What are actual differences between distros? It seems like they're

nothing

>>59290443
ubuntu is the distro used by people who use their computer for work, the rest are used by the unemployed

>>59290443
Target

>>59290443
I know. So hard to tell the difference between scientific linux and gparted sometimes

They are all pretty much the same. For the most part the differences are in which desktop environment they default to, whether they want to be fully libre, and what package manager they use.

>>59290845
Any job where you need to use Ubuntu is a useless job unless you work at NASA

>>59290443
Package manager under the hood. Other than that, their general purpose may differ.
In desktop OS distros the differences are mainly default DE, software and settings. Saving you probably an hour of setting things up and installing.

>>59291177
or amazon

>>59290443
Package manager, installed packages, and packages in the repos.
Documentation is a secondary difference.

>>59290845
i bet yall niggas don't even smoke eclipse.
centos is the only answer.

File: beastie.jpg (12KB, 178x283px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 178x283px

The superior choice is to use BSD for servers and serious work and windows for casual use (cause theres no beating the NSA machine in the 21st century and you might as well use the convenient OS anyways) And besides NSA doesn't care about john doe from bumfuckplace iowa downloading lolicon trash.

>>59290443
They're just different prepackaged kits, like when you're playing a video game and choose a class. They all kinda do the same thing, but in different ways, catering to different preferences.

>>59290443
Different package manager
Different software repositories
Different build systems

Those differences can be pretty major though

>>59295194
Oh yeah, and the folder heirarchy as well (ie. /usr/bin vs /bin)

>>59295194
I wish people who don't use Linux understood that 95% of the distro landscape is nothing but "Distro X with different default programs." You'd probably see a decent upswing in people trying it if they understood that.

>>59294906
I legitimately feel sorry for anyone using CentOS on their desktops by their own choice.

>>59295044
Even without privacy concerns, I would still not touch Windows. It is literal garbage.

>>59295504
>You'd probably see a decent upswing in people trying it if they understood that.
Depends on your definition of "decent upswing". You might see a larger percentage of /g/ types using it. I don't think most plebs would though.

File: 1459660541561.png (37KB, 477x540px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 477x540px

>>59295716
for real
I use linux out of ease of use, sheer comfort, and overall look and feel
Linux speaks to the soul

>>59290443
Usually, the only major technical difference between distros is the package manager. Otherwise, it's the same Linux under the hood.

just install gentoo. it is seriously the best

Optimization

File: 1460472924741.jpg (223KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

223KB, 1200x1200px

>>59296135
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.

There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

>>59290443
ubuntu (and its many derivatives), opensuse, fedora, centos, rhel. these are real lignuxes just waiting for you to get in them and do some serious work. there are some others that are good for this too, but they tend to be derived from one of those 5. notable exception being slackware. slackware is good too.

everything else is for special use cases / niche purposes or hobbyists.

>>59290443
Some have their uses (i.e Lubuntu and Porteus are designed to be lightweight, Ubuntu and Mint are designed to be easy-to-setup, Debian is apparently popular as a server, Slackware is a nice framework to build upon) but under the hood they're mostly the same. It's a lot like computers in a sense.

>>59291177
>need to use Ubuntu
there's no need, as in "my employer requires me to use ubuntu" but I use it anyway. my company has been using libre office for years so it's not a problem at all

File: gentoo.png (21KB, 1284x877px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 1284x877px

>>59290443
some are for neets

>>59301917
Well, all software has NEETs using it, and no software AFAIK is marketed directly for people not employed, in school/uni, or training.

>>59302047
some are exclusively for neets because no one except a neet has the time and energy to fix all the problems they come with

>>59301917
anyone notice the blonde bitch running off with the nigger? that's why we need more gas chambers