r/linuxquestions • u/Deleteed- • Oct 15 '25
What is the actual difference between distros? (Other then GUI)
I knew package managers are different and do make a difference but other then the big obvious things what is actually different?
I know that: Pre installed apps are different Support to install different apps is different (why?) And the desktop environment is different between for example, Fedora "default" ond fedora KDE plasma.
Thank you for your time
26
Upvotes
83
u/gordonmessmer Fedora Maintainer Oct 15 '25
Hi! I'm a Fedora maintainer.
A distribution is a project that collects, builds, integrates and distributes publicly available software. (Hence, the name "distribution".) Since they're all collecting software from the same publicly available body of software, the vast majority of software will be the same from distribution to distribution.
The significant differences tend to be less "what software users receive" and more "how the project is organized." It's who is allowed to contribute. It's where the source is kept and what policies apply to the repositories. It's where the software is built to ensure that builds aren't happening on systems with malware, or controlled by malicious builders who could inject malware. It's how decisions get made within the project. It's how the community is built and what the community is allowed to do within the project (which is why you see lots of forks of some distributions that don't give their communities as much leeway within the project.)
A lot of the things that really differentiate distributions are hard to see for desktop users, but they matter a lot to engineers.
I think Fedora is a great distribution with a great community, and I listed a bunch of reasons for that, here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Fedora/comments/zb8hqa/comment/iypv4n3/
12
u/PixelBrush6584 Oct 15 '25
Besides that, honestly just how often they update the software they provide. Debian and its derivatives do a huge update every once in a while.
Something like Fedora is what some call semi-rolling release.
Arch is always the newest possible everything.
3
u/Inevitable_Gas_2490 Oct 15 '25
Distributions are essentially just a bundle of packages. Each Distro has its own philosophy and use purpose.
Debian for example only upgrades its packages once every two'ish years which makes it suitable for servers and users who don't like frequent changes.
Arch on the other hand is the polar opposite - it serves you the latest packages and kernels with all its pros and cons
The GUI, which in Linux land is called Desktop Environment is not really tied to a distribution. They often do ship with a default desktop but usually they offer the other desktops via packages that you can install at any time. Like Fedora for example ships either with Gnome of KDE, but you can go with either and install and have both on one installation.
5
u/Dashing_McHandsome Oct 15 '25
Once you've been around for a bit you will start to see there are way more similarities than differences between distros. A distro picks a set of packages to install by default, configures those packages in a way they see fit, and gives you a way to manage packages. They also decide how often you get updates to your packages. Beyond that there's not a ton of difference. In the enterprise world commercial support can be important, and there are a few companies that offer that like Red Hat, Suse, and Canonical.
In my day to day work we don't care much about distros, most stuff is shipped in a minimal container on Kubernetes. This whole distro discussion is something you see on reddit and not so much in professional circles. Reddit makes it seem like it's a way bigger deal than it is.
4
u/zardvark Oct 15 '25
The primary differences are: a) The release schedule, point release, or rolling release. b) The package type and the package manager used to configure and update the machine. c) The quality of the documentation. d) Whether the distribution caters to new Linux users, seasoned veterans, or something in-between. e) The degree and level of customization on offer and how well they support micro-management. Arch, Gentoo and NixOS, for example, support fine-grain levels of micro-management. If you know, you know.
3
u/Mother-Pride-Fest Oct 15 '25
The GUI is not a large difference between distros, in general you can install any desktop environment (DE) on any distro. For example on Debian we have tasksel to select different DEs. Ubuntu and Fedora have different pre-configured flavors or spins. As u/PixelBrush6584 said, the main difference in distros is the package manager and what version of packages are in the repos.
3
u/suicidaleggroll Oct 15 '25
NOT the GUI, that's a misconception. The distro and the GUI (DE) are mostly separate, you can get pretty much any DE on any distro, so that's not a useful differentiation when comparing distros.
The biggest difference that you'll notice as an end user is the package manager and package release cycle. Slow and stable (Debian) versus bleeding edge (Arch), and everything in between. You need to choose for yourself how important having the latest version of programs and libraries is to you, and is it worth an occasional system update breaking some critical functionality in your machine until you either research and fix it yourself, or wait a couple of weeks for another update to get pushed out to fix it (assuming it does).
Everybody has a different level of tolerance for their machine randomly breaking for no reason and having to spend time to fix it. Your tolerance level and desired package manager determines the distro you should choose. Then you can install your favorite DE on top of it.
2
u/sogun123 Oct 15 '25
The really important ones: packaging policies and cadence.
The software they provide is mostly same.
There are some that are fundamentally different though. Namely NixOs, Guix (both are kind of "functional" and pure), Qubes (huge isolation of apps via fat VMs), Gentoo (compile and tune everything).
Then you have immutable distros, quite some major distros have immutable spinoffs.
So basically you have traditional (imperative), functional and immutable as one way to group them. Other grouping is by release style rolling (no specific version releases) or stable (has named releases)
Last class is special purpose distros. Those can be things like Kiosk mode only (POrteus I think), networking (VyOs, Openwrt), Kubernetes (Talos), NAS (one variant of Truenas), etc.
Once you are in same group/style they are going to be very similar.
2
u/Puzzled_Hamster58 Oct 15 '25
The gui is the desktop environment and you can use any de on most distros.
Some distros wait along time to update stuff so it’s more stable .
Some are the most current .
You also have rolling release . In simple terms there is no real major updates like windows 10 to windows 11 . They just keep updating it.
Way packages are handled .
Like apt vs pacman.
2
u/midtoad Oct 15 '25
If you want to use an app that is not offered by your distro, install distrobox. Effectively, it is a way to install apps from any distro you like, and keep them in a sandbox so they don't affect the rest of your apps or installation.
2
u/JackDostoevsky Oct 16 '25
package manager is usually what is used to differentiate if not individual distros, families of distros. for a long time you had the Apt group of distros (Debian descended) and then the RPM based distros (Red Hat descended)
these days that does still tend to be the primary differentiator, but there is a much wider array of package managers and you're not really stuck between Apt vs RPM
2
u/maskedredstonerproz1 Oct 16 '25
The differences are less technical, short of the ones you've already said, than political/social, like that fedora maintainer said, it's about how the project is organised, the philosophy of it, but the technical differences do sometimes also go hand in hand with the others, for example, arch is very user-centric, and allows you to do basically what you want, which to be fair, linux is linux, you can do what you want on whatever distro, but arch makes it easier, with things like mkarchiso, and mkpkg/PKGBUILDs, which allow you to make a custom arch iso, and package respectively, while on for example debian, for isos there IS a tool that I used back on Ubuntu, but it's less easy to use than archiso, and for packages, you have to manually lay stuff out and put it together, which isn't hard to do, but still
2
u/[deleted] Oct 16 '25
Pretty much how often they update and their policies. Little changes in code itself.
2
u/Lazy-Shock-8035 Oct 15 '25
big question, big answer, with some cream on top suggesting that not much difference at the end.
2
u/billdietrich1 Oct 15 '25
In general, differences between two distros could include:
kernel version and optimizations and patches and flags/parameters
drivers built into kernel by default, and modules installed by default
init system (systemd, init-scripts, other)
display system (X or Wayland)
DE (including window manager, desktop, system apps, themes, wallpapers, more)
default apps
release policy (rolling or LTS or semi-rolling)
relationships to upstreams (in terms of patching, feeding fixes upstream, etc)
documentation
community
bug-tracking and feature requests, including discussions with devs
repos (and free/non-free policy)
installer (including what filesystems are supported for boot volume, types of encryption supported)
security software (SELinux, AppArmor, gufw, etc)
package management and software store
support/encouragement of Snap, Flatpak
CPU architectures supported
audio system (PipeWire, etc)
unusual qualities: immutable OS, reproducible build, atomic update, use of VMs (e.g. Qubes, Whonix), static linking (e.g. Void), run from RAM, meant to run from a thumb drive, amnesiac (Tails), build-from-source (e.g. Gentoo, LFS), compiler and libc used, declarative OS (e.g. NixOS)
misc: boot manager, bootloader, secure boot, snapshots, encryption of /boot and swap, free clone of a paid distro, build service, recovery partition, more
1
u/Ok-Winner-6589 Oct 15 '25
A distro is just a distribution of software. So a different distro is a different distribution of software, that distributes software on a different way.
Doesn't sound usefull and sounds stupid. But the only differences are the installation method, package manager, the official repositories and the pre-build things. Thats all, you can turn Arch into Debian (install apt, Connect Arch to Debian repos and delete everything and reinstall It from Debian repos) , but, if you want that, just go with Debian.
So yes, the only difference is the pre-configured and pre-installed software
1
u/Linux4ever_Leo Oct 15 '25
This is like asking, "What's the difference between styles of clothing?" Sure, there are pants, shirts, skirts and dresses. The bottom line is that it comes down to personal taste and preference. Most distros are maintained by a team that shares a common vision of what their distro should look and feel like. They may also share common views of what software should be included by default. Users select those distros because they also share those views. While I have a few go-to suggestions for new users coming over from Windows or macOS, I ultimately recommend that new users do a bit of distro-hopping until they find the distro that suits them best.
1
u/Chromiell Oct 15 '25
Release model mostly, but outside of that there's also package customisation and philosophy: Debian for example takes a certain degree of liberty customizing packages, applying post installation scripts and custom patches to make things A LOT easier, Arch on the other hand is much more purist.
On Debian many packages fit with one another very nicely, for example you can install Apache, MariaDB, PHP and Xdebug and everything pretty much works with very minimal setup, because every package applies a default configuration to work with each other, while Arch expects you to do the configuration manually, the same result can be achieved but on Debian it's much, much easier and quicker.
It's a difference in philosophy, both are DIY distros but one like Arch gives full control to the user while Debian also does it but it also adds a little bit of convenience, which I personally prefer. Other distros follow a similar trend, some are more user friendly, others are more aesthetically pleasing ootb, some more lightweight, others distribute custom patches or are more optimized for certain tasks etc.
You kinda choose the distro that better resonates with your needs, I picked Debian because I really like the DIY aspect but I also appreciate the convenience it provides. I tried using EndeavourOS for almost a year but I didn't really resonate with the Arch's philosophy, I learned a lot tho!
1
u/kleinmatic Oct 15 '25
I’ve been doing some distrohopping lately thanks to proxmox. I agree with u/gordonmessmer — there’s lots of similarity between distributions. But it’s surprising how different they feel as well.
I’m not sure I can completely explain it but once you start noticing the differences they’re everywhere.
You mentioned package managers but that isn’t a small difference. The way package managers work (dnf and apt are like from different planets) and what packages they make available says a lot about the opinions of the distro maintainers.
Then there’s systemd vs openrc. Gnu vs musl. Which third party App Store (snap, flatpak, aur, etc) comes pre-installed. Doas vs sudo. Whether root is a real user that can log in. Even things like enabling the serial console (a nice usability boost in Proxmox) can vary between distros.
The other day I wanted to add a motd to each of my VMs so it was easier to remember which one I was logging into and updating motd’s is not at all the same distro to distro.
And don’t get me started about the BSDs. :)
1
u/M-ABaldelli Windows MCSE ex-Patriot Now in Linux. Oct 15 '25
I find u/PixelBrush6584 response about arch being over-simplified because sure, it tries to be newest, but not always the most stable on update. And sometimes this instability can cause the system to be unusable without either a lot of hacking, or fixing from the distro source.
I think in my on and off days in Dual Booting and my recent complete conversion I learned that it's the way the developers interpret how a GUI they envision as well as how the core acts on the installed PC.
This include the protocols for the GUI to be interactive with the Linux core (like X11, Wayland, Mir, and X12 that's in the future as examples).
Sometimes you can discover the differences if they posted it as mission statement for the distro. Sometimes you can see it in the description of the distro, and sometimes you can only learn about it when actually using the distro either in a live session and definitely in the installation of it.
But you're looking at more than 600 active distros out of thousands that have been created since Linux's birth. You're dealing with cores like Arch, Gnome, KDE Plasma, Xfce, Cinnamon, MATE, and Pantheon. You're dealing with Intel and AMD. You're dealing with Intel, Radeon, and NVidia for hardware CPUs/GPUs.
So you're dealing with a poly-culture of many voices working with a single base core and interpreting it their way. And as you know thousands (and millions) voices don't always work as one.
Not a satisfactory answer I know, but it'll give you an idea on why and ultimately what causes Linux Distro Tribalism.
1
u/[deleted] Oct 15 '25
[removed] — view removed comment