XPost: alt.os.linux.mint   
   From: frede@mouse-potato.com   
      
   azigni  writes:   
      
   > On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 14:20:54 -0500, Alan K. wrote:   
   >   
   >> Really?  Arch linux seems to be another animal.   
   >>   
   >> Yes, ultimately 'cd' and 'ls' etc are linux, but in reading about   
   >> installing Arch, it seems as if that system isn't wrapped up at all and   
   >> you have to manually install it 'your'   
   >> way not Mint's way or Ubuntu's way.   
   >   
   > You're thinking of the difference in installation, not in Linux itself.   
   > Linux on a high level is a kernel with applications to make it more   
   > usable. Your news reader for example is the same in any distro you want to   
   > use that supports it. Only the version numbers may be different.   
   >   
      
   There are also differences in the way distros are put together and the   
   ways they're managed. Yes, there are many commonalities between distros,   
   or even UNIX or the *BSDs. A good unix skillset will help with all of   
   these, but I think that the user experience can be quite different   
   between some distros, and it's not just the default apps they supply or   
   the DE.   
      
   I can make my way amongst many different Linux distros, but I'm by far   
   more familiar with Debian/Ubuntu. I think I started using it with Buzz   
   or Rex. At that time I chose Debian over Red Hat because I preferred the   
   way Debian was designed. All these years later I still don't really like   
   RHEL. (SuSE, although it is RPM-based and is more or less a descendant   
   of Red Hat, is more comfortable to me than RHEL, but I haven't done much   
   with it in the past 15 years or so because it isn't as commonly used in   
   the US.)   
      
   So, yeah, Linux is Linux, but the way various distros implement it can   
   be different. You'll have to decide for yourself which one you prefer.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)