I would like to check out other distros but dont want to waste a bunch of time. So i am wondering whats the main differences between RH, Mandrake, Slackware, and the others? I had mandrake and switched to RH and I dont see much difference. Are the smaller distros like peanut, slack, and DSL much faster than the others? thanks

I,ve found through multibooting several distributions that Vector 3.2 is the "fastest" I've tried - faster than Mandrake, Red Hat, Slackware, Libranet - other people might have different experiences - thats just what I,ve found personally - certainly worth checking out.

I do believe this would do much better in the Distributions Forum, don't worry about moving it, I'll see if I can get it moved for you.

Cool

MDK was based on Red Hat, that's why they look very simmilar.

Slackware is quite different. Slackware does not have GUI installation or configuration tools. In general, Slackware sets aside the bells and whistles found in distros like Red Hat in favor of security and stability. It's system of "package management" is also based around .tgz packages rather than rpm, though you can use rpm if you need to in Slackware. It is also much more streamlined, which the entire distro available on one CD.

Damn Small Linux is based on Knoppix (which itself is based on Debian) and like Knoppix, it is a live CD distro, meaning you run it right off of the CD rather than your hard drive, and you don't have to install anything. DSL is about as far removed from Red Hat as you can get without getting into a text-based from source distro like Linux From Scratch.

DSL can be run effectively under very low-end hardware that would choke Red Hat like a horse. DSL is loaded with very small and efficient applications so you can do a ton of things despite its size.

"Damn Small Linux has a nearly complete desktop, including XMMS (MP3, and MPEG), FTP client, links-hacked web browser, spreadsheet, Sylpheed email, spellcheck (US English), a word-processor, three editors (Nedit, nVi, Zile [emacs clone]), graphics editing and viewing (Xpaint, and xzgv), Xpdf, emelFM (file manager), Naim (AIM, ICQ, IRC), VNCviwer, SSH/SCP server and client, DHCP client, PPP, PPPoE, a web server, calculator, Fluxbox window manager, system monitoring apps, a host of command line tools, USB support, and pcmcia support as well."

VectorLinux is based on Slackware!

So even an old hand can fall prey to the which distro siren.
The truth is still that trying them yourself is the only real test. (And no, I am not suggesting you try every distro in existence.)
You didn't see much difference between Red Hat and Mandrake? Their default GUIs are different and their aministration tools are completely different. Suse uses it's own administration tool YAST. Slack and Debian "allow" you to configure them manually.
Normally the differences are things like the install program, the default GUI, default configurations, default programs, and the afore mentioned admin tools. There is going to be a huge ammount of similarity since they all use the Linux kernel, GNU tools, and mostly have the same software available.
The smaller distros like Vector and Peanut serve a particular purpose. They really don't stand toe to toe to the major distros, but they outshine them in their niche. Once again only you can judge the case for yourself.
The trick is to find the right combo that serves your needs.

hey pl. tell how freebsd is different from redhat and other distros
and which one is better of these distros

Well, for one, FreeBSD isn't a Linux distro. It is derived from BSD, the version of UNIX® developed at the University of California, Berkeley, and has it's own licence, rather than the GPL licence GNU/Linux is released under.

"Better" depends on what you want it to do. FreeBSD is not very user friendly, so if that is something you want in an OS, you would be better off not using a BSD system.

The BSDs are rather famous for security and stability though, even moreso than Linux.