If we take stability as a parameter, is it safe to match them like this?
- Fedora --> Ubuntu
- CentOS Stream --> Ubuntu LTS
- RHEL --> Debian
I know that CentOS stream is more kind of a rolling release but… feels like an LTS distro in practice… or it is just me?
Edit: adding some context. I am planning to setup a dev machine that I will connect to remotely and would like to babysit very little while having stable and fresh packages. In the Ubuntu world we would go to an LTS release but on the RPM/Dnf world is there any other distro apart from CentOS Stream? And also is CentOS Stream comparable to an LTS release at all considering that they do not have release number?
Edit: adding some context. I am planning to setup a dev machine that I will connect to remotely and would like to babysit very little while having stable and fresh packages. In the Ubuntu world we would go to an LTS release but on the RPM/Dnf world is there any other distro apart from CentOS Stream? And also is CentOS Stream comparable to an LTS release at all considering that they do not have release number?
Wanting both stable and fresh packages is unfortunately somewhat difficult in my experience. I think the primary choice within the Fedora ecosystem is if you want to have fresh packages (Fedora) or if you prefer a slower update cycle and more stable packages (RHEL/Alma/Rocky). In the second case you can also choose if you wish to pay Red Hat for support (RHEL) or not (Alma or Rocky).
One thing that’s quite different in RHEL vs Ubuntu/Debian ist that it gets minor releases that include substantial new features. For example you’ll get new compilers, python versions, drivers, … CentOS Stream gets those slightly ahead of RHEL/Alma/Rocky (a cynical person might say that CentOS Stream is a rolling beta for RHEL). But, IMHO that’s not really a strong reason to use CentOS Stream.
If you’d go with an Ubuntu LTS release, then I’d look into RHEL/Alma/Rocky.
Ubuntu LTS is not newer than Debian.
CentOS Stream is also very old for some reason, they are CI/CD and get more updates, but it is just a step before RHEL.
Fedora really has no middleground which I find unperfect.
Also dont forget OpenSUSE, the free Enterprise distros, OpenEuler, Mandriva and more.
- RHEL is more akin to Ubuntu LTS with a Canonical support contract.
- CentOS Stream is more like openSUSE Tumbleweed. I’m not aware of any mainstream apt-based distros that have that kind of rolling release cycle.
- Fedora is like Ubuntu.
But it’s not really a 1:1 comparison, since they all have different ideologies when it comes to package management and update cycles.
Opensure Tumbleweed is more like Fedora Rawhide, they get the absolute bleeding Edge. CentOS stream is downstream of Fedora, so you get less newer packages
I disagree, since both Stream and Tumbleweed are rolling releases with solid bases. openSUSE rigorously tests packages before deploying to the stable branch.
Ultimately, there’s not going to be a perfect analog between all of them, because like I said, they all have different ideologies and packaging goals.
IIRC, within RHEL it goes fedora (next major) -> centos stream (next minor) -> RHEL (current major.minor).
With Debian and its derivatives (e.g Ubuntu) this means that Debian-unstable corresponds to fedora, Debian-testing corresponds to CentOS stream and Debian-stable corresponds to RHEL. (Roughly of course).
Ubuntu is based off of some flavor of Debian and is therefore downstream of it: Debian (unstable I think) -> Ubuntu -> Ubuntu LTS.
But as far as which version has the newest packages then sure, your list is correct.
Sir, either you troll, or have the wrong idea why the distros mentioned are different things with different goals.
In case it was intended seriously, I’ll probably descend into madness because of the ubu lts = centos stream assessment.
Isn’t CentOS Stream equivalent to Ubuntu LTS in terms of stability? They both tend to use packages that have been somewhat tested alas not to the point of Debian/RHEL
