Is all Linux the same? Or does it vary from distro to distro?

[SkittleLinux18]

My buddy and I got into this debate about "all Linux being the same." I am of the opinion that the Kernel will vary from distro to distro. Or in other words, that not all Linux is the same. He is of a different opinion and believes it's all the same no matter what. That the only thing that varies are the upgrades, patches, and programs.

However! I believe from everything I've read on distrowatch.org, these forums, and my own experience with 6 different distros that they are not the same. So I am curious what everybody else thinks?

[Cabhan]

Well, the problem is that you are not being very specific.

My opinion is that every distro shares the same Linux. Sure, some distros use slightly modified kernels. But if we can say that 2.4.x and 2.6.x are both Linux (albeit one significantly outdated), then we can certainly say that the addition or tweaking of a few modules does not change the operating system's identity.

So now the preciseness part. Is Linux your entire experience, or is it the core kernel? If it's the entire experience, then certainly different distros are different Linuces. Each distro has different default settings, different package managers, different philosophies, configuration tools, etc. However, if we define Linux as being the operating system, with everything else being additions (and this is the definition I use), then I the Linux is the same.

[SkittleLinux18]

Well, the problem is that you are not being very specific.

My opinion is that every distro shares the same Linux. Sure, some distros use slightly modified kernels. But if we can say that 2.4.x and 2.6.x are both Linux (albeit one significantly outdated), then we can certainly say that the addition or tweaking of a few modules does not change the operating system's identity.

So now the preciseness part. Is Linux your entire experience, or is it the core kernel? If it's the entire experience, then certainly different distros are different Linuces. Each distro has different default settings, different package managers, different philosophies, configuration tools, etc. However, if we define Linux as being the operating system, with everything else being additions (and this is the definition I use), then I the Linux is the same.

Ok, that's perfect. You're saying everything my buddy was saying. But the main reason I kept disagreeing with him was because he believes that if you know one Distro, you know them all.

To put it in better context, we were both deciding on a distro to download for a USB install. When he brought up Knoppix, I said, "Sure I would love to learn a new one."

He told me I was wrong to say that because they are all the same. And THAT was when I started disagreeing. I don't care how well anyone knows PCLOS, it doesn't mean you know everything about Arch or Knoppix or Ubuntu. But he is of a different opinion.

He's probably right, he knows A LOT about computers. I was just curious what you all think because experience has taught me differently.

[MikeTbob]

Well, the problem is that you are not being very specific.

My opinion is that every distro shares the same Linux. Sure, some distros use slightly modified kernels. But if we can say that 2.4.x and 2.6.x are both Linux (albeit one significantly outdated), then we can certainly say that the addition or tweaking of a few modules does not change the operating system's identity.

So now the preciseness part. Is Linux your entire experience, or is it the core kernel? If it's the entire experience, then certainly different distros are different Linuces. Each distro has different default settings, different package managers, different philosophies, configuration tools, etc. However, if we define Linux as being the operating system, with everything else being additions (and this is the definition I use), then I the Linux is the same.

I agree completely with cabhan, that was well thought out.

[Simpatico]

Here are some specifics in support of the notion that flavors are different.

I'm dual booting Slackware and Fedora. If I were to drop Fedora's current kernel (vmlinuz-2.6.23.14-107) into Slackware and boot, it would be painful. Vice versa would be equally painful, and Slackware probably has the most vanilla kernel of them all. So they're not literally the same, otherwise there would be no problem provided the kernel versions were identical. Fedora has its own version of the kernel, and the same is true for Debian, etc.

Sometimes Windows power users are the most entrenched and least willing to change, and the same goes for Linux users who have a great deal of experience in one flavor. In itself, that shows how different the flavors are from one another.

[hazel]

But have you forgotten what it was like starting in Linux after using Windows? It was soooo different! And I was used to command line, having used mainframe computers at work. For people who have only used Windows it must be like the experience J R R Tolkien had when he learned Finnish and realised that a lot of what he had thought of as language was actually just the Indo-European way of doing language (that was what triggered his invention of Elvish). Compared with that, the difference in Linux flavours has to be minor.

[fingal]

I don't have much to add really - but all I can say is that I've tried most of the major distros and they all feel a bit different. The basic concepts remain consistent across most of them (I haven't tried Gentoo yet) but I know I could get by using any distro, with a bit of work.