3 ms·
Yeah, I think your opinion that Red Hat leads the way in the technical foundations of Linux is quite controversial. From my experience, Ubuntu is significantly
by ak217 8y ago
Yeah, I think your opinion that Red Hat leads the way in the technical foundations of Linux is quite controversial.
From my experience, Ubuntu is significantly more developer friendly and better documented than Red Hat products. Linux is used in a huge variety of ways, and in my experience Ubuntu is better at accommodating a plurality of contributors from different affiliations. Canonical also funds lots of critical Linux infrastructure work - perhaps not as much as Red Hat, I haven't compared. But my point is that I think they fund more useful things, and are better at building what feels more like a community - which yields massive dividends down the line.
This is not to say that Ubuntu is without flaws. Even with PPAs, packaging for Ubuntu/Debian is a massive pain, the recent APT vulnerability showcases shortcomings in their infrastructure, and Canonical thrashes on a lot of technologies that they really shouldn't thrash on. But in the long run their strategy is better at attracting developers, and I don't think you need to worry about them finding relevance.
- ilovecaching 8y agoI've found the opposite is true. Ubuntu loves to make ubuntu specific things. They made Unity, which eventually failed and led them back to GNOME. They made Mir, which eventually failed and led them back to Wayland. They made Upstart, which eventually failed and led them back to systemd. Fedora always chooses what the majority of the community wants to use and then ships the most vanilla version possible.
- willtim 8y agoFedora chooses what Red Hat develops. And Red Hat are building their own OS, with a lot less of the modularity and customisation that has historically been possible in Linux.