[Lilux-help] Distro is not as important as we all think

[Patrick Kaell]

Georges Toth wrote:

> of course it is not the only thing. did i ever say so?
> i only wanted to point out that the choice of the WM or browser or mail rpog 
> or whatever, doesn't make up a distro and by far isn't the only thing what 
> makes one feel comfortable about a distro in the long term, or not.

You can use any browser and any WM on any distro. I never said that 
these things makes up a distro. The opposite is true: People still have 
to find the right tools *after* having chosen the distro. I even said 
that different distros can *feel* the same on the users's side if they 
are configurated the same.

If I would replace the distro on my girlfriend's computer and if I would 
install the same environment (Mozilla, OO, Gnome, etc.) and if I would 
put the same desktop background, etc. she wouldn't see any difference. 
Perhaps there would be a speed difference by going from SuSE to Gentoo 
or Slack, because these distros are not as fat. But from the users 
perspective (somebody who does not own the root password), it would make 
little difference.

On the administrator's side it would be different. I agree.

> the "lower layer" is at least just as important as the "higher stuff".
> imagine a car without an engine? what good would be for?
> for many things, maybe, but not for driving, right?

Then you don't know how people buy cars. Most people will first think 
about the size. If they have 3 kids, they will not buy a Smart or an 
Audi TT. After they have found the right size and model, they will 
choose the engine. Normally every manufacturer has some choice between 
diesel and several petrol engines.

Most people choose at first the environment and then the engine. If the 
engine consumes not to much and if it is powerful enough, people will 
take it, no matter what's under the hood.

It doesn't happen so often that people must rethink their choice on the 
level of the size and model because they don't find the right engine.

And I do not think of 18 years old who choose the engine first. I know, 
these are just kids and don't know what's counts.

>>Believe me. A mathemetician will be more likeley to be interested by the
>>differences of Maple and Mathematica than the distro. Same with
>>databases: Migrating from AIX with Oracle to Linux with Oracle is far
>>easier then migrating from AIX with Oracle to AIX with DB2. Especially
>>if you have much PL/SQL code.
> 
> 
> of course.
> but that's not what we talk about, right?
> of course it doesn't matter for someone who wants to test-crash a car, what 
> car he crashes (in the first term), at least as he crashes one.....but that's 
> not the point here.

I do not understand what you have written above. What I want to say is 
the following: If we put together a comparision matrix to compare 
distros, we will not have finished the job by just comparing the distro. 
After installing the distro (lets say Gentoo), newcomers still will have 
many choices to make. We will have to continue to put together matrices 
which compare WMs, mail clients and so on. I am sure that you agree that 
Gentoo doesn't force one to use a specific Browser, WM or mail client, 
right? So the job is not finished by choosing the distro (far from it).

> i wouldn't recommend suse to anyone, i, hate suse.

I basically agree with you on this topic. But we should all try to get a 
bit more tolerant. This attitude doesn't help the Linux community at 
all. If we want that all the banks offer a internet banking solution 
that runs under Linux, we will need a user base as large as possible, no 
matter if the users runs SuSE or not!!! The distro just isn't important 
to this degree. What counts is the fact that the users uses standard 
compliant browsers and so on. If BGL, CCPL, BCEE and so on runs on SuSE, 
it will automatically also run on Gentoo. *Please*, never forget this 
basic fact. On this level, I can only say: Any distro will be a good choice.

>>I only  
>>must spend a bit more time uninstalling unneeded things and to get the
>>permissions right. 
> 
> 
> aha....and break some deps etc...

Yes, I know. At least we agree both on the fact that we do not like some 
distros at all.

> and some you have to break to make them useful for a certain purpose..

You know what: If I would have the choice to work for two employers: one 
that uses a Windows firewall and one that uses a SuSE firewall, I would 
take the second one immediately. I could replace the SuSE firewall 
overnight to a Gentoo firewall by telling the boss that the firewall 
needed an important security update recently. Same with a SuSE webserver 
that uses PHP or perls scripts. But what would you do with an IIS server 
which uses ASP programs? Then you would have to change the *envionment*, 
which would have a much larger impact to the users than just changing 
the OS.

What I already told before: changing a database server is a breeze as 
long you change the OS and *not* the database product.

For the users (not the administrators), the OS and the distro really is 
not important.

>>Yes, I always order the CDs. But this is only to support the distro. I
>>have *no* contractual guarantee (like you).
> 
> 
> but that was your argument against me right?

I had no argument *against* you. I just told why I dont't like pure 
network based installs. I thought Gentoo was mainly network based, 
because I didn't find ISOs for Gentoo with contain a complete 
distrobution that contains all the common tools and apps. I saw only the 
choice between stage 1, stage 2 and stage 3 installs which all needed a 
network connection at some point.

> no control over what?
> if gentoo dies.... there will be forks.

Wishful thinking.

> gentoo is a community project, not a company project.
> to keep gentoo alive is easier than to keep a distro like suse alive.
> with gentoo there would be forks....with suse there would be migrations.

There already are community projects which have been given up.

>>I still think that it is important to be not too dependend of the
>>network connection. Maybe you move to a new appartment without
>>possibilities to have DSL or Cable. 
> 
> you don't stop with your assumptions don't you?

This wasn't against Gentoo (see below).

>>Maybe SCO manages to shutdown the 
>>Gentoo and Slackware servers by court (and having special contracts with
>>RedHat). 
> 
> 
> i doubt so....but let's imagine it :-)

It's far more plausible than you think. Look at OSS cryptographic tools 
which you couldn't be downloaded from US servers. You know why OpenBSD 
is based in Canada? OpenBSD was the first major free BSD (the other are 
FreeBSD and NetBSD) which contained cryptographic software. This was 
only possibly because Theo Raadt lives in Canada!

I am an AIX administrator. IBM has a freeware site for AIX. There you 
find AIX packages for almost everything (Apache, KDE, fetchmail, bash, 
Gnome, gcc and so on). Guess what: There is *no* SSH package because I 
use an european IP address to access their site!

> different story.
> but still...there we see those great copyright and patent 
> laws...wooohoooo....get them to europe...wohooo 
> grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Hopefully not.

>>Nobody can take you away what you have stored locally. 
> 
> 
> i know people who can....
> (nope, i don't mean burglars)

If nobody knows that I am using the software package at home, nobody 
will come except burglars!!!

> you would be illegal by installing the backed-up software, but let's go on 
> imagining :-)

Yes you are right. But I would certainly not have a problem with this 
(no bad conscience). All I want is to access my *own* data. I would 
still manage to have a good sleep!!!

>>People who have installed everything over the 
>>network and who have no CDs of older versions then have a problem.
> 
> 
> plz understand that gentoo is not what you think it is.
> so just stop it.... PLZ.

I didn't attack Gentoo anymore. See above.

>>Never forget 
>>that the Linux kernel has been written to run bash, gcc, uemacs, etc and
>>later X Window. Without all these apps, the kernel would not have been
>>created and there would be no distros.
> 
> 
> in fact as you like to go into such details, it hasn't.

Sure. The whole GNU project got started in 1984. But people had to 
install a non free OS like Solaris to use gcc and bash. Hurd didn't get 
ready on time. Linus Torvalds used bash and gcc on Minix. Minix was too 
limited (no virtual memory and so on), but Linus still liked his 
environment (bash, gcc and uemacs) so much that he wrote a new kernel 
for it. Later (still 1992) Orest Zborowski wanted to use X Window at 
home. He heard about Linux. He adaped Linux to be compatible with the X 
Window system and not the other way round!

> gcc was there b4 linux.
> apps were there b4 linux.
> linux was written to have a free alternative kernel (to put it simple...and no 
> i don't want to start a disc. about this :-), google for details, the 
> internet is full of it.)

This is exactly what I meant. The environment was there first. The OS 
followed. In the early nineties, people patched and extended the Linux 
kernel, because they wanted to run their app. The whole Linux networking 
API (Berkeley Sockets) was created before Linux even had a TCP/IP stack 
or network drivers. It was done because X Window needed it to run 
locally (over localhost and Unix Sockets).

Type "Orest Zborowski" under google and read. The apps fueled the Linux 
development in the early stage and not the other way round.

Patrick Kaell