> Given that there are different major groupings of linux
distributions
>(Red Hat, Debian, ....), and that different release versions are not
directly
>comparible (like RH 6.1 vs. LM 7.0 which I understand to be basically
>comparible--using the same kernel revision, similar versions of major
>components like X-windows, etc.), I have noted that there are also
different
Probably the most important thing to understand is that the
distributions are more closely related to each other based on their
respective release dates than anything else. Most everyone puts in the
latest release of all the components available at time of the
distribution release freeze. So the distribution numbers are pretty
meaningless for comparison.
As for kernel versions vs. other parts of the distribution, remember
that "Linux" per se is really just the kernel and it's sources, nothing
else. Way back in the dark ages one had to grab the sources from usenet,
compile a kernel, then see if you get it to boot on your system. And you
had to start with some *OTHER* Unix vendor's system to get a working
kernel. There weren't any "Linux" distributions.
The vast majority of the components in a "Linux" distribution, at least
from the toolset perspective, come from the GNU project of the Free
Software Foundation. And you can actually build a GNU kernel (HURD) and
make yourself a working Unix-like system with only GNU software. There
are other avenues, too, like OpenBSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD, etc.
Other components, like the Taylor UUCP system, MIT's X-windows, etc. are
not really related to the Linux project or to the GNU project. But
they're included because that's what's necessary to make a "working"
Unix-like system.
So, how all this came about is an interesting bit of history, and I
might get a few details misplaced or mispelled. I'm sure someone will
correct me if need be.
Back in the Dark Ages, i.e. the late 80's, AT&T still owned Unix, still
licensed it for resale by other vendors under other trademark names
(HP/UX is HP's name, SunOS - later Solaris - is Sun Microsystem's name,
Xenix is Microsoft's name [yes, Xenix is a trademark of Microsoft, and
they sold SCO rights to use it after MS had Xenix on a jazillion Radio
Shack Model 6000 multiuser business computers], and AIX is IBM's name),
and everybody used mostly the same code base, kinda sorta, but not
really the BSD guys, who were already in a religious war.
There was an Internet between many campuses, a bunch of government
sites, and the big guys like IBM, DEC, etc., and there was Usenet, which
was a giant electronic user's group of sorts with many sites on the
Internet and another jazillion nodes all passing stuff around on modems
using uucp to store and forward. (Anyone still got a Telebit?)
Now, a lot of AT&T's source code was kind of rough around the edges with
age, so people started writing their own versions of stuff, like Paul
Vixie wrote Vixie Cron to replace the AT&T cron, Stallman and the FSF
were busy cranking out gcc and family to replace the native development
tools, rcs showed up to replace sccs and then cvs was built on top of
rcs, and a bunch more. And in the good ol' days everybody passed around
source code with a few notable exceptions, like AT&T and licensee's.
(This was Stallman's big beef.)
Well, after a while - like the early 90's - just about everything had
been replaced, with a notable exception of the system libraries. Linus
had been working on Linux and passing it around, and we were compiling
it and cursing it when we couldn't make it work, but we were still using
the system libraries from the AT&T licensee's even though we had
replaced cc, make, yacc, and all the other development stuff with the
GNU tools and replaced everything else with the various packages
floating around in the comp.sources.unix archives.
Note, here's where I differ from many of the mainstream reports which
claim the kernel was the missing piece. It was really the release of the
GNU libraries, thank you Richard Stallman - genius or madman I don't
know, which made it possible to put together a working system from the
various pieces which didn't need anything with AT&T origins. A kinda
sorta working Linux kernel had been around for months by then.
So, people like the Slackware gang, and others I didn't play with,
started gathering up all the parts and putting them together as a single
unit. Thus was born a "Linux" distribution, free and clear of any AT&T
stuff. Note that the FreeBSD guys were working toward the same goal, a
complete system free of any AT&T copyrights. The BSD derivatives are
definitely *NOT* Linux, that's a different diatribe, however they
definitely *ARE* Unix-like operating systems. (And from the perspective
of an ordinary non-technical Joe User, who get's parked in front of a
computer at work but someone else maintains the thing, the two are
probably indistinguishable.)
>versions of the same release (ex: Linux-Mandrake 7.1 "download" and
retail
>versions). Just what, how much, etc. difference exists between the LM
7.1
>download version, the LM 7.1 disk that recently appeared in Maximum
Linux
>magazine, and the retail version (besides the magazine having a single
disk)?
The Linux kernel sources, all of the GNU stuff - development tools,
emacs, etc. - as well as many of the other packages are "licensed" under
the GNU Public License (GPL) also know as "Copyleft" which essentially
means that the person who distributes it can't hide any details from
you. I.e., they have to give you the source code if you ask for it. So
all the Linux distributions have what's become known as a GPL edition,
which is all the free stuff. You can usually download that and burn your
own CD and go. And they sell "enhanced" version which include a bunch of
commercial stuff above and beyond the basic components. Frankly, the GPL
edition has everything you need to make a working system. The other
stuff, Corel, Star Office, BRU, etc. may make a difference to you
depending on what you want, but they aren't necessary. Think of it like
the days of buying a mailorder PC. It usually came with dos and nothing
else. Well, the GPL edition is like a free killer mondo-monster dos on
lots of steriods, but it's still a lot easier to snap out a professional
looking resume with Word Perfect or Star Office than it is with LaTex.
> I have a couple of "flavors" of linux to try out, though I have not
yet
>done so. Just what differences can I expect to see compared to my
installed
>LM 7.0? What are the differences among the "flavors" of linux like
Debian?
The differences between "flavors" of "Linux" is mostly religious. You
can take a Mandrake CD, load a system, then reconfigure everything to
make it look, act, and feel like a Debian system, or vice versa. But if
you want a system that looks like Mandrake it's a whole lot easier to
load Mandrake than to reconfigure Debian. Try them out and see which
fits you best.
Michael
