[rubyist5eva]

Vanilla gnome, more up-to-date software, package management with dnf is superior than apt. You don't have to have snaps shoved down your throat (but you can still use them if you like).

Fedora is a "makers" distro. Every big innovation in Linux has happened in Fedora first.

[severino]

I dislike snaps too, but when I used Fedora for a couple of years (around version 25), I didn't like dnf a lot either. It felt very slow in comparison to apt, and also, it was just another new command to learn, after yum et al. In contrast, I've been using the same apt syntax in Debian or Ubuntu installs for two decades now. To me, having the same tool with no breaking changes for ages is a plus.

[dralley]

>It felt very slow in comparison to apt

This is partly true, and partly not.

DNF always updates the local copy of the metadata, so it's more like "apt update && apt upgrade" than just "apt upgrade". I don't recall if Ubuntu has a background task for this, but that might be one reason it's "faster".

DNF also has more metadata to download, and the default parallelism is not very high. If you increase the setting, it gets a lot faster.

And also, DNF records the package update history, so that the origin of every package on the system (whether it was requested installed by a user, or indirectly as a dependency, whether it came from a repo or was side-installed) is auditable. Transactions are recorded and can be viewed and rolled back afterwards. And it uses a more rigorous SAT-solver based approach to dependency solving than apt uses. So it's likely doing more actual work rather than being slower at doing the same thing. Those features can be quite useful.

[rhn_mk1]

Once you know the tools, apt and dnf blend in together.

Where dnf shines compared to apt is discoverability. The help is decent. There's no separate apt-cache, and there are few reasons to use rpm directly.

Dnf also offers a plug-and-play installation of debugging symbols via `dnf debuginfo-install`, which have always been a pain for me.

Oh, and `dnf install pkg-config(package)` is nice too.

[addicted]

For me, not being forced into snaps, which for many apps that are forced upon us through snaps makes them remarkably slow, is enough reason to pick Fedora over Ubuntu for a fresh install.

But whether it’s a good enough reason to switch an existing system depends on how much trouble one is having with these issues in their current system.

[grawprog]

Is snap actually being forced on users by Ubuntu? I've used a Ubuntu based os for years, the only snap packages i have are third-party ones directly from the app devs themselves, ubuntu's never forced me to use snap...

[rubyist5eva]

> Is snap actually being forced on users by Ubuntu?

Chromium is a snap in Ubuntu now for a while, even if you install it with apt it just installs the snap.

Canonical wants to deliver the entire OS via snap in the future, and is already partially there on the server with Ubuntu Core and they recently announced an Ubuntu Core Desktop is coming soon.

[mixmastamyk]

Yes, it is installed, running a daemon, and spamming mounts and filesystems (~/snap, /snap, etc) at boot up. Well known packages such as chromium convert themselves to snap without warning or permission, then proceed to load a lot slower because they have to be extracted from an image into memory.

Snap is not discrete in any sense of the word.

[hulitu]

> Fedora is a "makers" distro. Every big innovation in Linux has happened in Fedora first.

That's because is the beta version of RedHat. I wouldn't call SystemD and Pulseaudio innovations but ymmv.

[rubyist5eva]

You may not like systemd, but it is the de-facto standard in the mainstream of Linux distributions. So maybe "innovations" isn't quite the correct word - but if you want to see the future of Linux then Fedora is the place to find it.

[MonaroVXR]

Pop!_OS doesn't have snaps either. What is better about DNF? Also the software wasn't always newer.