Not another ''what distro'' thread...''all distro''?

hi all,

man im as confused.

ive tried ubuntu, mepis, suse desktop enterprise, opensuse, fedora core 6, kubuntu and mandriva and for the life of me i cant see anything really much different between them all.

they all have gui installers, use either kde or gnome, have package management, intuitive install procedure, boot loaders and so on. The only thing that i have found (and im sure it can be fixed by downloading something) is that each distro tends to recognise HW a little differently. But not much differently at all from what i can tell.

So i have 7 distros that all seem fine with the only real obvious difference being in the desktop envirnment- i.e. gnome or kde. Beyoind that we have yast/yum, apt etc...but they do tyher same thing really dont they?

out of all 7 distros, none of them could configure dual head monitors, ewith some of them requiring a xconf edit even to reboot and others falling back to a generic desktop upon failure, which is nice.

what i found was that each one tended to have some of these ''nice'' features, but each had some not so nice bits.

Now, i am probably very ignorant in this area, but it is frustrating as ive followed all the ''which distro'' threads, and been given the ''depends'' answer, or ''whats good for you''...

ive even done the distro selection tools only to find that they base the selection on some pretty lame criteria like ''do you want a gui installer''...

personally i dont care what kind of installer there us, and as an experienced PC user I can work out how to find and install packages, plus learn on the fly via forums like this in order to get solutions.

So, this brings me to the $64000 question. What, if any, real intrinsic difference exists between distros?

I can understnad that distros come pre configured for a certain tasking, but isnt it true that the user can choose to do this themselves also?...i.e. download packages and d some editing to bring ubuntu (for instance) to operate in a very similar way to the out of teh box slackware?

If this is true, then are we just not looking for something that is preconfigged to our usage requirements?

If this is also true, then why isnt there just one mother of all linux' with a bunch of ''configuration'' choices?....why the different names?

I see a whole heap of others struglling with this issue of picking a distro. I';d hazard to say that without a couple of years experience with linux, it's about impossible to do. Then, if you do have that 2 years experience, how are you to make an assessment between distros when new releases with nerw features and re-writes are so frequent?

Considering all of this, wouldnt it be best for new linux users to simply go for the most comprehensive system available, that offers support and a guaranteed development schedule- which kinda means paid staff.

Correct me if im wrong, but there are only a couple of distros like this arent there?

why do all the others exist at all?

i mean, why would you work on, say, MEPIS, if some otehr distro does the same and perhaps a better job and teh developers are getting paid for it?...as a user i am much more likely to get support also versus the MEPIS volunteer approach too arent i?

dont get me wrong, i want to commit to the first principle of linux here- open source and free, but isnt this rather unrealistic considering all of the above?

I know, long post....but as you can see im really struggling with the entire linux concept, not just picking a distro. So many things seem pointless and repeated. It's like trying to unravel a huge fishing wire knot.

Thanks for reading, i look forward to some wisdom please.

Tim

No particular wisdom to add. Recap:

1. If you know one Linux you pretty much know them all.
2. Most distros are easy to install.
3. "Which distro" threads are a waste of time for both the OP and those who try to "sell" him one.
4. Hardware is tricky.

That said, there are people who have successfully installed dual head systems. You might as well not give up on it. I'm sure there are lots of howtos scattered around.

Many distros exist "because they can". Others for specific purposes or political ideas. There is no "Mother of them All" distro because that creates vendor lock in. People are free to do what they want with the source code, so they do. Linux support will always be tricky because as you've found, it's living, evolving creature of its own that doesn't stand still very long (although some distros do make less frequent releases for enterprise customers, but I assume you're mostly talking desktop usage here).

Again, I guess the only answer to your $64,000 question is "not much". Pick one you like and enjoy!

"why do the other exist at all"

because there is no 'linux corporation' that produces "the one true version".you, me, or my fox terrier are free to create a new distro if the mood strikes.

you're are free to use whichever you like, but that doesn't mean all the rest have no reason to exist.

For me some have a different look and feel. Some go about their configurations in a different way. Others use different apps as the default. Some seem to do better for the default installation that I want so that I only need to add a few apps here and there. For whatever reason I am comfortable using some, not so much some others.

That said Linux is used for a multitude of reasons-money, political views, stability, security, the ability to choose or not and so on. Most of the distributions out there, IMHO, represent one or some of those reasons for existing.

I've read documents from some recent linux distro makers stating that they just couldn't find what they wanted in a distribution so they started building their own. Although I've always been able to find what I wanted I know the feeling. The fact that developers world wide get behind these distros attests to the fact that there are differences.

Saying that they all do the same thing is pretty much like saying shoes all do the same thing so why have a choice. Personally I like the choice even it is a headache sometimes. It certainly beats the alternative.

here is an article that might help shed some light on the situation:

http://www.softwareinreview.com/cms/content/view/26/1/

as said above, many distros exist because they can. Many people want different things out of their OS so they disign one to suit their needs. allot of distros exist because of the challenge of creating one, to see if they can. other distros exist for specialist purposes like clustering etc.

whichever distro you pick, it doesn't matter. they are all pretty much the same under the hood. in the end it is the one YOU are most comfortable with

Jake

ive tried ubuntu, mepis, suse desktop enterprise, opensuse, fedora core 6, kubuntu and mandriva and for the life of me i cant see anything really much different between them all.

Great, that should make your decision much easier.
Good Luck.

Originally Posted by 2damncommon Great, that should make your decision much easier. Good Luck.

Thanks for the great replies guys! I like the shoe analogy particularly.

I'll keep all this in mind as it has answered some of the things i ''suspected'' but wasnt really sure of.

To the person who wrote the last reply...why even bother, really?...it doesnt help at all and your sig is an exact example of the difficulties people are facing- multiple booting linux distros for what reasons?....

To everyone else- sincerely, thankyou.

Tim

Originally Posted by tnewman1972 To the person who wrote the last reply...why even bother, really?...it doesnt help at all and your sig is an exact example of the difficulties people are facing- multiple booting linux distros for what reasons?....

Ah...so this is just another "too many distros" thread.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally Posted by 2damncommon Ah...so this is just another "too many distros" thread. Thanks for clearing that up.

you'd think with all your posts you'd be a bit more patient...if there are so many on the same topic then perhaps it's a real issue then?...although i hardly think that my thread can be grouped with a simple ''what distro'' or ''too many distros'' when it was full of speculatory assumptions and rhetorical questions (i didnt really know if what i was finding was distro specific or not) and so on....

so thanks for taking the time to denigrate a new user, simplify my post, and offer no help whatsoever, - you could be spending time with your kids instead.

maybe one day i can be a linux god too...lol.

thanks to everyone else, i really appreciate it. there's always one tosser in a crowd eh?

Originally Posted by tnewman1972 you'd think with all your posts you'd be a bit more patient...if there are so many on the same topic then perhaps it's a real issue then?...although i hardly think that my thread can be grouped with a simple ''what distro'' or ''too many distros'' when it was full of speculatory assumptions and rhetorical questions (i didnt really know if what i was finding was distro specific or not) and so on.... so thanks for taking the time to denigrate a new user, simplify my post, and offer no help whatsoever, - you could be spending time with your kids instead. maybe one day i can be a linux god too...lol. thanks to everyone else, i really appreciate it. there's always one tosser in a crowd eh?

The things you wrote about in your OP are things that are likely noticed and wondered about by many new Linux users. Basically it is noticing things and wondering about them. Linux is a different animal and can seem odd at times.
The classic "what distro" thread asks others what Linux distribution the poster should use. I know I was ready to break out in a cold sweat when choosing my first distribution. And I wanted to plead for advice. But I cound not think of one thing I could write that was not written over and over in "what distro" threads. I consider it as constructive to answer one on occasion as to mention that they are common.
The "too many distributions" thread usually involves concerns of wasted effort and a wish that there not be so many choices, the problem being that someone is left out in the cold then.
I did find your stating that there was no difference between ubuntu, mepis, suse desktop enterprise, opensuse, fedora core 6, kubuntu and mandriva to be quite strange. But then you go on to say how they are not the same.
Now I originally read your post as an inquiry to help you decide on a particular distribution, but your comment to me about multi-booting being a problem seems to throw it more into a "too many distribution" thread.
It's probably not uncommon to put more into the decision that is needed at first. Choose one distribution, if it works on your hardware continue with it. Try others as you wish and ignore the siren song of people that want to tell you that another distribution will solve all your problems. Along the way you will probably learn more about why Linux is the way it is and how Linux is not Windows.
Time to get back to my horseshoe game.

I agree with the thread poster there are way too many distros. I don't see why some many distros are needed the only differences between them are the set defaults and package management. If all the distros merged in to one we as a community would be far more productive. There would be one package management system where everyone could get all the linux software available. No one would ever have to fuss about not being able to install a package ever again. The package manager would support both binary and source package. If the user wants to quickly install a package, he chooses the binary, if he wants to optimize the package for his computer, he installs it through source. During install, they could choose what DE or WM they want and configure there system how they want, but the underlying base system would just be GNU/Linux. There would be no need for people to ask questions about how you do this is Debian or that in Fedora, they would ask how do you do this in GNU/Linux. Think about all the man power that could be used to make it the best OS. If all the distros unified I have no doubt in my mind that we could take over Windows.

Originally Posted by rshaw "why do the other exist at all" because there is no 'linux corporation' that produces "the one true version".you, me, or my fox terrier are free to create a new distro if the mood strikes. you're are free to use whichever you like, but that doesn't mean all the rest have no reason to exist.

Look at FreeBSD there is no coporation running it but it is unified to make the best OS possible. I just don't see why all the distros can't unify as well.


To clarify, above I am talking about desktop and server distros. I think they could unify into one and the user could choose if he wants to install a desktop system or a server, and the package he installs would reflect that choice. There would be separate repositories for server and desktop and then also a testing and unstable, if the user wants to run bleeding edge software. I understand that not all distros could unify, some of the specialized distros are not meant to run on normal PC's, but they could still have the same base system, and package manager (if needed). Why can't Debian, Ubuntu, SUSE, Fedora, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, Gentoo, Arch, Mepis, Slackware, etc. all merge into one?

Why can't Debian, Ubuntu, SUSE, Fedora, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, Gentoo, Arch, Mepis, Slackware, etc. all merge into one?

Good idea ... as long as everybody merges into Debian and follows their guidelines. Otherwise, I personally, want nothing to do with it.

Obviously, you either didn't read the other responses, or you lack basic FOSS "verstandt"

Originally Posted by rickh Good idea ... as long as everybody merges into Debian and follows their guidelines. Otherwise, I personally, want nothing to do with it. Obviously, you either didn't read the other responses, or you lack basic FOSS "verstandt"

No, I read the other responses and they said there isn't much differences between distros. I agree, there isn't, so I don't understand why we need so many. There's so much wasted effort building new distros just to make them as good as another. I just don't see why they're needed. What's the difference between Ubuntu, SUSE, Fedora, and PCLinuxOS? There all trying to make the best Desktop distro they can. So why can't we concentrate their efforts to actually make the best distro? I think that would be far more productive than making millions of distros, but I guess with that opinion i lack "FOSS verstand". I thought the basic principles of FOSS say software should be free and open source, which I completely agree with. I never knew that it said we need to waste man power making so many distros. Maybe I'm wrong, but I just think it would be better if there was one main distro. It would be so much easier to for people thinking about converting. They wouldn't have to try out ten distros just to find one they like. They wouldn't have to learn ten ways to install software. They would just switch to Linux and that would be final.

Ever heard the expression, "The devil is in the details"?

That's the way it is with different Distributions. You can't just install it for a day and say "Oh yeah, I tried that, it's just like XYZ distro". I assure you, there are MANY MANY differences. These differences are mostly 'under the hood of the engine' so to speak.

Like the shoe analogy, a car analogy can be used too. Mepis might be a Chevy Cavalier, and Suse might be a Honda Accord. Both might be 4 door, automatic shift, compact cars. But underneath, there are a great great many differences.

In my view, the best indicator of a good distro is having to only be installed once. From there, upgrade to infinity. (or until my harddrive goes bad, which actually happened to me recently ).

I can garauntee you that anyone that thinks there aren't many differences between distros has never worked with one.