🚀 go-pugleaf

In comp.os.linux.help Tomaz Cedilnik <tom@x0.org> wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" wrote:

>> >>If you are not willing to invest a few hours in the selection of a new
>> >>operating system you would be better off sticking with Windows.
>> 
>> > OK, fair enough, but we're talking about the choice of a distribution, not
>> > an operating system.  I don't think the choice between Redhat and Debian
>> 
>> No, they are o/s's. The differences are as great as between netbsd and
>> freebsd, for example (apart from the kernel). Possibly greater. The
>> relationship between redhat 7 and debian 2.2, for example, is probably
>> approximately nil at the binary level.

> But the point is about the kernel. It's much more stable than Windows**t
> which has loads of rubbish instead of proper kernel. Whatever crashes on
> Linux, shouldn't affect kernel.

> Kernels are same for all distributions. Executable format is the same.

No they are not. That's what I just said. Redhat executables won't run
on debian (or any other distro). It's not a question of them running
wrongly. They won't run, period. They won't execute the first statement
after the open braces of main(). The binary format produced by their
compiler is incompatible .. it won't link correctly with other
libraries. Sure, it's the same machine code. Just the order is
different :-).

> The differences are in how things are organized, which administration
> tools are available, ...

And also in the executable format.  That's the problem with redhat.

> OK, I admit, I don't know debian, I've only seen it briefly.

You "only" know redhat, perhaps? 

Peter