What is the difference in distros underneath the surface?

[gamelord12]

I know that Red Hat-based distros use a different package manager than Debian- or Novell-based distros, but why do they need different package managers? What is inherently different between distributions on a low level?

[aysiu]

Distros can differ in the following ways: File/folder structure Package management Release cycles Development staffing structure / payment Community support Default packages installed In terms of why some distros use a particular software packaging over another, I don't know enough about the details to say, but I'm guessing it's simply a matter of preference.

Gentoo practically compiles each package from source. GoboLinux unpacks binaries into separate application folders. And most other distros simply copy a bunch of files to different places and change some settings and services (if necessary).

Sometimes you can use alien to convert a .rpm file to .deb, but sometimes the .rpm-based distros have a slightly different file structure, so the aliening won't work in Ubuntu or other Debian-based distros.

[gamelord12]

Can anyone go into detail on how the file/folder structures and package managers differ?

[MaxIBoy]

The package management difference is a bit more than personal preference. Different package management strategies are geared toward different types of users (automatic compiling as in slackware, or simply copying files to the correct destination as in APT or RPM.) APT and RPM are very similar in terms of how they work. The difference is that APT is easier to work with and technically superior, whereas RPM is included in the LSB (Linux Standard Base,) and is therefore supposed to be the standard package format.



There are other differences besides package management. A shining example is the boot process, which varies a lot between distros. Most distros use the old "System V Init" process. Ubuntu has moved onto upstart, but upstart is compatible with sysvinit and handles initscripts the same way. In Debian, and Debian-based distros like Ubuntu, runlevels 2, 3, 4, and 5 are identical, and the default is runlevel 2. Meanwhile, other distros (notably Arch) use the BSD-style init framework.

[mamamia88]

I know that Red Hat-based distros use a different package manager than Debian- or Novell-based distros, but why do they need different package managers? What is inherently different between distributions on a low level?

isn't red hat a novell based distro?

[kk0sse54]

isn't red hat a novell based distro?

Red Hat is Red Hat based :p

[Icehuck]

isn't red hat a novell based distro?

Red Hat Enterprise is made by Red Hat Inc.
Novell makes SuSE enterprise.

[mamamia88]

Red Hat Enterprise is made by Red Hat Inc.
Novell makes SuSE enterprise.

i'm confused does novell own red hat?

[kk0sse54]

i'm confused does novell own red hat?

No, Novell and Red Hat are two seperate companies which today are the top leading corporate linux companies.

Check this out if you want to know a little bit about their origins http://libreamoi.com/images/linuxdistrotimeline.png

[mamamia88]

No

cool thanks for clearing that up you learn something new every day

[dspari1]

I know that Red Hat-based distros use a different package manager than Debian- or Novell-based distros, but why do they need different package managers? What is inherently different between distributions on a low level?

What is most noticeable is the default theme, preinstalled applications, package management, and configuration tools.

[SomeGuyDude]

Lots of things.

Config files are HUGE. I didn't realize this until I was shown how Arch is kinda BSD-like in its use of config files.

Package managers are another big one. They each try to find what they think is the best way to have the user interact with installing/updating software. For GUI-types, Synaptic is king IMO. However, pacman works better overall.

Release schedule is another. Working with a rolling release distro versus upgrade-type is HUGE, and both have their pros and cons.

Some also patch their kernels and other files. Others, like Slackware, use straight vanilla packages so all "Slackware" becomes is an organization of everything.

Repos are big, too. One reason some people don't like this or that distro is the repos don't have enough in them.

[juancarlospaco]

Others, dont have, and dont need a Package manager or packages, example: Vyatta