tyme Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Here is a nice map of some of the major linux distributions and their relation to others. Pretty neat! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gowator Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Very neat, I have been looking for this for a while as a sort of background task. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scarecrow Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 (edited) The classification is a bit naive-e.g. Crux isn't really a LFS variant, and Arch is surely a Crux tweak (or rather inspired from the Crux philosophy), but I fail to see how it can be linked to LFS. And Frugalware isn't an Arch clone- factly the only thing in common with Arch is the pacman package manager and the package stucture- but the whole system philosophy of Frugalware is almost 100% Slackware. Same applies for another distro that uses pacman- namely Rubix. The only real Arch clone currently is Underground Linux. Edited April 15, 2006 by scarecrow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arctic Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 It is a nice effort with, sadly, many many mistakes and missing pieces. But nobody is perfect. :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted April 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 The classification is a bit naive-e.g. Crux isn't really a LFS variant, and Arch is surely a Crux tweak (or rather inspired from the Crux philosophy), but I fail to see how it can be linked to LFS.And Frugalware isn't an Arch clone- factly the only thing in common with Arch is the pacman package manager and the package stucture- but the whole system philosophy of Frugalware is almost 100% Slackware. Same applies for another distro that uses pacman- namely Rubix. The only real Arch clone currently is Underground Linux. tell the guy, not me :P half the reason i posted it was because i knew there were some errors, and figured if there are more eyes on it the guy might correct it. or, i might just make my own...:unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mystified Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Well they got Gentoo right. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarian Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 shouldn't Mandriva be shown as having roots in Red Hat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest thenub314 Posted April 16, 2006 Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 That seems historically accurate by my memory of things. shouldn't Mandriva be shown as having roots in Red Hat? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted April 16, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2006 that was commented on in the article i linked to by at least one other person. (it's best to also comment on these things in the article i linked to so the guy who made it can correct it...he doesn't visit here AFAIK ;) ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphitus Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 red hat and fedora are the wrong way around.... red hat came first, and then fedora. arch.... it kinda should be in a category of it's own. It was inspired by many distros, but based on none. It certainly wasnt based on LFS. anyway, off to comment on the article :) James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted April 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 red hat and fedora are the wrong way around.... red hat came first, and then fedora. while chronologically you are correct, I believe currently RHEL is based off of Fedora Core - so technically it is now a child of FC. But, I may be wrong about how they are related :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iphitus Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 red hat and fedora are the wrong way around.... red hat came first, and then fedora. while chronologically you are correct, I believe currently RHEL is based off of Fedora Core - so technically it is now a child of FC. But, I may be wrong about how they are related :) and fedora was directly based off redhat :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyme Posted April 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 It's a circular dependency!!!!! OMG NNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOO111!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solarian Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 shit....... we're totally screwed and I don't think --force will help us in this ALL ARE FREE TO PANIC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ixthusdan Posted April 20, 2006 Report Share Posted April 20, 2006 I am just posting to move the thread to the front page. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.