The Linux family tree.

dos2unix

Well-Known Member
Credits
638
I am mostly familiar with the redhat side of the family.

Redhat is owned by IBM --- https://www.redhat.com/en/about/pre...t-34-billion-defines-open-hybrid-cloud-future

But there are other redhat "like" distro's. Redhat is a commercial Linux. It takes the generic Linux and modifies it. It uses something called yum/dnf to manage it's packages which are called RPMs. Redhat makes it's money by selling support for linux to companies. Oracle makes something called Oracle Unbreakable Linux.
It is mostly a clone of Redhat. But the support is done by Oracle. Two major differences of the Oracle version are that Oracle 7.x also includes a 4.14.x kernel that you can boot into. Redhat 7.x is on the 3.10.x kernel.
There is also Scientific Linux, like Oracle Linux, it is a clone of Redhat, but supported by a different vendor.
Then there is CentOS, is the "free" non-supported version of Redhat. It doesn't come with some of the proprietary binaries that rehat does, but other than that, it is a clone of Redhat also. It tends to run about 3 or 4 months behind redhat as far as new versions, patches and updates go. (however security patches tend to be up to date).
Finally there is Fedora, this is redhat's hobbyist, version. It is where future versions of redhat get tested by everyday people out in the world. Old versions of Fedora are what we call Redhat today. They took out whatever didn't work well, and keep in what was stable. For example Redhat 7.x is on the 3.10 linux kernel.
Redhat 8.x is on the linux 4.18 kernel. But Fedora 30 is on the 5.2.17 kernel. Maybe this will be redhat 9.x someday.

... so my question here is... what is the relationship with the Debian side of things?
How does Ubunto relate to Debian, Mint, MX, Manjaro, etc.... I know most (all?) of these use apt/deb as the package manager, but other than that what is the difference?
 


dos2unix

Well-Known Member
Credits
638
Thanks, this is very helpful, but I guess what I meant was...
what is the purpose of the different distro's. Are they mostly the same with different logos,
or do they specifically have a certain purpose and target as opposed to general "Debian".
If there is already a Debian distro, why does there need to be an Ubuntu.

(nothing against either of these, I have used both) I am just curious why there are different distros, is the target audience different? (specifically the debian/ubuntu tree)
 

arochester

Moderator
Staff member
Gold Supporter
Credits
361
Not to answer your question directly...

Why are there so many different cars in so many different colors? Why are people not still driving around in black Model-Ts?

Why are there so many different sports clubs? Why not just have a few available for fans?

Why are there so many religions and different denominations?

Why were there several issues of DOS? Windows 3.1, XP, Millenium, 7, 8, 10?

Try searching for "difference Debian and Ubuntu". It produces lots of results.

As they say "Variety is the spice of life".
 

atanere

Well-Known Member
Credits
0
Personal opinions follow:

Slackware (1993), Debian (1993) and RedHat (1994) are the great-grandfathers of the surviving Linux world, as the chart linked by @arochester shows. There were some other early players, but I don’t think that any has surviving lineage today except these big three.

Slackware claims to be the most Unix-like of the Linux distros, and this may be true. But desktop users have not wanted Linux to replace Unix. They wanted Linux to replace Microsoft Windows. That, coupled with Slackware’s extremely slow release cycle, has basically kept Slackware from the same popularity as it’s two main counterparts. Some folks love it, of course, and there are a good number of derivatives that are also popular, so it still manages to hang on after all this time.

The big difference (to me) between Debian and RedHat is their package management, as you have noted. I think that when people start getting into Linux, they just tend to favor one over the other, even though both are perfectly capable. These days it’s more Debian versus Fedora (and their derivatives), but both can run any Desktop Environment (DE), so what else is there? I think it is the package management that distinguishes them. This is for folks who use the terminal more and are more deeply into the workings of their distro. Many users today are even totally oblivious to this, and they rely on the graphical “Software Managers” to install or remove applications.

So, why branch the Debian tree out into Ubuntu, and others? The Debian GNU/Linux “ideology” (the Debian Social Contract, etc) has always been quite strict to guide the users to using only Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). Yet, they do still make binary blobs and other nonfree software available.

Ubuntu really changed that! I don’t know that they were the first, but early on the Ubuntu distributions included proprietary drivers, so many user’s hardware (sound, graphics, wireless) all worked out of the box. Most users are not “ideological” about their computers, they just want them to work. And Ubuntu started (or advanced) a major trend in that direction. Ubuntu popularized the use of PPA’s (Personal Package Archives) that Debian still does not support. Linux Mint and others have taken Ubuntu and made their own “improvements,” including among others, the resurrection of the Gnome 2 desktop, now called MATE. A number of distros have now reverted to SysV init systems, rather than continuing with systemd which has been embraced both by Debian and RedHat.

So, for all the forks and variations between them, they are all trying to build a better mousetrap. Some tweaks to the U/I, some changes to the included software, some more-or-less current with software and kernel versions, and so on. And since it’s all (or mostly) free, they’re trying to attract donations. I’m not usually quick to donate, but I have contributed to a number of programs and/or distros that serve me well.

Okay, that’s my two cents. Very nice topic!

Cheers
 

CptCharis

Well-Known Member
Credits
0
Linux is freedom, A freedom that is given by the choice. Of course there are many distros and of course nobody of us will never test, or much more, will use all of them.
When I get in this beautiful world of linux, I realised that there are distros for running my pc like ubuntu or Mint and other distros, like Arch that could help me to improve my understanding and my skills in Linux.
Furthermore there are distros that are specific for cloud, for servers and for any need out there.
Finally, this variety of distros is the reason that Linux will never become Windows.
Imagine only one Linux distro drived by one company. With the best of intentions, this product could never cover all the demands that I refer above and could never gave you the freedom of choice.
 

captain-sensible

Well-Known Member
Credits
1,111
On slackware - release, might have something to do with it; but i have also identified that although Pat V is obviously highly talented he also has his foibles. For instance he has previously stated "he is not in it for the money" but also i don't think he understands how important newcomers are. In fact in a recent communication from him to me directly (i'm not saying where) , when i was trying to argue the point about noobs , he basically showed he is not intersted in newcomers and therefore i can see i major problem maybe down the road for slackware
 

captain-sensible

Well-Known Member
Credits
1,111
@CptCharis i think there must be big ego's involved and i can detect cliques even within slackware. Its just a shame a small group couldn't come together ; you can't satisy all the people all of the time but if you could satisfy just 80% on a distro that had "across party" support, with some brains on marketing etc then you would have a real competitior against Windows
 

dos2unix

Well-Known Member
Credits
638
Slackware claims to be the most Unix-like of the Linux distros, and this may be true. But desktop users have not wanted Linux to replace Unix. They wanted Linux to replace Microsoft Windows. That, coupled with Slackware’s extremely slow release cycle, has basically kept Slackware from the same popularity as it’s two main counterparts.
I think that's true. But currently is "desktop" really Linux's forte?
For example... (I don't know if anyone really has accurate statistics)
But depending on which website you believe Linux only own's about 7-10% of the desktop.
Both Apple and Microsoft far outpace it as a desktop.

On the other hand....
Linux owns about 95% of the server market. Most of these server's tend to not have desktop/GUI's
installed at all. The vast majority only run in CLI mode.
These are used to replace UNIX (i.e. Solaris, HPUX, AIX, Z/OS etc... )

I started off on slackware. Redhat and Ubuntu didn't even exist back in those days.
But slackware tends to run a little behind the curve. Also perhaps the biggest thing might be
package availability.

For example when I run on Ubuntu
sudo apt-get update
apt-cache search . | grep -v '/' | wc -l
I get a list of around 60,000 pkgs.

I get similar results with Fedora.
dnf list all | wc -l
also gives me about 60,000 pkgs.

SuSE also gives me quite a few with zypper, yast2 (around 35,000)

I wonder if you can run the equivalent command on Slackware
How many packages would be available?

Now sheer number of packages doesn't count for a lot, many pkg's are close to useless.
But still, more options is likely to mean more useful stuff.
 

70 Tango Charlie

Well-Known Member
Credits
175
There are many things in life that are not connected to 'money'.
I know, I know, it's what makes the world go round. However, I detect on this website
many individuals who are donating their time and knowledge for the benefit of others
without any expectation or hope of receiving 'money' in return.
I am very grateful for this.
As a deserter of Windows in favor of a better operating system, Linux is to me,
a breath of fresh air.
I am glad there is a plethora of different distros out there.
I personally do not think that the Linux Desktop must compete with Win or Apple.
It is the epitome of what a free market system could be. I love it.
I am learning at my own pace {which at times seems like a snails' pace} and can take as many
or as few breaks as necessary.
Old Geezer
TC

I find it interesting that Bill Gates has a foundation set up especially to give 'money' away. Why, I ask, does MS have to continue charging so much for their OS?
 

Peer

Well-Known Member
Credits
280
I am mostly familiar with the redhat side of the family.

Redhat is owned by IBM --- https://www.redhat.com/en/about/pre...t-34-billion-defines-open-hybrid-cloud-future

But there are other redhat "like" distro's. Redhat is a commercial Linux. It takes the generic Linux and modifies it. It uses something called yum/dnf to manage it's packages which are called RPMs. Redhat makes it's money by selling support for linux to companies. Oracle makes something called Oracle Unbreakable Linux.
It is mostly a clone of Redhat. But the support is done by Oracle. Two major differences of the Oracle version are that Oracle 7.x also includes a 4.14.x kernel that you can boot into. Redhat 7.x is on the 3.10.x kernel.
There is also Scientific Linux, like Oracle Linux, it is a clone of Redhat, but supported by a different vendor.
Then there is CentOS, is the "free" non-supported version of Redhat. It doesn't come with some of the proprietary binaries that rehat does, but other than that, it is a clone of Redhat also. It tends to run about 3 or 4 months behind redhat as far as new versions, patches and updates go. (however security patches tend to be up to date).
Finally there is Fedora, this is redhat's hobbyist, version. It is where future versions of redhat get tested by everyday people out in the world. Old versions of Fedora are what we call Redhat today. They took out whatever didn't work well, and keep in what was stable. For example Redhat 7.x is on the 3.10 linux kernel.
Redhat 8.x is on the linux 4.18 kernel. But Fedora 30 is on the 5.2.17 kernel. Maybe this will be redhat 9.x someday.

... so my question here is... what is the relationship with the Debian side of things?
How does Ubunto relate to Debian, Mint, MX, Manjaro, etc.... I know most (all?) of these use apt/deb as the package manager, but other than that what is the difference?
Manjaro is not connected to Debian at all, it's arch based like antergos.
 


Members online


Top