We Compare Linux Distributions the Wrong Way #Linux #Computing #Shorts

This article is a transcript of a video that you can watch by clicking the thumbnail below. Hence, certain statements may not make sense in this text form, and watching the video instead is recommended.

Transcript

I've always wondered why Linux distro reviews emphasize on the wrong things. They mostly focus on how different a distro looks from another, what default applications it comes with, and maybe how easy or hard it is to install. However, if you've played around with a few yourself, either while distro-hopping or maybe just out of curiosity, it's pretty natural to realize that most of those elements aren't really unique to the distribution being reviewed.

One can add additional software to a Linux install, and that includes not only the finer details like desktop themes, cursors, and fonts, but they can also add or switch out bigger elements like window managers, desktop environments, display managers, display servers, and even package managers. I mean to say that in most cases, many of the Linux distributions can be made to behave like another with very few limitations.

Thankfully we at least talk about release model, and that can contribute to the experience by a great deal, but then that's only one of the many. Furthermore, the package manager itself plays a big role for how efficient it is in resolving dependencies, handling updates, installing a larger set of packages at once, and so on. I didn't think it was such a big deal until I discovered that Fedora's dnf won't work how I'd need it to for my use case.

Philosophies differ around how newer are the package versions made available through the package manager, and even the overall collection of packages itself in the repos. Some distributions also make available a community source for packages to add on to the ones available by default: speaking of options like the Backports on Debian, AUR on Arch, and xbps-src on Void Linux.

The init system can play a significant role in making a distribution faster, more reliable and easier to work with. For example, moving away from systemd on my earlier distros to Runit on Void Linux has lightened my setup much more than I thought it would.

Community size also matters, for example with distributions like Debian, Ubuntu, Arch, Fedora, and their forks, the large community can help you out with your issues, whereas with smaller user-base otherwise, you may find yourself stranded in the middle of nowhere. Surprisingly, even with its smaller userbase, I've found more constructive help for Void Linux than with almost any other distro, and I'm talking about from when Void wasn't even as popular as it is today with a steady stream of Arch users finding refuge from toxicity into the Void.

And we didn't even talk about differences like:

• TLS (OpenSSL, GnuTLS, LibreSSL, wolfSSL, etc.)
• C Library (glibc, musl, etc.)
• Architectures (x86_64, i686/i386, aarch64, arm, ppc, mips, etc.)
• more...

Is there anything else you find different across Linux distributions?