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?"

Comments

Here's what I've seen

[PhaseBurn]

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...

Re:Here's what I've seen

[ctr2sprt]

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.

No, RedHat is exactly correct in not installing binaries into /usr/local, and it's probably correct in not installing binaries into /opt. /usr/local is exclusively for the benefit of the administrator, the distribution must never touch it at all. In other words: /usr is for programs you install via your package manager, /usr/local is for programs you install by hand (make install). This is all very sensible and according to the FHS.

Re:Here's what I've seen

[Khazunga]

No, you're wrong. It's correct installing binaries into /opt. From the FHS. On /opt:

/opt is reserved for the installation of add-on application software packages.

A package to be installed in /opt must locate its static files in a separate /opt/ directory tree, where is a name that describes the software package.

On /usr/bin:

This is the primary directory of executable commands on the system.

So, something like ls or grep goes in the /usr tree, Something like apache, should go into /opt/apache. It's a damn shame most distros miss this. It makes up for a mess, putting httpd.conf in odd places, like /etc/apache2/httpd.conf (Gentoo), or /etc/httpd/httpd.conf (Redhat), or /etc/httpd.conf (SuSE 6.*), or /usr/lib/apache (I don't remember the distro). And php.ini, when PHP is installed is placed in even stranger locations.

Re:ummmm

[go-nix.ca]

The discussion is not about which distro is better, merely about how distros differ from each other. "Better" or "worse" isn't supposed to enter the picture.

Differences as I See Them

[MBCook]

There are a few differences under the hood (ignoring things like "apt vs. rpm" etc). Note that this is x86 specific because that's all I know about. Distros seem to fall into 3 categories to me:

• Optimised Distros- This includes RedHat, Mandrake, Suse (I think) and many others. The software in these distros is compiled with optimisations for CPUs (usually for Pentiums, sometimes PPros (which is Athlon, PII/III/IV)).
• Unoptimised Distros - This is Debian. I don't know of any others like this, although I assume they exist. Debian is compiled to run on a 386. The kernel is avaliable with optimisations, but if you want an optimised version of X, you have to compile it yourself.
• Source Distros - This includes Gentoo (which I use along with Debian) and many others. These distros allow you to build EVERYTHING to your specific processor. So instead of using a i686 package on your P4, you can build it with P4 specific support. You can even build it so it will run ONLY on a P4 (makes smaller code this way).

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.

Here are the diff

[mnmn]

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.

Re:Retarded Elitism

[amarodeeps]

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.

Don't forget /etc and runlevels

[SpaFF]

Another big difference between distros is how their runlevels and their /etc structure is laid out in general.

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:Yes you have been missing out

['The '.$L3mm1ng]

I'm kind of a Linux newbie, installed Red Hat 8 a few weeks ago and after reading this OSNews article I am using apt-get, too. I think this confirms the opinion of the guy asking for differences among distros.