Um, did you come up with these quotes? Ubuntu is much better at wifi out of the box that openSUSE, so I don’t understand your internet jab. While I admit that this is perhaps not a fair test, I have found running Ubuntu’s development version much more stable than openSUSE’s. Ubuntu’s Debian package managers are faster and easier to use than openSUSE’s. And how is openSUSE any more scalable than Ubuntu?

On the other hand, Novell has contributed some good stuff to Linux, such as the Kicker menu, likely to be integrated into KDE4, as well as enhancements to NetworkManager and OpenOffice.org. I keep trying openSUSE, but it seems more of a pain than a benefit. So, I’ve been using Fedora for now as my secondary Linux OS.

To say OpenSuSE is a more “fullblown” Linux than Ubuntu shows a lack of understanding of the two distributions, and of Linux distros in general.

SuSE has traditionally been an rpm-based distro, due to circumstances in Europe (SuSE was a German company before Novell acquired them) where broadband connections were (still are?) scarce and expensive. Because of this, SuSE has always been a “kitchen sink” distro, offering just about every open source program available on the included DVD and CD disks. On the other hand, Ubuntu utilizes Debian package management, using APT (Advanced Package Management) as the remote interface. Ubuntu is thus geared towards using the internet to install new software.

OpenSuSE has started using an adapted APT as an interface to remote RPM repositories, so OpenSuSE also has remote software package management. However, consensus is that Debian package management is superior to RPM, from a purely functional standpoint. Additionally, the Debian repository maintainers perform a lot of quality assurance on the software packages, so Debian based packages are also considered to be of higher quality.

Linux distros have always been as “fullblown” or “lean” as you want them to be. SuSE has always provided a lot of packages on their distribution media, but you still have to install them. Ubuntu places less software on the CD, but you’ll find that all the really important and frequently used programs are installed by default; if you want anything else, you can use the included graphical or command line programs to install it.

Finally, Ubuntu uses kernels closer to the “bleeding edge”. Despite this, they work well and are stable. Most of the other distros stay farther back from the latest kernel releases. This gives Ubuntu an advantage, because these days the newer kernel releases provide worthwhile advantages, so it pays to stay close to the newest kernel releases. One of the jobs of distro maintainers is to evaluate the functionality and stability of different kernel versions; Ubuntu has been consistently good in this regard and is able to stay very close to the cutting edge.

There really are no deep technology differences between the various Linux distributions out there. Instead there are different philosophies, support models, and add-on value from the various vendors. When distros first started, the differences between them were night and day. Now, it seems that the real differences boil down to the package management and perhaps the look and feel of the desktop.

As distribution vendors seek to differentiate themselves, some believe the right way to go is with a hybrid model while others–notably Novell and Red Hat–have committed ever increasing amounts of R&D to Linux…all of which will be given away as open sourceand most of it for free.

Are there differences between Linux distributions? Sure. They’re just not as profound as some would have you think, from a technology perspective. The real differences come down to freedom and brand. Both matter.

To me it is necessary to find

Yups, this kinda is negative. Even though with my connection it takes much lesser, it would be nice to have this worked out different way.