How bleeding edge are we?

Leigh · 2007-06-16 07:33:11

I'm dedicated to Ach as well. I certainly didn't mean to criticize Arch when I started this topic. I was just very curious as it seemed Frugal was so similar to arch, from the surface anyway. After trying out Frugal next to Arch, I discovered there are many similarities, but there are many differences as well! I can't say anything bad about Frugal. It's definitely a sold distro. From time to time my curiosity might lead me from distro to distro, but Arch remains my workhorse. I love Arch, and experiencing other distro's makes me appreciate Arch that much more!

mecon · 2007-06-25 05:02:33

There are only about 10 Original Distros

1. Arch
2. Gentoo
3. Debian
4. Slack
5. Redhat
6. Crux
7. Suse
8. Mandrake
9. Sorcerer
10. Puppy

Incomplete list so don't burn me

Last edited by mecon (2007-06-25 16:39:15)

geek.arnuld · 2007-06-25 08:29:20

mecon wrote:

There are only 4 Original Distros
1. Arch
2. Gentoo
3. Debian
4. Slack

5. Red Hat

tlaloc · 2007-06-25 08:49:37

6. Suse (at least as original as Arch, IME)

lloeki · 2007-06-25 10:05:00

IIRC Arch originates from CRUX, so it's not so much original.
or are you taking things like distro=package manager?

iphitus · 2007-06-25 10:50:28

tlaloc wrote:

6. Suse (at least as original as Arch, IME)

nope. originally a german slack clone, and over time took things from redhat, so it's more of a redhat clone.

Arch is *inspired* by CRUX, but doesnt take components from crux. There's a big difference. Arch is "new" it wasnt "forked" from another distro's base. Yes, Judd started with an LFS, but that was a foundation, not the distro.

James

N1ckR · 2007-06-25 10:57:41

tlaloc wrote:

6. Suse (at least as original as Arch, IME)

Suse branched from Slackware... the orignal reason was to add rpm support to Slackware. Even Slackware was a branch, but is considered one of the original 3 (Deb, Red and Slack).

Have a look at this timeline:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Linu … meline.png

mecon wrote:

There are only 4 Original Distros
1. Arch
2. Gentoo
3. Debian
4. Slack

Off the top of my head:

Yopper
Sourcer
CRUX
Puppy

These are lesser well known though.

The other issue is when a distro is inspired by, rather than branched, greys the definition of it they are a 100% original distro or not.

Last edited by N1ckR (2007-06-25 10:59:52)

Cotton · 2007-06-25 11:59:48

hussam wrote:

In a world where there are too many distributions... Instead of forking a distribution, why don't people just contribute to it and make it better?

Like they do with Windows?

I guess its because they can. People love choice. Many of the forked features end up in the original distro and invariably in other distros, so the effort is not wasted.

hussam · 2007-06-25 12:29:22

Cotton wrote:

hussam wrote:
In a world where there are too many distributions... Instead of forking a distribution, why don't people just contribute to it and make it better?
Like they do with Windows?
I guess its because they can. People love choice. Many of the forked features end up in the original distro and invariably in other distros, so the effort is not wasted.

Really? does MS allow anyone to contribute to windows and make it better?
I'm all for choice, but there are a lot of talented people who are struggling with distributions that nobody use when they should be contributing to bigger projects. I can name at least a few developers in such situations but I won't out of respect to them.

broch · 2007-06-25 13:03:44

suse did not branch from slack.
First suse was distributing german version of slack (which is not the same as development from). Then they developed suse (from version 4.x I think) and have taken rpm from RH (later)
Suse was based on jurix. So suse is not really original.
Which distribution is?
It is safe to say that suse is one of the first and it is still on the market.

N1ckR · 2007-06-25 13:49:23

broch wrote:

suse did not branch from slack.
First suse was distributing german version of slack (which is not the same as development from). Then they developed suse (from version 4.x I think) and have taken rpm from RH (later)
Suse was based on jurix. So suse is not really original.
Which distribution is?
It is safe to say that suse is one of the first and it is still on the market.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSE

They released the first CD version of SLS/Slackware in 1994, under the name S.u.S.E Linux 1.0. It later integrated with the Jurix distribution by Florian La Roche, to release the first really unique S.u.S.E Linux 4.2 in 1996. Over time, SuSE Linux incorporated many aspects of Red Hat Linux (e.g., using RPMs and /etc/sysconfig

broch · 2007-06-25 15:00:04

It later integrated with the Jurix distribution by Florian La Roche, to release the first really unique S.u.S.E Linux 4.2 in 1996.

slack under suse was still slack (according to Jaeger, I hope that he knows?) although a company named S.U.S.E. was distributing it. But this was not suse distro, this was german slack version.
Even suse wiki mentions that first original was version 4.2 in 96'

mecon · 2007-06-25 16:32:27

Sorry I wasn't thinking I'll Update that post.

oli · 2007-06-25 18:20:11

mecon wrote:

There are only about 10 Original Distros
1. Arch
2. Gentoo
3. Debian
4. Slack
5. Redhat
6. Crux
7. Suse
8. Mandrake
9. Sorcerer
10. Puppy
Incomplete list so don't burn me

Mandrake is a spin-off from RedHat, Suse a spin-off from Slackware - the first Suse group translated Slackware to German and add later Yast as central configuration. Of course the lend some knowhow from RedHat too.

Last edited by oli (2007-06-25 18:24:04)

aRcHaTe · 2007-06-25 18:54:22

i just think that a distro based in another distro is artistic bullshi** "linux is freedom"...joining forces would be ALOT BETTER..ok everybody as the right to make their own distro..but make it original for God's sake...distro based on a distro, that was based on another distro and joined another distro please dudes...nothing against frugalware..but since its allmost opensource..why dont pay respect to the originals...i used archlinux mutch time before i even posted here and allways loved it...tryed allmost all of them..and arch was the ONELY one that catch my eye...its balance..estability..and filosofy...and i just gotta say this i spit on redhat...not the developers, its a shame to linux world it allmost is a microlinux..get a grip ppl...arch is slack based NOT!!...IT WAS..now its independent like frugalware...now that progress..but never the less...in the middle lays the best...i hope some day why can join forces with frugalware...i just dont like frugal because its so sissy with the wallpapers and stuff...God bless archlinux a clean easy and amazing distro...i hope it stays this way forever!

broch · 2007-06-25 19:05:52

Suse a spin-off from Slackware

It looks like you know better than Bodo Bauer, which is really hard to believe.

http://lwn.net/1998/0205/suse.html

At one time we decided that it will better to have our own distribution
than always fixing the same slackware bugs. Also we thought, that we
need a better installation and configuration tool besides with many
other things.
We took the jurix distribution by Florian LaRoche as
base for S.u.S.E. Linux and started to develop YaST.
S.u.S.E. Linux 4.2 was our first own distribution.

It really does not matter if suse is slackware spin off or not, but it is funny how much people believe in wiki

lloeki · 2007-06-25 19:17:22

There are only about 10 Original Distros

Hey you forgot GoBoLinux

Mefju · 2007-06-25 20:12:46

And Slackware is derivative of SLS Linux.

hacosta · 2007-06-25 22:20:15

knopix anyone?

gbrunoro · 2007-06-25 22:41:11

knopix? it doesn't come from Debian?

aRcHaTe · 2007-06-25 22:43:29

gbrunoro wrote:

knopix? it doesn't come from Debian?

dude that's the type of distro that wont make you learn absolutly nothing its very good for windows users

NobodySpecial · 2007-06-27 02:58:23

Back to the original question about which is the most bleeding edge distro.

I just checked on distrowatch. Each distro has a list of standard packages to compare. Of the packages that were present in both distros, many were the same version. Where the versions differ, here are the stats:

ARCH is newer:
17 packages

FRUGALWARE is newer:
2 packages

Winner by a longshot: Arch!

Anonymo · 2007-06-27 06:55:53

sickhate wrote:

i just think that a distro based in another distro is artistic bullshi** "linux is freedom"...joining forces would be ALOT BETTER..ok everybody as the right to make their own distro..but make it original for God's sake...distro based on a distro, that was based on another distro and joined another distro please dudes...nothing against frugalware..but since its allmost opensource..why dont pay respect to the originals...i used archlinux mutch time before i even posted here and allways loved it...tryed allmost all of them..and arch was the ONELY one that catch my eye...its balance..estability..and filosofy...and i just gotta say this i spit on redhat...not the developers, its a shame to linux world it allmost is a microlinux..get a grip ppl...arch is slack based NOT!!...IT WAS..now its independent like frugalware...now that progress..but never the less...in the middle lays the best...i hope some day why can join forces with frugalware...i just dont like frugal because its so sissy with the wallpapers and stuff...God bless archlinux a clean easy and amazing distro...i hope it stays this way forever!

hey are you drinking?

lumiwa · 2007-06-27 10:38:55

broch wrote:

Suse a spin-off from Slackware
It looks like you know better than Bodo Bauer, which is really hard to believe.
http://lwn.net/1998/0205/suse.html
At one time we decided that it will better to have our own distribution
than always fixing the same slackware bugs. Also we thought, that we
need a better installation and configuration tool besides with many
other things.
We took the jurix distribution by Florian LaRoche as
base for S.u.S.E. Linux and started to develop YaST.
S.u.S.E. Linux 4.2 was our first own distribution.
It really does not matter if suse is slackware spin off or not, but it is funny how much people believe in wiki

And I had 4.2 which was very good distro as many other SuSE versions.

BTW: the topic is "How bleeding edge are we?" but...like a distro versions derivates )

aRcHaTe · 2007-06-27 11:31:05

Anonymo wrote:

sickhate wrote:
i just think that a distro based in another distro is artistic bullshi** "linux is freedom"...joining forces would be ALOT BETTER..ok everybody as the right to make their own distro..but make it original for God's sake...distro based on a distro, that was based on another distro and joined another distro please dudes...nothing against frugalware..but since its allmost opensource..why dont pay respect to the originals...i used archlinux mutch time before i even posted here and allways loved it...tryed allmost all of them..and arch was the ONELY one that catch my eye...its balance..estability..and filosofy...and i just gotta say this i spit on redhat...not the developers, its a shame to linux world it allmost is a microlinux..get a grip ppl...arch is slack based NOT!!...IT WAS..now its independent like frugalware...now that progress..but never the less...in the middle lays the best...i hope some day why can join forces with frugalware...i just dont like frugal because its so sissy with the wallpapers and stuff...God bless archlinux a clean easy and amazing distro...i hope it stays this way forever!
hey are you drinking?

what make come to that amazing conclusion...my spit on red hat...wow...dont use the toilet water

Arch Linux

#26 2007-06-16 07:33:11

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#27 2007-06-25 05:02:33

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#28 2007-06-25 08:29:20

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#29 2007-06-25 08:49:37

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#30 2007-06-25 10:05:00

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#31 2007-06-25 10:50:28

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#32 2007-06-25 10:57:41

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#33 2007-06-25 11:59:48

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#34 2007-06-25 12:29:22

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#35 2007-06-25 13:03:44

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#36 2007-06-25 13:49:23

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#37 2007-06-25 15:00:04

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#38 2007-06-25 16:32:27

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#39 2007-06-25 18:20:11

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#40 2007-06-25 18:54:22

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#41 2007-06-25 19:05:52

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#42 2007-06-25 19:17:22

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#43 2007-06-25 20:12:46

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#44 2007-06-25 22:20:15

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#45 2007-06-25 22:41:11

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#46 2007-06-25 22:43:29

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#47 2007-06-27 02:58:23

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#48 2007-06-27 06:55:53

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#49 2007-06-27 10:38:55

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

#50 2007-06-27 11:31:05

Re: How bleeding edge are we?

Board footer