Fedora vs. Ubuntu

[Scott]

Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
> not sure if this was mentioned already but, at the risk of sounding
> overly shallow and capitalistic, you might consider which linux distro
> is going to have more value on your resume.
> 
> if there's a single distro that *clearly* has advantages for what you
> want to do immediately, by all means, choose that one.  but, *** all
> things being equal *** and if comes down to a coin flip, you might
> want to go with the distro for which there are more posted jobs.
> 
> just my $0.02.
> 
> rday
> 

That's another reason why I don't limit myself to one Operating System. 
  The more I know, the better it looks on a resume.

In the case of Linux, the distros I come across most often on servers 
are all RedHat variations (RH 9, RHEL, Fedora Core, CentOS..).  Second 
to that would Debian, with SUSE following closely afterward.

Ubuntu of course is based on Debian.  After getting comfortable with 
Ubuntu, I gave Debian a try. I've used it on and off over the past 18 
months. And since I've been using Linux for years and learned and used 
Ubuntu beforehand, Debian was a no-brainier.  The difference between the 
two comes down to "hand holding".  Ubuntu has more of if (*if* you need 
it, that is) and some nicer GUI-based ways to update software.

In fact the nice GUI-based updating is reminiscent of distros like 
Fedora Core. :-)

I'm currently contemplating checking out CentOS.  And because I have 
waaaay too much free time, I might try Gentoo as well.

You can never learn (or use) too many Operating Systems. ;-)

-- 
Scott
www.angrykeyboarder.com
© 2006 angrykeyboarder™ & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved