What are the Real Differences Between Distributions? 93
toblak asks: "Everybody seems to say the Mandrake is a good distro for newbies and Gentoo, Debian, SUSE, etc, are for the Power Users.
Other than different updating schemes, when you get 'under the hood' of the distribution isn't it basically the same? If I compile some source code on a Debian system don't I get the same functionality as I would if I compiled the same code on a Mandrake system? I've been using Mandrake for about a year and while I don't consider myself a newbie, I'm not a Power User either. Have I been 'missing out' on something by staying with Mandrake?"
Yes you have been missing out (Score:1, Insightful)
You will weep with joy when you discover it.
Let the Flames begin.
Re:Yes you have been missing out (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Yes you have been missing out (Score:1, Troll)
Re:Yes you have been missing out (Score:2)
Re:Yes you have been missing out (Score:1, Insightful)
sorry. I disagree. Without downvotes, the signal/noise ratio gets to low. I used to have no problems reading at a threshold of 3. Now, I often find myself having to read at 4 or 5 in order to avoid endless repetition & inane comments. If moderation inflation keeps up at this rate, every front-page story is going to have 100+ posts modded up to 5.
Re:Yes you have been missing out (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Yes you have been missing out (Score:1)
Re:Yes you have been missing out (Score:1)
Re:Yes you have been missing out (Score:1)
Re:Yes you have been missing out (Score:2, Informative)
Here's what I've seen (Score:3, Informative)
Gentoo is what I use on all my servers currently. It's compiled all from source right out of portage, so I can apply any patches as needed, or as they're available. They take longer to install than an RPM, but I feel better installing them as source anyway. I'm also not afraid of having to recompile software that's a dependancy of other software (RPMs are terrible for this). Gentoo also offers a heavily patched kernel against the vanilla sources, however it's very easy to install them if you don't want the patches.
SuSe and Debian I've never actually used to the point I'm familiar with their layouts, and what's different "under the hood", so I can't really comment...
Re:Here's what I've seen (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Here's what I've seen (Score:2)
Re:Here's what I've seen (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Here's what I've seen (Score:2)
But still, there's no reason you couldn't roll your own ./configure wrapper that sets up your programs to install to /opt or /wherever/you/want.
Re:Here's what I've seen (Score:2)
If you scatter your config files far and wide across the filesystem, how to you expect to back them up?
Putting everything to do with configuration in
Re:Here's what I've seen (Score:2)
Re:Here's what I've seen (Score:1)
Re:Here's what I've seen (Score:1)
Storing configuration for /opt on /etc/opt wastes space in the root filesystem and causes annoying replication problems for when /opt is an NFS share imported by many clients. Of course, there's no fundamental reason you couldn't make /opt/$program/etc a symlink to /etc/opt/$program, but that's working in the wrong direction (making the corner-case solution easiest, making the common-case solution hardest).
Re:Here's what I've seen (Score:2)
well, most distros would say that their version of apache is part of their distribution, which is why it goes in
Re:Here's what I've seen (Score:1)
Linux has got the most gawd-awful filesystem layout in any operating system I've used (various Linux distros, OS/2, DOS, Windows 3.1-2K, Free/OpenBSD, Netware). It's nothing short of a monstrosity. If you want to see what a filesystem layout should look like, have a look at FreeBSD:
It doesn't get much simpler than that. None of this /opt crap, none of this each-package-has-its-own-directory crap, none of this config-files-strewn-about-everywhere crap, and none of this where-the-hell-are-logs-for-app-X crap. The FHS is nothing more than a way to "standardise" the different ways each distro does things -- in that each way is correct according to the "standard".
You put your OS files in one place, you put your program files in another, and you share log/tmp space. How hard of a concept is that??
Re:Here's what I've seen (Score:4, Interesting)
The only project that wouldn't compile out-of-the-box with GCC 2.96 (which is replaced by GCC 3.2 in RH 8.0) was mplayer, and it was because their configure script had a specific check for it (you could bypass the check with a configure option, but then mplayer's developpers wouldn't help you at all with the app). I compiled it (and used it) successfully with various releases of GCC 2.96.
The thing with RPMs is that you can get either the binary package, or the source package. Personnally, I prefer to get the source package, so that I can play with the different compile-time options rather than being stuck with what the packager chose, but that's just me. A lot of people using RH will just download the binary updates for their systems (either automatically or manually) and be done with it.
As for your comments on the kernel (first that RH offers a heavily patched kernel, then Gentoo doing the same thing): installing a vanilla kernel.org kernel is quite easy on RH. Since it's a package that I recompile more often than others, I prefer to not package each of my compilations, and rather just install it the "old" way. It keeps all its stuff together, so it's really easy to track by hand, and the packaging is not important in that case.
Re:Here's what I've seen (Score:2)
compiling your own kernel kind of tosses all that work out the window, doesn't it?
Re:Here's what I've seen (Score:2)
Once and for all: using Gentoo, you're forced to recompile everything to use it. Using RedHat (or any other distribution in fact), you're free to either use the pre-built packages, or use the exact same source files recompiled locally, optimized for your own architecture. Agreed you need to do it manually, but if you intent to recompile everything, just setup a script to do it so further updates will be faster. If enough people are interested, or share their methods about it, then maybe binary distributions will include an install option for easy recompilation of the whole distribution. Compiling (and installing with RPM) individual packages is as easy as rpm -rebuild package.spec, followed by rpm -i package.rpm. You get the advantages of RPM along with those of local compilation.
The point I see in source distributions is to use a barebones Linux system, not to have a fine-tuned system, as the latter can be get using any distribution, while trimming a distribution as RedHat can be trickier.
Re:Here's what I've seen (Score:1)
Dunno about Red Hat, but Mandrake offers several kernels, including kernel-linus which is a stock kernel.org kernel precompiled (with everything as a module that can be modularized... Mandrake uses an initrd containing an ext2 filesystem to hold all the non-ext2 fs modules)
Retarded Elitism (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Retarded Elitism OR "I have a bigger penis." (Score:1)
I challenge any of the most vocal distro-crappers to do a week of telephone support to get back in touch with the real world. Noone gives a flaming bag of crap as to what holy & blessed distro you run.
And just for reference I have installed and ran:
-Debian 2.2 & 3.0 which includes my own customization of Knoppix
- Gentoo since 1.1
- RH since 4.0
- Linux-Mandrake since 6.0
- FreeBSD since 4.3
- OpenBSD since 2.9
I also want to try out other distros like Vector, Cool Linux, Lycoris & Xandros. I recommend that if you really want to get into linux you MUST use different distros. If you get enough experience with many distros and perhaps become and expert on 1 or 2 you can then bend the other distros to your will instead of them bending and binding you.
Re:Retarded Elitism (Score:3, Informative)
No, actually...different distributions do use different kernels. There is a reason Red Hat employs Alan Cox and etc. Also, a distro like Gentoo for example gives you the opportunity to use a kernel that does have a lot of patches they've hand picked that do not come with the vanilla kernel sources. So, depending on what your priorities are, yes you might be missing out, no it is not all big ego zealotry, and yes while it is true that securing a linux box takes skill, knowing that your kernel has the grsecurity patches makes a difference.
Re:Retarded Elitism (Score:2)
Number 1 difference is... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Number 1 difference is... (Score:3, Insightful)
How much of an advantage do you see just from compiling for a specific CPU (especially an Athlon...), as opposed to say upping the -O level in gcc or passing certain options to the ./configure scripts? Does the performance gain from having everything at the highest possible optimization outweigh the time spent compiling?
It would seem to me that comparatively few pieces of software would benefit from being custom compiled in the Gentoo style. First of all, gcc does a fairly poor job of optimizing for AMD K7 or recent Intel CPUs (post i586), which reduces any potential advantages. Further, how much does even total, perfect optimization for one CPU get you. For something like the kernel, glibc, or X, you would probably see a difference. Possibly KDE/Gnome would benefit. Crypto apps and libs would see a speedup. The GIMP: definitely, as well as perhaps the various image and video libraries. Mozilla, OpenOffice, maybe even XMMS, though, don't tend to benefit that much from being custom compiled, and to be honest, probably aren't even worth the compile times. With something as huge as KDE, which can take hours to compile, is the slight speedup worth it?
Gentoo is a nice concept, and everybody should probably play around with it (or even better, do Linux from Scratch...), but it's not necessarily one to build around.
Re:Number 1 difference is... (Score:2)
As for processor based optimizations...doesnt GCC do it at a lower level? Yes the application can support it but wouldn't GCC 3.2 deem where to use 3dnow, mmx, and sse instructions? If not why not
The point of having the Gentoo system is to remove any excess bulk. How many times have you downloaded a package (samba is a prime example) and its dragged a few dependancies for features your never gonna use? (like CUPS for Samba).
Removal of this unused bloat does give noticable boots in the realms of loading time, it may not be noticeable on the fast HDs/Processors of today, but im using Gentoo on a old Compaq Armada 1700 Laptop with a P2/300, 160mb RAM, and a 5400rpm HD...you do notice the benifit on systems like that.
Fine it may take ages to compile, but then you see the benifits of new features in packages (how many distros do you know that support Xft under Mozilla? prove me wrong!)
Just my 2c on the whole thing.
Re:Number 1 difference is... (Score:2)
I know Mozilla is sped up incredibly much. I haven't tested OpenOffice, and I hardly think XMMS would benefit.
Linux from scratch is nice if you need a system built *entirely* to your specs. It's not a distro (IMHO).
Gentoo is nice for building a *fast* desktop system. Not as much for a server, unless you spend a lot of time tweaking dependencies to remove all of X/Gnome/KDE dependencies. (No, the USE-flags aren't enough)
Gcc 2.95.x doesn't do much in the ways of optimizing for newer processors. Gcc 3.2 otoh, does (Even if it takes three times as long to compile something
I like Gentoo because it *lets* me modify what dependencies I want apache to have. With precompiled binaries you can't (Unless the distributor makes 1 gazillion different packages).
It's not a perfect system, but it works.
Re:Number 1 difference is... (Score:1)
The processor can add instructions specific to you processor or compile in a method that is faster for your processor. (On a K6 it is faster to physically move the stack pointer and move the data on the stack than to use push... why? I have no idea, but it was in their optimization guide =)
Changing the -O causes GCC to use tricks to compile the code faster (unrolling loops, inlining functions, etc). This can not only cause executables to increase in size, but it also causes things to break pretty often. Many programs do not compile correctly with all optimizatons turned on.
Re:Number 1 difference is... (Score:2)
package managers (Score:3, Interesting)
that said, I switched to gentoo about 6 months ago, and I have learned more about linux in those 6 months than all the previous several years combined. the way (I think) most people work with tools like rpm is to just install packages off the cd or rpmfind.net, without ever really looking at what you're doing. when you have to actually compile traceroute, as with gentoo for example, you know much more about your system, its components dependencies, etc.
so, I would say, yes there are differences between distros, and the most important one is the package maneger, whether it be rpm, portage, apt-get, or manually compiling all your apps yourself.
Re:package managers (Score:1)
It's what you get 'given' from the company, different distros have different focuses, easy of use, stability, performance, leading edge, business, developers, etc.
There are also file, location and library differences, which appear to be driven by the distros above aims, installing red hat packages on SuSE can be a nightmare! Though this should be aliviated through the Linux Standard Base [linuxbase.org]
Once you start downloading other packages your out of the distro.
Re:package managers (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm...Because it takes so much more skill to `emerge traceroute` than it does to `rpm -Uvh traceroute-major-minor.rpm` or `apt-get install traceroute`?
Re:package managers (Score:1)
Re:package managers (Score:1)
Or even urpmi traceroute... ;o)
Hell, ./configure; make; make install isn't that difficult...
Re:package managers (Score:1)
The issue is more about what the distro does for you, and what it leaves up to you.
I have run SuSE, Mandrake, RedHat, and Gentoo, and I find I know more about my Gentoo system than about any of the others. With Gentoo, if I want to do something, I have to spend more time figuring out how to do it than I would with say, Mandrake. (Most of the time this extra effort is spent tweaking the configuration files since Google will usually give you the name of the tool you need if you don't already know it.) Since I spend time learning about the apps on my system, and reading about how to configure them this way or that, I have a much better understanding of what my system is doing and I'm more confident with my choices. Of course, if I hadn't started with a "simpler" distro, I wouldn't have survived the Gentoo install, so both types of distros have their advantages.
Note to religious leaders: "simpler" means that I can have RedHat up and running with a reasonable configuration in about 45 minutes, after which I can start trying to figure out what the hell this command line interface thing is. "Simpler" does _not_ mean Mickey Mouse. At 45 minutes into a Gentoo install, I'm trying to tell XFree86 the refresh rate of my monitor after being threatened that the screen might explode if I get it wrong.
Ian
Re:package managers (Score:2)
Okay, I've heard this a lot. And I don't buy it as a good justification.
There are two types of users out there -- those who want it to "just work" and those who want to learn the thing inside and out. The first are better off using a distro that "just works", and the second aren't being *restricted* from playing with the guts of, say, Red Hat...they just aren't *required* to. RPM is sgreat -- it's a great, automated system to track versions of installed software and yank out entire packages at a time. But it's hardly a barrier to getting your hands dirty -- you don't have to use Slackware to write config files manually, do custom initscripts, and customize your bootloader.
The Install... (Score:5, Insightful)
Newbie-oriented distros like Mandrake and Xandros (neé Corel) on the other hand try to make things very approachable in the install- everything is laid out like in an Windows app. You usually have an X11 GUI to guide you through the process. Another thing a lot of newbie-oriented distros tend to do is install a lot of stuff that you don't neccesarily need. I guess they're working on the assumption that a lot of Linux newbies would rather have almost everything they could ever need already installed and configured, rather than hoping they have the abilities to do it later.
There's nothing you really can't accomplish on one distro that you can on another, provided you have the source and the abilities to compile libraries and applications. Some commercial apps may be tailored to a specific distro to the point that it doesn't work on another, but usually it works out fine.
Aside from ease of installation, distros have fairly minor differences like a what binaries go where,
Re:One real difference (Score:1)
Level 1: was original built from scratch
Level 2: using a existing distro as a base
Obvious examples of Level 1 are Redhat, Debian, SuSe, Slackware, and Gentoo (some would say "the major players")
Level 2 are the ones like Mandrake, Corel (RIP), and TurboLinux.
Each of the level2 distros have took a level1 one and expanded it further with more UI and fluff, easier to install etc...
ummmm (Score:1)
Oh, and the "question" was from a comment in this OSNews story [osnews.com]. Scroll down, you'll find the comment by toblak. A dumb comment on a dumb story, and it becomes the next "Ask Slashdot". Are you surprised? I'm not.
Re:ummmm (Score:1, Informative)
Linux is Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
Basically, the install and management apps are the only difference as far as the software goes. I'm personally very fond of YaST, mainly because of it's excellent hardware detection, but also because of it's Online Update module, so I use SuSE.
However, the reason I buy SuSE rather than just use the ftp install is the manuals. Of all Linux books I've read, the SuSE manuals are the most useful.
Anyway, aside from the 2 things I list above, I think all the distros are pretty much the same, with the rare exceptions where they include something proprietary, like Lindows includes Crossover Office (IIRC).
The differences (Score:5, Insightful)
This is by no means an exhaustive list, but it gives a pretty good idea.
Really, every distro is a compromise between flexibility and user-friendliness. A distro that is very flexible and can be used on a wide range of systems probably is much more difficult to use, configure and is most likely a source distro with little or no package management. On the other hand, a distro that is very user-friendly will have a GUI interface for everything that the maintainers see as important, and it will have a package management system that requires as little input from the user as possible, meaning that it is a lot less flexible. Every distro is somewhere between complete flexibility and complete user-friendliness and each of us chooses which one we want to use based on that criteria.
Re:The differences (Score:1)
Two examples of why I decided I don't like Mandrake, despite all its strengths.
1) Let's say I want to have KDE from CVS as well as the installed version. I want to edit /etc/X11/xdm/Xsession to include it. With a normal distro, you can do that. Mandrake has a complicated chain of utilities that list the options it knows about and overwrites the file.
2) I want an /etc/fstab that lists devices, mount points and options. Mandrake gives me some complicated abstracted mess that I have no idea of how to modify -- and for the life of me, I couldn't get CD's to play.
Re:The differences (Score:1)
You mean LABEL= ?
That's not a Mandrake thing. It's pretty much the way everyone is going, to avoid being so hardwired to device names that are liable to change when you reboot.
Re:The differences (Score:1)
Re:The differences (Score:1)
The boot manager is set up to pass "root=LABEL=/" to the kernel
The boot manager still needs to pass in a real device name, even if your fstab has labels, AFAIK.
As far as LABEL goes, it's all in the fstab man page.
Instead of giving the device explicitly, one may indicate
the (ext2 or xfs) filesystem that is to be mounted by its
UUID or volume label (cf. e2label(8) or xfs_admin(8)),
writing LABEL= or UUID=, e.g., `LABEL=Boot'
or `UUID=3e6be9de-8139-11d1-9106-a43f08d823a6'. This will
make the system more robust: adding or removing a SCSI
disk changes the disk device name but not the filesystem
volume label.
Re:The differences (Score:1)
And it boots :)
I don't think that Grub parses the root option and replaces LABEL=/ with the real device name, but I don't know. Otherwise my first self compiled kernel should have booted instead of getting panic because it can't find the root drive...
Though I still don't know why it didn't find it...
But thanks for the man hint, I guess I have not searched there because I saw the fstab entry quite some time after I got the kernel to work. At first I thought it was a Grub thing. Well, cool those labels are. Though two Red Hat 8 installs might become confused, right?
Re:The differences (Score:2)
Re:The differences (Score:1)
Yes, they are all basicly the same. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Yes, they are all basicly the same. (Score:1)
Current distributions are, indeed, very similar. That said, there's no reason I can think of not to use the Linux kernel as a base to recreate, say, the end-user experience of running an Amiga, Vax or OS/2 system. Not a clone, mind you, meaning that you wouldn't run your Amiga apps on such a system, but the look and feel would be there and on modern hardware.
I loved OS/2 back in the day. That would be a really fun project. I'd dub it: GNOS/2.
trane
Differences as I See Them (Score:3, Informative)
Other than that, the major difference would be that distrobutions are compiled with different versions of GCC. Most distros are based on 2.95 (or something in the 2s). Some distros (like Gentoo, I'd assume other source distros) use GCC 3.x which is supposed to make faster, smaller, and more efficent code (or something like that). The only other "guts" differences are things how the filesystem is layed out, which filesystem they like by default, etc.
Re:Differences as I See Them (Score:2)
No difference. (Score:2, Insightful)
On the other hand, some distros are easier to secure such as Gentoo, because they don't install everything and the kitchen sink. Also the fact that you can update your whole system in one command, by keeping up-to-date your more secure. Also, there no pre-compiled distro specific binarys.
Redhat is an idea of a distro that installs so much uneeded stuff it's not even funny.
Re:No difference. (Score:2)
Not true.
Some distros (well, ONE distro) uses BSD-style init, where as some distros (well, "all the other ones that are still being maintained) use SysV-style init..
As someone who does hands-on administration, I prefer BSD-style, as it makes determining what's running startup much easier, and configuration is straightforward (/etc/rc.d/rc.inet1 is for your network interfaces,
SysV is easier if you're using an automated tool, because the tool doesn't have to parse files - everything is taken care of via the big mess-o-symlinks in
Re:No difference. (Score:1)
It's what you get but don't want (Score:3, Insightful)
The solution for me: Linux From Scratch [linuxfromscratch.org]. Build exactly what you need into your system, nothing more!
Re:It's what you get but don't want (Score:2)
Umm...I don't have an older version handy to check, but this is definitely not true in the current version of RH (8.0). Furthermore, I've been using postfix instead of sendmail for quite some time, with no warnings. I think that your information may be either out of date or incorrect.
And while some people may not want cron, for most people who want a UNIX-like system, it's pretty fundamental, and there's little cost to having it.
Debian keeps it simple, stable, & easy to main (Score:1)
Another advantage is the wide number of platforms it's available for.
Re:It's what you get but don't want (Score:2)
Let's not forget a few things (Score:1)
Ok, after all, even if it's -ac or whatever kernel breed, it's always the linux kernel under the hood. Take your favorite distro, and try switching between 2.2/2.4/2.5 kernels, and notice the lack of problems for the supported hardware. Kudos to the kernel developpers.
But if you are in supporting a slew of users, then you'd not want to have to find your way through the filesystem to find that fsking configuration file that changes the DHCP clients timeout to 180 s.
One of the thing that differs the most is what happens just after kicks in and when you get your [graphical]login prompt. Even if mandrake tends to stick to the redhat model, some people used to RedHat can have a few surprises around dark corners.
As well, RedHat is really more server-oriented: we tried mandrake 8 on a machine with more that 2 NICs, and realized that we will had to redo-most of the IP-settings scripts, where we switched to RedHat, seeing no advantages whatseover.
Now, a note on Gentoo/Sorcerer/Source Mage source-based distributions. They are going to run faster than the other, becaus they carry no fat and are optimized for _your_ computer: but be prepared for a lot of cpu/net bandwidth usage, as well as a lot of learning. It's up to you to decide if they are good for you, or not.
Re:Let's not forget a few things (Score:1, Flamebait)
(a) all the major distros ship multiple versions of crucial stuff like the kernel and glibc, where the cycles actually matter.
(b) At one point, I flipped the optflags to build for my processor and rebuilt everything significant in my RH install at the time from SRPMS. Reinstalled. No significant speed improvements.
Re:Let's not forget a few things (Score:1)
Anyway, before starting a flame war, the point is that getting RedHat as lightweight/custom compiled as Gentoo means that:
- you will have to "remove" a lot of stuff _after_ installing, because even a bare-bone RH installation is still bloated (I did that on my home firewall).
- you will have to get the latest stable gcc, and to recompile everything from srpms.
So Gentoo or RedHat. Well you choose your tradeoffs, pal ! Now, I still prefer RedHat, because I'm used to it . Call it laziness.Re:Let's not forget a few things (Score:2)
No, I don't think *gentoo* is bogus. I said that this "Gentoo runs faster bit" is bogus. I just think that the gentoo advantages lie in the software distribution stuff (frankly, I'm not a tremendous fan of up2date, which is probably RH's weakest point), and possibly some of the layout things.
No, it's not a methodology problem -- the people claiming that gentoo is "blazing fast" are talking about the fact that it's built with optflags for your processor. That's precisely what I did.
which version of gcc did you use
I don't remember which one...it was the latest one out at the time. Probably either 2.96 or 3.0 something. I not infrequently use rawhide based gcc.
You will have to "remove" a lot of stuff _after_ installing
Okay. I didn't say that gentoo didn't have advantages -- just that this claim of a big performance advantage is unwarranted.
you will have to get the latest stable gcc, and to recompile everything from srpms
But that's my point -- that there *is not* much benefit to simply recompiling, so it's not really worth the trouble of recompiling.
Oh, don't get me wrong -- building from source is important for stuff you want devel versions of (gtk-gnutella, gimp), or want specific features compiled out (rxvt). I'm merely addressing performance issues -- saying that simply recompiling everything on your system is not a big benefit.
Re:Let's not forget a few things (Score:1)
First, yes, I think you still have some methodology problem, but that's because we have to define "runs faster".
I might be wrong, and no I did not went into the details of doing "#time cmd" of whatever else benchmarking technologies will be applied.
What will give a final answer to the question of objective performances will be to run those benchmark on the same machine with the same partionning scheme, and the two distros.
But why gentoo users tends to pretends Gentoo is fastest, even if it is subjective ?
Now, I'm not an expert, nor a newby on system performances issues, but I think that optimizing the kernel and libc might gives you speedup, but again it depends on what you are doing with your machine. After all, a benchmark is always benchmarking the machine capacity to do benchmark.
Here are the diff (Score:2, Informative)
For one it is the combination of packages. Slackware always gives you 'joe' editor, while others wont. You cant find cfdisk in every distro.
Secondly its the granularity of the packages. Ones like me who really need to know every little package going in will like debian. Lindows and mandrake have larger package clumps..
Thirdly it is the combination of the packages. Some distros are bleeding edge. Some are graphics-intensive but do not provide all the console utils. Some are cheap on the documentation. Others shove sources of everything down your throat.
Fourthly and quite importantly, its those special packages like rpm and linuxconf for redhat and that wonderful hardware detection prog in knoppix. apt-get click-n-whatever.
Linux comes from the opensource world and is a massive amalgam of crazy patches and many little progs of various quality. It is how organization is given to it for the widest variety of audience. Different distros have different ideas for different parts of that audience. Eventually, I think just a few distros will lead, and they will be kept on their toes since the license ensures a quick fork over to another distro as soon as quality slumps on one.
What about stability/reliability (Score:1)
For example HP-UX is often quite feature poor compared to other *nixes but it is the most reliable (and therefore pleasant) *nix I've ever admined. As for the Linux distros, I wasn't going to give an opinion, but I have to say that I feel SuSE get's the award in this area.
They are different (Score:3, Interesting)
I've started with Slackware and moved to Debian. I use Redhat at work. What the difference? Simple, Slackware required more work. Confusing it was. However, I actually learned a few things, and I am indebted to Pat Volkerding for putting me through that all. Unfortunately, I killed my system with a bad upgrade to libc6, and I decided that it was time to switch.
I took Debian, simply because they are community-centric. There are tons of choices, but they are all up to you. It handles the basics for you, but lets you know what's happening. As such, it (unstable) keeps me up to date and takes care of basic administration, but I have to do a bit here and there. I like this level, and I like Debian, so I am happy here.
Red Hat takes a different approach. RedHat does things for you. It does much more you than Debian does. This is great for quick starts onto system, or moving from a Microsoft world. However, for those who like to know what's going on, it does a bit too much. Red Hat 8 even went further with making KDE and GNOME desktops looking alike. That is the Red Hat way.
So, generally with Linux the distribution that you choose is a mixture of ease and control. But as one goes up the other goes down. Yes, you *could* force the system to do what you want, but then why not get a distribution that does it for you, and can be updated without breaking anything?
If there were only three distributions, they'd probably be Red Hat, Debian, and Slackware. I've heard this from others as well. If it's true or not is irrelevant. The point is, those who tried them see these three as representing three different approaches to a Linux distribution. I'd suggest trying them all at some point if you doubt their differences.
Don't forget /etc and runlevels (Score:5, Informative)
Another big difference between distros is how their runlevels and their
Redhat, Debian, Mandrake, et. al. use a more SYSTEM V init structure whereas Slackware uses a more BSD style init. Gentoo's init is pretty much unique to gentoo (I'm still figuring that one out).
-Lee
Re:Don't forget /etc and runlevels (Score:3, Interesting)
I use file-rc.
In Debian.
Gets rid of all that /etc/rc.d/rc{1,2,3,4,5,6}.d crap and replaces it with a single /etc/runlevel.conf file.
REALLY neat stuff. Check it out here. [spinnaker.de]
here we go again... (Score:1)
I myself have only used red hat, its great except like someone said above, its bloatware. The minimal install is like 600MB+.
I hope to soon check out SuSE, Debian, and Mandrake on a few systems and see how it turns out. Mandrake looks relible and really promising.
the major difference is ... (Score:1)
For me, most distributions (except some, which I name later) are very bad at good and appropiate management of distro-based software _and_ user (administrator) add-ons _togheter_.
Lets look at RH (which I also use on other machines). You can have quite good desktop or server just out of the box. But power users always have other software which need to be installed by hand. from sources, from rpmfind.net, from custom build rpms - doesnt matter.
the hell starts at the moment, when admin wants to _seamless_ update _everything_ - I mean his own packages, and also distro packages. and this is the point where distros differs very much.
My personal winner here is Gentoo, where I can do 'emerge world' and BE SURE that everything will be correctly updated.
Of course, smart admin can achieve this with his homemade scripts on every distro, but its often risky, time consuming, non portable, need complicated knowledge etc. why the heck all this trouble? simple 'emerge world' should be enough
I think that source based distros with SIMPLE but powerfull portage/package system are a big-winner here.
my suggestion: give it a try, you're gonna be suprised!
I tell you what... (Score:1)
While the individual merits of each distro can be argued to no end, I do have to note that only Lycoris and ClarkConnect (Based om RH 7.2) worked perfectly out of the box. (Inasmuch as Windoze does)
Noting that, I would say that if you want to learn the differences between the distros, you should first learn how to multi-boot [geodsoft.com] your machine. The greatest learning experience for me has been to have a working distro available at all times, while I'm trying to get a new (to me) distro working that I'm not familiar with. (Such as linux-from-scratch [linuxfromscratch.org])
Anyway, I hope I haven't strayed too far from the subject, but I had to add my $.02.
In short, IMHO, if you are a complete newbie, learn how to multi-boot [geodsoft.com], install Lycoris [lycoris.org], Mandrake [mandrake.com] and Debian [debian.org]. (or go to DistroWatch [distrowatch.com] and pick a couple.) Graduate from one to the next while keeping your working distro intact. Then, Paraphrasing another post I read "apt-get when you finally get it together" - lol.
Happy Thanksgiving!
The Real Difference with Debian (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm pretty late to the discussion but I don't see anyone mentioned the most important (to me) difference between Debian and other distros, so here it is:
Debian Social Contract [debian.org]
A perspective of the end user... (Score:1)
One of the things I don't miss about Linux is all the quibbling over init scripts, what applications are installed where, how things are compiled, what kernel version is installed, what packages are available, what package manager is used, etc.
Please do not get me wrong, I love Linux. It's a great operating system and works wonderfully both on client and server, and there's hard evidence andd anecdotal evidence on both fronts. It's great to tinker with too. But for someone who just needs to get sh*t done, it *can* (not does, but can) lead to a lot of wasted time.
I spent a few years running Linux on various systems and at the time I was very much interested in tinkering with it, which often led to broken configurations and needing to reinstall. Which is really time consuming.
I started playing around with Mac OS X when I got the public beta and I kept using LinuxPPC as my main OS for some time, but ended up switching over to OSX full time when 10.0 was released (actually even before then) and never turned back. I've installed a few linux distros (yellow dog and debian) on my powerbook a few times and after playing with it a bit I realize that I just don't need it anymore.
Spending time dealing with getting X working nicely, getting sound working, my trackpad, modem, etc. I haven't even attempted to get airport working yet so I don't know if that's a hassle or not. (802.11 is certainly a PITA to setup in Windows at least, but in OSX it's a breeze).
Certainly some of this is griping, but I believe I do have a point. It really doesn't matter where the hell files go, or what type of init scripts you use, or what package manager (though I have to admit, apt is wonderful since it does a whole lot of work for you -- DEPENDENCIES!!!). All I know is that I can go to any Mac running OSX and it's all the same as every other Mac running OSX. It would be nice if Linux distributions were like that too. Sure, the average Linux sysadmin can probably jump from one system to another and figure out where everything s/he needs is, but should they have to? Wouldn't their time be better spent getting actual work done?
If/when I need to deal with someone else's OSX system, I would have certain expectations: the GUI is the same, boot/init scripts go in
For an end-user, the only really important difference between Linux distributions is probably whether or not they can install it quickly and painlessly, and whether it's a joy to use after that (what programs it has matters too).
Difference in how they handle (Score:1)
Congratulations (Score:2)
You've just stumbled upon the "perimeter of wisdom"
(kind of remember a quote from Calvin & Hobbes that sounded like that)
Ha I think I got the Last Word. (Score:2)
And I dought the moderations will touch this. BuaHaHAHAHA!