I've always been a diehard windows fanboy. And I don't understand what the real differences are between linux distros...

I've always been a diehard windows fanboy. And I don't understand what the real differences are between linux distros. Like what is so different between Ubuntu and Redhat that makes one better for end users and one better for servers? Cant all distros run the same desktop environments? They all seem pretty similar to me. Serious question.

Attached: old-laptop-500x500.jpg (500x326, 14K)

>Like what is so different between Ubuntu and Redhat that makes one better for end users and one better for servers? Cant all distros run the same desktop environments?
One is maintained by people paid to maintain it, the other is maintained by neckbeards.
They can all run any desktop environment, but as soon as you load up something different than the default DE that came with the system, expect your entire system to get fucked by changing the simplest shit like a color theme.

Sadly the most common default DE is GNOME, and it's fucking trash. So your only choice is switching to an alternative DE that the distro maintainers don't target or support.

Here's a real common issue I found with Mint when trying to help a friend migrate from Windows. If you change the system theme to "Redmond", the entire start menu becomes black and you can't tell where the fuck anything is unless you hover right over it.

don't listen to this fucking retard, GNU/Linux is piss easy as long as you're literate enough to read wiki pages and do the occasional google search

>t. neckbeard

hello basement dweller

t. retards who are unironically intimidated by apt-get install and still think they should be taken seriously on a technology board

Linux is only free if your time is worthless.
I don't need Wikipedia to do basic tasks on Windows.

Attached: HeroJojoshII - Copy.jpg (240x219, 16K)

had that bug when I tried to do mint 18 too. you have to change the settings in customize the menu to not use the background color or something along those lines (can't remember it was so long ago)

my current unsolved bug in mint is wallpaper going black every time updates are done. every time. not the end of the world, but it looks very unprofessional.

Attached: linux-mint-17-cinnamon-31.png (1366x743, 126K)

>Linux noob here
Windows 10 has been nothing but shit on my laptop for the past few months and want to try lunix
I set up an 8gig USB drive with lunix mint 19 on it, can I run lunix off of it and test it out before I decide to switch over fully? Will it fuck up my laptop even more?

Attached: 1530187000583.png (403x373, 40K)

It won't disturb your laptop, and in fact would run if you had no hard drive installed. It will be slower than if run from hard disk but still decent. You can also install in a VM and have both OS.

Listen to this man

>linux is easy and if you have any troubles look on the internet

Nigger on windows you dont even have too look for anything because it just werks

FPBP.

Where did this retarded meme come from?
I spend way less time doing something using Linux than I do using Windows. Windows is a real pain to work with as a developer and if you're seriously suggesting that using Windows for taht stuff is more productive or even faster you need to exit this timeline.

>Mint
There are anons here that actually use shitty Ubuntu?

Because you've used it all of your life, you baby duck.

I used Windows and had to look up where every setting was because of how poorly the thing is set up.

After spending some time configuring it properly, the time Linux has saved me far outweighs it
Time spent configuring it is not wasted, it's invested in the future.

> And I don't understand what the real differences are between linux distros
Different package managers and therefore package format. Basically, that's it. There are other differences but it does not matter to the end user. You can install any DE you want on any distro, maybe except Unity. Any Linux-compatible software can be run between distros if all dependencies are satisfied.

Theoretically, Linux can run any Unixy programs, since it's almost entirely POSIX compliant. Yes, most distros could run the same desktop environments. But unless you want to port, build, and maintain complex software all on your own, you choose a distro that already has what you need. For example, Debian is rock solid, small enough, and has support for oddball architectures like ARM and PowerPC. On the other hand, OpenSUSE runs on x86-64 but is much nicer for desktops due to their KDE desktop which offers patches for things like the Firefox thumbnails thing, and better laptop power management out of the box, as well as graphical system control panel called YaST that does everything you'd ever need.

So no, all distros are not the same.

>x86-64
You can just say x86.

>Like what is so different between Ubuntu and Redhat...
RedHat is made for enterprise servers and Ubuntu is made for workstations.
Ubuntu has way more pre-installed software, which can be handy for a desktop uses. Ubuntu uses a different package manager with different software repositories.
Probably some other differences I'm forgetting.

Holy shit what is this laptop? I presume it came out in the 90s but my dad handed me down one of these bad boys back in 2005. Memories of learning html and js, playing age of empires and duke nukem, and making shitty noise music on windows 98. Piece of shit didnt have any networking ports besides dialup and had zero usb ports

>real differences are between linux distros
init system
defaults
package manager and the software available
philosophy/goal

x86 is 32 bit, dumbass

No it isn't. Where the fuck did you get that idea? That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard and this isn't the first time I've heard it.

x86 is the broader architecture, and encompasses all of the Intel 32-bit architectures, as well as modern architectures that use the amd64 extensions. So yes, x86-64 is the appropriate term and I did not misspeak.

i386 is 32 bit
x86 ( or x86_64) is 64 bit.

No, it encompasses all of the 16-bit, 32-bit, and 64-bit versions of x86.

No one uses 16-bit anymore. Even most EFI implementations only go as low as 32-bit.

In general it's only about how your system is updated - source or binaries, how often, how stable, how reliable... in general, it's all about package management.
If you suppose that some major software pieces like init or DE can't be replaced by your own hands, then it's obviously also about what's installed in the distro by default.

I thought that in the package name :
_i386_ are 32 bit packages
_x86_ are 64 bit packages ( Intel )
_amd64_ AMD 64 bit package
Nowadays,
I could be wrong tho.

So? That is irrelevant.

> _x86_ are 64 bit packages ( Intel )
Nope. In fact, I've never seen pure x86 in any package's name. It's either iX86 or x86-64. Amd64 seems to be just a synonym for x86-64.

x86-64 and amd64 are the same thing, since Intel and AMD share their schematics back and forth all the time. Other things that might be added under the hood are mostly irrelevant when talking about the architecture, which should really be defined by the interfaces it exposes to the user and the programmer and compiler. And so by this logic, both are the same.

This.

I believe there is some 16-bit code sometimes included in older soft. There is option in kernel config that enables its support.

>There is option in kernel config that enables its support
And it isn't enabled by default because no one uses it.

It doesn't matter. x86 as an instruction set architecture has been around for a long time. It has been 16-bit, 32-bit, and 64-bit. But it is still x86, regardless of how manufacturers and software packagers denote it.

>But it is still x86, regardless of how manufacturers and software packagers denote it
Are you saying I shouldn't choose the i386 version of a piece of software for a 32-bit Core2 chip? Because I can tell you right now that the x86-64 version won't work. What don't you get about this?

Oh ok, thanks for clearing that up for me Anons.

No, I'm saying that both of those are x86.

Sure, both of them are 32-bit x86 underneath. But one has some mighty useful extensions on top that allow it to run 64-bit software, so stop being a dickhead and specify what kind of x86 we're talking about here.

x86 can also be 16-bit. It's been around a long time. Do your research before you try to talk about these things, kiddo.

C:\Users\user>man icacls
'man' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.
Every fucking time I go back to Windows.

Yes, but on a iso download page (of a distro) they frequently list the 64 bit only iso with x86.
When a 32 bit version is available, it is listed as i386. Do you agree ?

see I haven't seen 16-bit software in like 15 years, since I cleaned out my dead grandmother's basement.

No, they're usually marked as (64/32-bit) or AMD64/i386. I don't know why someone would mark a 64-bit iso as x86, but I have yet to have seen that.
Okay? That doesn't mean it doesn't exist and doesn't mean it isn't x86, potentially.

>diehard windows fanboy

Those exist?

>uses mint
>gives "advice" about linux

They're called gaymers. Manchildren who play with toys.

It is due to the move from "32bit" to 32-x86 instruction set. Which is why the shorthand for 32-x86 is x86 and 64-x86 is 64bit

programs out there that still offer both 32bit and 64bit will either say "32bit" or "x86" for 32bit versions while 64bit will either be offered as "64bit" or "x86_64". The i386 and AMD64 aliases are mostly unique to Linux packages.

the irony of this statement goes straight over your head

Don't be upset, gamer.

not upset, isn't it time you go recompile your kernel and complain about foss like a retard some more though

Enjoy getting your game on while Pajeet watches.

yeah and you enjoy being a tinfoil hat lamer using linux for all the wrong reasons

x86 has had six major revisions

x86-16 - 8086/8088, 80186, and 80286 compatibles

x86-32 aka Intel Architecture 32bits or "IA32"
-i386 - 80386 compatible
-i486 - 80486 compatible
-i586 - original Pentium compatible
-i686 - Pentium Pro compatible

x86-64 aka AMD64 - compatible with Athlon 64 (K8) and later

Alternatively, you can partition drive and have as many OS as you want running natively, no virtualisation is required.

icacls /?

>Cinnamon
use KDE

Mint is useless for new users. Kubuntu and Ubuntu MATE have basically superseded it, unless you want to use Cinnamon (which is buggy and horribly coded while not offering any advantages over maturer alternatives). The only unique feature of Mint over the Ubuntus is its weird update system that keeps old and insecure kernel versions by default, and a welcome window.

Bump

>wikipedia to do basic tasks
Doesn't sound like you've familiarized yourself with Linux. It's not surprising you'd find it easier to use an OS you're familiar with.
I'm familiar with both, but I've used Windows for much longer. Even so, maintaining a Gentoo system takes me way less stress and effort than maintaining a Windows system ever did.

>I don't need Wikipedia to do basic tasks on Windows
t. has never had to add something to the PATH

it's not the same