What really matters when choosing a distrubtion of Linux?

[Chrissy-Tina]

Correct me if I'm wrong.... but this is how I understand the the variations of distributions of Linux.
-There is the Linux kernel- this is the same through all distribution
-Then you have your applications/software Which are all available in all distributions.
-On top of that you have your windows environment/windows manager which creates all the visual- pretty stuff, which is also available in all distributions.

So what matters when choosing a distributions? What programs you want to start with?
- In that case, wouldn't it be cleanest to just install the basic Linux kernel, then add the software on top (not that I'd be able to do that... I can't even get my wireless to work yet!)

Please help with my confusion/or lack there of.

(note: from my personal perspective- I have every intention of screwing around with it until it breaks- reinstalling it, and screwing around again... so it really doesn't matter- I can't try a different one each time.)

[oz]

Welcome to the forums!

Not exactly... the kernel starts off the same (vanilla kernel), but different distributions do different things with it to achieve what they want.

Yes, pretty much all software is, or can be made available to just about any distribution, but different distros usually come with some basic apps, then maybe others that are not so basic.

Yes, different distros have many different window managers and/or desktop environments available to them.

You really have to experiment with some different distros to know what you want. Otherwise, you'll have to take someone else's word that you will or won't like any particular distro.

[Chrissy-Tina]

I'm already experimenting- but I'm looking for details.

How do they manage the kernel differently?

This is what I'm looking for- but I'm looking at how they mess with the Kernel.

[oz]

They can turn different options on/off depending on how they compile the kernel, and they sometimes add various patches to them to achieve things the ordinary kernel could not. You can check this kernel rebuild guide to see how things are done. I've not been building my own kernels lately, but that's the guide I always use when I do build my own and it's never failed me.

Hope it all turns out to be lots of fun for you.

[Chrissy-Tina]

Fantastic,
One last question:

Could I alter this kernel in an machine that already has it installed?

[oz]

Yes, you can rebuild your kernel. The HowTo linked above gives a number of reasons why you might want to rebuild your kernel.

[Chrissy-Tina]

Thanks Oz (so helpful)

-so, assuming you are going to play with the Kernal anyways- would there be any reason to choose one over the other. (I think I said something about the last question being the last one... guess I lie.)

[i92guboj]

Correct me if I'm wrong.... but this is how I understand the the variations of distributions of Linux.
-There is the Linux kernel- this is the same through all distribution
-Then you have your applications/software Which are all available in all distributions.
-On top of that you have your windows environment/windows manager which creates all the visual- pretty stuff, which is also available in all distributions.

Mostly correct.

So what matters when choosing a distributions? What programs you want to start with?

The difference is most times at conceptual level. There might be some small and usually minor differences on kernel patches, preconfigured apps and the desktop background, but when it comes to an end, everything is mostly the same. The differences comes on how do you work on a given distro. Different distros have the same pieces, but they tie them together in a different way.

Some distros might put more emphasis on autodetecting all your hardware and putting a shinny glass-like desktop in your face as soon as you boot. This is the kind of distro that, while making the life simple for a newcomer, it also horribly overcomplicate the things in the background for the slightly more advanced user that wants to dig beyond the surface.

Some others put the emphasis on some kind of pseudo religious or philosophical matter, fighting anything that is not strictly licensed as GPL like the plague.

Some others are very community based, and some others just put an special interest in offering the maximum amount of configurability and the best documentation and tools to do so, like Gentoo, which just provides a very basic system and a very good set of tools and documents to build your own system to suit your needs, and nothing else.

- In that case, wouldn't it be cleanest to just install the basic Linux kernel, then add the software on top (not that I'd be able to do that... I can't even get my wireless to work yet!)

That's Gentoo. It all depends on what do you understand by "basic", though.

Welcome to the forums!

Not exactly... the kernel starts off the same (vanilla kernel), but different distributions do different things with it to achieve what they want.

Each distro has it's own patchset. It's like a common formula that make us feel more like a real man :P Jokes apart, all the distros can use the same kernel. If you wish, you could use the suse patchsets on gentoo or viceversa, it just takes a bit of work. But basically it's mostly about security patches. Usually, no major features are injected into the stable kernel patches of any serious distro.

Yes, pretty much all software is, or can be made available to just about any distribution, but different distros usually come with some basic apps, then maybe others that are not so basic.

Yes, different distros have many different window managers and/or desktop environments available to them.

Well, the only *real* different can be how a given app or set of apps is preconfigured. Ubuntu, for one, is said to be a gnome distro, but there's absolutely nothing stopping you from installing xfce or kde on ubuntu, and then you would virtually be using xbuntu or kubuntu. Simple as that. You can install virtually *anything* on any distro. And smart installers, allow choice. I know that's too much to ask from a distro like ubuntu, though :P

I'm already experimenting- but I'm looking for details.

How do they manage the kernel differently?

This is what I'm looking for- but I'm looking at how they mess with the Kernel.

They can turn different options on/off depending on how they compile the kernel, and they sometimes add various patches to them to achieve things the ordinary kernel could not. You can check this kernel rebuild guide to see how things are done. I've not been building my own kernels lately, but that's the guide I always use when I do build my own and it's never failed me.

Compiling your own kernel for first time usually takes a bit of work. It's normal. I promise you that if you insist, once you build a bootable kernel you will see that there's no mystery behind it. You just need to know what the critical drivers for your hardware are.

This is a good thing to read if you are willing to get the hang:

Linux Kernel in a Nutshell

Thanks Oz (so helpful)

-so, assuming you are going to play with the Kernal anyways- would there be any reason to choose one over the other. (I think I said something about the last question being the last one... guess I lie.)

Mmm, I don't know what do you mean here. There's only one kernel. If you are speaking about distro-specific patchsets, I would for now stay away from them.

My advice is to build a vanilla kernel. Learn how to do it consistently, learn how to modify your grub or lilo configs and how to boot your home made kernel. Let's not introduce external factors until you get the hang of the whole process. And once you do that, if you need support for esoteric hardware that's not supported on a vanilla kernel, or an uber filesystem XXX which will boots your machine a 1000%, then you can patch your kernel and experiment with that.

But, if not for common sense, then at least for learning purposes I would stay away from experimental and/or external stuff.

PS: If you are really interested in learning the internals of linux, and you are willing to read and are actually interested in learning (and by learning I don't mean "click next") you can give Gentoo a try. In fact, you will be forced to compile your own kernel as a part of the installation process. The good thing is that the Gentoo forums are probably the best around, and the gentoo documentations are in pair.

To install Gentoo, you only need this:

Gentoo Linux Documentation -- Gentoo Handbook

Luck on any way you choose and cheers.

[Chrissy-Tina]

Actually- I have Gentoo... but I'm having some serious problems with it. Since I need wireless my Thursday (I'm one of the biggest computer nerds I know- yet all the gentoo stuff still sounds like Gibberish) I'm thinking of installing some other linux for awhile (awhich was actually my reasoning behind starting this post) I've always been drawn to Gentoo, and I've been a little bit stubborn in trying a different one for the first time. (I think I must have read somewhere that- if you really want to learn linux, use Gentoo- and I really want to learn it) But up until now I didn't have the time to mess around with things. (actually, right now I don't either- but more than I did 6 months ago)

blah blah - you don't care about that.

Thanks for the information. I agree completely and after I figure out basic stuff I'm thrilled to come back and try some fun/trick/confusing stuff.
I always liked jumping off the deap end.

[KyKo]

Another difference between distros would be package managers. Debian-based distros use apt, Gentoo uses portage, Arch uses pacman, etc. It's nice to mess with different distros to see which package manager tickles your fancy.