Re: [newbie] Differences of versions of a distro release distro families
"Michael R. Batchelor" wrote: , , 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. Not only all of that I can transport any kind of document between StarOffice on NT and ML7.1. Just wait - you'll like it! Bill
Re: [newbie] Differences of versions of a distro release distro families
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, ATT 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 ATT'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 ATT 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 ATT 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 ATT 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 ATT 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 ATT stuff. Note that the FreeBSD guys were working toward the same goal, a complete system free of any ATT 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
Re: [newbie] Differences of versions of a distro release distro families
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, ATT 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 ATT'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 ATT 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 ATT 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 ATT 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 ATT 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 ATT stuff. Note that the FreeBSD guys were working toward the same goal, a complete system free of any ATT 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
[newbie] Differences of versions of a distro release distro families
2 closely related questions. sorry for being so wordy but I want to understand the range of linux as a field and the way things are done here 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 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)? I know the retail version will have four CDs from having followed earlier discussions in newbie (and a deluxe retail version with extra apps such) [admitedly I missed a week due to vacation just before Maximum Linux Aug/Sept 2000 came out]. I recently purchased LM 7.0 Deluxe and installed it. I'm wondering how much I can expect out of upgrading to 7.1 from the magazine disc vs. the retail vs. learn with what I have and upgrade later. And then there is the question of the bugs in the new version and when they will be removed, since the download has been around for a while, the retail should have recently arrived on the shelves, and I don't know just where the magazine version fits in the scheme of things. 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? [I know that the same thing can be named differently (like a network card port) among the various distribution types, that some have different things available (like the update function), that the same function is slicker in some linux flavors (or versions) than others, and that different families have compatibility/incompatibility issues (how severe are these?).] -Gary-
