Distribution differences, in general?

Hey there,
this is something that' has been bothering me for a while so I just decided to finally ask about it.

I've been a Windows guy pretty much all my life, but I have always been somewhat interested in Linux. The problem is that I know .. well, not a lot about Linux. I know my way around Windows pretty well by now and as Logan once said I just wanna get shit done, and that's what I do on Windows since I know it the best.

Now for the actual question, there are what it feels like around a billion Linux distributions out there and while I know it's a the Linux kernel I never really got the hang of it what the differences really are.

Now I know each distro comes with different pre-installed programs, GNOME vs. Xfce vs. Cinnamon vs. Unity vs. whatever, OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice, Chromium vs. Firefox, whatever Messenger vs. whatever other Messenger etc. But I could install all of them on my own (like I need to do on Windows anyway, or had to for the longest time) if I had too much time on my hand, right?

So are those pre-installed programs all there is to it? Or are there changers that go deeper into the system/kernel? I know there are different packages for a lot of distros, but more and more distros share the same packages now anyway, right?

For example Logan said he is using Ubuntu, but didn't actually want to use Unity, so he installed GNOME. But what's the point of Ubuntu then, couldn't he have gone with a different distro with GNOME preinstalled? It is still the same Kernel right? And I doubt he was too lazy to install the most basic programs himself.

So yeah, this has been bothering me for quite a while.

Would be nice to know what's up with that already :)

PS: I don't want to start a discussion about "what is the best Distro" since there will be a million different answers and all are probably correct in their own regard...

Like you I've been a Windows guy most of my life but I have switched to Linux and have done a very limited amount of distro hopping so far, the thing I've learned is that with each distro different communities try to accomplish different things, some try to mimic your Windows desktop, others offer a very lite install as far as space and hardware requirements, others are more bleeding edge using the latest kernel, DE versions, and file systems.

Someone will come along after me and explain the differences but unlike Windows Linux is all about choices, the amount of tinkering and configurations is really limitless.

I think the reason was that Logan wanted Ubuntu with the newest version of gnome, I think the only way at that time was to remove unity and install gnome, if I remember correctly the version of Ubuntu that has gnome as it's DE by default uses a older version of gnome, of course I could have that totally wrong as I'm a n00b at Linux.

Diffrent distributions have diffrences deeper to the system, yes.
Here is an incomplete list of what might be diffrent from distro to distro:
* Desktop envirioments(as you said),
* Software included(This is actually a bigger deal than you might think, since some software needs extensive configuration)
* Default configurations for software(Ubuntu gnome for example looks totally diffrent than debian with gnome)
* package managers*1
* Repositorys for those package managers, and the design decissions behind them*
* Versions of software included
* Systemsoftware underneat*2

*1: Under Linux, you typically install software using a package manager. These are programs designed to install other programms and their requirements(Other programs/librarys(In windows language: DLL's). They download & install software from a list of software, called a repository. Those are usually individual to distros. Some have diffrent philosophies associated with them, for example some might only contain free, "open-source"-programs. They also usually deploy default configuration files, and are responsible for updates of these software-packages, usually just refered to as packages. For example, to install firefox under ubuntu using a package manager you:
apt-get install firefox
To update your local version of a repository:
apt-get update
To update old packages, eg. an old version of firefox:
apt-get upgrade

*2 A lot of the system software " underneath" the GUI differs from distro to distro. A user can't possibly see a diffrence when not actually looking for it, but sometimes this matters for security/stabillity reasons.

*3 Sorry for my horiffic spelling, I'm writing this on android & am not a native speaker or writer :D

So as I understand those posts it really is mostly the software and/or its configuration, right?

One thing where I got really confused for example is Linux Mint. As far as I see there are 2 Versions, the "regular" version, based on Ubuntu, and the Debian Version, based on Debian. But as far as I know Ubuntu itself is also based on Debian.

So when Mint provides its own software package anyway I was really wondering what the differences are then. Yeah one is Ubuntu and one is Debian, as a non-Linux person I have really no idea what to think of that :)

By the way thanks for the extensive explanation, I did know that beforehand though, I installed Linux before but never really got around using it (because I needed to get shit done but couldn't since I had no idea what I'm doing)

Well...kinda' sorta' what @max1220 is taking about is software that is bundled and installed with the distro, there is with every Linux distro also a software repository and software to access that repo to add more software than is installed when you install the OS, some distros come with lots of installed software some do not, and not all software that is available for lets say Ubuntu is going to be available for lets say Fedora. I know it seems odd but it is the way it is which adds to the variety of each specific distro.

There are two types of distro DEB and RPM and the difference is how the package management is handled, they are the format that the packages use, the example that @max1220 used above is for the Aptitude type of format that uses DEB packages hence the command "apt-get", this command doesn't work in a RPM package system... I'll steal a post from another source that might help you understand.


"Just to clarify, .deb is effectively a "proprietary" format for Debian
distributions. It's value relies on the Debian package naming
conventions for dependency resolution. It's fantastic if you're using a
Debian-derived distro, but pretty useless otherwise.

.rpm is distro-agnostic. It doesn't rely on package naming conventions
for dependency resolution, it's file based. You can theoretically
package a KDE app for Fedora or openSUSE, despite the fact that one uses
kde4xxx and the other uses kdexxx4 as nomenclature for their packages.

The libraries just need to be where they're expected. (Of course,
theory doesn't always meet reality.... )

But that's essentially why rpm was chosen as the LSB standard package format. It's distro-agnostic.
People still like to hold on to the old "RPM dependency hell" argument,
even though that hasn't been an issue in the many years since rpm-based
distros started using package managers. The stability issue is less to
do with the format, and more to do with the packaging. You can break a
Debian system using Ubuntu .deb packages just as easily as you can break
a Fedora system using .rpm packages for openSUSE, because they make
assumptions on the installed libraries. LSB was supposed to be a
baseline for people to target when creating and packaging applications,
but it's a struggle and we're still stuck with distro-specific packages
in many cases.

The one advantage to .deb based systems is that the package manager
(APT) generally does work faster, since .rpm by nature requires far more
meta-data to parse through. Even this margin is narrowing, openSUSE
has made some wicked strides with the latest version of zypper."


So there are really 3 types of package management based on the type of distro (debian, RPM) the third type is called pacman and is used by Arch Linux (confused yet?) Arch Linux is the bleeding edge distro, the popular RPM based distros are Fedora and OpenSuse (Redhat), most of the rest are Debian based like Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Debian, elementaryOS... of course there are forks of each popular distro like Manjaro Linux which is based off of Arch, the list is rather extensive and a google search would provide more info than I can type in this space.

Hopefully that provides some clarification.

In general, there is only one GNU Linux OS. From technical perspective, changes in distributions are mainly functionality, in reality, it is one system.

Two "most different" distributions are RedHat and Debian, from Debian --> Ubuntu --> Mint etc. For example, there is literally no technical difference between Mint and Ubuntu, but Mint is more user friendly and have more important software installed out of the box, so for new user, it is by far the best option out of all distros.

However, there is (sort off) a drawback with that approach, since new users are less likely to learn if everything works fine,

In other words, if program is written for Linux, it will work on any distribution in one way or another (easy or hard..).

While I like your explanation of the differences in a few package managers, I don't think it really contributes to the thread :D

Yes. A package manager is is also just a piece of software, and there are Linuxes that don't even have one.
And while mint also deploys some own packages, a large part will be "inherited" from the "parent" distro. For example, on my debian system I have 2600 packages installed. For Mint, I also think they "copy" part of the Ideas behind debian, for example the release model.
And while Ubuntu is also based on Debian somewhere, but they differ these days quite a lot, even on most basic stuff like the C library, which almost every program uses.

http://distrowatch.com/

To me compatibility and ease of use (user friendly) is the biggest issue. Now Linux can run netflix and Chrome and all kinds of things and it's getting to be more mainstream.
I run linux in Oracle Virtual Box because I actually like 3 distributions equally and I can't decide. Which is both the reason why people love and hate linux. And what I wish windows was.
I also get a lot better FPS in windows games and that is why I still use it as my main OS.

You could pick up a cheap GPU on eBay and yse KVM. SUSE has an automatic hypervisor installer.

and this is why we can't have nice things.

this sort of comment is why @Zoltan wrote this:
https://forum.teksyndicate.com/t/what-if-i-want-everything/41520

because when you make a comment like that more often than not you'll find yourself in the debates you seem to like so much.

None of the big distros are "by far the best option" compared to the others. Saying that is highly ignorant.


To ensure I don't get dragged into this one, I'm pulling out of this thread....

What? lol...he did ask about differences......

Do you see the confusion in his question?

Or in this question.....

Sorry Op I'm out of here also.....hope you get the answers you seek.

What are you talking about???

> For example, there is literally no technical difference between Mint and Ubuntu, but Mint is more user friendly and have more important software installed out of the box, so for new user, it is by far the best option out of all distros.

I like useless "debates"? First thing that need to be recognized, is that you quoted whole part of my response, then, you used bold fonts for last part in it, and I'm not even going to do any reasoning why in public, yet, only one space and coma there are two CRUCIAL words written in exact thing you quoted. If your goal was to avoid useless "debates", you would read that sentence as it was written, and you would not respond to it.

Well, you should first read what was written, no one drags you into anything, and those "sneaky" moves don't pass to me, maybe on someone else you would have accomplish your goal.

For the record, at best, I had few debates on this website, most likely none, can't remember.

sigh... and this went south pretty quick, that's why I wrote I didn't want to start a debate on what's the "best" :P

No not really confused, as I said I tried Linux every now and then so I already encountered the package managers (though effectively never really used them).
Thanks for the explanation regarding the differences of rpm and deb though, I only knew they existed, not really what the differences were.

But I guess what I can take overall... Most distributions are the same underneath - except for some with not as recent kernel versions for stability - with just different pre-installed software packages, configurations and philosophys.

I really need to give Linux another shot at some point, I just need to see how the games I run often work in Wine...

Like @blanger said package type and package manager are the biggest difference. Package repositories for distros may focus on stability, bleeding edge or a mix.

Install proceas differs too Arch and Gentoo focus on full customization. Fedora, Opensuse, Ubuntu are more about install and go. Debian kinda walks the line.

End user tools are may differ depending what they want the user experience to be.