Something I dont get with all these different versions of Linux

[Bazoukas]

Correct me if am wrong with any of these:

a) Kernel is writen by Linus and his team. So the kernel is the same in all *Xes. What may be different is the version

b) Apps like Apache, Samba, Galeon, Konqueror are not writen by a Linux company. Each of these apps are writen by different comapnies (Apache team does the Apache and so on).

c) The shell commands are the same with some small differences.

d) One Linux Flavor (Debian) may come with some apps and some features that another RedHat doesnt have and vise versa. But again the difference isnt DRAMATIC.


e) Some Linux flavors are more easy than others.
 
  So my question is this. Whats all the noise about, prefering RedHat for example over Debian, or Mandrake over Suse, or Slackware over gentoo and so on and so on.


  I realy cant understand it.

[choasforages]

versions of software, support, unofficial patchs to the kernel/*ChoasNETOS runs a getoo kernel, it was a bitch*/ price, ethics/*FUCK LINDOWS*/ and someother stuff

[sporkme]

it is like religion

all the same with subtle differences

.
.

here's the thing:  if all the different linux organizations got together, it would be like typical operating systems (ms/mac).  creativity would be stifled.  figuratively speaking, the cogs in the machine would be so much larger and more complicated that simple maintainence would be the biggest challenge.

it is difficult to organize several scattered small groups, but it is even more difficult to corrupt them.  it is fundamental to the gpl philosophy.

i feel that if there was one big distribution, you would see competition eliminating activities.  red hat is the closest to this.

it would no longer be free

i have to think about this some more...  what do you all think?

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by bazoukas:
Correct me if am wrong with any of these:

a) Kernel is writen by Linus and his team. So the kernel is the same in all *Xes. What may be different is the version

b) Apps like Apache, Samba, Galeon, Konqueror are not writen by a Linux company. Each of these apps are writen by different comapnies (Apache team does the Apache and so on).

c) The shell commands are the same with some small differences.

d) One Linux Flavor (Debian) may come with some apps and some features that another RedHat doesnt have and vise versa. But again the difference isnt DRAMATIC.


e) Some Linux flavors are more easy than others.
 
  So my question is this. Whats all the noise about, prefering RedHat for example over Debian, or Mandrake over Suse, or Slackware over gentoo and so on and so on.


  I realy cant understand it.

a) All GNU/Linuxes run the Linux kernel that was initially started by Linus Torvalds. Today thousands of individual people (and companies) make contributions to the kernel. There is another kernel for GNU software called HURD but you really couldn't call it Linux without the Linux kernel. However, a kernel does not an operating system make. Most of the rest of the base operating system in all Linux operating systems come from GNU.

Then of course you have other "projects" that contribute software for Linux distributions as well as for other operating systems like KDE, GNOME, Apache, Open Office, Samba, etc. And most GNU software is also available for many operating systems other than Linux. Many of these are licensed under the GNU Public License (GPL) or similar open source license.

b) Mostly right, some are backed by companies, some are just open source projects or foundations.

c) depends on the shell used. Most linux distros use "bash" as the default shell so the internal commands would be the same. External commands would mostly be comprised of GNU file utilities, etc, along with some distro specific commands. So most commands would be identical, there would be some distro specific commands but they would not be POSIX standard. Now bash can also run on nearly every version of UNIX out there (and on Windows). It is the default shell on most Linux distros. Other shells: sh, csh, tcsh, ksh, ash, etc.

d) pretty much right on the mark. I would say that a majority of open source software included in each of the major distros is the same. Now each distro may have different versions of that software and may not have the same default configurations of that software. But if you are good with one distro you should basically not have a hard time in any of them.  

One major difference between some distros is the package management systems. Debian uses *.deb packages and "apt" utilities to manage the software. RedHat, Mandrake, SuSe, and others use the RPM package management system. RPM used to stand for "RedHat Package Manager", that has since been changed to "RPM Package Manager" so other distros don't have to use RedHat's name even though RedHat developed it. It was their contribution to the rest of the Linux world.

http://www.gnu.org/
http://www.kde.org/
http://www.redhat.org/
http://www.debian.org/
http://www.kernel.org/
http://www.apache.org/

Don't know if that helps any...

[Bazoukas]

I see.

 So in other words the difference is on the small details.

  All these Linux companies are like, having the same engine and cage, but each company does its own tweaking to its engine, cage and interior. But overall they core is the same more or less. It depends on what kind of "car settings" you want.

 And if you know one Linux you know all Linux.

[voidmain]

Pretty much correct. No matter what Linux distro you use you should be able to obtain any software that any of the other distros provide with little effort.

Another one of the more major differences other than package management is the installation methods.  But once the system is installed if you know Linux under the hood you will be comfortable in any of them. If you get used to using the "distro specific" commands then you may have trouble but if you have a good understanding of the nuts and bolts, nothing will hamper you in any of the distros.

Now I like RedHat for a few reasons, it comes with most of the software I like, I have to add very little after my installation. And I prefer the the RedHat default configurations over most of the others. But mostly because I am comfortable with it as it is the distro I have used the most since version 1.0.  Others have come and gone.  

I also like Debian by the way which is probably more different than RedHat than many of the other distros.  I used Slackware before RedHat came out, switched back and forth between Slackware and RedHat and finally stuck with RedHat.  Plus it is easier when it is the most popular and most supported by companies and software vendors.  Debian is certainly a very good OS as well. Both Debian and RedHat make very good servers.

[Bazoukas]

Thanks VoidMan once again. Very helpfull.


  I am Downloading the Debian iso right now. Just for the heck of it and take a feel for it. Right now my home base is RedHat and I just go around "shoping". And even though Mandrake is easier I like RH better.
 
  And on my own right now I am learning slowly Unix Shell programming so I can get more familiar with X.

 
Am happy to say I am 98% Windows free   . Win is just for two games that I realy realy like.

[voidmain]

UNIX shell programming is where you *really* will begin to see the advantages of *NIX over Windows. Stick with it, it's not difficult and it can make your life VERY easy.  And it will give you some of the basics you need when you start venturing into other scripting and compiled languages.

Shell programming is one of the first things I would recommend to anyone moving to *NIX.  In fact I do a lot of one time scripting right in the shell. I like the way you can stack commands for a specific purpose.

An example (maybe not the best):

Say you wanted to watch who is logged in as you are expecting a friend to log in sometime soon and you want to know when he's in you could do something like this:

Code: [Select]

Which would clear the screen and run the "who" command every 5 seconds so you can see when someone logs in. Just press ^C to break out of the loop.  Real time scripting.

Or similar, you wanted to watch all the processes being run by a specific user:

Code: [Select]

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]

[sporkme]

heheheh just remember you have long left the questions like "how do i remove a virus from the start menu?"

b   e   e   f

[Bazoukas]

woooot!
 I can understand the syntax. I am gonna give it a go. Thanks man

  And from the little that i have learned now, its not that hard to pick it up. Am doing C++ at the same time and its true what they say that learn one language and its easy to pick other languages.

[lazygamer]

There's gotta be more differences then that. I've taken Libranet for a spin, it ownz Mandrake! If the distros are the same mostly, why does Libranet run nice, and Mandrake doesn't? You can even notice the difference right from the KDE GUI loading screen, it takes 3 or 4 times longer on Mandrake. Strangely, Libranet seems like it might take longer to boot up then Mandrake. 2 minutes and 30 seconds. What's with Linux and silly boot times? Your code is not a pile of shit, so why take so long to wake up? My only guess is Windows acheives such good load times only on half-decent systems(433 celeron for example) and/or it cuts out alot of stuff that would take too long to load. So this could be why windows is shoddy, doesen't spend enough time preparing for the day.

I actually wish Libranet would go faster(because it's Linux see, I have huge expectations), but if you want user friendliness, ya gotta make compromises. Suppose I wanted the most fastest possible distro out there, user friendliness is not a requirement, what would I use? Hint:No matter how l33t I become, making my own distro by compiling stuff is a no-no for a long time.

PS:Before I hit the big book and study like a good little geek, how do I add a user in Libranet? Root works fine, but Libranet doesn't seem to be as easy as Mandrake to add a new user.

[creedon]

quote:Originally posted by lazygamer:
There's gotta be more differences then that. I've taken Libranet for a spin, it ownz Mandrake! If the distros are the same mostly, why does Libranet run nice, and Mandrake doesn't? You can even notice the difference right from the KDE GUI loading screen, it takes 3 or 4 times longer on Mandrake. Strangely, Libranet seems like it might take longer to boot up then Mandrake. 2 minutes and 30 seconds. What's with Linux and silly boot times? Your code is not a pile of shit, so why take so long to wake up? My only guess is Windows acheives such good load times only on half-decent systems(433 celeron for example) and/or it cuts out alot of stuff that would take too long to load. So this could be why windows is shoddy, doesen't spend enough time preparing for the day.

I actually wish Libranet would go faster(because it's Linux see, I have huge expectations), but if you want user friendliness, ya gotta make compromises. Suppose I wanted the most fastest possible distro out there, user friendliness is not a requirement, what would I use? Hint:No matter how l33t I become, making my own distro by compiling stuff is a no-no for a long time.

PS:Before I hit the big book and study like a good little geek, how do I add a user in Libranet? Root works fine, but Libranet doesn't seem to be as easy as Mandrake to add a new user.

LazyGamer; check the other thread; use adminmenu; it allows you to do about 90% of your admin tasks from the desktop (including adding users, recompiling a kernel, setting up a printer, doing scsi emulation for CD-burners, etc.)  It's the nicest admin tool around, and it works at the CLI; it's at /usr/bin/adminmenu; that way, if X fucks up, it's easy to reconfigure.

[choasforages]

umm, compiling your own distro is the way to go, but you need weeks to do it right, and to figure out what libs are required by what and how to builld those libs. and tricks like this bit of wonder

mv /usr/bin/ld /usr/bin/ld.org
then put

this in /usr/bin/ld

exec /usr/bin/ld.orig -z combreloc "$@"


hmmm, there is a reason that ChoasNETOS runs fast...

[Calum]

can i just add? with ref to original post. A lot of biggie 'linux' programs are not, as stated by voidmain, in the care of companies at all. [edit - i mean voidmain stated it before but i want to agree with him] leave it to companies and we'd all be running windows 98. a large amount are maintained by individuals and organisations, many are GNU software which means that the fantastic Free Software Foundation have taken it upon themselves to come up with a decent open source version of a commercial product.

Also, with question d) you may get one distro, but you shoul dbe able to easily compile and install programs that didn't come with the system. Of course you know this, and with windows it goes without saying since it comes with nearly no programs on it. with linux though, the system comes with tons of shit preinstalled so people could be forgiven for thinking that that's it and they can't install any more stuff.

just my one pence worth!  

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]

[voidmain]

LG, do you think each and every distro has their own branch of KDE? No, they all come from the same source. Now boot times depend on a lot of things. The most drastic difference could be what services/daemons are started prior to loading the GUI. This is all configurable and some distros load WAY more than they need to on a default install.

Learn your particular distro's boot methods and turn off all the unnecessary services/daemons. And it will free up memory and processor as well. For instance, RedHat uses the SysV init method of starting services (as do most Linuxes). You will find a /etc/rc.d directory containing an init.d subdirectory and a subdirectory for each run level,

Now on all SysV systems (including Solaris, etc) you can manipulate the scripts (or links to scripts from the init.d directory) manually. However, usually there is a distro specific way of manipulating those services that make your life easier. There are the "chkconfig" and "service" commands in RedHat. Most distros include the "tksysv" graphical tool, or other graphical tools.

The majority of the base software for all distros come from the same sources though. Like I said, if you know the "nuts and bolts" of one you will not have a problem with any of them. That usually means not using/relying on the distro specific configuration tools.

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]