Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Chriss Miller on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
How are Lunix distos different from each other?
- Thread starter insomica
- Start date
Different linux distributions are better for different things. For example I'd prefer slackware over mandrake for a small router because slackware is smaller and more attention was put towards making it secure. I would prefer mandrake if it was for desktop publishing or Office applications like OpenOffice.
So really anyone saying their version of linux is better are probably right. It is for them but probably not for you. No matter what linux you try out you will most likely have to learn a lot about how linux works. But some make things easier for you than others, some are faster than others, some are more secure etc...
I found this page a while back and found the graphic in the center of the page describes really nicely what linux distributions have for strenghts (though I have to disagree with it a bit because lately almost all linux flavors have been doing great efforts towards desktop ease of use and features, I'd put redhat and mandrake up a bit closer together and a bit higher on the desktop features front).
Gary Haran
==========================
So really anyone saying their version of linux is better are probably right. It is for them but probably not for you. No matter what linux you try out you will most likely have to learn a lot about how linux works. But some make things easier for you than others, some are faster than others, some are more secure etc...
I found this page a while back and found the graphic in the center of the page describes really nicely what linux distributions have for strenghts (though I have to disagree with it a bit because lately almost all linux flavors have been doing great efforts towards desktop ease of use and features, I'd put redhat and mandrake up a bit closer together and a bit higher on the desktop features front).
Gary Haran
==========================
venkman,
By no means do I say that they are right in all their assertions on that graphic (I'm not waving this as truth about the universe). Generally speaking I found it gave a pretty decent way of how we should seperate different linux distributions. Of course that content is discutable and I'm not sure how you can qualify/quantify data regarding features for a particular role rather than another.
I haven't played with Debian lately but I think the main strenght it has is the apt-get feature. I'm not sure if Debian provides as many visual tools (out of the box that is because we know we can install almost any software on almost any linux distribution) for servers and maybe that is by what means they used to give scores to different flavors.
Since we don't know how they calculated all these things it is hard to tell how much we can actually base our choice on. I just found it particularly interesting to describe linux differences this way.
No matter what we say Apache runs the same on all Linux flavors. I haven't found any benchmarks saying that Apache, bind or any other software runs better on one linux or the next (and if there was a difference it would most likely be negligeable). Since they pretty much have the same kernel on all flavors what really makes them different is :
- software that comes with the installation cds
- ease of use
- installation (includes drivers and cd-bootable graphical interface)
- utilities to help with every day tasks (apt-get, modprobe etc..)
- documentation and help files that come with each package
And most of all :
- support (either through paid medium or size of helpful community surrounding a said distribution)
If we just want to learn to dabble in Linux I recommend using a flavor that has a large community behind it. Depending on geographical region that could be Suse, Redhat, Debian, TurboLinux or another flavor. Heck if your next door neighboor is playing with his own version of linux you might want to install that one on your puter since you'll be able to bug him for support.
If you are a seasonned veteran and just want a server, Slackware, Gentoo and Debian are the most efficient ones out there (correct me if I am wrong but I think slack and debian can install on smaller boxes and don't come with as much bloatware as say redhat that I use currently).
If you want to use office applications and do not want to mess around too much with configuration Redhat or mandrake are pretty good. If you don't mind paying money Lindows could be good too.
No matter what I say you mind find one flavor better for you than my description can. The best bet is to download and install a flavor and play with it to see if it answers your needs.
I am currently downloaded Redhat (since this week end) and am still setting everything up to work just right (I still cannot get evolution to sync properly with my Palm CLIE handheld). Linux is not yet a perfect OS for desktop use and still has a way to go before it's desktop software is at the calibre of their server software.
Gary Haran
==========================
By no means do I say that they are right in all their assertions on that graphic (I'm not waving this as truth about the universe). Generally speaking I found it gave a pretty decent way of how we should seperate different linux distributions. Of course that content is discutable and I'm not sure how you can qualify/quantify data regarding features for a particular role rather than another.
I haven't played with Debian lately but I think the main strenght it has is the apt-get feature. I'm not sure if Debian provides as many visual tools (out of the box that is because we know we can install almost any software on almost any linux distribution) for servers and maybe that is by what means they used to give scores to different flavors.
Since we don't know how they calculated all these things it is hard to tell how much we can actually base our choice on. I just found it particularly interesting to describe linux differences this way.
No matter what we say Apache runs the same on all Linux flavors. I haven't found any benchmarks saying that Apache, bind or any other software runs better on one linux or the next (and if there was a difference it would most likely be negligeable). Since they pretty much have the same kernel on all flavors what really makes them different is :
- software that comes with the installation cds
- ease of use
- installation (includes drivers and cd-bootable graphical interface)
- utilities to help with every day tasks (apt-get, modprobe etc..)
- documentation and help files that come with each package
And most of all :
- support (either through paid medium or size of helpful community surrounding a said distribution)
If we just want to learn to dabble in Linux I recommend using a flavor that has a large community behind it. Depending on geographical region that could be Suse, Redhat, Debian, TurboLinux or another flavor. Heck if your next door neighboor is playing with his own version of linux you might want to install that one on your puter since you'll be able to bug him for support.
If you are a seasonned veteran and just want a server, Slackware, Gentoo and Debian are the most efficient ones out there (correct me if I am wrong but I think slack and debian can install on smaller boxes and don't come with as much bloatware as say redhat that I use currently).
If you want to use office applications and do not want to mess around too much with configuration Redhat or mandrake are pretty good. If you don't mind paying money Lindows could be good too.
No matter what I say you mind find one flavor better for you than my description can. The best bet is to download and install a flavor and play with it to see if it answers your needs.
I am currently downloaded Redhat (since this week end) and am still setting everything up to work just right (I still cannot get evolution to sync properly with my Palm CLIE handheld). Linux is not yet a perfect OS for desktop use and still has a way to go before it's desktop software is at the calibre of their server software.
Gary Haran
==========================
Insomica,
The final answer is here!
Download several distro's and install them on the same PC. You said you wanted to learn Linux, and this is a good way.
I installed Slackware, RH, and Lycoris. My preference is Slackware, but some things did not configure properly. But they did in Lycoris, or in Red Hat. So I was able to adopt Slackware to do things based on what was automatically done with the "easier" distro's.
I find this easier and a little more fun than just plopping down with a book on Linux.
Sean.
The final answer is here!
Download several distro's and install them on the same PC. You said you wanted to learn Linux, and this is a good way.
I installed Slackware, RH, and Lycoris. My preference is Slackware, but some things did not configure properly. But they did in Lycoris, or in Red Hat. So I was able to adopt Slackware to do things based on what was automatically done with the "easier" distro's.
I find this easier and a little more fun than just plopping down with a book on Linux.
Sean.
Good answer Perrymans. When you come down to it, all distros will do the same thing. Even though Slackware is still my favourite, it isn't the best performer as a desktop distribution.
No matter what distro you chose, you still end up with the same basic thing.
The best Linux/UNIX guru I know uses Mandrake. When I asked him why he said "Slackware and Debian are good, but don't satisy my needs as a desktop distribution." So you can see, even power-users still users so-called "user friendly" distros.
Multiple distros will give you an advantage. I have RH, Slack and Evil Entity (used to be Debian, but wrote over it). You can then have a good workstation distro, and one that will give you a bit more of a challenge with some hands-on configuration.
No matter what distro you chose, you still end up with the same basic thing.
The best Linux/UNIX guru I know uses Mandrake. When I asked him why he said "Slackware and Debian are good, but don't satisy my needs as a desktop distribution." So you can see, even power-users still users so-called "user friendly" distros.
Multiple distros will give you an advantage. I have RH, Slack and Evil Entity (used to be Debian, but wrote over it). You can then have a good workstation distro, and one that will give you a bit more of a challenge with some hands-on configuration.
- Thread starter
- #27
Thats ture but I have to get another computer before I can install different distros. I like xp and I don't want to lose it. 
sorry I like getting online. I can only get online with xp right now. I have to learn how to have my modem drivers load from a floppy on start up. Any Ideas on that?
sorry I like getting online. I can only get online with xp right now. I have to learn how to have my modem drivers load from a floppy on start up. Any Ideas on that?I'm sure there's a bunch of things you can try, but here's my idea:
download and burn the suse-live-eval cd. Boot it up, use one of the hardware information tools kde provides, assuming the cd autodetects your modem. I think the information tools is under the kde menu->preferences->information->pci or whatever type of hardware it is if it's not a pci modem.
-Venkman
download and burn the suse-live-eval cd. Boot it up, use one of the hardware information tools kde provides, assuming the cd autodetects your modem. I think the information tools is under the kde menu->preferences->information->pci or whatever type of hardware it is if it's not a pci modem.
-Venkman
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question