PDA

View Full Version : It's just Debian or Red Hat really



BGFG
December 28th, 2008, 07:34 PM
That's my conclusion :) and also why I'm not AS interested in trying new distros anymore.
I mean, when you think about it, where is the diff ?
You have a different desktop manager, I can install it.

You have a media centric distro, with all the apps needed for media production. I already have half of those programs and can apt-get the rest.

Your distro is very minimalist. I can strip down ubuntu, gut it and rebuild with slim packages.

As for red hat, don't they use the same kernel as us :)

Heck, even Solaris has the gnome desktop. :lolflag:

Not knocking anything mind you, It's just that from this Debian base, I can basically do what i want. can't I ?

The Linux family is it.

sujoy
December 28th, 2008, 08:09 PM
different init scripts, package managers, build and release system, philosophies.

thats all there is IMO, but thats a lot :)

HermanAB
December 28th, 2008, 08:17 PM
I think there is still room for Slackware and Mandriva!

However, I agree that the better you know Linux, the less important the different distribution tweaks are, since deep down, Linux is Linux is Linux...

MikeTheC
December 28th, 2008, 08:21 PM
Generally, I'd have to agree with this observation. They are, arguably, the two single-most used/supported Linux platforms out there. They are two of the longest-lasting distros, and each provides the means for so many other distros to exist.

It doesn't mean I think having a lot of distros is a bad thing, either (I don't). It simply means the reality of it is that much of the Linux world rests upon these two distros.

I suppose that means we're back to that whole "ubiquity vs. uniqueness" thing again.

billgoldberg
December 28th, 2008, 08:34 PM
different init scripts, package managers, build and release system, philosophies.

thats all there is IMO, but thats a lot :)

True.

--

I see the point the OP makes and mostly agree.

igknighted
December 28th, 2008, 08:48 PM
Generally, I'd have to agree with this observation. They are, arguably, the two single-most used/supported Linux platforms out there. They are two of the longest-lasting distros, and each provides the means for so many other distros to exist.

It doesn't mean I think having a lot of distros is a bad thing, either (I don't). It simply means the reality of it is that much of the Linux world rests upon these two distros.

I suppose that means we're back to that whole "ubiquity vs. uniqueness" thing again.

The debian half of this equation is true, but the red hat side is not. Ubuntu, Mepis, Mint, Sidux... all these distro's either use Debian repo's and add some more, or they rebase to Debian frequently. They also all use apt to install .deb packages.

Suse is actually based on Slackware (WAYYYY back, Suse started as a german translation of Slack), with libzypp for package management, using RPM packages. Fedora/CentOS/RHEL are Red Hat based, and use YUM to install RPM packages. The only similarities here are package format, which really doesn't mean anything. They could switch to .deb's and they would still be just as different and incompatible from Debian. And each other. The same is true of Mandriva, although about 8 years ago it branched from Red Hat, and while it has digressed since, there may be more residual similarities.

Point being: The Fedora/RHEL/CentOS group are a rough equivalent of the Debian/Ubuntu/Mepis group, but Suse, Mandriva and others are only tied to fedora et. al. by package format, which is trivial.

EDIT: All that said, these are all implementations of the same GNU system and other free software applications. I feel as if the OP is actually pointing out why the GNU part of GNU/Linux is the more telling part. The GNU system looks very much the same to the end user whether it is GNU/Linux, GNU/Solaris or GNU/Hurd.

Mason Whitaker
December 28th, 2008, 09:29 PM
I came to the same conclusion when I was trying to decide between Ubuntu or OpenSUSE as my linux distro of choice. In the end, the fact that I got Ubuntu paraphernalia ( ubuntu ogio bag, mouse ) for Christmas set my mind straight <3

Erik Trybom
December 28th, 2008, 09:52 PM
What about Slackware? Gentoo? Arch? Gobo?

There are lots of independent distros out there with their own package management system.

BGFG
December 28th, 2008, 10:32 PM
What about Slackware? Gentoo? Arch? Gobo?

There are lots of independent distros out there with their own package management system.

But does package management define a system ? I mean, I use open office and Inkscape and I wager so do some of the arch users. Doesn't that just mean that the source code for these apps was taken, formatted for the package manager in question, and put in a repo ?

I see what Igknighted was saying, and that's something for me to read up on and try out on the red hat side.

Right now, I see OpenSolaris as the most intriguing contender. Covered in the all too familiar Gnome/KDE but the underlying architecture, FS, Kernel and Package management should really be 'new'

Northsider
December 28th, 2008, 10:34 PM
I've thought the same thing that the original poster has. I've tried a few different distros (slax, debian, fedora) and I really don't see much different...but perhaps that's just my inexperience with linux speaking here

BGFG
December 28th, 2008, 10:50 PM
I don't look at it as inexperience really. For advanced users and developers, areas of a system that most users don't use or will never be aware of, may make or break their decision to use.
But for mid-level guys like me and i assume you, True end 'users', the distros can blend into a blur of the same.

I still love to see new releases of existing tried and true, and fly by night popups. It means that someone is improving or trying something new. Which is what we are all about.

Kinney
December 28th, 2008, 11:07 PM
It's true that all Linux distributions are pretty much the same however sometimes it's the little things like the package manager, out of the box feel, eye candy, etc. that leads people to make their decision.

I've tried many different distros and have jumped around from time to time just out of boredom but one of the reasons I chose Ubuntu is that when compared to some other distros I've used Ubuntu works the best out of the box.

handy
December 29th, 2008, 02:36 AM
I've looked at a lot of distro's & agree that you can make most all of them look exactly the same at the desktop; there are similar & different procedures for handling packages, though I'm yet to find another distro that is the same as Arch. It was built from LFS, & made more simple than any other distro that I have looked at. The driving KISS philosophy of Arch is exemplified in the use of the simple BSD init style.

Thus far for me, Arch stands on its own.

red_Marvin
December 29th, 2008, 02:51 AM
I'd say that if you look at desktop distributions, of course they will look more or less the same, after all they're aiming for the same goal. If you want difference, compare distributions with different goals, like microcontrollers, servers, superclusters. And even so there will be some similarities, after all, being linux systems, having them share a few common traits isn't that odd is it?

bp1509
December 29th, 2008, 04:38 AM
d