For years, if not decades, Ubuntu has been the default recommendation for anyone wanting to switch from Windows to Linux. Backed by a large organization like Canonical, Ubuntu arguably has the most coordinated resources behind it to create a reliable and predictable experience.

But the Linux landscape has evolved a lot, and what used to be a driving force in the Linux space seems to have turned into a ball and chain holding it back. At least, that's how many in Linux community seem to see it, and I can understand why.

I've made it no secret that I'm not a big fan of Ubuntu, and more and more, it's looking like Fedora is taking over as the standard recommendation for new Linux users, and for good reason. While Fedora has its drawbacks, Canonical has often made bad decisions that contribute to Ubuntu losing its popularity.

Choosing Snap over Flatpak

Sometimes the standard exists for a reason

App distribution on Linux in general can be a bit of a mess, as a lot of different distros support different packaging systems and package managers by default. But in 2015, something called Flatpak appeared, offering a new way to distribute apps on Linux that can be easily supported by any distro while also adding a layer of security by running apps in a containerized environment. Flatpak has grown to be widely adopted by many Linux distros, but Canonical had different plans for Ubuntu.

Instead of embracing Flatpak, which would have effectively made it the way to get apps on Linux, Ubuntu introduced Snap, a somewhat similar packaging system that's actually worse in a few key ways. For one thing, Snaps can be even more restrictive for developers, which has caused some apps to choose not to adopt it. But also, Ubuntu has been criticizing for making its official "Snap store" a requirement for anyone using Snap, giving more control over what can be distributed to Canonical.

While Snap is supported on multiple Linux distros, it's easy to see that adoption is nowhere near on the same level, and Ubuntu is suffering for it. But it actually hurts every other distro, too, because Flatpak adoption could be that much more significant if the entire ecosystem embraced it. It would be a huge step toward solving the "app gap".

Increasingly high resource usage

How did we get to this point?

One of the big talking points when it comes to comparing Linux to Windows is how much lighter Linux can be and how it still supports lower-end or older hardware. But when you look at Ubuntu, that seems to be less and less true as time goes on. Being the default for so many people, Canonical has felt the need to load Ubuntu with a lot of things to make things easier, but in doing so, Ubuntu has, in many ways, become almost as bloated as Windows.

We've talked about that before, and there are options to have a lighter Ubuntu experience, but just look at what's happening with the upcoming release of Ubuntu 26.04. With that release, you'll start needing a minimum of 6GB of RAM to run Ubuntu, which is 50% more than Windows 11. And you can argue that's because Canonical wants to ensure you have a good experience by meeting the minimum requirements, but that isn't really the point of minimum requirements, in my opinion. That's why software often has recommended specs in addition to that.

When Fedora still lets you install the operating system on just 2GB of RAM (though it is advised to use a different desktop than the default GNOME in those cases), it becomes a little ridiculous.

The default desktop is alienating

GNOME isn't for everyone

There's also the fact that Ubuntu ships with the GNOME desktop environment, and really only GNOME. There are officially endorsed Ubuntu derivatives that do use different desktops, but you won't find those easily on the Ubuntu website, and they're not maintained by Canonical, so you never know how reliably they'll be supported.

GNOME is often considered beginner-friendly, but for a user coming from Windows, I actually believe it's a detractor. It just looks and feels too different, and customization options are somewhat limited unless you dive into GNOME extensions, but you need to know what those are first.

Fedora has two official flavors for desktop users right on the official website. Sure, GNOME is the "true" default, but the KDE version is right up there next to it, with the same level of official support. And again, it's a matter of preference, but even if you like GNOME more than KDE, just having the option right there is great. You can choose what works best for you from the get-go, and for most people, I'd say KDE probably makes the most sense.

Ubuntu sort of makes you feel like GNOME is the only option you have, and it's customized in a way that doesn't make sense for everyone, either.

Fedora is on the bleeding edge

Ubuntu moves a little more slowly

While this last one isn't necessarily a benefit to everyone, it's also worth mentioning the cadence of updates on Fedora is a lot faster, which means you're almost always on the bleeding edge. Fedora still does a reasonable amount of testing and it's not as prone to problems as something like Arch, but you get new features, fixes, and improvements at a much faster pace.

Ubuntu does have a faster cadence option if you opt for the non-LTS releases, but it's typically still a good bit behind the latest innovations in the Linux kernel and other packages, which makes Fedora more exciting for new developments. Though, again, whether you prefer a faster update cycle or not is entirely a personal choice and I don't necessarily hold that against Ubuntu.

Fedora is an easy choice

Seeing the route that Ubuntu has taken over the past few years and how the Linux landscape looks these days, it's easy to understand why Ubuntu is losing some traction among Linux fans. In some ways, it feels like it's become so big that it felt the need to be more like Windows, for better and for worse.

At this point, other distros are much easier to recommend, and while Fedora may not be perfect for everyone either, it's not surprising to see it recommended much more often.