Linux Distro Question

Okay, I'll admit I'm a Windows boy, but I've used a slew of Linux distros and got to thinking... what's really the difference between them..? Obviously its the software that comes with it but can't that be installed afterwards? Is it the tweaked window managers that seperate the distros? I know SuSE and Redhat tweak KDE and GNOME and make slap their logos all over each manager. Is it the minimal tweaks in the Linux kernel? I haven't noticed anything big between the distros I've used other than better hardware support in a few distros than others... some may say this is ignorance, some may agree.. but could someone explain what's so different and why everyone boasts so much that one distro is the best? Can't you logically take one distro and just install everything the other distro has?

- dave

Since you're being such an arrogant, ignorant ass about it, and wouldn't take my advice to do your own research, I'll explain.

First of all, many Linux distros (like RedHat and SUSE) modify the kernel. They make changes like adding certian features. I'm not a RedHat user so I wouldn't know what changes they make. As well as you mentioned hardware support would be added or changed. Also, the default Linux kernel is SUSE has support for many, many things. While you can easily install your own kernel from kernel.org, you would have to configure it all by your self and whatnot, so SUSE makes it easier on users.

As you mentioned, Windows Managers and are edited, for more functionality, I know SUSE puts YaST in the KDE Control Panel, and make some other changes to it.

Alot of the changes in distros are for usability, for example RedHat and Gentoo are two completly different systems. .rpm's will not install on Gentoo (I don't believe Gentoo has rpm) and you cannot emerge an ebuild on RedHat, without a hell of alot of work (ie. reinstalling everything via emerge) in which case you would have a RedHat System.

The file systems are different also, some different distros use different filesystems by default, and different /dev filesystems, I do believe ArchLinux uses DevFS, and SUSE uses udev for exmaple. (How ever I could have those two mixed up). There are a number of other changes as well, I suggest you look through Google and AntiOnline if you want to know them all. Better yet, dive into different Linux distros and compare them.

microburn

*Sigh*

If you had put this in the OS forum where it belongs you probably could have seen my fat druggie ass did this :

http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=253721

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by God's Whore
I've used a slew of Linux distros and got to thinking... what's really the difference between them..?

---

Ask gore :D

****, you got in afore me

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by gore
*Sigh*

If you had put this in the OS forum where it belongs you probably could have seen my fat druggie ass did this :

http://www.antionline.com/showthread...hreadid=253721

---

Quote:

---

Linux itself is nothing but the kernel. That's why people put "Distros" of Linux together. They take the kernel, sometimes customize it, and then load it with software they think people would like.

Some software almost always comes with Linux; Vi, Emacs, Links, and Bash. All of these are included in almost every distro of Linux I've ever used.

---

So basically I'm right, there is no major difference other than what they bunch into the distro and the few cosmetic differences they add? So why not just release a base kernel (I'm sure they do) and let users load up the software they want? Why the need for distros... and why are you so elitist about SuSE when logically I can take Slack, install KDE, add a few icons and install a few pkgs and have the same thing basically?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by God's Whore
So basically I'm right, there is no major difference other than what they bunch into the distro and the few cosmetic differences they add? So why not just release a base kernel (I'm sure they do) and let users load up the software they want? Why the need for distros... and why are you so elitist about SuSE when logically I can take Slack, install KDE, add a few icons and install a few pkgs and have the same thing basically?

---

You're somewhat right. A lot of Distributions change the Kernel to make it more secure for example. The SUSE Kernel is supposedly very customized.

As for a base Kernel...What do you think they did before "Distributions" existed?

As for making Slackware SUSE, you can't. Well not free anyway. SUSE comes with a lot of pay for software, which is why when you download it, it's a lot less than the bought version. It comes with a lot of software that's got a license, like Anti Virii and things like that, and Database applications, you name it.

Ohh, Slackware already comes with KDE by the way. And the reason I'm elitist about SUSE, well, I'm German, SUSE is German, and SUSE like most other Flavors, has a custom way of doing things, and SUSE's way is the best. YAST2 is probably the best administration tool ever, and SUSE has a lot fo things that you normally would never find already on the install DVDs. Also, there are things like video editing tools which are not GPLd that SUSE puts on the DVDs.

And I'm not just a SUSE elitist, I am with Slackware too. SUSE and Slackware are the two best, no questions asked.