Ubuntu vs Mandriva : Clash of the titans !

Dark Star

I have used both of them for quite a long time and I think I can do a better and unbiased comparison... This is not a review so don't expect too much.. Just a small wrap up for people out there looking for newbie desktop... and a report to Mandriva community..

1. Hardware Support : Mandriva wins hands down.. It has lots of drivers and utils to fix it up.. Ubuntu has no proprietary drivers out of the box nor has better support in the repos..

Ubuntu has printer support out of the box [ootb] while Mandriva requires a lot of package installation in One edition... Ubuntu lacks intutive GUI tools like Mandriva..

If you messed up installing Graphics drivers and has Xorg.conf error.. Ubuntu has an automated Xorg default restoring utility that launches in case of error.. No similar thing in Mandriva .. Even drak3d didn't work..

After usage and in hardware fixing Ubuntu wins...

2. Software .. Mandriva has lots of tools and media plugins which Ubuntu doesn't have.. But Ubuntu has made some shrewed choice of Software .. Like providing full printer database ootb give a you ease of printer use...

Installing software .. Mandirva packagers did a lot to cope up with Ubuntu and has nearly same amount of package as Ubuntu or even have latest than Ubuntu... But as Ubuntu is the #1 distro all the leading Linux software providers provide package for Ubuntu with new relase.. You might have top wait for Mandriva..

Ubuntu and Mandriva has immaculate software collection surpassing both openSUSE and Fedora..

3. Community support.. Ubuntu no doubt has the biggest community support till date.. Any problem and you fill have your solution already discussed in Ubuntuforums.. On the other hand Mandirva has small yet powerful forum..

4. Multimedia and HD playback. : Both has better and quivalent video and HD playback. .Mandriva has ootb support for HD formats.. You might not found official packages for Mandriva in quite a few media player like XBMC and others..

5. Compiz and 3d accelaration.. I don't know why but Compiz has faster response in Ubuntu.. Even AWN works better and zipper in Ubuntu.. I am using the same driver in Ubuntu...

If you don't have supported graphics adapter Ubuntu will not allow you to enable 3d effect and will ask you to install restricted drivers .. There is no such thing in Mandirva , or you can messed up system while enabling 3d Desktop if you don't have supported hardware.. After that you have to use command like drak3d to fix it up..

6. Repositories and Upgrading : Mandirva has limited repos. .. Few additional repositories like easyUprmi and MIB are worth using.. Limited repos are worth it . .updating and remembering them is easy.. Mandriva packagers do update latest software in the current/future repos... Thats the best thing I like ..

While in Ubuntu there are lots of repos. [PPA] ... Ubuntu guys don't updates software [only core s/w and fixes] in the current or older relase.. Ubuntu hardy still doesn't have Banshee 1 in the repositories.. Ubuntu guys update future repos rather than syncing older one..

I am using Intrepid Ibex and has no updates from GIMP, Pidgin and OpenOffice.. Though I have installed latest OOO but still having older software in system might create some problem.. While this in not the case with Mandirva...

Ubuntu has got some serious kernel regression while Mandriva has never faced this issue

Updating/Adding a newly released desktop environment in Ubuntu is childs play. Grab the repo update and install.. While setting up cooker is a tough job...

7. Ubuntu has better notification than Mandirva. After update it suggest you to restart application if needed [like firefox] or restart system.. While Mandriva only suggest restarting system... Ubuntu pop ups appears at icon [like update icon] .. Mandriva pop up appear on top left side though the icons are located in different pos...

8. Mandriva mount all kind of drives/partitions by default while you have to edit fstab in Ubuntu..

9. Look and Feel : Mandirva has always be the best looking desktop out there.. Whether its font selection or theme Mandriva beat Ubuntu in this segment ..


Both of the distro has their own problems but Ubuntu obviously has an upper hand over Mandriva. But Mandriva isn't that far.. If you want a solid KDE experience than Mandriva is the choice. Ubuntu has its own stronghold..ease of package availabilty and upgrading options make Ubuntu an ideal choice.. Mandriva current release has more problems which might get fixed in 2009.1 .. So hoping better Mandriva release next time.. Till them I am Buntu

Digg it :

Regards

SarasotaSlim

I tried Mandriva maybe six months ago. I was impressed by their
'eyecandy', right out of the box, from the LiveCD. But, that's about
as far as it went.

I really DISLIKE Mandriva's software installation mechanism. And,
as time wears on with Linux, I find 'software installation' and
repository management to be a DOMINANT issue.

So, based on that, I'd choose almost any Debian-family-based distro
over Mandriva. [Sorry, Mandriva is not 'Titan' quality overall, IMO.]

[Since I much prefer KDE to Gnome, I'd redo the title to 'Kubuntu vs Mandriva,
but that's just me. I never did get why Ubuntu is so much more popular than
Kubuntu. But, since one can install both Gnome and KDE desktops on
most any Linux distro, that point is moot.]

__________________
sidux/KDE-4 and MEPIS rule!

Dark Star

Kubuntu is the most pathetic KDE distro ever. and you have to stay some time in learning things.. not like insert live cd ohh I didn't get it .. Duh this distro sucks.. Thats one hell of a judgment...

I use Arch and I'll say it beat the pants of every distro like Ubuntu and Mandriva out there..

Also believe it or not.. Mandriva is a bit better than Ubuntu.. Its more speedy [from 2009.0] bot faster and has very easy software manager

Mandriva Control Panel can only be challenged by SUSE yast Ubuntu doesn't have that useful tooll..

SarasotaSlim

Not sure whether these comments were aimed back at me, or the readership
in general. But, I'll respond...

So, you're saying that both Ubuntu and Kubuntu 'suck', right? Because, in my
view, they're both the same DISTRO, with the only difference being
Gnome vs KDE, which is another discussion entirely.

You know, I've never tried Arch, yet I hear good reports. Maybe I'll have to
re-visit my 'EX-distro-junkie' ways, and take Arch for spin.

So, what 'family' is Arch derived from...i.e. what's its package-manager?
How's its out-of-the-box wifi support (e.g. from a LiveCD)?

__________________
sidux/KDE-4 and MEPIS rule!

Dark Star

I never said Ubuntu is bad :| Its Kubuntu , the KDE integration is pain nonsense :} Not wroth it. .So if you are looking for a good KDE distro openSUSE and Mandriva is the only big deal


Arch is a do it yourself distro with packman as its package manager "_ Its not a LIVE cd .. You have to install everythin from command line. every single bit from X11 to Gnome to codecs to media player.. Its linux from scratch

Strider

It means it's not for beginners, right? Whatever people say, I never I understand what is so great about Ubuntu.

__________________
Want to ask a question? Try This! A guide on how to post a question, reply to a post etc.

SarasotaSlim

Now I'm more confused about what you like and dislike. [Maybe I don't understand
your phrase 'is the only big deal'!?]

So, you prefer openSUSE and Mandriva as KDE distros?

What desktop-environment do YOU run on Arch? [which I thought
was your favorite distro.] not KDE, then, I presume.

__________________
sidux/KDE-4 and MEPIS rule!

SarasotaSlim

I don't think that installing from the command-line (rather than a GUI)
necessarily makes a distro 'not for newbies'. (Although, not feeling
comfortable with cmd-line IS common among newbies.)

Searching for software to install (e.g. by category) does kinda imply
a GUI. But, once you know the name of a package that you want
to install, installing from the cmd-line is almost trivially simple and
comfortable. [On Debian(s), I use GUI (Synaptic) to see availability
of software, but then use the cmd-line ('apt-get' or now mostly 'aptitude')
to do the installation. And I always use cmd-line to update/upgrade
packages that are already installed. And, newbies seem to catch
on and quickly learn to do those tasks from the cmd-line. It's one
of the tasks that introduce newbies to the cmd-line.

[But, since I've never tried Arch, I can't yet understand why there
wouldn't be some sort of GUI to search for and/or install software.]

However, lack of a LiveCD DOES seem to indicate to me that Arch might
be a 'non-newbie' distro. [I've never understood why Debian
itself doesn't produce a serious LiveCD...i.e. one that you can also INSTALL
from, in addition to just being able to 'take a look with'. That lack
makes Debian more awkward to do the initial install with,
but maybe that's not really a big deal, since one does initial installs
only once or twice a year. But, I tend to think that lack of LiveCD-install
causes prospective Debian users to go elsewhere.]

But, now that I'm mentioning LiveCDs, I must add that it's really a LiveCD
plus 'out-of-the-box' wifi-working from that LiveCD that makes a distro
most appealing. And, that's precisely why I think that Mepis is the
best newbie-distro out there. Because I think it has the best wifi-support
of any LiveCD-installer I've ever tried. [Show me another distro that comes
with a DOZEN windows-wifi-drivers pre-installed into ndiswrapper,
as well as virtually every Native wifi-driver and its firmware pre-installed,
and I'll change my mind.]

__________________
sidux/KDE-4 and MEPIS rule!

Dark Star

Ohh that was typped by mistake

Also I run gnome in ubuntu and KDE modular in 4.2.0 from Chakra project in Arch

Wolfie276

Linux Mint is the distro for newbies, i myself use ubuntu

__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(" )_(" ) signature to help him gain world domination.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXD4N_Mi1iE&fmt=22# Freelancer Evolving