How does one Distro differ from another?
I'm not saying all distros are the same, I mean that majority of them are very similar. For instance, Kubuntu and Linux Mint 10 KDE's GUI are almost the same, use the same package manager, but their GRUB2 Bootloader's background is different *In which case I prefer Linux Mint's*, but then again Mint is based off of Ubuntu. What I mean is, what is the difference from one Distro running GNOME3, or KDE 4.6 from another running the same exact Desktop Environment? I know the package manager might be different, and a few changes in the GUI to make it differ. I'm not too used to the Command Line, but I am still learning, but from what I used in Linux Mint and Ubuntu, they're the same. They all *Or most* use BASH, right? Can someone tell me the differences in the distros?
Bonus Question: Which Distro do you like the most, why and why not? Favorite Desktop Environment? Why and why not? |
Behind the Desktop Environment they vary quite a lot. The two major camps are the slackware/redhat based distros (like Fedora, SuSE) and the debian based distros (all the Ubuntu variants, for example).
The LFS and source based ones will vary even more. These variations will be in everything from which config files are used to the location of them. The graphical window manager can vary quite a lot even between versions, plus the apps and packages bundled for daily use will change. My favorite distro is OpenBSD (which is nothing like Ubuntu, really), and my favorite Desktop Environment is Gnome 2 or XFCE (depending on the day :D ). Why? Well, I'm one of those very security conscious people Torvalds likes to malign - but largely it's because OpenBSD boots faster on my machines than anything else. Probably 6-10 seconds, vs over 60 for Ubuntu. I've used a BSD variant since the very early 90s, so I'm most at home on them, and I find it easier to turn stuff on instead of turn it off. Why Gnome2 and XFCE? Well, speed and simplicity. I love the way XFCE approaches things (like using a generic launcher icon that's set via defaults), and I like the speed. I also really like the way Gnome 2 is laid out. I support RHEL and BSDs professionally and like them, but the Fedora desktop just doesn't work for me. It's too much effort to get the basics working on my hardware. |
MyByBee, did you mean "Red Hat/Fedora," because Slackware is a whole nother beast entirely.
To the OP--distributions may look alike because the major desktops are Gnome and KDE, with XFCE coming up in the clubhouse turn. It's the desktop environments that look alike. As MyByBee pointed out, the underlying architecture can be quite different, as can the default software load. There are three general categories: Distributions based on Red Hat, those based on Debian, and those based on Slackware. (There are also some distros that do their own thing and cannot be traced directly to one of the big three.) They tend to have different underlying architectures, particularly as regards the configuration files in /etc, and different ways of handling package installation and removal. Debian distros use aptitude, apt-get (GUI frontend Synaptic) as a package manager. Debian packages are named *.deb. Red Hat based distributions tend to use rpm and yum and their GUI frontends, though there is a version of apt for handling *.rpm packages. Red Hat packages are named *.rpm. Slackware uses *.tgz files, but has no official repositories. (Slackers joke that the default format is actually *.tar.gz plus a compiler.) There are several unofficial repositories maintained by volunteers, of which Slackbuilds is most active, largest, and most current. Some of the Slackware-based distributions to maintain their own repos. Debian and Red Hat distributions tend to use System V configuration methods; Slackware uses BSD style scripts. Here's a diagram that shows the relationships among the major distros; you may have to zoom in on it to read it clearly. http://futurist.se/gldt/wp-content/u...6.08/ldt68.png |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
So, I want a distro that does a good job with KDE, and that seems harder than a distro that does a good job with Gnome. But that's what I want on the desktop. For a server, you'd want long term stability and not six monthly updates, that you might want for a desktop system. |
Salasi just about sums it up, although one might add the balance between currency and stability: highly stable distros like Debian Stable, Slackware, and CentOS versus "bleeding-edge" ones like Arch, Fedora, and Ubuntu.
My choices? 1. I like a simple interface, but the window managers don't give adequate control of multiple keyboard drivers, so I have to get a desktop. KDE is a complicated mess, LXDE is unfinished business, Gnome used to be OK but has succumbed to Mac-envy, so that leaves Xfce. Experience shows that distros tend to be best with their default GUI; more user feedback. 2. I like a reliable repository (don't we all) with accurate dependency resolution. OpenSuse expects me to get media codes from a third party site that thinks I need unrar to play videos. 3. I don't want constant change. Yes I know I'm using Fedora, but that's because we've been together since FC1 and I'm a creature of habit. Result: I'm switching to Salix. |
Quote:
Just my humble opinion. :) |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:40 AM. |