w[h]ich is better ubuntu or fedora.

[James Wilkinson]

david wrote:
> For me, the underlying philosophy is the decider.
> 
> With Fedora you get buggy code in the hope you'll sort it out / develop
> some killer app that RedHat can put into RHEL and sell.
> 
> With Ubuntu you get more or less stable code, as a gift, in the hope
> you'll use it and find it better than adequate, and maybe you'll tell
> other people about it too.

I never found Fedora code particularly buggy: I've had more problems
with Ubuntu. The engineering is as good as it ever was (or better). It's
effectively a split between ultra-stable (RHEL), stable (FC), and
unstable (Rawhide).

Both Fedora and Ubuntu are about getting recent code that has been
stabilised: if you want *really* stable code (for a server), you'd do
better to look at RHEL or Debian.

Obviously, the most bug-free code is the code that's been stable for a
while, and all the obvious bugs have been found and fixed. Conversely,
if you build an OS from recent code, not all the less obvious bugs will
yet have been found.

And Fedora is Free Software only, both Core and Extras. So anything that
Red Hat can put into RHEL, Canonical can put into Ubuntu.

"A person with ubuntu ... does not feel threatened that others are able
and good ..." The Fedora team is able and good. Don't feel threatened:
they're developing a lot of the new stuff in Ubuntu. We all benefit.

Having said that, the effective underlying philosophy was the decider
for me. Ubuntu appears to care about its user community as a community.

James.

-- 
E-mail address: james | "Never trust a species that grins all the time.
@westexe.demon.co.uk  | It's up to something."
                      |     -- Terry Pratchett, about dolphins