DE vs. OS?

[fuscia]

i've been reading some of the stuff in the 'other OS' forum, lately, and i wonder if an end user would appreciate the difference in one distro from another, other than how much a pain in the assterisks another distro might be. i'm assuming a humble end user, like me, is going to get more of the 'variety' thrill from different DEs than from different distros. or, am i missing something (that i'd notice, that is)?

[ComplexNumber]

i've been reading some of the stuff in the 'other OS' forum, lately, and i wonder if an end user would appreciate the difference in one distro from another, other than how much a pain in the assterisks another distro might be. i'm assuming a humble end user, like me, is going to get more of the 'variety' thrill from different DEs than from different distros. or, am i missing something (that i'd notice, that is)?
well, firstly people have to root(no pun intended) around for their favourite DE. then once they've found their ideal DE, they can then root around for their favourite distro.

btw why do so many people refer to mandriva, ubuntu, etc as an OS? :confused:. linux, solaris, windows, etc are OS's.

[alecjw]

well, firstly people have to root(no pun intended) around for their favourite DE. then once they've found their ideal DE, they can then root around for their favourite distro.

btw why do so many people refer to mandriva, ubuntu, etc as an OS? :confused:. linux, solaris, windows, etc are OS's.

So would you say that Mac OSX is an OS or a Unix distro? Mac OSX is just Unix with extra programs installed.

[ComplexNumber]

So would you say that Mac OSX is an OS or a Unix distro? Mac OSX is just Unix with extra programs installed.
i would say that mac OS X is an OS. unix is also an OS. the various linux distros are still linux.

[fuscia]

btw why do so many people refer to mandriva, ubuntu, etc as an OS? :confused:. linux, solaris, windows, etc are OS's.

linux is a kernel, gnub.

[ComplexNumber]

linux is a kernel, gnub.
and thats what the OS is more or less determined by. its like in mobile phones (smartphones) - symbian is the kernel and the OS, whereas S60 is the interface that sits on top. similarly, linux is the kernel with X windows and gnome/kde sitting on top.

[frup]

linux is a kernel, gnub.

Call it GNU/Linux then, i sort of agree with him.

But what defines an OS then... isnt that what the whole GNU/Linux debate is all about? If you take GNU to be part of the OS then each different distro is a seperate OS... or is each different Kernel one (would you consider all windows the same OS or w95,98,ME,NT,2K,XP etc different? )

Arrgh and that makes me wonder if 6.06 is to 5.10 as win98se is to win98 or 6.10 is a different OS from 7.04 blaah blaah bedtime

[fuscia]

ok, so anyway, whatever the hell it is...would an end user get more of the variety fun from just switching DEs than trying to mess with different whozamawhatchies?

[fuscia]

well, firstly people have to root(no pun intended) around for their favourite DE. then once they've found their ideal DE, they can then root around for their favourite distro.

i guess that would be the most likely way in which an end user would notice any differences between distros. i know i've tried some live cds of other distros, but i end up realizing that i can just make that DE look the same way on my home distro.

[ComplexNumber]

would an end user get more of the variety fun from just switching DEs than trying to mess with different whozamawhatchies?
i would say that it depends upon what their priorities are. if they are intending to find the perfect DE, then they will get more fun from switching DE's. if they have decided upon their preferred DE, then they will get more fun from switching whozamawhatchies.

[fuscia]

i would say that it depends upon what their priorities are. if they are intending to find the perfect DE, then they will get more fun from switching DE's. if they have decided upon their preferred DE, then they will get more fun from switching whozamawhatchies.

that makes sense. so, other than perceived speed differences and default 'look', what are they likely to notice using the same DE in different distros?

[orlox]

I've used ubuntu and Fedora (both with gnome, kde and iceWM) for a time now, and It feels esentially the same. Sometimes although, when performing administrative tasks, I found it harder on fedora because im not quite used to the way it manages things like packages, repos, and things like that....But in the end, I'm always able to get things working on both OSs.

So, as with ubuntu I get things done more easily just because I'm more aquainted with it, I believe variety is better achieved by testing new things on a distro you're used to...

[ComplexNumber]

that makes sense. so, other than perceived speed differences and default 'look', what are they likely to notice using the same DE in different distros?
such things as:
- different package management (eg apt will be default on deb systems wheras yum is default on rpm systems. of cource, apt is also available on rpm systems for anyone who wants to use it, but that isn't the default.
-different 'file structure' (eg suse puts kde stuff in /opt/kde3 and gnome stuff in /opt/gnome)
-the various basic commands such as cd, rm, etc have their own quicks. i remember mandrake(now mandriva) letting me put "cd.." instead of "cd .."(note the space inbetween "cd" and ".."
-various distros have their own admin systems (eg yast on suse, drake on mandriva, etc)
-various distros have their own default look and feel that is specific to that distro (eg bluecurve on fedora, gilouche on suse, etc)
-various distros have their own specialist apps (eg network manager on fedora. ok, so this is now on other distros by default now, but it was redhat who developed it, i believe).

thats all that i can think of at the moment

[fuscia]

and, complex number, those are all things peculiar to a distro regardless of DE, is that correct?

[ComplexNumber]

and, complex number, those are all things peculiar to a distro regardless of DE, is that correct?
yes.
also, many distros share some of the above. for example, almost all distros put bot the gnoem and kde stuff in /usr whereas suse puts them in /opt.

[fuscia]

unless another distro did things more easily than ubuntu, i'd probably be annoyed by it. i had contemplated dual booting with dreamlinux until i realized that all i wanted were their icons.

[ComplexNumber]

unless another distro did things more easily than ubuntu, i'd probably be annoyed by it. i had contemplated dual booting with dreamlinux until i realized that all i wanted were their icons.
if their icons are only available by installing the distro, have it so that you have a seperate partition for your home directory, then grab the icons and put them in your home folder. then wipe the distro :D.
i suppose you could install another distro just for the experience of yast, rpm systems, etc. i was recently thinking of dual booting with either gentoo or slackware just for the experience and knowledge gained. i've never installed a source based distro before.

[fuscia]

if their icons are only available by installing the distro, have it so that you have a seperate partition for your home directory, then grab the icons and put them in your home folder. then wipe the distro :D.

i used the dreamlinux live cd and just copied /usr/share/icons to my flash drive.

[PathSpace]

One big difference you probably will notice in another distro (a non Debian based one, anyhow) is package management. Debian package management is just so nice!

I usually get enough kicks out of playing around with other DE's when I'm bored or just feel like having a different interface to sit in front of for a while.

[Brunellus]

well, firstly people have to root(no pun intended) around for their favourite DE. then once they've found their ideal DE, they can then root around for their favourite distro.

btw why do so many people refer to mandriva, ubuntu, etc as an OS? :confused:. linux, solaris, windows, etc are OS's.
Linux is the Kernel; Debian, Ubuntu, etc is the OS.

OS is kernel + userland tools. Hence the pedantic, yet accurate, use of GNU/Linux.

Windows is an OS with the NT kernel; OSX has a Darwin kernel, and so forth.

You can mix'n'match. Nexenta is an OS which fuses the OpenSolaris kernel with essentially an Ubuntu userland.

[ComplexNumber]

Linux is the Kernel; Debian, Ubuntu, etc is the OS.

OS is kernel + userland tools. Hence the pedantic, yet accurate, use of GNU/Linux.

Windows is an OS with the NT kernel; OSX has a Darwin kernel, and so forth.

You can mix'n'match. Nexenta is an OS which fuses the OpenSolaris kernel with essentially an Ubuntu userland.
thats incorrect. the defintion you're giving is just a convenience used for marketing purposes.
the OS is actually linux/GNU. however, some people regard the OS as the whole thing (ie linux + GNU + X windows + DE), but strictly speaking, this is incorrect and is used for convenience only. for example, gnome exists on solaris. solaris is the OS, whereas gnome is just the interface on top. with windows and mac OS, the interface is tied in to the deeper layers. therefore, the interface is included as part of the whole OS. its only considered part of the OS if its non-portable and can't be seperated. thats clearly not the case with linux/GNU and gnome/kde, so they are not considered part of the actual OS. therefore, debian, mandriva, etc can't be considered to be OS's., but are just different 'flavours' of the OS.
ubuntu, mandriva, debian, etc are not considered separate OS's because they are all the same underneath.