From Ubuntu22.04 or June 2025, the official basic no longer upgrade support ROS1, recommended the use of ROS2 system, ROS 2 in the architecture, real-time, security and eco-extensibility significantly better than the ROS 1, if the new project development is recommended to use ROS2 directly, but if you need to migrate to trade-off between the existing resources and long-term gains. Detailed Ubuntu version support relationship, see the link ROS and Ubuntu different versions of the relationship, the following comparison of the two frameworks to analyze:
| ROS 2 version | Ubuntu version | LTS or not | Release time |
| Jazzy | 24.04 (Noble) | Yes (LTS) | 2024 |
| Kilted | 24.04(Noble) | No | 2025-05 |
History and Development
- ROS1: Developed by Stanford University and Willow Garage, focusing on research and prototyping.
- ROS2: Initiated in 2014, targeting industrial-grade robotics with DDS middleware to improve real-time capability, cross-platform support, and security.
Conclusión: ROS1 is better suited for research and prototyping, while ROS2 is ideal for industrial and commercial deployment.
2. System Architecture
| Dimension | ROS1 | ROS2 |
| Core Architecture | Adopting a centralized architecture, relying on the Master node (node manager) to achieve node registration and communication. | Distributed architecture, direct communication between nodes, no need for Master, support dynamic discovery mechanism. |
| Communication Model | Customized communication system based on TCP/UDP protocol, which has problems such as delay, packet loss, and inability to encrypt. | Standardized communication protocol based on DDS, supporting real-time, encryption, and cross-platform interaction. |
| Fiabilidad | Relies on TCP for peer-to-peer communication, prone to packet loss | Reliable transmission is guaranteed by QoS policies (e.g., Reliable). |
| Compilation System | Uses rosbuild (early) and catkin compilation systems. | Introduced an automated compilation system to support more flexible dependency management and multi-language build. |
3. User Experience
| Dimension | ROS1 | ROS2 |
| Learning curve | Rich community resources and mature documentation, suitable for getting started. | New features increase learning costs (e.g., DDS configuration, real-time debugging), but are more maintainable in the long run. |
| Migration Costs | ROS 1 projects need to refactor communication logic, node management, and the compilation system to migrate to ROS 2. | Migration tools (e.g., ros1_bridge) are available to interoperate between ROS 1 and ROS 2 nodes. |
| Debugging and Toolchain | Relying on tools such as roslaunch and rviz, the debugging process is more traditional. | New launch framework (supporting Python configuration), built-in logging system, and better testing tools. |
| Community and Ecology | The ecosystem is large, but some features are difficult to extend due to architectural limitations. | New features are easier to integrate (e.g., deeper integration with Gazebo and Web technologies), and the ecosystem continues to expand. |
4. Key Technology Comparison
| Dimension | ROS1 | ROS2 |
| Node Communication | Peer-to-peer communication is established through Master registration. | Nodes automatically discover and communicate directly with each other via DDS. |
| Messaging | Uses custom message type (.msg), relies on roscpp/rospy implementation. | Generate multi-language messages based on IDL (Interface Definition Language) for better compatibility. |
| Fault Tolerance | Master failure can cause the whole system to go down. | Distributed architecture to avoid a single point of failure, nodes can dynamically join/exit. |
5. Syntax differences
| Dimension | ROS1 | ROS2 |
| Node creation syntax | Use ros::NodeHandle to manage nodes, which relies on roscore to start the centralized manager. | Use rclcpp::Node or rclpy::Node to create nodes directly without roscore, which supports distributed architecture. |
| Communication mechanism | Based on a customized TCP/UDP protocol to achieve communication, need to manually manage node registration and discovery. | Based on the DDS (Data Distribution Service) standard, nodes automatically discover and communicate with each other. |
| Message Definition | Use .msg file to define message type, rely on roscpp/rospy implementation. | Use IDL (Interface Definition Language) to generate multi-language messages for better compatibility. |
| Launch Files | Use XML to write a .launch file, single function, difficult to configure dynamically. | Use Python to write a .launch.py file to support dynamic logic (such as conditional judgment, parameter passing). |
6. Differences in actual use
| Dimension | ROS1 | ROS2 |
| Multi-language support | Mainly supports C++ and Python; other languages need to be adapted. | Extended support for additional languages (e.g., Rust, Java) and cross-language compatibility via Interface Definition Language (IDL). |
| Compilation System | Relies on the catkin compilation system, which requires strict adherence to the workspace structure. | Use the ament build system for more flexible dependency management and multi-language builds. |
| Real-time support | Poor real-time performance, difficult to meet the needs of industrial real-time control. | Improve the support for real-time systems (e.g., ROS 2’s rclcpp provides real-time thread scheduling). |
| Security | Lack of native encryption and authentication mechanisms. | Supports DDS security extensions (DDS-Security) to provide authentication, data encryption, and access control. |
| Cross-platform support | Runs primarily on Linux systems with limited Windows/macOS support. | Supports multiple platforms such as Linux, Windows, macOS, RTOS, etc., and clearly divides the platforms into Tier 1 (actively supported by the official government) and Tier 2 (supported by the community) to strengthen cross-system compatibility. |
| Debugging Tools | Relying on traditional tools such as roslaunch and rviz, the logging system is relatively basic. | Provide a built-in logging system (e.g., RCLCPP_INFO), Python script support, and better testing tools. |
| Fault Tolerance | A roscore failure can cause the entire system to go down. | Distributed architecture to avoid a single point of failure, nodes can dynamically join/exit. |
7. Typical Application Scenarios
- ROS 1: Education, research projects (e.g., mobile robot navigation, SLAM), scenarios that do not require high real-time performance and security. If the project is mature and does not require real-time, security, or cross-platform features, and relies on a large number of ROS 1 ecological resources, continue to use ROS 1.
- ROS 2: Industrial automation, autonomous driving, drones, and other scenarios that require high real-time, security, and cross-platform support, as well as long-term maintenance of large-scale projects (e.g., delivery robots, industrial robots, medical robots). Projects that require industrial-grade stability, real-time control, secure encryption, or cross-platform deployment are preferred to ROS 2.
8. Hardware and Platform Compatibility
- Mainly supports Linux (Ubuntu).
- RO natively supports Linux, Windows, macOS, and embedded platforms.
9. Ecosystem and Community Support
- ROS1:A large number of packages and an active community.
- ROS2: A rapidly growing ecosystem, bbut the ackage count is still catching up.
Conclusión: ROS1 has a mature ecosystem, while ROS2 is catching up fast.
10. Migration and Upgrade Cost
- APIs are incompatible, requiring code rewrites.
- Drivers may need adaptation; ros1_bridge can help with gradual migration.
Conclusión: Migration costs are high, but risks can be reduced by phased upgrades.
11. Security and Industrial Standards
- ROS1: No native security mechanisms.
- ROS2: Complies with DDS security standards and can integrate OPC UA and TSN.
Conclusión: ROS2 is better suited for security-critical and industrial applications.
Future Trends and Roadmap
- ROS1Noetic is the final release, maintained until 2025.
- ROS2 follows a Long-Term Support (LTS) strategy with active feature updates.
Conclusión: The trend clearly favors ROS2.
Conclusion and Recommendations
For researchers or beginners, ROS1 remains a mature and stable choice; for industrial users or commercial teams, ROS2’s advantages in distributed systems, real-time performance, and security bring long-term value.
Actionable Advice: Evaluate the ROS version early in project planning and make decisions based on ecosystem maturity and team capabilities.
