Red Hat has a much larger commercial base and is used very often in server configurations, but Mandrake is one of the most popular, if not THE most popular desktop Linux implementation. Either version is quite capable of doing just about anything you may need it to do.

Red Hat's company is more financially solvent, and you can get better support from the company. However, even if Mandrake were to go under, there is a sufficiently large following for Mandrake software that there's a good likelihood that others would pick it up. In fact, that may even become an option and an opportunity, providing support for systems that lack strong commercial support. Either way, use either of these distros because you like them, if you're an individual, and lean toward Red Hat if you're a business requiring a formal support contract. Both distros are excellent.

so the harder a linux distribution is, the better because you can make fun of how easy it is to use for a newbie? damn microsoft, damn you bill! make it hard for us newbies...

Not sure where you're coming from with this comment.

There are a great variety of choices when it comes to choosing a GNU/Linux distribution. All of them are based on a really solid operating system kernel and a set of core utilities. Beyond that, each of the choices tends to focus on a particular set of attributes. Just about any of the mainstream distributions are really general purpose, all around operating systems, complete with a variety of applications and tools, and many of them can be configured to function either as a server system, a desktop system, or in a pinch, both.

There are also many special purpose distributions that are specifically designed for one or two tasks, and are not intended as general purpose systems. Some of these distributions function as firewall systems, file servers, Web servers, general purpose servers, or strictly as desktop systems.

Because there are so many choices to be made, sometimes these factors can be confusing. I do, however, anticipate Linux being used very often in the electrical appliances of the future, and this is already beginning to happen. I see the greatest potential growth of Linux systems in this particular area, mostly because of 3 factors: low cost, software stability, and extremely flexible packaging. This is so much true that I think that in the simplest systems, the fact that Linux runs the OS engine beneath will be mostly irrelevant, known only to designers and innovators. That's where I see things heading.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of systems beginning to emerge that are being configured right from the factory to run some really easy to use software that happens to have a Linux kernel running on it. There's plenty of room to further improve these systems, but I believe that they already make excellent home and small business systems. There are other systems being put together that are saving lots of money in large corporate enterprises, too. Expect to see much more of this in the year ahead.

Mandrake makes the installation process simple and straight forward. After the installation is complete a newbie can configure componenets like any other linux system.

Due to laborious installations many newbies loose interest in Linux. It may be necessary to give newbies a better look and feel right at the begining for them to accept linux.

Building my first linux system (Redhat 6.0) was a very laborious process and X just refused to start up on my machine. Configuring various components required editing files in vim. As compared to those days the current Redhat installations are much easier so

A few years ago, getting the X server running on a system was a major undertaking unless you really knew what you were doing. Around 1999 or thereabouts, a few vendors started making the process easier. But when the XFree86 project greatly improved video card support and simplified detection and configuration, getting X to start became MUCH easier.

Mandrake was one of the pioneers at simplifying the process. Today, Red Hat has some of the very best hardware detection and support. Both Mandrake and Red Hat make great distros. I'd give Mandrake the nod on the desk and Red Hat the nod as a server, but either distro can handle either task quite well.

As someone who has tried countless distro's (I have about 30 odd distro's at my disposal tried about 15 !) and have stuck to 3 (mandrake - Workstation/server, slackware - R&D box, trustix - Servers) I have to disagree on alot of points in this thread. mandrake doesnt make you use GUI apps for everything. All their config tools and stuff like that are all front ends to GPL CLI apps (the cli apps are not compiled in or anything but installed on your system). You can do everything from the command line. urpmi for auto updates or installing packages off the CDs/mirror/sources that you want. You then also have the GUI alternative (Split into three for some reason) I have found no simalarities to redhat apart from the fact they follow whats know thought of as a standard file system (i.e. lib dirs etc). Slackware shouldnt be thought of as hard due to the fact it holds your hands in the install very well, also the config files are extreemly well commented (unlike mandrakes may i add!) so with a bit of a pointer (google anyone ?) you will find the CLI way to setup your machine.

I agree with your points.

First of all, while Mandrake is mostly a GUI and desktop oriented distribution, it is neither a GUI only system, nor is it a desktop only system. As you note, you may run quite a few Mandrake tools, plus the underlying mechanisms on which the tools are based, from any command line shell of your choice. Moreover, even in graphical user interface mode, Mandrake provides quite a bit of flexibility, either making many of the default choices for you (useful when you're first getting started or if you're busy and you're just looking for a quick way to get things done).

Slackware tends to release software that's been a bit more tested by time and testers than Mandrake, so some of the applications are somewhat more stable, but can also be a bit more "aged", that's a trade off to make between Mandrake and Slackware.

The installation procedure used by Slackware hasn't changed much over the years. It's really easy to install the base software, but it uses screen menus and interactive questions rather than the default fancy GUI installation procedures used by many of the major Linux vendors. To some, that's an advantage, to others, that's a disadvantage. The main area that can be a problem for novices to figure out with Slackware is the configuration of the X server, assuming the user wants to install a graphical user environment. The XFree86 project itself has made this area much easier than it once was, but if there's any area of difficulty that a beginner might encounter with Slackware, that'd probably be it. The big advantage, on the other hand, is that Slackware really helps you to learn and understand how your system is laid out, and you arguably have more flexibility with their approach, at a cost of some potential difficulties.

Like you, I like both Mandrake and Slackware. One category of distros we haven't brought up here is Debian packaging. I found raw Debian installations to be time consuming until I mastered them. I found that getting started using a commercial version of Debian to get the base software installed, then using Debian mirror sites to customize my system to suit my needs and interests was the most effective way for me to get productive with a Debian-based system. I now use Libranet for much of my Debian and Linux testing work.

Here is a reaction based on reading the first four pages of this thread. Maybe it's been said in the next 7. But anyway...

I think many of the complaints about RH in the first 60 posts are way out of date. RH didn't stop with 7.1, you know... I started with Redhat 7.1 a couple of years ago because I knew some people who had it and I could ask them dumb questions. It installed like a dream. I've gone on to 8.0 and 9. The dreams get better. I've had good experiences getting support from Redhat. The organisation of their web pages are a disaster, that's about all the criticism I have. You now do NOT get a load of unwanted editors and most things work like they should. You can choose between Gnome and KDE (or both). I'm not saying anything against Mandrake of Slackware (which maybe I should try some time when I have some more diskspace) but I think a lot of the complaints about RH so far are a bit out of date. RH also keeps moving.

The biggest problem with redhat (especially if you do a lot of development from source) is that they have this annoying tendency to backport development code into their production OS.

Fair enough, they are paying a lot of the glibc and kernel developers, and its nice to rush the latest and greatest features in for the "We got there first" kudos, but hell, you find you are tied to their RPM's, SRPM's and build tools.

I won't touch them with a barge pole, I've been burnt far too many times when stuff that SHOULD build (and does on every other linux distro known to man, and other *nixes ) totally b0rks when it comes to Redhat.

If you want a development system on the cutting bleeding edge, go to the respective CVS repositories and build it yourself, at least your code will compile and you will be working with tools and code which everyone else on the planet are using and testing. It wont be some hacked in backport, those cutting edge features are intended to be there.

If you want a stable system with known stable c-libraries, known stable buildtools and a known stable kernel, stay well away from RH and pick a distro which is built from the current release sources, not alpha and beta code...

My $0.02

I cant stand mandrake linux! I started out with w2k adv. server, manny 7.2 AND RH 7.2 in a tripple boot set up and I have to tell ya, I found mandrake to be eXtremely Konfusing as far as setting things like cable modems and such up where as Red Hat wasnt to bad. Now granted windows was alot easyer to acomplish these tasks in, but hey its windows, your not suposed to think about what your doing whilst using windows. As far as the differances in linux and windows, well , Think about it, if you are the owner of a small buisness and need a server platform, you are going to go with the os that requires the least amount of employee training, (kinda takes ANY linux distro out of the picture) that does everything you want out of the box,(again another linux nixer)and is compatible with most if not all of your existing hardware(well linux has gotten better about that but Bill still has the lead)

The key ingrediant being time. Time is money and the more time you spend training people, the more money you spend to do just that, train them. Now dont get me wrong, I FIRMLY believe linux is the better os but you have to look at my 20 yrs in the feild as well, the adverage user isnt intrested in learning how to use unix commands to get things done, even if unix and dos are similar, or learn how to change the os on the fly like you can with linux.

it all works on the K.I.S.S. princaple. But I prefer RED HAT over Mandrake any day! and maybe soon Ill try slackware or debian but i dont think I know enought linux for those yet lol.

ok that was my rant , NEXT !!!!

You've probably noticed how many things have changed between release 7.2 to 9 of Red Hat. It's been the same with Mandrake. To me, Mandrake made very large strides between release 7.2 and 8.0, but it hasn't stopped there. Mandrake has the characteristics of releasing very current software that users themselves ask for, very good hardware support that's getting nearly as good as proprietary systems, the choice between simplicity and selection. On the weakness side of things, Mandrake tends to be on the leading edge, software problems sometimes arise, though they're pretty good about making updates available.

Red Hat might be the more appealing choice in a business climate. For home consumers, I'd lean more toward Mandrake, at least between those two (but I'd also consider a few of the emerging desktop Linux distributiions).

All I'm suggesting is that it might be worth another look.

As far as other distros, Slackware is great, but it takes a bit more time investment. Worth it if you have time to learn, otherwise you may not like it. But don't write it off, it's a really solid distro. Debian distros can be difficult to set up initially if you're new to Linux and not used to conventions, but they're the absolute best when it comes to updating software. If you get a commercial Debian GNU/Linux system instead of a raw distribution, that greatly simplfies the initial installation and makes them well worthwhile and highly recommended. I especially like Libranet for its completeness. Business users may prefer Xandros, consumers may like LindowsOS.

For simple desktop systems, I really like Lycoris Desktop/LX.

This is not a warez site, it's ok to be against M$, but not to promote piracy

Gary, get yourself a Hayes H08-03328-C external serial modem U.S. $79. It will work with all distributions of Linux and has indicators showing what is happening with your connection.

destry

Why division, all distro are best for what you needs are,
if you like gui ( windos like ) mandrake, if you want stable like rock server rh is the best, so, as you see all distro have pros and cons, best is to make linux the most nkow os .
all or mostly all of us had use window$, and still using windows due that dominates, ( I am tired of using windows) so, lets make linux the best os. freee,
I personaly use redhat and mandrake, the distro is use acording for what does best. I know the debian is sotware install best.

HERE IS WHAT I ASK MY SELF: "WHY NOT JOIN ALL THE PROS FROM ALLTHE DISTROS , EXE. GUI FROM MANDRAKE, SERVER SIDE REDHAT, SOFTWARE INSTLL DEBIAN, tools from SUSE,

thanks all

In other words, you find several vendors do various things well, but you haven't found any particular one that does an overall good job, and you'd like to see a distro that combines the best of all worlds?

Personally, I find Libranet, a Canadian system based on Debian software to be that jack of all trades system that has something for just about everyone. It can run on the desktop or as a server, it has a huge number of tools, it works very reliably, and it uses Debian packaging, but it is easier to install than a raw Debian distro.

I agree, overall, with the thrust of what you're saying, but the reason we have so many variations is that different people want different features. Isn't it nice that we can take a good core set of software applications, package them up in a variety of ways, and come up with many good, but different systems?

All of these distros are good ones: Red Hat, SuSE, Mandrake, Slackware, Libranet, Lycoris, ALT Linux, Knoppix, LindowsOS, Xandros, and there are many others; I've only listed a few. Each of them has good core software, but is packaged differently to suit particular customers and target markets. Several of them are similar, but stress different things. I wouldn't hesitate to use any of them, though, and I HAVE installed each of them on my systems.