the only important metric for "how well does x work" is: do distro version upgrades work well, through a GUI, after changing a few packages. Fedora with dnf was pretty horrible in that regard, Debian works awesomely, even though the jump from 11-12 is way bigger than 39-40. meanwhile the packages are awesome, nearly all bugs are upstream bugs. as a Fedora Kinoite user, this is the perfect distro for a pretty sensible desktop like Plasma, as the package managemend is rock solid it is also the right management for such new packages. distro upgrades work completely painless
It's surprising how Fedora's core can be so polished despite the fact that it uses very new software. However, it's also true that it has literally almost zero GUI for updates, repositories, packages, snapshots and so on. It's always recommended, but I wouldn't. Terminal should not be ideal in my opinion.
Fedora Core is for server farms. Servers are ideally without monitors and have no need for a GUI, instead being managed and operated entirely remotely on a terminal via SSH. For that, it is perfect.
I would say it's quite good, it was my first distro an I still use it. I also didn't really have issues in the realm of user friendliness. From my experience it works quite well and I also installed it on my father's PC and he doesn't really have issues. And if has any it's basic things like I cannot use the printer. The actual issue just was that he didn't select it in the printing menu. So I'd say it's very usable and it is also very stable.
It depends on the time you want to invest. If you want something that just works, Fedora is one of the OSes that comes with a very recent Linux kernel making it ideal for current hardware compatibility, while providing excellent stability. Arch gets its updates much more quickly so you are always up-to-date, but comes with the risk that an update might break something. If you don't want to run the risk of your laptop suddenly becoming less usable because of a borked update that you need time for to fix, go with Fedora.
I'm Fedora KDE Plasma user and it runs very well, so profesional.
the only important metric for "how well does x work" is:
do distro version upgrades work well, through a GUI, after changing a few packages.
Fedora with dnf was pretty horrible in that regard, Debian works awesomely, even though the jump from 11-12 is way bigger than 39-40.
meanwhile the packages are awesome, nearly all bugs are upstream bugs.
as a Fedora Kinoite user, this is the perfect distro for a pretty sensible desktop like Plasma, as the package managemend is rock solid
it is also the right management for such new packages.
distro upgrades work completely painless
This was the first time i realised i wanted to main Linux. Amazing distro with no hastle
It's surprising how Fedora's core can be so polished despite the fact that it uses very new software. However, it's also true that it has literally almost zero GUI for updates, repositories, packages, snapshots and so on. It's always recommended, but I wouldn't. Terminal should not be ideal in my opinion.
Terminal is the ideal.
@@folksurvival ...not
@@folksurvival ...not(2)
As a guy who has run thousands of terminal commands i can safely say it is not for beginners
Fedora Core is for server farms. Servers are ideally without monitors and have no need for a GUI, instead being managed and operated entirely remotely on a terminal via SSH. For that, it is perfect.
After many years distro hopping, I'm looking for a clean Linux distro and user friendly! Do you recommend Fedora? I like KDE Plasma.
Try opensuse tumbleweed. It uses Kde as default DE. I like it more than fedora kde spin.
I would say it's quite good, it was my first distro an I still use it. I also didn't really have issues in the realm of user friendliness. From my experience it works quite well and I also installed it on my father's PC and he doesn't really have issues. And if has any it's basic things like I cannot use the printer. The actual issue just was that he didn't select it in the printing menu. So I'd say it's very usable and it is also very stable.
@@abhinavjha33 I'll try it too! Thanks!
@@Red_Duc Thanks! I'm still searching for my "chosen one" distro.
@@conhecimentoetecnologia2845 Well good luck to you then!
what is better for laptop amd ryzen ,this or arch?
It depends on the time you want to invest. If you want something that just works, Fedora is one of the OSes that comes with a very recent Linux kernel making it ideal for current hardware compatibility, while providing excellent stability.
Arch gets its updates much more quickly so you are always up-to-date, but comes with the risk that an update might break something.
If you don't want to run the risk of your laptop suddenly becoming less usable because of a borked update that you need time for to fix, go with Fedora.
Fedora KDE i could not get the iso to download internet issues