue being the firefox UI fonts not matching that of the desktop environment
sandGorgon 10y ago
Fedora 24 fixes the font rendering issue. it was a legal thing rather than a technical thing. Gnome 3.20 and fedora 24 is simply beautiful. Running it on a XPS 13 has been a brilliant experience.
- moosingin3space 10y ago
  Fedora user at home, and I'm very excited to hear that! I might end up upgrading sooner rather than later.