Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: It's just Debian or Red Hat really

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Beans
    488

    It's just Debian or Red Hat really

    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.

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    $HOME
    Beans
    631

    Re: It's just Debian or Red Hat really

    different init scripts, package managers, build and release system, philosophies.

    thats all there is IMO, but thats a lot

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lab, Slovakia
    Beans
    10,442

    Re: It's just Debian or Red Hat really

    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...

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: It's just Debian or Red Hat really

    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.
    Have you ever found something in the second-to-last place you looked?
    If it seems like I am ignoring you, perhaps I am.
    world:~ mike$ rm -f /earth/united_states/washington/redmond/M$ █

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Brugge, België
    Beans
    2,933

    Re: It's just Debian or Red Hat really

    Quote Originally Posted by sujoy View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Syracuse, NY
    Beans
    3,264

    Re: It's just Debian or Red Hat really

    Quote Originally Posted by MikeTheC View Post
    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.
    Last edited by igknighted; December 28th, 2008 at 08:51 PM.
    Desktop: AMD Athlon64 X2 3600+, Nvidia 8600GT, 3GB RAM, 80GB hd, Windows 7 Beta
    Lappy: Sony Vaio FW-140E, Intel P8400 2.26Ghz, 3GB Ram, 250GB HD, Intel x4500MHD, Windows 7 Beta & Kubuntu 8.10 w/ KDE 4.2

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Beans
    134
    Distro
    Ubuntu 8.10 Intrepid Ibex

    Re: It's just Debian or Red Hat really

    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
    > Intel® Pentium® Dual Core T3200 2.0GHz | Running Ubuntu 8.10 Intrepid Ibex
    > Currently learning the ins and outs of Ubuntu Server
    > The difference between Windows and a virus? Viruses rarely fail...

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Beans
    Hidden!

    Re: It's just Debian or Red Hat really

    What about Slackware? Gentoo? Arch? Gobo?

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

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Beans
    488

    Re: It's just Debian or Red Hat really

    Quote Originally Posted by Erik Trybom View Post
    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'

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Beans
    Hidden!
    Distro
    Ubuntu 8.10 Intrepid Ibex

    Re: It's just Debian or Red Hat really

    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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •