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?"
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.
I totally agree. Apt-get was worth a reinstall on 5 machines.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
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 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.
I have urpmi, what am I missing?
mp3: l33t term for empty.
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!
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
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
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.
you said "this gentoo thing is bogus"
...you do your test on RedHat
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.
May we never see th
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!
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.