Thanks for the article. Now I got the relationship between these three. I think all the features must be in CentOS too.
My laptop supports 64-bit architecture.
I’d love it this way. I like to go deep inside things.
But I’m still don’t get the relationship between RedHat, Debian, and Arch Linux. I think they are three main types of Linux distributions. Are they related and dependent on each other in any way?
Thanks for your time. I appreciate that,
Best Regards.
RedHat, Debian, and Arch Linux distros all use the Linux kernel, but they have different package management systems and development philosophies. They are not dependent upon each other in any way.
The biggest two groups of Linux distros are the RPM based (CentOs/Fedora/openSUSE/etc) and DEB based (Debian/Ubuntu/etc). Arch is Pacman based.
All of these distros can all do more or less the same things. Changing distros is pretty easy. I’d just start with something mainstream, like Ubuntu, to figure out what you like. It isn’t a big deal to change distros later.
Red Hat is a company that provides OS software support to enterprise businesses. They contribute heavily to a Linux distro called Fedora (it’s a hat, see). They also develop a distro called Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) which is their core product: most of their income comes from setting up and supporting RHEL infrastructure.
Debian is one of the oldest distros. Ubuntu is built on top of it. The package manager APT was made for Debian.
Arch is a distro built for 64-bit systems that relies more heavily than most on command line tools. It has a package manager called Pacman. It’s designed for customisability.
Yes, it’s true. I had also deal with this thing.
I have to get a job in the software engineering world as a web developer because I have more and nice experience with this. I can go for mobiles apps and machine learning too but my experience is very little. What’s your opinion? Which Linux distro do such companies prefer?
I appreciate your time,
Best Regards.
Picking a particular Linux distro won’t make you more attractive to companies.
Which Linux distro or OS you use does not really matter.
Which Linux distro or OS you use does not really matter.
Which Linux distro or OS you use does not really matter.
Really, you’re overthinking it. If you want to learn about Linux, just pick a mainstream distro and try it. It’s not a big deal.
It’s really not an issue. Most companies will use Windows or MacOS. No one cares what you use because you should be able to develop on any OS.
It. Does. Not. Matter.
Thanks so much.
But I only use open source tools Inkscape (alternative to Abdove Illustrator) for vector and GIMP for Raster (alternative to Adobe Photoshop) and they are available for Linux.
Is graphic design is the only reason for not suitable or their are some other things too?
Which distros are preferred for jobs in the following:
Thanks and Regards.
There is absolutely no benefit to a particular distro for those tasks.
Please actually listen to the answers if you want to ask questions.
Ok thanks a lot. I haven’t realize that.
I appretiate it.
None. That’s not a thing. I don’t know how many times I can say that this isn’t something that you have to worry about. Absolutely no one will ever care which Linux desktop environments you have used.
Ok. Thanks a lot for kind help.
Most will have a live boot option so you can test the distro without installing it. I’d say try out a few and just pick the one you like the best.
Thanks. Its very useful especially for me.
There are open source for Mac as well. Mac is UNIX based and sort of the ancestor of Linux.
I can only compare with Windows. My Macs still works good after nearly ten years. All my PCs have been completely outdated before 5 years. I use Windows for design tests. Never for developing. But I am about to use an old computer for testing Ubuntu. 
Just for fun.
Thanks. I appreciate that.
I don’t think anyone can really say that all Macs will work fine after 10 years or all PCs running Windows will be outdated within 5 years. Windows is fine. Mac is fine. Linux is fine. They all work fine as development platforms.
In that case, Linux is fine
The issue with Linux with respect to design tools is that most of the industry-standard ones do not run on that platform. Video editing is similar. If that isn’t something you require, then Linux is unlikely to be a problem.
Actually I said “my” Macs. Not “all” Macs. And I have had at least ten of both. What I am saying is that the TCO is about equal for Mac and PC. And it is not only because of this. IBM did an investigation and verified my statement: IBM says it is 3X more expensive to manage PCs than Macs | Computerworld
Macs are more expensive. There is no data to support that Macs last longer. Some people find the Apple experience worth paying more for, but that money does not result in the Macs lasting longer.
Edit: Sure, one company in 2016 happened to save money switching to Macs. But you pay more for the exact same hardware; Macs charging more does not magically make the hardware last longer.
That magic $500 dollar figure includes cost of the IT personnel. If you don’t hire your own IT support, that really is not relevant. Without demographic information about who used IT resources and why, there is nothing we can draw from this statistic. Are more of IBM’s Mac users from 2016 younger and more tech savy and thus need less help? How did they change their enterprise software and policies to support both Macs and Windows? Did both platforms receive equally good infrastructure support? We don’t know.