It is actually courteous when someone intend about this type of hard affair and make it comfortable to understand.

Thank you, you added me so much.

hi, good test, i would prefer ubuntu instead of fedora. And rpm dependencies are really problem. i have had trouble while updating php in redhat system with rpms and i compiled it by my self. i quoted and edited this article in http://www.ysuf.net/?p=60

Hey thanks, I will try it myself, I was just about to go to testing, instead of stable.
Tercüme bürosu tercüme

I tried over 40 distros, first of all we use centos at our servers.You cant compare two different distros if one aims to desktop other to server.Otherwise good comparison.Also i was using gentoo at 1999 to 2003 and they have the fastest updated software pool (portage).You can see the packages in 15 mins after it is announced : )

I've tried a couple of Live Linux Distributions, namely Puppy and Damn Small Linux. Of those two, Puppy was nicer because it had more features. Both of those live distributions had no problems detecting and using my home network to find and connect to the internet.

I've attempted to install Debian "Etch" via the two available variants of network installation CD's. The Debian network install software has trouble recognizing and using DHCP via a Linksys router connected to a linksys cable modem which connects to a Comcast ISP network. The ethernet card is on the motherboard of an old HP Vectra VL400 system. From my viewpoint, Debian has some issues to improve upon.

The Ubuntu 7.10 installation CD-ROM had no troubles with detecting network hardware, connecting via DHCP and proceeding with installation.

I'm curious to learn about Linux and I like the Debian philosophy. But as a user who's looking for future alternatives to Windows-Vista, I've yet to find something I'm fully satisfied with.

I've not run webservers long on CentOS or Ubuntu, although I have one of each (about a year now I guess)... So my opinion won't be wholly valid but if you download Ubuntu Server (NB it's headless) or Ubuntu JeOS, I think it pushes a streamlined initial setup onto you. Your mileage may vary, but yeah, I think that with Ubuntu you have to pick what to install and install it post-installation, basically.

That's not even opinion, it's just speculation, anybody care to agree or disagree?

I consider myself very late to get on the Ubuntu train. My first proper try at it was in Gutsy, where it interfaced perfectly with the internet through both a usb adsl modem/router/whatsit, and just straight through a LAN.

Right now I administer one webserver on Ubuntu Hardy and one dedicated webserver in CentOS 5. Oh and a development server in XAMPP which I turn on now and then in Windows......
I have ftp access to a couple of other CentOS servers and a Windows one (don't like the Windows one at all...)

So, with an equal amount of experience serving webpages through CentOS and Ubuntu, which do I prefer??
/me cries
I don't know!! I love therm both equally!! I can't choose for sure, that's why I'm here!

They both have the same amount of uptime. They both have the same all-important packages to download (I love Ubuntu for the extras, but a server doesn't need them). yum takes pretty much exactly the same configuration and commands as apt (it's slower but then again it's all access through "yum" as opposed to "yum-get" and "yum-cache")... So I see no clear advantage of one over the other now that Ubuntu ships in specialized server distros.

It confused the Hell out of me the first time I used Ubuntu and tried to figure the disks out. What in Hell is /media/sdc1 ?!? Why is /mnt empty!?

For all its weirdness and horrible oddball dumbing-down, I actually think I like Ubuntu better for a server.

I'm not a Linux security expert, but Ubuntu feels a little more solid to me than CentOS. CentOS comes with SELinux (which I think is available for Ubuntu through the repositories) but turn that off. I also turn off the built-in firewall thing so that I can take care of that myself.
With big advantages like that out of the way, I probably swing ever so slightly towards Ubuntu. It feels (to me, in my unique environment and with my limited experience) a lot easier to set up and secure.
On the Ubuntu server, for example, I like to open SSH up to the internet. I wouldn't DARE do that in CentOS - CentOS has a root password. Someone was trying to hack my Ubuntu box's SSH thing all last week. I watched and laughed. And laughed. And laughed... They were trying to hack into the root account. The root account doesn't even have a password (does it?? I hope not.... How do I actually find out??)

This was a pretty nice comparison. I too have been compelled to give Ubuntu a try based on all the positive comments I've heard about Ubuntu being the best desktop Linux. I've been a RedHat user since 1998 and have used the various versions of Fedora Core along with CentOS 5.

I think both distributions are very good, but for me, my biggest struggle has been in the directory structure and configuration differences between the two distributions. (Debian/RedHat(Fedora))

Having used RedHat for so long, I'm used to finding certain configuration files in very specific locations. I won't list all differences here, but if you evaluate the components found between the 2 /etc directories, how things start up, and where particular application based .conf files are located, you will find out quickly that there is a definite learning curve.

I like both distributions (Ubuntu and Fedora), but for me, I don't see the value to relearning where everything is located under Ubuntu, when I already know where to find things using Fedora.

Regards,

Brett

Why Choose Fedora? (Fedora vs. Ubuntu)
After reading continually about Ubuntu, and having heard about what a great Linux distribution it is for over a year, I finally broke down two days before Fedora 7 was released to the public and installed Feisty Fawn 7.04 on my /backup partition to give it a spin. For two days I used it exclusively, and tried to hold off any judgments one way or another while testing it. After all, it seems like all I hear about is people jumping ship off of whatever Linux distribution they had used for years in favor of Ubuntu (Stanton Finley and Eric S. Raymond come to mind from the RedHat/Fedora camp, among others, including just about everyone from the Slashdot/Digg crowd); and if Ubuntu truly is a superior Linux distribution, then I at least needed to give it a try to evaluate its performance. And so I did. I installed the DNS and LAMP server, followed by the Ubuntu desktop, knowing that I could always install KDE applications if I needed to via apt-get.

Unfortunately, I was not impressed.

People incessantly claim that Fedora is less user friendly than Ubuntu is, but Ubuntu has become so watered down as a Linux distribution that I can only classify it as having been completely n00bified. Maybe I’m out of touch with the budding Linux enthusiast, who is in desperate need of a hand-holding Linux distribution, but everywhere I turned, I found road blocks preventing me from getting work done quickly. A perfect example of this is the simple task of connecting to my DSL internet connection when at home. Under Fedora, this takes about two minutes to setup (if that): System -> Administration -> Network. Type in the root password, click on New -> xDSL connection, follow the directions, and you are off and running. Under Ubuntu, creating a DSL connection via the Network Panel is not even possible! A Google search on the Windows machine turned up the following:

“Configuring DSL can be a hassle…”
“…How good it would be, if there exists a wizard that will guide you thru all the above steps.”

My thoughts exactly! Ok, ok, it is not that big of deal once you know what to do: connect to eth0, run pppoeconf, and use pon dsl-provider/poff to turn the connection on and off. But how is a new Linux user going to figure that one out on his/her own? 95% of the people trying out Linux for the first time are not going to be sitting behind some fat bandwidth pipe using a 100Mbs/1Gbs Ethernet connection. They will be using wireless, or just as likely, have a DSL connection…

At any rate, Feisty Fawn does not seem to be that stable of an operating system. I found that I had to reboot multiple times just to allow it to log me into Gnome properly. Often times, it would just freeze or lock up halfway through the login process. Eventually I figured out that the problem was tied to my not having shut off the DSL connection before logging out, but why should that be a problem? Additional issues included the screen resolution not being set properly (1440 x 900), or allowing me to change it without delving into /etc/X11/xorg.conf, and having to deal with tons of native applications that were not included in the base server/desktop installs. The first mistake that I made along these lines was an attempt to change my shell via /etc/password to /bin/tcsh. Oops! No tcsh. Oops! I can no longer login to a terminal. Oops! I can’t log into root either because I choose to only allow sudo when I installed Ubuntu and had not made a point of setting up a root password yet. Guess it is time to mount the partition in Fedora and fix it, or reinstall… And so it went.

Sure apt-get is great, and synaptic (the GUI) is nice, but what real advantages does it have over yum and yumex? It’s faster? In my opinion, even that’s debatable, simply because there are so many tools that are missing in the basic Ubuntu install that it would have taken me forever to set them all up over an internet connection with apt-get anyway. Sure, Ubuntu gives you a LAMP server (Linux OS, Apache, MySQL, PHP), but what Linux distribution doesn’t?

What Fedora does give you natively that Ubuntu does not is the following:

• The option to create your own Fedora spin!
• Live images that even allow you to boot from a USB key.
• The option to install all Server Applications, Gnome, and KDE at once.
• Simple DSL Setup
• SELinux
• NFS
• Samba
• Compatibility Libraries
• Development Packages
• Compilation Tools
• Programming Tools & Editors
• +1000 other Native Applications

Again, can most of these programs be installed with apt-get and be configured under Ubuntu? Sure, but instead of it taking about 3 days to figure out if I finally have downloaded and installed everything, I can instead burn a single Fedora DVD and install it all once in about an hour. And be completely configured within three to four.

But what about RPM and Dependency Hell?
Ah yes, it always seems to come down to RPM and dependencies. Whenever I hear that argument, I can tell instantly that the person making it has either never used a RedHat/Fedora RPM system before and are quoting a common misconception, or that they used RedHat (and not Fedora) a long time ago before yum came along (Fedora Core 1). Even circular dependencies can be dealt with elegantly using rpm, and if you are missing a library or dependency now, yum whatprovides [missing].[library] is a wonderful, wonderful thing. Frankly, the RPM/Dependency Hell argument is a tired old argument that has not been true for about 5 years. But hey, don’t let that get in the way of a good FUD campaign…

But what about Fedora being a Beta test for RedHat Enterprise Linux (RHEL)?
For four years now I have used Fedora: from Fedora Core 1 all the way up through Fedora 8. Before that, I used RedHat from the 7.0 days on up to 9.0. Aside from the typical hiccups that are always present any Linux distribution, I find Fedora to be no worse than other Linux distributions that I have used. I use it 98% of the time while at the University (the other 1% is with Windows), and have had a Fedora Linux server sitting in my office for three and a half years. Fedora has never felt like a Beta test version to me. It has always felt solid, and has always performed admirably. And I like the rapid development and inclusion of new software into the distribution — I have been able to watch Fedora mature over the past few years significantly. And Fedora 8 is simply amazing.

But what about…?
Simply stated, most of the arguments that I have heard with respect to Fedora are dealt nicely on the Fedora Myths page. I suggest that you head over there and read it if you are still skeptical.

The point here is not to try and drag Ubuntu through the mud. But having now used it, I believe I can definitively say that that particular Linux distribution is really aimed toward the Linux n00b (no offense intended), or the Linux desktop enthusiast. For server applications, it just doesn’t cut it. Fedora provides a much deeper and comprehensive set of tools right out of the box, and I find that after I’ve finished installing it, I’m off and running. I’ve seen other people allude to this fact as well — Ubuntu is fine for the average desktop user, but if you are in need of a powerful Linux server, then Fedora is the way to go. And with that, let’s get down to business…

Courtesy of :
Linux Systems Administration — Fedora Core Notes
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Assistant Professor Gregory R. Kriehn

More Review at :
http://optics.csufresno.edu/~kriehn/fedora/ubuntu.html

Very good and well thought out comparison.

I have been using Ubuntu for few months...and I really like what they have done. It is very easy to use...update, upgrade etc.

I am in the process of setting up a home server and was thinking of using Ubuntu server...but thought I should have a look around and see if there are other options etc.

I found out about centOS...and by looking at the some of the people using centOS...it seems that it is mostly used by hosting companies!!

What do you reckon...Ubuntu Server or CentOS? which one would you recommend?

Cheers,
Ess

Thanks for the good comments.

Guillermo Garron

Gentoo is good!.. :-)
Pinguinox

Good site!.
Org From Argentina.

debian users, they can easily switch over to 'testing' version of debian.
i am using 'lenny' now and i didn't have a single crash/problem in last one month. 'testing' version is almost as stable as 'stable' version. also you can get latest packages.

not too bad.