Debian based, arch based, etc. what is the practical difference?

[MASONTX]

I notice that on DistroWatch, the descriptions include "debian based", "arch based", etc. For the newbie, is there any practical difference between the different bases, or is it a Coke vs Pepsi type question?

Is a distro based on Debian say, easier for a newbie to learn or work with than say one that is FreeBSD based?

[oz]

The biggest difference will be in package management.

Debian based systems generally use apt or aptitude, while Arch based systems use pacman for package management. Both systems have GUI tools to make package management easier for those that like to use them.

You might find BSD to be slightly harder than Linux overall, but perhaps not if you aren't really familiar with either of them.

[hazel]

Most Linux distributions install software using an intelligent package manager and require the software to be in a format that the package manager understands. Debian and all its derivatives use debs. Fedora, Centos and Mandriva use rpms. Source-based distros like Gentoo, Crux and Slackware use source tarballs. I doubt if it makes much difference from the novice's point of view. The size of the software repositories is probably more important; Debian has particularly large ones.

[techieMoe]

I notice that on DistroWatch, the descriptions include "debian based", "arch based", etc. For the newbie, is there any practical difference between the different bases, or is it a Coke vs Pepsi type question?

Is a distro based on Debian say, easier for a newbie to learn or work with than say one that is FreeBSD based?

FreeBSD is a completely different operating system than Linux. You won't find a Linux distribution that claims to be "FreeBSD-based." Debian's apt package manager was originally based on the one for BSD (ports) however.

In my personal experience, as long as you, the end-user, like what you see it really doesn't matter what goes on behind the scenes. I've used apt, rpm, and gentoo/arch/source-based systems and they all offer the same capabilities. There are differences in how they're presented and how much knowledge the user is expected to have about the inner workings of their system.

If you're very new to Linux, you might consider steering clear of distributions that use source-based or more advanced packaged-based approaches (Gentoo, Arch) until you're more familiar with the way Linux works. You're welcome to try BSD as well, but it's never really been designed to be an end-user-friendly OS.

[MASONTX]

It seems from my reading, that Debian is more widespread, and should have more applications available. Also that Debians aptget may be easier for newbies to use. Still, some of the bases they mention have been around for a long time, so they must have some advantage.

[oz]

It seems from my reading, that Debian is more widespread, and should have more applications available. Also that Debians aptget may be easier for newbies to use. Still, some of the bases they mention have been around for a long time, so they must have some advantage.

Yes, Debian has thousands of packages in their repos. Of course, the number of packages in the repos don't always make a distro the best or worst, but Debian is a very good one for you to try. You might love it and you might hate it, but at least you can say you've tried it.

Some users adapt to apt right away and others probably not so well, but the best thing to do is try it and see how it works out for you. If you decide to try Debian, lots of new users like using Synaptic (a front end for apt) for package installation which makes it somewhat easier for many users.

[the dsc]

From a newbie stand, it may be very far from a coke vs pepsi issue.

It can be close to that, when the question is the difference between debian-based, knoppix-based, ubuntu-based, and perhaps, to a somewhat lesser degree, fedora/RPM-based -- distributions that are somewhat more user-friendly, and except for fedora (which, as far as I know, is another newbie-friendly main stem of linux distributions), all are actually debian-based at some point, if not debian itself.

But if slackware-based and gentoo-based come into play, then it ceases being just coke vs pepsi and becomes something like coke vs pepsi vs make-your-own-homemade-coke-or-pepsi. Arch-based is somewhat in between, I guess.



Regarding debian versus freeBSD, well, I barely know anything about freeBSD, except that, somewhat contrasting with your question, it's not necessarily a "versus" question, there is such thing as a freeBSD Debian, or K-freeBSD Debian, where the K stands for "kernel".

As far as I understand, besides the main stems of linux distributions (like fedora, slackware and debian), there are main stems of unix-like kernels, which will have most of the time their own distributions, I guess. Sometimes, or at least regarding Debian, both kernels can have the same distribution - which is basically most of the software with which you actually interact, the user interface and applications.

Linux seems to be the most "famous", popular, kernel, and, despite of both linux and freeBSD being unix-like, I guess that there may be substantial differences between the two. Perhaps not so much visible if you get a distribution that is user-friendly enough, most of the differences may be just on the backstage, so to speak.

I've read once, though, on some of these linux boards, that freeBSD is absurdly slower to upgrade, for some reason, which I've found very unexpected. While with linux most common upgrades will take just a few minutes, and larger upgrades may take a few hours (depending of how much you have installed, and for how long you have been delaying the update), it was said that the freeBSD took a day or more to upgrade, which I almost find unbelievable. I actually think that there must be more to that, perhaps whoever did that installed all the available software that there is, or perhaps he was doing that from a 56k connection, or something like that. But I don't really know, it may be really that different, I guess.

[the dsc]

Some users adapt to apt right away and others probably not so well, but the best thing to do is try it and see how it works out for you. If you decide to try Debian, lots of new users like using Synaptic (a front end for apt) for package installation which makes it somewhat easier for many users.

I'm not so much of a new user, I've been using debian since 2006-2007, and I still prefer to use synaptic. I still don't know how one would just "discover" programs with apt-get, whereas I already have learnt how to do that on arch, with pacman. It's probably not a big deal, probably something I'd find out if I've just peeked at the manual right now instead of writing this message. Yet somehow, I just never have done it. I guess I'll do it now.

[MASONTX]

Thanks to Hazel, Techimoe, Ozar, and DSC. Your explanations made it a lot clearer.

[elija]

I'm not so much of a new user, I've been using debian since 2006-2007, and I still prefer to use synaptic. I still don't know how one would just "discover" programs with apt-get, whereas I already have learnt how to do that on arch, with pacman. It's probably not a big deal, probably something I'd find out if I've just peeked at the manual right now instead of writing this message. Yet somehow, I just never have done it. I guess I'll do it now.

apt-cache search what-you-are-looking-for. No idea how you would do that with a Red Hat type distro

Have you tried

apt-get moo