Rambling about distros ...

[yankeeDDL]

Hello,

this is probably a question that has been asked countless times.
I hope not to upset anyone by bringing this up again in this forum.
I have used mostly Ubuntu as my Linux OS, but I toyed with Kubuntu (8.10) and Xubuntu (9.10).
For my needs, Ubuntu works fine. Sometime I wish it was as snappy as Xubuntu, but changing system-level proxies in Xubuntu is such a cumbersome process which is annoying (and unfortunately I need to change it quite often).

Then about one month ago, I stumbled across Distrowatch. And I was shocked. I always knew there were "many" distros (I installed Fedora, PuppyLinux and even tried Arch once) but I never expected SO MANY!

So now that I'm a bit familiar with Linux, I thought I'd have a look at another distro, something "different", just to see.
I picked Zenwalk (Slackware + Xfce): it was just the 1st one in the latest distrowatch.
I was expecting something totally different than Xubuntu ... and yes, of course there are some differences, but hardly anything to loose sleep about.
I'm sure if I have to thinker with the settings, I'll find that the two OS require very different 'actions', however, in the GUI, everything seemed extremely familiar.

So I wonder -and I hope I won't be banned by Linux Gurus for asking this question-: if two distros so different are in the end so alike ... why on earth are there so many different distros?
What am I missing? What am I not doing right, because of which these seem so much alike?

Yankee

[patchwork]

The XFCE interface is the same on the two distros, which is why it seems so familiar to you. You can install any window manager you choose (for instance, I use iceWM and fluxbox on ubuntu-minimal installs on two of my other computers, and standard gnome ubuntu on this one).

The beauty of Linux is that it is so customizable---and often people take their customized versions and redistribute them as another distribution. The heart of the system is the same, but some distributions either include proprietary software, or they change the boot sequences, or any myriad of different options and tweaks.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, find a window manager you like, and a comfortable distro, and put them together.

[yankeeDDL]

Hey thanks.
So, if I understand you well, the "real" differences between all these distros come only in the details. For example, the boot-time-improvement effort that Ubuntu is carrying along would, at least at first, remain 'unique' to Ubuntu and its derivatives (like Linux Mint).

Still, I find the number of distros out there simply disproportionate ...
I would think that a small application that lets you set the "speed" of your system would be a lot more practical, say, a slider that goes from "fast" (no compiz, effects tune dto minimum, any non-fundamental service turned off ... something you would set if you're doing gaming, for example) to "comfy", where you have all the bells&whistles turned on (gadgets, monitors, IM ...).

[patchwork]

Interesting idea. Maybe you could add this to the brainstorm?
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/ideas_in_preparation/

[louieb]

:popcorn: Just a general observation - people that use Linux like to tinker with computers. There are even a few Ubuntu forum members that have created Linux distributions. Active minds, power to the people and all that.

[El Zoido]

I recently read about a nice application.
I think it was offered by SUSE Linux, but I need to check the magazine where I found the article to be sure.

Using a web interface you could completely customize your Linux image by choosing which window manager, desktop environment, applications, etc. you would like to have.
It will then create an image that you can test online in a virtual machine.
If you are sattisfied with the results you can download and install it.

Quite interesting, I think...

Edit: It is called SUSE Studio

[mkvnmtr]

I have been using gnome since 6.06. I guess it is ok but I am looking for something I like better. I have been using virtual box to try out two or three distros a week. I even have windows XP saved somewhere. Turns out they are all usabale. It is just a matter of deciding which I like best. I think a Ubuntu minimal install with XFCE4 gives me everything I need so I am thinking about going that way when it is time to upgrade to 10.04.

[XubuRoxMySox]

The only other difference is the base a distro is built on. Some on a Madriva/RedHat sort of base (RPM package management, etc), some on a Slackware base, some on a Debian base, etc. Onto that base there is a default window manager/desktop environment which is similar across the board. You just have to sort of play around with different "bases" and different desktops until you get an idea of what works best for you.

My own little journey after a year or so (and a new distro almost every month!) has finally given me an idea of what I like, what fits my particular needs and criteria; but it's different for each person. It took me a year to choose a favorite (http://robinzrants.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/tried-several-finally-chosen-a-favorite/), but I'm still keeping an eye on all the others, especially the up-and-coming ultralight LXDE, a model of simplicity and elegance that is sure to give Xfce some worthy competition when it matures.


But the cool thing is that they're all improving with leaps and bounds, and they all have had some bumps along the way. But the diversity is one of the coolest things about Linux!

-Robin

[Post Monkeh]

different distros have different packages too.

while they'll all have similar apps available, some will have them more up to date, sometimes at the expense of stability (like arch, or ubuntu to a lesser degree( while others will hold back the newest software versions until all bugs have been ironed out (i think debian is like this)

[Name change]

Hello,

this is probably a question that has been asked countless times.
I hope not to upset anyone by bringing this up again in this forum.
I have used mostly Ubuntu as my Linux OS, but I toyed with Kubuntu (8.10) and Xubuntu (9.10).
For my needs, Ubuntu works fine. Sometime I wish it was as snappy as Xubuntu, but changing system-level proxies in Xubuntu is such a cumbersome process which is annoying (and unfortunately I need to change it quite often).

Then about one month ago, I stumbled across Distrowatch. And I was shocked. I always knew there were "many" distros (I installed Fedora, PuppyLinux and even tried Arch once) but I never expected SO MANY!

So now that I'm a bit familiar with Linux, I thought I'd have a look at another distro, something "different", just to see.
I picked Zenwalk (Slackware + Xfce): it was just the 1st one in the latest distrowatch.
I was expecting something totally different than Xubuntu ... and yes, of course there are some differences, but hardly anything to loose sleep about.
I'm sure if I have to thinker with the settings, I'll find that the two OS require very different 'actions', however, in the GUI, everything seemed extremely familiar.

So I wonder -and I hope I won't be banned by Linux Gurus for asking this question-: if two distros so different are in the end so alike ... why on earth are there so many different distros?
What am I missing? What am I not doing right, because of which these seem so much alike?

Yankee
Welcome to the wonderous world of Linux, where there's more distros than users.
I mean seriously there's even Hannah Montana distro.
And then there are few "respins"; distros that are based on another distro, like Ubuntu and Debian, just that the differnce is even smaller.
But that's the philosophy of Open Source and FSF, everyone can edit the code etc...
Which in terms means that everyone has a posibility of making his own distro.

[yankeeDDL]

Thanks to all for the comments.
A short disclaimer: I did not mean, in any way, to 'complain' about the multitude of distros. On the contrary: it's just another of the great ways for Linux 'experts' to help others.

This said, I'll over simplify a bit my point with an example: imagine two 'independent' distros both based on Gnome.
I typically customize the desktop, no matter which OS/distro it is. There's a very good chance that both gnome-based distros will end up looking exactly identical.
So the remaining differences would be in the 'engine' (if I can use this term to refer to the various settings, modules and what not that actually constitutes the OS) and some of the tools (package manager, to name one). Am I right?

mkvnmtr commented that he/she's trying out 2/3 distros a week on virtual machines.
dixiedancer took one year's time to try out many of them.
Is it 'only' fiddling with the inner config settings that one gets to appreciate the differences?
Packages are different, yes, but I can install, for example, the latest version of Openoffice even on an old Ubuntu. In the end, a debian 'should' be able to run packages designed for it, no matter which distro it is.

Just in case you wonder: I have a relatively new PC, which I would consider rather zippy (nothing fancy: Atholn II X2 240, 4Gb of Ram, integrated GF8100) nevertheless, by nature, I prefer 'skinny' OS to bloated (come to think of it, it's probably an 'allergic' reaction from years of Windows).
I'm definitely not knowledgeable enough for something like Arch, and for an everyday use I like something a bit more comfortable than DamnSmallL. I am currently enjoying Linux Mint and my only complaint (if I really have to name one) is the ... slightly overweight feeling to it.
That got me wondering ... is it Gnome? Is it Ubuntu (which is the base for Mint)? Do I need to go to a different distro if I want something that feels 'zippier' (I don't think it's a real word, but I'm quite sure you all know what I mean)?

[kaldor]

Distros all use the same common environment. Even something as different as Darwin, Solaris and BSD use Gnome/KDE/Xfce. The changes are all related to the aim of the OS underneath.

As a new user, you won't really get what I mean. Give it a few years of using Linux in various forms, and you'll start to say "Oh, this is much better than Ubuntu for my server" or things like that.

Edit: If you want to get a bit more hands-on, Wolvix is a wonderful distro. It uses XFCE though. Very speedy and aimed towards multimedia.

Another is Debian. Again, not as out of the box as Ubuntu, but it's quite fast and essentially the same thing underneath. If you took an hour or 2 to research your new Debian installation, I think you'd be all set. It comes in 3 flavours. Stable (only the most stable software, even if outdated), testing (candidates to turn into a stable release) and unstable (rolling release, new software). Should be good for everyday use.

If you want to get really hands-on... go Gentoo or Slackware :)

Good luck!

[Post Monkeh]

Packages are different, yes, but I can install, for example, the latest version of Openoffice even on an old Ubuntu. In the end, a debian 'should' be able to run packages designed for it, no matter which distro it is.


i can't speak for debian, but on ubuntu i have the latest openoffice installed even though it isn't in the repositories for karmic.
perhaps i should have said different packages in the repositories.
on debian, if a package is in the official repositories, you can expect it to be pretty much bug free and very stable.
the same may not always be true in the likes of the arch repositories, where their focus is to have the most up to date software they can at the expense of the odd bug.

of course, you can install any new software you want yourself, but i was talking about the "official" software versions

[XubuRoxMySox]

TI am currently enjoying Linux Mint and my only complaint (if I really have to name one) is the ... slightly overweight feeling to it.
That got me wondering ... is it Gnome? Is it Ubuntu (which is the base for Mint)? Do I need to go to a different distro if I want something that feels 'zippier' (I don't think it's a real word, but I'm quite sure you all know what I mean)?

I think it's Gnome, but like you, I'm just playing around to see what I like and learn the limitations of one distro or environment or package handler.

I have read in several Linux forums that the Xfce Community Edition of Linux Mint is one of the snappiest and best Xfce distros around. I even ordered a CD (bandwidth limitations here, can't download much) to try it out (not here yet). Xfce in my Debian Testing is much snappier than Gnome on Debian Testing - on my machine (your mileage may vary). It looks kinda sorta like "Gnome Lite," and I've heard it referred to in exactly those terms. It's less noticeable in Ubuntu, but in Debian there's a ginormous difference.... I hear it is similar in Linux Mint as well. I'm anxious to find out for myself, but why not give the Xfce edition a try? Xubuntu Karmic is also really fast and very nice looking as well. I think Xubuntu has been on a diet since Jaunty... Karmic Xubuntu is quick and seems a lot lighter in spite of it's features. And, if it matters to you, Xubuntu Karmic doesn't ship with PulseAdio which has been kinda troublesome for Ubuntu users. Dunno if my Mint Xfce will include it or not (but I hope not).

-R