Are all Linux distros the same

[mikecomua]

Hi, I have used Ubuntu for a month and I love it! I have one simple question, are all the Linux distributions similar? Or is it only the Desktop environments:lolflag:? Thanks

[wireddad]

I think underneath all the eye candy the base is all the same. Most improves on another. Trying to break into the main stream. Go opensource.

[Bachstelze]

Other (see infos on the right ;)).

(Thread moved to Other Os Talk)

[louieb]

Lot of wife er distro swapping goes on in the Linux community. Must have tried half a dozen distributions before more or less settling on Ubuntu.

[Fbot1]

Theres more to the distro then DEs but they're mostly the same.

[wolfen69]

ubuntu is in the lead? what a surprize.

[Midwest-Linux]

Hi, I have used Ubuntu for a month and I love it! I have one simple question, are all the Linux distributions similar? Or is it only the Desktop environments:lolflag:? Thanks

No there is a difference. Ubuntu 7.04 for instance ... to be able to listen to streaming audio one must get rid of the useless Rythumbox and use VLC and it should be good to go. You could try to use totem, but only after downloading the Restricted G-Streamer codecs and even then you must manually type in the actual link to make it work. So stick with VLC player as the default. Using the text installer, this a breeze to install very intuitive and easily will allow you to do partition around a existing OS. It will run on 192 MB ram but I'd recommend at least 256 MB to give it some breathing room.

Linux Mint 3.0 Cassandra...well you can try to activate the Beryl...But Beryl would not work on my machine despite being 512 MB. But everything else is just fine on this and it does streaming audio and video out of the box. I actually like this a bit better than Ubuntu. Check out the almost unlimited downloads of games and goodies you can install on this machine. The install went very well, but you need at least 320 MB to make this run properly, more MB Ram are needed to run Beryl...but you don't need to run Beryl to use Linux mint 3.0.

Freespire 2.0 , This will not install or run well it seems on machines under 500 Mhz and at least 256 MB ram. Like Linux Mint 3.0 this will do video and audio out of the box. This is a winner and I need more time to evaluate it more. This might very well give the fine people in Redmond cause for concern. Install was likely the easiest of them all...but just be aware it may not install on older or slower machines. I have this running on a Gateway E-1400 just fine.

Vector linux, this can run on slower machines with little ram. I have this on a Pentium 166 with 130 MB ram. The installation was a bit complicated and the screen kept going dark..I had to hit the left arrow on the keyboard to awaken the computer up. Took me awhile to install, I have audio and the internet on it. Vector Linux will run on those machines with very low end processing power and ram. if you try to use Firefox on this computer it will choke. its the computer that I have it on thats limited but not the program thats limited. Overall I say Vector Linux is good and is underated and will likely be the OS you will use on lower end machines with relative ease.

Linux DSL will run on real low end machines, I tried to install it on that Pentium 166 and it would not take, screen went blank after I hit enter. I did try it out on a IBM computer with 256 MB 400 MHZ speed and it flew on that computer. I didn't have a chance to really evaluate it more. Linux DSL is only like 50 MB!

[bobpur]

I have several computers around here that I "tinker" with. One is an older PIII that I put together from spare parts that runs MintLinux 3.0 "Xfce" like a champ on 256 mb RAM. Most run Ubuntu or a derivative (alone or w/ XP).
After running all over www.distrowatch.com, I've (mostly) settled on some kind of Ubuntu for my machines.
However, I do have a dual core, SLI, RAID 0, and stupidly fast machine that won't take any linux at the moment. I can only hope;)

[fistfullofroses]

Distros vary in many ways. For example: Slackware uses the sysv init system, Ubuntu uses upstart. These are drastically different. Ubuntu modifies nearly every program that is in it's repositories. Slackware does not edit any of the programs in it's system. Slackware uses tgz not deb, rpm, or anything else. All of the config tools in Slack are command line (when they exist) and other than that you use config files to manage the system. Ubuntu has graphical apps for nearly any given need. The directory layout on every distribution varies slightly from the last as well. Some systems are more strict on the filesystem and demand certain programs be installed in certain paths. Kernels vary. Boot loaders vary. Everything can change. GoboLinux is a good example. Or compare Gentoo to Arch to Debain.

PS: I use GoboLinux, Puppy, and Ubuntu.
Gobo is my main system.
Puppy is my rescue disc for when I mess something up.
Ubuntu for gaming.

[Bachstelze]

Distros vary in many ways. For example: Slackware uses the sysv init system,

Wrong. Slackware uses a BSD init system.

[beast2k]

Reading these posts about everyones experiences with different distros raises a question. Why does Ubuntu forums not have a review section where some of the forum members knowledge can be put to use kind of like what they have at linuxquestions.org but we'll do it better of course. If I wanted to try a distro or a Linux application but read here that 80% of us that tried it had big problems I would be less likely to try it. Why let all this knowledge and experience go to waste?

[fistfullofroses]

eh sue me.

[Midwest-Linux]

There should be a review section for computers, then within the review section have the various linux os under each computer. Every computer is different and it can affect how a certain linux system will run under it.

A great case in point is Linux DSL, on one computer the screen goes black when I hit enter to install it and as a result it cannot install. Yet on another computer the DSL installs easily.

Freespire 2.0 will install perfectly on one machine, yet on another computer that nasty error message code at nearly the end of install saying it cannot be installed. Ironic thing is Freespire 2.0 is the fastest and easiest of any linux install except DSL.

Ubuntu 7.04 will have that infamous ACPI issue, yet another machine will not have that problem. To be fair other linux variants have this issue too. (Its a minor one...just shut off the computer after Ubuntu powers down)

Ubuntu 7.04 does not recognize the built in Legacy soundcard on the IBM 300GL. Yet Windows 98 has no such issue. (The solution is simply use a inexpensive soundcard in the PCI slot...solves the problem everytime).

One cannot just judge or base a Operating System on just the system alone. There are other issues too, like the computer, and even the Ram placement will give install problems too. Linux seems to be much more tolerant with Ram placement than Windows does.

[misfitpierce]

Kubuntu straight up... (aka Ubuntu Vote)

[louieb]

...review section ... like linuxquestions.org ... we'll do it better...
There is a sub forum here: Other OS talk. Not very active this is after all Ubuntuforums.org ... All kinds of software talk go on here Just search for multimedia, or CD burning, And of course there the wiki and the community doc sites. You'll find hardware and software compatibly lists.

So of course there is a some conflict as to what is good and whats not. Automatix and XAMPP come to mind. I've used both and they just worked for me out of the box, for others not so much...

It just not all that organized kind of like looking at a pile of marbles searching for the cats eye. Thank God of search engines.

[joeyea]

Ive tried most of the main ones either on virtualbox or my pendrive.

[b0ng0]

I've tried quite a few and I've got to say, in the end most of them end up more or less the same as each other, maybe with slightly different software. In terms of the main, easy to use distros such as Ubuntus, OpenSuse, etc. they are all pretty much the same, just small tweaks here and there.

I have recently installed Arch Linux and I have to say this does feel different to other distros I have tried. Since you more of less build it from the most basic of installs (you even have to install sudo yourself), as well as the great KDEMod DE, it feels a lot more unique from the other distros since it can basically be what you want it to be. I suppose the same goes for Gentoo.

[LaRoza]

I too have recently started using Arch, I like it :D.

[maybeway36]

I've tried many distros (all 3 ubuntu variants, Fedora7, PCLinuxOS, PC-BSD, Debian) but I always come back to Kubuntu.

[thelocust]

I tried to switch to a couple other distros that were KDE based (out of the box) but they just don't have nearly as much community support as Ubuntu.

[pjkoczan]

In my experiences (I've run Ubuntu and Centos as main OS'es, and dabbled with/tested Gentoo, Debian, Mandrake, and a few other Red Hat variants in my day), most distros are compatible, or can be made compatible, but they aren't the same.

They have different package management (rpms, debs, etc). They have different goals, such as whether or not they target the desktop or server, whether or not they focus on security, ease-of-use, power, efficiency, compatibility, etc.. They have different levels of development, Centos basically mirrors Red Hat while Gentoo and Ubuntu do a lot of their own things. They have different levels of support, from Red Hat's commercial support to Ubuntu's community support to Debian's RTFM support.

The answer is...it's complicated. Yes, they all run the Linux kernel, and they all can be made to do the same things if you try hard enough. It's the little things, and what's there by default for each distro, that differ.

[D-EJ915]

All of them share binary compatability (or whatever :P) and I use X on all of mine so I can run anything on one as another, so in essence they are pretty much the same base. But the way they are designed to handle things and run is different and what makes each distro different. So the answer is yes, but no at the same time.

[j.miller565]

I use Fedora. I prefer using RPM based distros.

[fistfullofroses]

I think that the point to make is this:
Linux is just the operating system kernel. It is a medium between software and hardware, which interprets the software's demands to the hardware. When you get into the idea of Linux being a full operating system, and not just a kernel you are usually talking about GNU Linux. Most Linux distributions include the Kernel and various software packages. Those packages are normally GNU but do not have to be. Most distributions are rooted in another distribution. RPM based distributions find their origins in Red Hat. DEB based distributions find their origins in Debian. Systems that use emerge are Gentoo. Systems that use TGZ are Slackware based. The main differences that people see are the presence or lack of tools to make the computer "easier" to use. Personally, I find that the more "ease of use" is incorporated into my system, the more complex the system is under the hood. I hate complexity and favour small, fast, simple, lightweight (think Slackware/Gobo/Arch). That being said, a Linux system does not have to be GNU at all. Some could make all of their own programs to run atop the kernel with out need for any of the currently accepted software bases.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Both yes and no at the same time, as even though they all use the same basic core but work in different ways, even distributions that are offspring of others might work differently then their parent.
Take ubuntu itself for example, even though its debian based it works differently then debian, it has the same goals but Ubuntu goes about things differently then debian, its policy towards proprietary software and hardware is different.
Me i use PClinuxOS, that is based off of Mandriva but it works a lot differently then Mandriva when concerning packaging and stuff like that, some people might have better luck using Pclinux then mandriva (like me) and for some its vice versa.
Each distro has its own features, philosophies and goals so even though linux distros have the same core its what surrounds that core that makes the distros different.

[dca]

A lot I think has to do with exposure. When talking about Linux & BSD distros, it's a little different. Being open sourced both the kernel & GNU apps, Gnome apps, whatever, etc, you have the ability to look inside and see how everything ticks. Everything from the kernel on up to the particular email client you use... Also all the text-based config files to boot. This is exactly opposite of what you see in any MS OS. Closed source, don't know what the hell the OS is doing half the time.