I have tried Linux as a DD on and off for years but about a year ago I decided to commit to it no matter the cost. First with Mint, then Ubuntu and a few others sprinkled in briefly. Both are “mainstream” “beginner friendly” distros, right? I don’t want anything too advanced, right?
Well, ubuntu recently updated and it broke my second monitor (Ubuntu detected it but the monitor had “no signal”). After trying to fix it for a week, I decided to wipe it and reinstall. No luck. I tried a few other distros that had the same issue and I started to wonder if it was a hardware issue but I tried a Windows PC and the monitor worked no problem.
Finally, just to see what would happen I tried a distro very very different than what I’m used to: Fedora (Kinode). And not only did everything “just work” flawlessly, but it’s so much faster and more polished than I ever knew Linux to be!
Credit where it’s due, a lot of the polish is due to KDE plasma. I’d never strayed from Gnome because I’m not an expert and people recommend GNOME to Linux newbies because it’s “simple” and “customizable” but WOW is KDE SO MUCH SIMPLER AND STILL CUSTOMIZEABLE. Gnome is only “simple” in that it doesn’t allow you to do much via the GUI. With Fedora Kinode I think I needed to use the terminal maybe once during setup? With other distros I was constantly needed to use the terminal (yes its helped me learn Linux but that curve is STEEP).
The atomic updates are fantastic too. I have not crashed once in the two weeks of setup whereas before I would have a crash maybe 1-2 times per week.
I am FULLY prepared for the responses demanding to know what I did to make it crash and telling me how I was using it wrong blah blah blah but let me tell you, if you are experienced with Windows but want to learn Linux and getting frustrated by all the “beginner” distros that get recommended, do yourself a favor and try Fedora Kinode!
You must log in or register to comment.
Fedora isn’t a beginner distribution
I dunno if I’d say any distro of Linux is really beginner friendly.
It takes quite a bit of learning the ins and outs of operating systems before Linux makes sense in any capacity.
If you’re just looking to run a few basic apps like discord/slack/teams/zoom, and run a browser, then sure, just about every distro can do that without trouble, and can be configured to be as “friendly” as Windows, with a few exceptions.
But anybody who wants to do intermediate/advanced stuff with little to no prior Linux knowledge? I’m not sure any distro is much easier than others. Again, with a few exceptions.
The exceptions are distros that are almost intentionally difficult to use, or that require a high level of competency with Linux before you can attempt to use it.
There’s always a learning curve, that learning curve is pretty much always pretty steep.
I’ve been using Linux for dedicated servers for a while and I don’t use Linux as a desktop environment, in no small part because despite having a fairly high level of competency with Linux, I don’t feel like I know enough to make Linux work for me instead of the other way around.
I have always wondered what advance is when ppl say Linux is difficult when you have to do something advance. Isn’t that the same for all oses? A os no matter what os (mac, android, Windows, iOS, linux) is difficult to use the first time. It doesn’t matter witch os it is everyone will have a hard time the first time until they learn how it works. Mac for example, it was extremely hard for me to find how to get to my root folder without using the terminal and when I told a friend about it who use mac didn’t they know either… I found out by accidently by miss clicking. Android depending on brand (what you had before) can also be annoying to use the first week or weeks until you have relearned.
Linux is the same, it isn’t more advance than windows or Mac the first time, it is all about learning how it works (most ppl build their Ikea furniture first and then read the manual) and windows and Linux in that regard is at least kinda similar because they don’t hide stuff as mac os does (you still ned a lot of knowledge to use windows too) and they are kinda alike, Mac is completely backwards in my opinion. I think everyone forgets how it was the first year they used a computer for the first time. Ppl laugh when studies shows that the younger generation do not know or do not understand the folder structure. It is all about experience and knowledge, if you know something exist then it is easier to find it.
The biggest problem i had using Linux for the first time was finding good alternatives for programs. And learning these new programs. You don’t have to use a terminal with most distros now days but it is a very nice and fast interface to use. It is also easier for everyone to learn and use because it is less dependent on what kind of environment you are in.
But I think we both are kinda agreeing with each other I just want to point out that all os are difficult the first time and you don’t have to make it harder than it is, linux is beginner friendly just like any other os.
I didn’t have any problem using Arch Linux which many say is much more newbie unfriendly but I had several problems using Fedora most related to Intel video drivers and I couldn’t solve them in any way. The fan of my Intel Nuc started to run on maximum when I opened the browser lol. All drivers were correctly installed
There was a time when I thought about switching to Fedora when I ditch Windows in 2025, but the frequent release schedule of Fedora has made me worried if those updates risk breaking my setup.
I tried a bunch on distros when I switched to Linux full time. Currently I have OpenSUSE in my laptop but I don’t think that will last too much longer. I’ve been running Fedora on my main machine for months now and it makes a lot of my other distros just feel clunky.
As I run openSuse and plan to introduce it to a few friends who want to switch: where did it go wrong for you? What pitfalls should I be aware of, that I might be blind to by now?
There are couple of concerns and how Fedora Workstation is designed for… well, development workstation. There is SELinux, that sometimes gets in a way, now they ditched codecs with loyalties by default, some default configs are a bit controversial and maybe not perfectly suited for home computer and non-tech savvy users, 3rd party packages are sometimes lacking and when you want to go beyond what’s in stock repo and rpmfusion, you can even break the system by installing random COPR packages (I mean AUR is not a whole lot better, but is more complete and less needed given how much there is to stock repos, PPAs are just as bad) or end up compiling stuff manually. But I still think that Fedora can be pretty nice for many people out of the box.
I generally do mention that I like my Fedora KDE, but I’m a little worried about SELinux. I have had two or three run-ins with it, and I think that would be hard to diagnose for a noob.
Long-time Fedora user here. I do not think Fedora is noob friendly at all.
- Their installer is awful
- Their spins are really well hidden for people who don’t know they exist
- The Nvidia drivers can’t be installed via the GUI
- There’s no “third party drivers” tool at all
- The regular Flathub repo is not the default and their own repo is absolutely useless
- AMD/Intel GPUs lack hardware acceleration for H264 and H265 out of the box, adding them requires the console
- Their packages are consistently named differently than their Ubuntu/Debian counterpart
I really like Fedora for their newish packages without breaking constantly. I still would not recommend it for beginners.
Half of your complains are fixed in newer releases. For instance it asks you if you want to enable third party repos. If you hit yes it enables the repo for chrome, Nvidia and others plus it setups stock flathub.
That only applies to the GNOME variant, the KDE spin is missing the third party repo toggle.
At least the Flathub repo is fixed on the GNOME variant now. The Nvidia repo is added but the driver is not installed, meaning you still need to use the CLI to install the drivers.
Completely agree. I mean, I’m what you’d call a power user, and I still opt for using a flatpak for my browser (Floorp) because codecs are a pain.
What do you mean the installer is awful? I have found it quite straightforward. Select the disc, your keyboard setup, timezone and then it install itself…
It caters to a middle ground that barely exists, meaning it doesn’t have enough options for a power user and too many for a newcomer.
For example, a newcomer doesn’t know what a root account is and doesn’t have to care, yet they have to choose if they want to enable or disable the account. They can also remove their administrator privileges without knowing what it means for them. I get asked what a root account is every time somebody around me tries to install Fedora.
I recommend spinning up a Ubuntu 24.04 VM and taking a look at their installer.
They have a clear structure on how to install Ubuntu step by step while Fedora presents you everything at once. They properly hide the advanced stuff and only show it when asked for it. They have clear toggles for third party software right at the installer and explain what they do. Fedora doesn’t even give you the option to install H264 codecs or Nvidia drivers.
It also looks a lot cleaner and doesn’t overload people with too much info on a single screen. And yet it can still do stuff like automated installing and has active directory integration out of the box, where the Fedora installer miserably fails for a “Workstation” distro.
The Fedora installer works, but it doesn’t do much more than that and the others do it better in many areas.
If you’re installing an OS you should absolutely understand what the root account is. That’s like buying a car without understanding the concept of keys.
No, it’s like buying a car without understanding how the engine works, which a lot of people do.
That’s absurd. You don’t need to understand the inner workings of the kernel to know what a root account is. If you’re regularly encouraging people to install a new OS when you aren’t even confident in their ability to understand what a root account is, you’re not doing them any favors.
Don’t even get me started on disk partitioning. I feel like they somehow have the most obtuse partitioning setup out of every distro I’ve ever installed. It feels like if you don’t just hand over your whole disk (which, if you do that, I feel like it doesn’t make it clear how it’s going to partition it), the installer gets very spiteful and just goes “fine then, figure it out”. I’ve never had so much trouble manually partitioning a disk before, I would literally rather just use fdisk lol.
• The majority of useful packages are hidden in RPM Fusion
Their packages are consistently named differently than their Ubuntu/Debian counterpart
I agree with all your points, but this one has way more to do with Debian being a bunch of weirdos about how packages are packaged. Its really more of a Debian demerit than anything since sometimes their packaging practices can be somewhat hostile to projects not directly associated with Debian, especially since the Debian community can have a certain “Our way is the only right way” attitude. That said, the Debian packaging standards can make it easier as a developer to experiment with creating a software package to interact with an existing package. Like there’s a reason to do it that I can support and I wish Debian packagers would more often say “we package things like this so people can experiment” instead of “Everyone else does packaging wrong and our way is the only way”
Fedora sounds like a redditor distro. That’s why I never recommend it
Fedora has no selling point at all besides being similar to RHEL.
Not true at all. For one dnf is very solid which is why many organizations like RHEL. Also Fedora has recent packages but still has stability and is willing to test new ideas. They also are very secure.
How about
- SELinux that’s pre-configured and on enforcing mode OOTB
- Its whole Atomic branch
- Being the first distro on which new technologies are introduced
All of which are unique.
To be frank, Fedora’s unique selling points are very compelling. I wonder if you could name a distro with even more impressive USPs.
lol? are you trolling?
Being the first distro on which new technologies are introduced
Also atomic branch? SELinux might be a fair point, but I doubt that ss unique to Fedora tbh.
You seem to be ignorant; the use of this word is not meant derogatory. In all fairness, it’s perfectly fine; we all gotta start out somewhere. So, please allow me to elaborate.
Being the first distro on which new technologies are introduced
Consider checking up on where Wayland, systemd, PipeWire, PulseAudio etc first appeared; so on which particular distro.
Also atomic branch?
Fedora Atomic, i.e. the first attempt to Nix’ify an established distro. Most commonly known through Fedora Silverblue or Fedora Kinoite. Peeps formerly referred to these as immutable. However, atomic (i.e. updates either happen or don’t; so no in-between state even with power outage) is more descriptive. It’s also the most mature attempt. Derivatives like Bazzite are the product of this endeavour. From the OG distros, only openSUSE (with its Aeon) has released an attempt. However, it seems to be less ambitious in scope and vision. I wish it the best, but I find it hard to justify it over Fedora Atomic.
SELinux might be a fair point, but I doubt that ss unique to Fedora tbh.
OOTB, apart from Fedora (Atomic), it’s only found on (some) Fedora derivatives and openSUSE Aeon (which forces you to use GNOME and Aeon’s specific container-focused workflow). Arch, Gentoo and openSUSE (perhaps even Debian) do ‘support’ SELinux, but it can be a real hassle do deal with. And it’s not OOTB.
If you make claims, you better substantiate it. I just did your homework 😂. Regardless, I’m still interested to hear a distro with more impressive USPs. Let me know 😉.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by:
Consider checking up on where Wayland, systemd, PipeWire, PulseAudio etc first appeared; so on which particular distro. Are you referring to use those packages as default? Afaik Fedora OS is not even rolling release, so I cannot fathom how it has packages earlier than the typical bleeding-edge candidates. Fedora Atomic Why are you mixing Fedora Atomic with the regular Fedora Distro? It’s also the most mature attempt. Derivatives like Bazzite are the product of this endeavour. From the OG distros, only openSUSE (with its Aeon) has released an attempt. However, it seems to be less ambitious in scope and vision. …how is something like this objectively valid? I understand you like Fedora, but you make claims without any proof or just pure opinion based.
Thank you for the reply!
Are you referring to use those packages as default?
I don’t understand why this is relevant. But, to answer your question, a modern system should already be on systemd, Wayland and PipeWire unless one has (for some reason) ideological qualms with systemd or if the maturity of Wayland isn’t quite ready for their specific needs.
The “should” used earlier isn’t used as my personal bias or whatsoever. It’s simply the default found on the upstreams projects. GNOME and KDE (the most popular DEs) default to Wayland. PipeWire has become default for at least GNOME (even on Debian). And systemd is the default on almost all Linux systems.
Furthermore, this set of software is not a random set for which Fedora happens to be the first to adopt. In fact, these are crucial parts of how we interact with Linux; these constitute the backbone if you will.
Afaik Fedora OS is not even rolling release
Firstly, no one refers to Fedora as Fedora OS. Secondly, Fedora’s release cycle is often referred to as semi-rolling release. With that, it’s meant that some packages arrive as they come (very close to how rolling release operates). However, other packages only arrive with the next point release. Though, Fedora has its Fedora Rawhide branch that operates as its rolling release branch.
However, the fact that you mention this, means that we have misunderstood eachother. I don’t claim that new versions/updates arrive first on Fedora. I don’t even claim this for any of the earlier mentioned packages. However, what I do mean is that Fedora is the first to adopt these technologies in the first place. So, the first release/version of systemd, PipeWire, Wayland etc was released on Fedora. Then, within months or years, it was adopted by other distros as well.
so I cannot fathom how it has packages earlier than the typical bleeding-edge candidates.
See previous paragraph. And, you don’t need to fathom it; I’m just stating the facts. If you do seek a reason, it’s related to Fedora’s relation to Red Hat and how most of these technologies originate from efforts coming from either Red Hat employees or made possible through their funding. Then, when it comes to testing those things, Fedora acts as their guinea pig. That’s why Fedora is sometimes referred to as Red Hat’s testing bed distro. This doesn’t only come with its positive side, because it may also come with a negative impact to its stability. However, if one is interested in what’s next for Linux, then there’s no alternative to Fedora.
Why are you mixing Fedora Atomic with the regular Fedora Distro?
Because OP actually was in praise of Fedora after using Fedora Kinoite (i.e. Fedora Atomic KDE). And then, you critiqued it (i.e. Fedora) for having no selling points. So, it was rather ambiguous.
Furthermore, Fedora has actually mentioned (for at least two and a half years now) that they intend for Fedora Atomic to be the future of Fedora. So, in a few years of time, what we’ll refer to as Fedora will simply be Fedora Atomic of today. Take note that this doesn’t mean that traditional Fedora will cease to exist. Rather, it will be referred by a different name (perhaps Fedora Classic (but I actually don’t know)).
…how is something like this objectively valid?
Alright, I made a couple of claims:
“It’s also the most mature attempt.”;
First of all, we’d have to properly define what “Nix’ify” even means or what I used it for. So, in the simplest of terms, I meant it as “Taking design elements of NixOS and applying them to an existing product. And then publishing/releasing it as a new product.”
So, basically every distro that’s commonly referred to as ‘immutable’ and that’s originated from or has loose relations to an existing distro applies. Therefore, something like Guix System does not apply; because it’s an entirely new project with nothing that pre-existed it without its NixOS influences. On the other hand; Fedora Atomic, openSUSE MicroOS Desktop and the upcoming Ubuntu Core Desktop definitely do apply. (If the upcoming Serpent OS is “Solus v2” then we can also mention that one here). The addition/admission of distros like Arkane Linux, AstOS, blendOS, MocaccinoOS, Nitrux and Vanilla OS (to name a few) is murky, but (for the sake of argument) we’ll not exclude these.
So, a proper study of their relative maturity would require a lot more effort than either of us is willing to put into. But, I made the claim based on the following (in alphabetical order):
- Adoption; Popularity of a distro is very hard to quantify on Linux. However, based on the discourse, it’s hard to deny how much more popular Fedora Atomic seems compared to its immutable peers. However, if BoilingSteam’s reports do qualify as representative, then (I think) we’ll see a very significant growth for Fedora in the next report (as the most recent one already has informed us about). And that growth can almost completely be attributed to Bazzite switching to RPM Fusion’s Steam. Hence, Bazzite and thus Fedora Atomic’s adoption would be very significant.
- Age; By itself, this is not very telling. However, when you consider that work on Fedora Atomic started (at least) over ten years ago with Project Atomic. And that it even released a version that same year (in 2014), then it would be a joke to consider any of the more recent additions (that erected in the last 2/3 years) within the same ballpark. The only exception to this would be openSUSE that launched its Project Qubic in 2017. But even then, openSUSE MicroOS Desktop (the name Aeon had back then) was (AFAIK) only released in 2019. So yeah, by age it’s definitely Fedora Atomic.
- Development Cycle; Other projects are in beta/RC, while Fedora Silverblue has had its general availability release (at least) over two and a half years ago. To name a couple of the more interesting ones:
- blendOS; Had their v4 Alpha last year and have just (within a month ago) gone out of it. AFAIK they didn’t have any beta or RC releases. Which makes me suspect that their ‘release’ may just be the beta/RC for other more serious projects. Furthermore, blendOS is known for rigorous changes in between their versions. Not quite what I’d refer to as mature.
- openSUSE Aeon; released a month ago (or so) its RC2. openSUSE Kalpa (i.e. KDE) is still in alpha…
- Vanilla OS; still in beta.
- Funding/Man-hours; A project backed by Red Hat (i.e. Fedora Atomic) vs anything else. Adding in the fact that development also started significantly earlier, this is pretty much a given in favor of Fedora Atomic.
(And finally) Rate of ‘Nix’ification’; Atomic -> Reproducible -> Declarative. These stages are passed through by aspiring ‘immutable’ distros when Nix’ifying.
For example, from almost its inception, Fedora Atomic was atomic and had a healthy portion of reproducibility. With the relatively recent transition to OCI (for updating etc), it also became (somewhat) declarative and further improved its reproducibility.
Likewise, we see similar developments in other projects:
- blendOS; Started out as only atomic and has attained reproducibility and declarative since.
- openSUSE Aeon; Started out as atomic. Wishes to be reproducible (and more robust) through transition to image-based. Not much more info on this.
- Vanilla OS; Went from only atomic to a similar OCI model like Fedora for reproducibility and becoming declarative.
Fedora Atomic has (almost) completed/finished its “Nix’ification”. While the same can be said about other projects, this does not apply to all of them. Hence, even if Fedora is not necessarily the best at this, it definitely finds itself amongst the frontrunners.
“Derivatives like Bazzite are the product of this endeavour.”
This is simply a fact. Bazzite is only possible because of Fedora Atomic.
“From the OG distros, only openSUSE (with its Aeon) has released an attempt.”
I define OG distros as the big, independent distros that will probably never lose their relevancy. Think of Arch, Debian, Fedora, Gentoo, NixOS, openSUSE, Slackware, Solus OS, Void etc. For the sake of argument, we could include all independent distros. Out of these; Fedora, openSUSE, Solus and Ubuntu are the only ones for which we know their team/organization are actively working to erupt an ‘immutable’ distro while (originally) their distro followed a traditional model. Ubuntu Core Desktop has yet to release and the same applies to whatever Solus is cooking. From openSUSE, we have openSUSE Aeon (and Kalpa) and for Fedora we got its own 4 atomic spins. Furthermore, we got dozens of derivatives based on Fedora Atomic. So once more, this is just factual.
“However, it seems to be less ambitious in scope and vision.”
This is definitely a loaded claim. I’ll answer this in my next comment.
I understand you like Fedora
Exactly. But it’s on merits. On the other hand, it seems as if you dislike Fedora for some reason. However, it’s unclear to me as to why that is.
but you make claims without any proof or just pure opinion based.
I can back up (almost) every claim I’m making (as you should have noticed by now). Not citing sources or whatsoever is due to laziness and because I don’t think you’ll check those sources anyway (like how you seemingly didn’t check if the earlier mentioned software indeed were first adopted on Fedora and if so; why). However, if you want me to cite sources on statements I make, then please mention the exact statements I’m making and I will back those up with sources.
It’s also peculiar that you make uninformed guesses or claims without backing them up yourself. Nor do you feel compelled to look up if the unsure statement/claim is even correct or not in the first place. Though, I should at least compliment you for being honest/transparent when making unsure claims/statements!
Yet, I’m still waiting for you to name a distro with more impressive unique selling points 😜.
I don’t understand why this is relevant. But, to answer your question, a modern system should already be on systemd
Dear lord…I will try to read the rest but you are not off to a good start. What has modern to do with systemd?
Read the rest of the paragraph and also the next paragraph if you haven’t yet.
If that didn’t answer your query, do you oppose the following statement found on Gentoo’s wiki:
“systemd is a modern SysV-style init and rc replacement for Linux systems.”
And if so, why?
Thanks for the detailed reply. I see where you are coming from but I for example never head about Fedora Atomic whilst I am familiar with OpenSUSE MicroOS, GUIX, NixOS. I noticed that MicroOS is the server oriented immutable whilst Aeon is the new orientation for Desktop… ANYWAY, all this immutable talk is anyway pointless, because I was talking about general distributions and not a discussion about immutable distros.
On the topic which distro adopted what first, my confusion did stem from by what context. As I tried to make clear with my confusion about fedora not being rolling release. To cut all this talk short here my answer to your question:
The default value of OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is pretty strong because
- rolling release
- zypper having sane args for regular tasks (install, search etc.)
- btrfs as default filesystem
- optimal snapper integration which leads into
- making a rolling release distro suitable for non-technical people/daily usage without fear of regular updates
But this is just a general recommendation for “distros”. If the requirements get more specific it makes much more sense to make proper recommendations.
Thank you for reading through that info dump and thank you for your reply!
I see where you are coming from but I for example never head about Fedora Atomic whilst I am familiar with OpenSUSE MicroOS, GUIX, NixOS.
Interesting. So, you never heard of Fedora CoreOS, Fedora Silverblue, Fedora Kinoite, uBlue, Aurora, Bazzite and Bluefin?
ANYWAY, all this immutable talk is anyway pointless, because I was talking about general distributions and not a discussion about immutable distros.
On the topic which distro adopted what first, my confusion did stem from by what context. As I tried to make clear with my confusion about fedora not being rolling release.
Thank you for clearing that up!
To cut all this talk short here my answer to your question:
Finally 😜.
The default value of OpenSUSE Tumbleweed is pretty strong because
Thank you for your answer! First of all, regardless of which distro you would have chosen, I would have respected your answer. Though, depending on your answer, I could have definitely judged you for it 😂. Thankfully, however, you’ve shown to have great taste; openSUSE Tumbleweed is indeed a formidable distro. Unfortunately, I’d argue it’s (somehow) underrated and underappreciated; which is really a pity for how excellent of a distro it is. I hope it will garner a bigger audience, because it simply deserves better. Regardless, openSUSE Tumbleweed is definitely a top contender for best traditional distro IMO and I might have been daily driving it were it not for ‘immutable’ distros.
Secondly, while I agree with you generally, I can’t deny that the total package deal specifically is what makes openSUSE Tumbleweed special. So, the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
- rolling release
Rolling release distros aren’t that rare by themselves. And, as even Arch is an independent distro with a rolling release cycle, it becomes very hard to regard this selling point as unique.
- zypper having sane args for regular tasks (install, search etc.)
zypper’s args/syntax don’t seem very different fromdnfandaptin terms of saneness. But, if this is a selling point for you, what preventsdnf(which is found on Fedora) from being a selling point for you?- btrfs as default filesystem
Fedora also ships Btrfs by default, though TIL that Btrfs was first adopted by openSUSE. But, once again, this begs the question why this isn’t a selling point (according to you) when it’s found on Fedora?
- optimal snapper integration which leads into
Snapper also seems to be properly integrated on the derivatives of other distros; e.g. Garuda, Siduction and SpiralLinux to name a couple. So, again, this selling point doesn’t seem unique.
- making a rolling release distro suitable for non-technical people/daily usage without fear of regular updates
Excellent. This is openSUSE Tumbleweed’s USP (if it’s combined with the fact that it’s a well-funded independent distro, great security standards et cetera et cetera). And if this is precisely what you seek from your distro, then openSUSE Tumbleweed is what you rightfully should stick to.
But this is just a general recommendation for “distros”.
Fair. I’m not necessarily opposed to it.
If the requirements get more specific it makes much more sense to make proper recommendations.
Interesting. Like, in which cases would you recommend something else for example?
Opensuse tumbleweed.
What’s with openSUSE Tumbleweed?
Do you think its USPs are more compelling? If so, consider naming those USPs in order for them to be evaluated.
USP for me means uninterruptible power supply
Wouldn’t that be UPS?
Long story short, Fedora is RedHat, RedHat is mostly aimed at companies, so most random users haven’t encountered it. I used Fedora for a few months, a Friend of mine was very passionate about it, I personally didn’t find anything special about it and disliked rpm at the time, so I ended up switching back to Mint (I think it’s what I was using at the time).
So, long story short, people are not recommending it because they’re not using it, but I know a few people who use it and swear by it, so it looks like you’re on the road to join their club, and don’t let anyone tell you you should be using any other distro, as long as you find something that works for you, that’s what matters.
That being said have you tried Kubuntu? I feel lots of what you had issues with could be the old GNOME vs KDE argument.
“Fedora is Red Hat, Red Hat is mostly aimed at companies”.
I said this in another comment but Red Hat Linux used to target both the community and commercial interests. Fedora was founded to be an explicitly community distribution that was NOT aimed at companies. Red Hat then created Red Hat Enterprise Linux ( RHEL ) which absolutely targets companies ( for money ). The whole point of founding the Fedora project was for it not to target companies.
Fedora release often, has short support cycles, and is hostile to commercial software. It would be a terrible choice for a business in my view. It is a leading community distribution though.
The top foundational distros that all the others are based on are Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, and Arch ( and maybe SUSE — I am not European ).
In my view, Ubuntu’s best days are behind it. Fedora has never looked so good.
I use one of the other distros above but I used Fedora long ago and it treated me well. I think it is a solid choice. My impression has been that it is gaining in popularity again.
I would not encourage anyone to join the EL universe as I don’t consider it as stable as others.
TLDR; Redhat’s being absorbed into IBM and they don’t care about RHEL. RHEL (in my view) is dying a slow death. Without RHEL, there is no Fedora or Centos Stream. There’d also be no Rocky or Alma, as things currently stand.
(Although if that happened, I’d not be surprised if the users of Fedora merged with Rocky and Alma in some form of new and fully independent distro - we’ve already seen how well such disasters can be worked around)
Longer reasoning: Redhat, in my view, have made some unpredictable and frankly terrible decisions over the past few years with RHEL which have caused a great deal of concern in the business sector about its stability as a product. (Prematurely ending Centos 8 six years early, paywalling the source code, and more recent anti-rebuilder steps. They also treated the community team working for Centos appallingly throughout these leading to many resignations.) Further more, these were communicated without warning or consultation and have sometimes come across as petty and spiteful, rather than as professional business decisions.
IBM bought Redhat shortly before this happened, mostly for its cloud services. It seems from the outside that RHEL is being squeezed. There have been two major rounds of layoffs. In all, this paints a picture of a company that is in decline and we’ve seen a reduction in contributions to the excellent work done by Redhat in the foss world. IBM have a long history of buying and absorbing companies - I don’t see why Redhat would be any different and RHEL doesn’t make enough money.
Our company is moving away from EL and I know of several others who are doing so. We’re all choosing Debian.
Fedora will live without red hat. It’s got a community structure in place, all infrastructure is open, etc.
Obviously it would lose some funding and manpower but other distros get by.
I actually agree with you, it would survive. It would change, but it’s big enough to have that critical momentum.
Historically Fedora has been suggested as a free way to learn Enterprise Linux skills for a career. RHEL now provide free licences so that doesn’t apply. Has this hurt Fedora at all? Probably not and may no longer be relevant.
For anybody that does not know, Fedora was founded by Red Hat to be their “community” dostro. Before Fedora, there was only Red Hat Linux and it was trying to be both commercial and community. Red Hat founded Fedora to be an explicitly community distribution and then released the first version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux ( RHEL ). This resolved their commercial / community conflict.
Fedora is explicitly NOT an enterprise distribution. They are annoyingly committed to only free software. They release often and have short release cycles. Fedora is certainly not aimed at enterprises.
Rocky and Alma are RHEL alternatives and are absolutely aimed at the enterprise. Fedora merging with either of these projects would be super surprising indeed. It would make no sense whatsoever.
The “community” enterprise option from Red Hat is not Fedora, it is CentOS Stream. Alma has rebased onto CemtOS Stream ( which is what RHEL is also derived from ). That makes sense.
I have fewer comments on the health or future of RHEL or Red Hat itself or how much IBM. Ares about it. I guess I will say that I have never seen so many ads for it. I think revenues are at record levels. It does not feel like it is dying.
I don’t use Fedora or RHEL but Red Hat is one of the biggest contributors to Open Source. So, I hope this cynical poster is wrong. GCC, Glibc, Systemd, Xorg, Wayland, Mesa,SELinux, Podman, and the kernel would all be massively impacted by less Red Hat funding.
Rocky and Alma are RHEL alternatives and are absolutely aimed at the enterprise. Fedora merging with either of these projects would be super surprising indeed. It would make no sense whatsoever.
It would make a lot of sense to Rocky and Alma though - as if RHEL went there would be a huge vacuum and their models would be impossible. I know there was a lot of talk in both companies when the source was paywalled about building directly from Fedora’s sources (Alma may actually be doing that, I’m not sure). Both R & A have significant user bases, both Enterprise and Community, and there would be considerable desire to keep the wheels turning. Some sort of collaboration (or just downstreaming directly from Fedora) feels inevitable as a choice if that were to happen.
The “community” enterprise option from Red Hat is not Fedora, it is CentOS Stream.
Centos Stream is not community by the way - it’s entirely owned and run by Redhat (AIUI, They took over the name from its community origins and replaced the board with its own employees. The vote to end traditional Centos (which was community run) was given as an ultimatum with a great deal of bad feeling) Stream’s purpose is as an upstream staging area for new releases of RHEL. Redhat state it’s not suitable for production use, so it’s of no real benefit to anyone that isn’t part of that test cycle. (In some defence of Redhat here, Centos was struggling with low resources for a long time before this and point releases often took weeks or even months to appear behind RHEL)
RHEL don’t publish sales figures afaik, so they’re the only ones who could say whether they’re up or down. I’m just one guy who’s worked in a mostly EL based world which has been negatively affected by these decisions, so I’m keeping half an eye. I could be completely wrong, but the facts we do know aren’t healthy for someone wanting to enter into a business relationship with them, which is what a corporate company does when choosing a supported distro like RHEL.
And yes, I am quite cynical - you’re right to point that out. I also hope I’m wrong. If I’m not, I have a lot of confidence that the world will continue with or without RHEL, but yes, it would be a big loss to the FOSS contributions they have made and continue to make - as well as a lot of good people losing their jobs.
IBM has to file public financials. Tracking rough Red Hat revenues is not all that hard. They have done very well.
https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/red-hat-high-growth-streak-151126295.html
I won’t get back into the Fedora thing. I bet the whole dollar though that, if RHEL disappeared, Rocky and Oracle would take no interest in Fedora.
You’re mixing up Redhat with RHEL.
Redhat is a publicly traded company, so yes, their financials are strong. But my question was about RHEL, which is an internal project and not publically known.
Um. No.
Red Hat is not a publicly traded company and has not been for 5 years. They are a division of IBM. What you can know about Red Hat financials comes from IBM’s financial statements.
Red Hat has three primary product lines of which RHEL is one.
Did you read the article?
I stand corrected that Redhat are no longer publically traded - I was misled by stock prices showing prices in months, and not including the year.
But that muddies your point even further, doesn’t it? We can’t see RHEL’s value, nor even Redhat’s. (And you did mix them up!)
No. I did not. And you can. Happy to conclude things here. Good luck.
Full disclosure - I do not use any of these enterprise distros anymore although the stance taken by Alma makes them attractive to me. I am looking for ways to use them.
If we had more time and maybe more beer, I would be interested to get into a discussion about what “community” is.
CentOS pre-Stream was not a “community” distro in my view as I do not see “downloads that cost no money” as the backbone of what makes a community.
CentOS ( pre-Stream ) could not innovate their own distro. They could not even fix a bug without breaking their “bug-for-bug” RHEL compatibility promise. All they did was recompile and redistribute RHEL packages with the trademarks removed. What kind of community do you have if you do not produce anything? Everything from CentOS was actually provided by Red Hat. It was just literally “RHEL without paying”. There was no diversity.
CemtOS Stream is managed by Red Hat for sure as its primary purpose is to become the base for a future version of RHEL. However, it is Open Source and developed fully out in the open. Contributions are possible.
Unlike CentOS of old, the “community” can contribute to and debate the future of CentOS Stream. Alma has contributed bug fixes for example. It has been a bit painful as Red Hat is used to being the only one in the sandbox but the process is evolving. CentOS Stream has multiple contributors ( not just Red Hat ). This means that others have some influence on what RHEL looks like in the future. “The community” can build on that.
In my view, CentOS Stream is already a lot more of a “community” distro than the original CentOS was. You do not have to agree of course. Anyway, I hope other projects join with Alma and Red Hat in contributing to CentOS Stream.
For all their flag waving about “the community”, distros like Rocky and Oracle have shown no interest in contributing to CentOS Stream. They continue to clone the distro that Red Hat forks from CentOS Stream. They don’t get involved until all the work has been done. Then they make money off it ( the only reason they are there ).
All good points and I appreciate and enjoy the discussion.
In my view, CentOS Stream is already a lot more of a “community” distro than the original CentOS was.
This is possibly a semantic point, but for me, a community distro is owned and operated by the community without any corporate control. All the points yonu make are true and valid, but ultimately, Centos is owned by a very large corporate entity that could stop it whenever they want to and nobody else can do anything about that.
Some examples of community owned distros are Debian, as well as Rocky and Alma Linux. Both of the latter have commercial arms, but are are fully independent legal entities owned by the distro. Rocky is owned by Rocky. This point was particularly important because that’s what the community thought Centos /was/, but it turned out that Redhat owned Centos. I don’t think either of the new distros would have been as trusted if the same thing that happened to Centos - a corporate entity ultimately deciding what happens - could have happened to them. When abandoning a sinking ship, it’s prudent to check you’re not boarding another with a big hole in it.
I did happen to look follow Rocky’s path closely, and our company chose it to migrate our doomed Centos8 machines to, because our developers didn’t have time to rebuild everything for Debian in that particular window. That decision was largely based on that legal standpoint because we didn’t want Centos repeating on us. It was also reassuring that Rocky was founded by Greg Kurtzer, who founded Centos and had that project effectively stolen from him, and he least of anyone wanted the same thing happening. (BTW, Rocky was named after the other co-founder of Centos, who has since died - a nice gesture)
My cynicism of Redhat and their motives are real and may be misplaced, but I don’t think they’re done piddling in the EL swimming pool just yet. I adored the company once and had nothing but respect for what they achieved. But that was then and this is now.
Being cynical about Red Hat is fine as long as we keep it factual. I enjoy their contributions but otherwise have no skin in their game.
I am not as enthusiastic about Rocky. I cannot see at all how you can compare them to Debian. It seems unfair even to Alma to lump them in with Rocky as Alma is taking the high road. Best of luck with Rocky though. Truly.
Your make a good case that “community” means “cannot be shut down by a corporation”. Thank you for that. Can a “bug-for-bug RHEL clone” be community though? If Red Hat cancels RHEL ( unlikely ), is there still a Rocky Linux?
Fedora has one of the more confusing installers, it requires you to know some technical things such as repos and Flathub to set it up, and package names are different to the standard. It’s just not targeted to beginners so why recommend it to beginners? There are better options out there to show them the full power of Linux user friendliness.
As a packager I’ll just say Debian is the one with the weird package names. Fedora just matches upstream names generally, similar to Arch.
For me program names in the repos were the same on Arch and Debian but Fedora packages had architecture suffixes and sometimes weird names.
I think you are mistaken. An example:
https://archlinux.org/packages/core/x86_64/glib2/
https://packages.fedoraproject.org/pkgs/glib2/glib2/Debian:
https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/libglib2.0-0
https://packages.debian.org/bookworm/libglib2.0-cilThis is the common case, but Debian gets really out there some times.
And I’ll just say
dnfis a much easier to use tool:dnf install /usr/bin/aprogram
dnf install 'pkgconfig(glib-2.0)'Never noticed. I don’t use much developer stuff. I was talking about regular apps like htop. Fedora names are uncommon for them.
No its not, the package is literally “htop”.
Hmm in my case many packages were in package.x86_64 format or something similar.
Every package has an architecture but you never have to care about it.
deleted by creator
Because SE Linux drove me bonkers once and I am petty.
I’m generally more of a Debian user, when I use Linux at least, so anything red hat based doesn’t even occur to me to recommend. I generally don’t get involved in distro discussions though.
My main interaction with Linux is Ubuntu server, and that’s where my knowledge generally is. I can’t really fix issues in redhat, so if someone is using it, I’m mostly lost on how to fix it.
There’s enough difference in how redhat works compared to Debian distributions that I would need to do a lot of work to understand what’s happening and fix any problems.
