Question:
Is there really any difference between one Linux distro and another?
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Is there really any difference between one Linux distro and another?
Three answers:
2016-09-14 04:29:17 UTC
Ah, my buddy, welcome to the arena of Linux! I will give an explanation for the primary "functions" for you. Let's begin with Ubuntu and Fedora! Ubuntu, situated on Debian (Debian is not an OS, it is only a "fork of linux"), is a unfastened running process, ideal for dwelling or even for paintings! It presents a quality form of programs and you'll set up extra free of charge utilising the "ubuntu application middle","ubuntu tweak" and on-line packs. Fedora is the equal, however it's not situated on debian, making it much less steady however with extra updates. It is very nearly the equal as in intent, so it is quite as much as you. If you get ubuntu, pass with 10.04 LTS considering the fact that it is plenty quicker than 10.10, and bigger for no longer new laptop's. Fedora 12 will have to be great. The others are slightly extra complex, however can do the equal matters. Some corresponding to Gentoo shall be a nightmare to put in and set for the primary a million-two month, however then it turns into a dream, with optimization to the max. There could also be knoppix, fork of debian, that's for professional's and is quite well, however no longer for dwelling or paintings. If you must run Windows Programs on it, WINE and PlayOnLinux will run a minimum of part of the ones and extra, adding workplace suites,browsers and video games. You will have to recognize, linux does take slightly of time to be taught the right way to use terminal, however quickly you're going to grow to be a professional as you're going to observe that it's honestly simply made from fundamental instructions which might be effortless to make use of, and with out strong or wild viruses and fragmentation, is best. Hope this solved a few questions!
jplatt39
2009-06-06 01:35:27 UTC
Yes there are real differences between Linux distributions, however I have a profound philisophical difference with you. The problem for me, as someone who essentially learned the Mac OS on the Mac plus) Windows (3.1) and X-Windows simultaneously is this sentence:



"The effort of Linux will become nothing more then a college project and history knowledge."



Linux is where it is, for good and bad, for one reason. Micro$oft. Their efforts to remain the default desktop for EVERYONE while defining WHAT you do on your computer has meant that it's getting harder and harder to do many of the things people started using computers for UNLESS you are a power user. In other words, Linux has spread because it is the OS of last resort for many things. Nicholas Negroponte's pulling back from Sugar on OLPC can hardly be a surprise to those who remembered the speech where he called EVEN the Linux kernel bloated. Of course Windows is worse but Andy Tannenbaum was the first to criticize the Linux kernel's size -- back when it was first written. Linus Torvalds is a pragmatist and it should be understood that from the start the kernel has been a pragmatic compromise.



To me what is REALLY upsetting is the number of artists who complain that they are being forced to work on Vista -- with its large memory footprint restricting file size -- by their employers, or the Londone FTSE running Windows Servers when even Micro$oft outsources to a Linux corporation. People are dumb and the choice of OS is generally not rational. It is especially not rational when you look at Linux, however the distributions which CAN succeed is as much determined by Microsoft's determination that all development take place on THEIR platform.



There will ALWAYS be a need for an OS which is optimized for prototyping, and what is WRONG with that?



To answer your question, though, I'm doing this on a dual boot gentoo and slackware laptop. I originally installed Fedora Core, but the combination of KDE4.x and selinux motivated me to go back to gentoo. Unfortunately gentoo can be tricky (you don't INSTALL the kernel, you recompile it) and my problems eventually made it so unstable I had to reinstall. Around then I was playing with dyne:bolic and digging under the hood where I found installpkg removepkg and the other pkgtools in /sbin and /usr/sbin -- yes, despite its Win-friendliness and so forth dyne:bolic is a SLACKWARE derivative. I couldn't resist. After all, Slackware can be stable and you do install the kernel. I chickened out and used an install disk though. In essence, it gave me a stable platform to work out the tweaks of my gentoo install, however having switched to slackware current I managed to make my install unstable enough so I am now sometimes using gentoo to fix that. On the other hand I have yet to figure out why x-windows takes so long to start on gentoo (though it has improved to five minutes from seven) while on slackware it just starts right up. I don't use a display manager anyhow (I start it in text multiuser mode then type "startx" when I'm ready for the gui). Since I do have debian on my other machine and occasionally still mess with Fedora I can assure you that there CAN be SUBSTANTIAL differences between distros, though others are nothing more than remastered derivatives (dyne:bolic, hikarunix...)



Back thirty years ago the Underground was more "respectable" than it is today. More people knew, for example about the Pacifica Foundation and even supported it. FreeBSD and Linux reflect that part of the subculture. Unfortunately it is no longer as respected and we are forced to have our tools defined for us to some extent. What you regard as the bush leagues I consider ONE OF Linux's most important uses because this is precisely an audience Micro$oft turned its back on when they went to Windoze. The idea of it becoming the predominent operating system is repulsive. Red Flag Linux and these other totalitarian derivatives are very clever but NOT USEFUL. I recently read that Suse actually has more market share in China than Red Flag -- though of course the authorities deny this and the source which I won't name is suspect.



I don't want the "triumph of Linux" in other words. I want Chaos. I want choice. I want freedom for everyone to

exploit disruptive technologies. And no I am not alone.



EDIT: Some hours later I won't take this back. But look in the /usr directories for major distros like Debian Fedora Slackware or Gentoo and BELIEVE ME you will see differences. They won't be apparent and first but they are there.
amitsdave
2009-06-06 02:15:05 UTC
Ya its true, what started as a free revolution has not turned commercial with a lot of commercial and free linux distros. Major difference between Linux distros is that they are technical variants of Linux and come with different bundeled software.



Putting Linux, beware I have heard only one software Wine that can help you install MS Office and other software on Linux. Wine itself is under development and some distros don't support it.



Try mint linux ot ubuntu they are more friendly. Try following website to choose between distros, before installing Linux and moving away from Windows all together. Some don't support Yahoo messenger & other VOIP services. Some are too technical to install, while others would prove to be a shocker. My advice if this is your first time, use Virtual PC or Virtual box that enable running of Linux within Windows or VMware to run to virtual OS before completely migrating.



http://desktoplinuxathome.com/distro.html


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...