Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Linux 6.1 vs Caldera OpenLinux 2.3
joe_s writes "CNET recently posted and update to their shootout between Red Hat Linux and OpenLinux, which has some pretty interesting points of view...and could be pretty useful for a newbie. "
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
We all know that the install is the part that each distro spends most effort customising. But what other parts really matter?
Much of it simply comes down to deciding what app to make the default - as in the case of Gnome vs KDE. Here the distro maker is simply giving a vote of confidence to a particular app, rather than doing anything very innovative.
Package management is an area where distros can stand apart from each other, but unlike the install process, it introduces the possibility of incompatibilities, so there is more incentive to be cautious rather than innovative. After all, if ACME Linux decide to write a better RPM, will it be worth their trouble fighting off the cries of 'incompatible' and 'embrace and extinguish'? Money that could be better spent on an ad campaign.
Multilingual support is one area where distros have a chance to shine, not least because there seems to be little support for it in the existing foundation of GNU tools that make up the meat of every distro.
But, it seems to be that what really sets distros apart is branding and mindshare. I use SuSE not for Yast, not for ISDN support, but because I see them as _strategically_ aligned with KDE, and I see KDE as being new and innovative (and European!) (no flames please).
If I was into clustering I might go with RH because I see them as aligned with relevant kernel development and the Beowulf project.
If I was into bsd style init scripts and curses, I'd go with Slackware. (Joke).
At the moment distros that really go for innovation run (even greater) risks. In the marketplace of openness, no one wants to be seen to break even de facto standards. No one wants to get too friendly with closed software. No one wants to say that another distro is wrong (solidarity, brothers!) - there's room for everyone.
for now.......
-----
The Distribution HOWTO is probably a good start. Distributions, to summarize, are packages of software, including a Linux base operating system.
Think of Windows without all the extra software (IE, WordPad, etc.). Then think of Microsoft selling the base Windows system to any company who wanted it (Symantec comes to mind) and those companies selling packages of Windows + Office + Extra software all together.
Distributions are basically that; they take the Linux kernel (the common denominator) and package software around it in a typical Unix style (sometimes they change how the files are laid out on the drive, etc.) and sometimes add their own custom software to make life easier for configuration and installation.
As long as distributions are testing the software they're packaging together and making life easier for those of us who want to keep an up-to-date Linux box, distributions (and paying for the support) are a good thing.
- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
I remember why I switched to linux. I was bored with OS/2 and i had heard quite a bit about this unix stuff and how powerful it was. I was curious. OS/2 was nice, but I wanted to learn more. I had used crappy operating systems for years (OS/2 much less than windows), and had come to accept all the quirks that 'all operating systems have'. I didn't know better. So I started using linux, and was blown away by what i could do with it, and how well thought out the thing was. As I learned more, repeatedly my mind was blown as I realized what was possible with a real OS. What intruiged me the most was the philosophy that presented itself in all the tools, and design philosophy of just about every piece of unix software i could get my hands on. Ultimately it was my thirst for knowledge that got me hooked. the more I learned, the more i liked what i saw. Now take average joe-bloe. Been using windows forever. Doesn't know anything but windows because according to him, windows is what came with the computer he bought, and he basically stuck to it because that's what he was fed. Words like stability, robustness, and configurability equate to hardware to these people. "Faster CPUs makes more robustness, if you buy good hardware then your system will be stable. Better not play with windows too much because I might break something." Fact is, this is all most people know, and what they concider the truth. They accept it as truth. Stick these people in linux (regardless of distro) and watch them hate it. They don't care that they can configure X in 100,000 different ways, and the thought of customizing something for themselves scares them. They want to hit the power button, and see what they are familiar with, windows. In the garbage that is windows, things are much simpler. It's a flat, single user system, and its closed. As terrible as we all know this design is, it caters to the moms and the pops. There is no need to promote linux to the home user. If he/she is the sort that would explore linux and enjoy it, then they must first be looking for better philosophy from their computing environs. It wasn't the eye candy of E, or the dozens of window managers, or the 800+ packages that comes on a distro that hooked me on linux. It was a question of philosophy. The rest was a bonus.