LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Newbie
User Name
Password
Linux - Newbie This Linux forum is for members that are new to Linux.
Just starting out and have a question? If it is not in the man pages or the how-to's this is the place!

Notices


Closed Thread
  Search this Thread
Old 02-20-2009, 03:25 PM   #31
crashmeister
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Distribution: t2 - trying to anyway
Posts: 2,541

Rep: Reputation: 47

You people really do make an argument of everything

Uses .deb -> Debian based.Uses .tgz -> slack based.Uses .rpm -> Redhat based.

End of story.Thread over.
 
Old 02-21-2009, 05:34 AM   #32
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 4,312
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760
Quote:
Originally Posted by crashmeister View Post
You people really do make an argument of everything

Uses .deb -> Debian based.Uses .tgz -> slack based.Uses .rpm -> Redhat based.

End of story.Thread over.
That's not giving a accurate portrayal of how things work. The package manager used is far less important than the contents of those packages. Suse uses rpm, does that make it Redhat based?

What if I took slackware and created my own distribution of it but the only change I made was to convert it to using the debian dpkg package manager and converted all the slackware .tgz packages to .deb packages. It's still more or less Slackware shaped.

Having said that, I do agree with you that it's a pretty pointless discussion.
 
Old 02-21-2009, 06:08 AM   #33
crashmeister
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Distribution: t2 - trying to anyway
Posts: 2,541

Rep: Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by GazL View Post
Suse uses rpm, does that make it Redhat based?
Actually Suse did start out as a german translation of slackware

There is a bunch of distro timelines flying around the internet.
 
Old 02-21-2009, 06:28 AM   #34
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 4,312
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760
Quote:
Originally Posted by crashmeister View Post
Actually Suse did start out as a german translation of slackware
Yep, though personally, I'm not inclined to consider the pre Novell SUSE and the post Novell SUSE to be the same animal.
 
Old 02-21-2009, 11:01 AM   #35
QueenZ
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2008
Distribution: openSUSE, Ubuntu
Posts: 372
Blog Entries: 2

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 32
Wow.. you guys totally confused me now..

What if I make a linux from scratch adding .deb dpkg apt and synaptic and all that stuff. Does it mean that now my system is Debian based?
 
Old 02-21-2009, 11:04 AM   #36
XavierP
Moderator
 
Registered: Nov 2002
Location: Kent, England
Distribution: Debian Testing
Posts: 19,192
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: 470Reputation: 470Reputation: 470Reputation: 470Reputation: 470
No. Let me simplify everything above your last post. Let's say you want to create QueenZLinux as a distro. You could go with LFS and add things there and create the distro that way. Or you could take Debian and add in what you think your distro should have - this could include changes to the kernel as well as programs and wallpaper/icons. If you do this, your distro would be Debian based. And that's it - the whole package manager argument above is a red herring. A "Debian/Slack/RH" based distro literally takes that distro as it's base and builds on top of it.
 
Old 02-21-2009, 11:11 AM   #37
rich_c
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Distribution: Mepis; Maemo; openSUSE
Posts: 384
Blog Entries: 74

Rep: Reputation: 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenZ View Post
Wow.. you guys totally confused me now..

What if I make a linux from scratch adding .deb dpkg apt and synaptic and all that stuff. Does it mean that now my system is Debian based?
Partly. More so if you used a Debian distro's kernel.

So you have the kernel which interfaces with your hardware, the shell (BASH for example) that interfaces with the kernel and then any applications including package management on top of that. all of which is between the user and the kernel, of course.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel
 
Old 02-21-2009, 01:51 PM   #38
QueenZ
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2008
Distribution: openSUSE, Ubuntu
Posts: 372
Blog Entries: 2

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by XavierP View Post
No. Let me simplify everything above your last post. Let's say you want to create QueenZLinux as a distro. You could go with LFS and add things there and create the distro that way. Or you could take Debian and add in what you think your distro should have - this could include changes to the kernel as well as programs and wallpaper/icons. If you do this, your distro would be Debian based. And that's it - the whole package manager argument above is a red herring. A "Debian/Slack/RH" based distro literally takes that distro as it's base and builds on top of it.
Oh ok.. Just give me 1 good reason to take debian as my base Seriously, at least one reason!

I actually started this thread because i've been looking at this Linux tree and just can't figure out why almost all distros are based on 3 distros - Debian, RedHat and Slackware. I mean why???!

http://www.osml.co.uk/files/linux_timeline.png
 
Old 02-21-2009, 02:00 PM   #39
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.1
Posts: 7,453
Blog Entries: 55

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Not sure where RedHat comes in but Slackware and Debian were the first two freely available GNU/Linux distributions. Slackware being the oldest by a couple of months or so.
 
Old 02-21-2009, 02:08 PM   #40
frieza
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: harvard, il
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.4,DD-WRT micro plus ssh,lfs-6.6,Fedora 15,Fedora 16
Posts: 3,215

Rep: Reputation: 397Reputation: 397Reputation: 397Reputation: 397
i just had another thought on this question.. take yellowdog linux for example
yellowdog is a 'redhat based' distribution meaning that the creators of yellowdog started with a copy of redhat to create yellowdog

the biggest point where yellowdog differs from redhat is that yellowdog is targeted to run on powerpc and powerpc_64 based computers such as the apple macintosh whereas redhat is for x86 architecture or x86_64

a good non computer example of what you are asking would be found in the kitchen
you could either make your own broth from scratch for soup or start with a bullion cube as a 'base'
 
Old 02-21-2009, 02:20 PM   #41
QueenZ
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2008
Distribution: openSUSE, Ubuntu
Posts: 372
Blog Entries: 2

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by frieza View Post
a good non computer example of what you are asking would be found in the kitchen
you could either make your own broth from scratch for soup or start with a bullion cube as a 'base'
hmm.. good point I guess if i really want to make my own distro now, it's better to take Ubuntu as my base, right?
 
Old 02-21-2009, 02:24 PM   #42
frieza
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2002
Location: harvard, il
Distribution: Ubuntu 11.4,DD-WRT micro plus ssh,lfs-6.6,Fedora 15,Fedora 16
Posts: 3,215

Rep: Reputation: 397Reputation: 397Reputation: 397Reputation: 397
depends on what you are most familiar with
keep in mind ubuntu started with debian as it's base
 
Old 02-21-2009, 02:48 PM   #43
GazL
Senior Member
 
Registered: May 2008
Posts: 4,312
Blog Entries: 7

Rep: Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760Reputation: 1760
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
Not sure where RedHat comes in but Slackware and Debian were the first two freely available GNU/Linux distributions. Slackware being the oldest by a couple of months or so.
Not sure that's entirely accurate. MCC Interim and TAMU both pre-date both slackware and debian and I remember them being available via ftp at the time. Redhat was a couple of years later.
 
Old 02-21-2009, 02:53 PM   #44
Quakeboy02
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2006
Distribution: Debian Squeeze 2.6.32.9 SMP AMD64
Posts: 3,289

Rep: Reputation: 126Reputation: 126
Quote:
Originally Posted by QueenZ View Post
Oh ok.. I actually started this thread because i've been looking at this Linux tree and just can't figure out why almost all distros are based on 3 distros - Debian, RedHat and Slackware. I mean why???!
Because starting from scratch takes an AWFUL LOT of effort! Starting with one of the big three gives you a known good starting point. From there, it's just adding or subtracting step by step with no real start-up trauma. If you really want to create "your own distro", then you'd probably want to join the Linux From Scratch group and then write your own package manager --- as a start, that is.
 
Old 02-21-2009, 03:05 PM   #45
QueenZ
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2008
Distribution: openSUSE, Ubuntu
Posts: 372
Blog Entries: 2

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quakeboy02 View Post
Because starting from scratch takes an AWFUL LOT of effort! Starting with one of the big three gives you a known good starting point. From there, it's just adding or subtracting step by step with no real start-up trauma. If you really want to create "your own distro", then you'd probably want to join the Linux From Scratch group and then write your own package manager --- as a start, that is.
what? why? I don't need to write my own package manager, i can just take synaptic and put it in my distro
 
  


Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sorce based distro (gentoo) Vs Binary based distro(fedora, debian,..) ashwin_cse Linux - Distributions 7 02-08-2010 01:46 PM
Improving Slackware (based) distros all to one new Slackware based distro Secu-Slack Slackware 45 02-15-2009 10:42 PM
LXer: Using Xen With LVM-Based VMs Instead Of Image-Based VMs (Debian Etch) LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-14-2009 08:20 PM
How to create an installable, slackware or debian-based cd (NOT a live cd) cyclop Linux - Distributions 2 06-01-2005 08:23 AM
how different is slackware from debian-based? nibz Amigo 4 10-04-2004 12:43 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:24 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration