Slashdot Mirror
What are the Real Differences Between Distributions?
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?"
It is called apt-get.
You will weep with joy when you discover it.
Let the Flames begin.
Red Hat likes everything nicely tucked away in /usr/bin, and /etc, completly forgeting /opt and /usr/local/bin, and /usr/local/etc ever existed. It kinda breaks some traditional locations of files. Also, a major difference with them is if you use their version of GCC, you're going to find more than one project that just won't compile. Red Hat also offers a heavily patched kernel as opposed to the standard vanilla sources.
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...
-PhaseBurn Welcome to Linux country. On quiet nights, you can hear windows reboot.
When you get down to it, most distros are using the same things under the hook. No one is busting out with special kernels, or what not. People who try to say that they are superiour because they use __ distro are basically just being elitist idiots who feel proud because they use it. This is akin to being pompous and proud about being able to code in assembly while making fun of perl programmers. While there is a difference, actually feeling superior since you use ___ is like being a blind zealot. Its a piece of software, not you; you are not the software, so unless you programmed the software, feeling superior because you use it is rather stupid. If you made the software, be proud of your abilities, but don't go mouthing off other people because they think differently. A knowledgable linux user will be able to secure a Redhat box as well as a Debian box. The paths to get to those goals may be different, but the end result is the same.
"What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
Speed. I am running a Gentoo system. The big advantage is that you get new packages pretty quickly. All the code can be compiled specifically for you processor (that's right I have an entire system specifically compiled for my Athon Thunderbird). Gentoo also has a bunch of kernel patches applied (most specifically the preemptible kernel patch and the O(1) scheduler kernel patch). These two do wonders for the responsiveness of a desktop system (don't worry, everyone else will get these when kernel 2.6 is adapted). The big things you lose on Gentoo is the stability and tech support. Don't get me wrong, it can be very stable, but the bigger distributions have a lot more people to check such things. The biggest thing though has to be time. You can spend a lot of time tweaking the settings and it can take a while to get a program (even with a fast internet connection and computer). As someone coming from Mandrake, you will also most miss the graphical setup programs, but you will end up learning a lot more about how the innards of Linux works.
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.
There aint no pancake so thin it doesn't have two sides.
A lot of the distinction seems to be in how the install goes. With a Debian install, it tends to be a bit more crude, low-level, but still pretty simple and straightforward. Gentoo even more so, but with long periods of waiting while stuff compiles.
/opt? or /usr/local? things of that nature, but they're not a huge deal.
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,
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Is the name. Yes, it's hard to believe, but it is true. For example, one distribution is named Red Hat, while another is Mandrake, and another is Debian. ALL DIFFERENT NAMES!!!
Hasn't this question of "which distro is better" been discussed to death? I can't believe this made it onto the front page.
Oh, and the "question" was from a comment in this OSNews story. 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.
...is Linux.
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).
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
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.
They are all linux, which means that they are all the same. Just like both c++, java and scheme are Turing complete and therefor the same, and an IBM compatible computer and an Apple both can do computations and therefor is exactly the same. Next Question, please.
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.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
There is really no difference between the difference Linux distros, its all what you choose to use. If you feel comfortable with one distro, then use it AND you know how to secure it use it.
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.
Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?
The solution for me: Linux From Scratch. Build exactly what you need into your system, nothing more!
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.
[Pruneau
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.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I agree with you. While there is nothing wrong with being proud of a particular distro, it is those that pooh-pooh new users: "Oh, heh! You run redhat :(" or "Debian and 'apt-get install prog-name' is obviously superior, and oh BTW, I r0x0r3d your m0m!". It seems as though they are trying to make up for other inadequacies in their life. ;)
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.
As important as features and speed are they are nothing if you can't rely on the computer. And why ask about the differences between Linux distros when you could ask exactly the same thing about *nix flavours.
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.
Sure, if you do little use of the system and then all source works the same. However, there a major differences.
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.
Have you read my journal today?
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
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d? s: a-- C++++ UL++++ P++ L+++ E- W++ N o-- K- w--- O- M+ V PS+ P
Nothing gets slashdoters fired up more than asking about distros.
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.
Free Instant Site Inclusion
Its strange that nobody pointed it yet.
;-)
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 run ClarkConnect on my firewall. Redhat, Debian, Gentoo, Lunar and Slackware on my *personal* box. Lycoris on my wife's box (no humorous responses please).
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 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)
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, install Lycoris, Mandrake and Debian. (or go to DistroWatch 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!
Ligaguinggligagiggagoogoogwillgo
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
root@aio:~# nmap -sX -iR -p1- # Ho, ho, ho! Merry Xmas, everyone!
Another advantage is the wide number of platforms it's available for.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Here's a little note from the p.o.v. of a long-time Mac & Linux user. (not that anyone really cares, but what the heck...)
/Library/StartupItems, apps are in /Applications, useful applications are in /Applications/Utilities, and most system administration is performed via the System Preferences app. (Yeah, I can do most of that stuff from the command, but honestly, I don't want to) I think that linux folks should be able to have certain expectations as well, and have them fulfilled.
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).
Gabriel Ricard
Ive used Redhat and SuSE and i have to say that the only difference between the two is the amount of tinkering you have to do. I am a newbe in Linux and I have to say that the only thing that had me decide on RedHat was I love to tinker. Redhat requires you to tinker with almost everything and SuSE although you can tinker with alot of things it automates alot of things I would like to do myself. (Yast is annoying in my opinion) Also Redhat tends to collect all of the important things in one place.
Slackware linux - Basic, you do everything yourself.
Mandrake - Bloated, you get everything and the kitchen sink.
Debian - Best of both worlds
As a linux user of 2 months, I have the experience and first hand knowledge to recommend Slackware for its the best linux distro known to man. Forget about RH, Mandrake, Debian, SuSe, Corel, Gentoo, and the others. Forget OpenBSD, NetBSD, and FreeBSD as well. You can keep a copy of windows though if you want to.
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?
:)
You've just stumbled upon the "perimeter of wisdom"
(kind of remember a quote from Calvin & Hobbes that sounded like that)
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
Na NaNa Naa Naa!
And I dought the moderations will touch this. BuaHaHAHAHA!
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.