Too Many Linux Distros Make For Open Source Mess 554
AlexGr writes "Remember the 1980s worries about how the "forking" of Unix could hurt that operating system's chances for adoption? That was nothing compared to the mess we've got today with Linux, where upwards of 300 distributions vie for the attention of computer users seeking an alternative to Windows."
300, 1000, it doesn't matter that much. (Score:2, Interesting)
It makes sense, though, in a way, because if all the software is actually free, why not upgrade all of it at once and be done with it? I've downloaded a ton of stuff for Windows over the last year, but I've not really done anything with my Linux but -use it- over the same. Except, I blew away my X windows and I have no idea how to get it back... Time for a new distro.
It's really simple.
Slashdot Feeds the Troll (Score:5, Interesting)
Forking of software development projects has interesting consequences,sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes neither. Having more than onedistribution... I'm not sure that "forking" is even the right word toapply to that.
Bruce
Its the wrong argument - again... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mainstream vs Niche (Score:3, Interesting)
Good point. Also with Windows (Score:5, Interesting)
The car analogy is a good one too. There are now far fewer platforms than there are models, e.g. in Europe VW has the Polo, Golf, A4, A5 and A6 platforms that are used by a wide range of models spread over several brand names (SEAT, Skoda, AUDI, VW). Ubuntu can be seen as using exactly the same approach, with Kubuntu, Edubuntu and Ubuntu as brands but based on a small number of real platform variants. You can argue that the Linux world is actually more visibly attuned to the consumer market, while Windows is more like Communism - the State of Gates decides what the factories will make, and the end users put up with what they are given.
Re:which is why (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.linux.org/dist/ [linux.org]
If someone doesn't want to take 30 minutes to do some research, they should just go to their local computer store, hand over a bundle of cash and let the salesman pick things off the shelf for them until the cash is gone. I don't use Linux, I prefer the BSDs, but it took me less than 5 minutes to narrow it down to 3 choices.
Not that many (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that there aren't several distributions pining for Windows converts, but many are little more than venues to demonstrate some piece of software, or built to satisfy some narrow need, be it wireless router or multimedia studio. They serve their purpose adequately and there's no reason to believe that that they distract from the much smaller set of world class desktop Linux offerings. The number of distributions is a function of the flexibility of their design (ie dpkg isn't perfect for embedded systems with the cross compiling and all), and their willingness to integrate diverse communities. Personally, I'm beginning to think that Ubuntu may put an end to this discussion over the next few years. dpkg's limitations are not insurmountable, and they've done a much better job of attracting and integrating projects, unlike Debian's explicit efforts to distance itself from KNOPPIX etc. But don't mistake this for a prediction that they'll somehow put an end to hobbyist distros ("I want to do this because I can") or the motivation to fork-for-profit (Ulteo?).
Re:How many... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, all this choice and flexibility is a terrible thing - especially since under the hood they're all using very similar concepts, applications, file formats, so even if you choose the wrong one to start with, switching is boringly trivial. Bring back one-size-fits-all...
Re:Hrm... (Score:4, Interesting)
They fill a need in function.
How many distributions are there once you've discounted the ones that are EXTREMELY FOCUSSED?
Lose the rescue distros. The distros designed to run from a single floppy, the distros designed to have a single function such as firewall-on-a-floppy types.
Once you've edited the list down to lose all those you get down to a reasonable number.
The 300 distros is too much argument is as brain dead now as it was 5 years ago.
A spouting of wintrolls. "Linux has too much choice, how can people know which distro to use when there're so many, blah blah blah". But when more than half of the ones out there are of the type described above, and a third or more of the rest are live cd variations, the actual "desktop linux" and "server linux" focussed distros probably only add up to about 50.
And only 6 of those will be picked by "newbies" anyway.
Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Clued-in people won't even bother looking at obscure distros for any business deployments. Clueless ones will have lots of trouble even finding them.
Another side of the whole argument - how many of 295 mentioned distributions (I excluded RH/fedora, debian/ubuntu, SuSE, Mandrake and Gentoo) are all-purpose systems? We need to exclude embedded ones and strictly specialised distros (like, say IPCop firewall), etc.
Having choice is always good thing. Using 'too much choice' with negative connotation has been translated long time ago. It's called FUD.
Re:Mainstream vs Niche (Score:3, Interesting)
Over the last year or two Ubuntu has become by far the most popular distro for the average Linux user, especially for desktop use at home. The article dismisses Ubuntu as just "the flavor of the month." It's more than just that, the popularity of Ubuntu is unprecedented. For the first time ever we finally have a distro that is starting to become the dominate choice. Ubuntu is typically what new Linux users who don't already have a favorite distro choose. Red Hat and SuSE remain popular with businesses, perhaps because they can get paid technical support if necessary (I don't know much about that). But, for the average Linux user Ubuntu increasingly the winner. There is also a server version of Ubuntu, as well.
Ubuntu [wikipedia.org] is a Debian derived distro. Of those Linux users who don't use Ubuntu, many of them use Debian or a Debian derived distro such as Kubuntu or Mepis. They all use the apt-get package manager and some variation of Debian packages for installing, upgrading or removing new software. There are also easy to use point-and-click GUI front ends for apt-get such as Synaptic or Adept. Since they are all Debian derived distros they probably aren't a lot different. Even Knoppix, which is the most popular live CD version of Linux, is a Debian derived distro.
Kubuntu [wikipedia.org], which I use, is just a variation of Ubuntu. Kubuntu is just a version of Ubuntu that uses the KDE desktop and it's preferred selection of software instead of Gnome. A Ubuntu user, could use the Synaptic Package Manager to easily download and install the kubuntu-desktop package as well. I started with Ubuntu, then added Kubuntu and then made KDE my default choice when booting up. I ended up with both selections of software in the menu plus those programs I later added as well.
The article also mentions "Linux from scratch." That would appeal to the same kind of person who would like to build their own house themselves or assemble their own ham radio or car from a kit, just so they know how it all goes together. It's not for the average Linux user. Linux is becoming less of a fragmented market than it was several years ago. There are also various specialized distros for special purposes such as KnoppMyth [mysettopbox.tv] which, for example, is for building your own Linux based personal video recorder. As for myself, I have used Linux at home for about 6 or 7 years. I started with Red Hat, then Slackware and am now using Kubuntu. Various other distros are good too, if someone is more familiar with one of them.
Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hrm... (Score:2, Interesting)
Funny, I remember when it was RedHat, deb or slack. Then RedHat, knoppix, Mandriva. Then Redhat, Gentoo. So far it seems only RedHat is a constant, but others come and go.
Re:Hrm... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:...and it's not really a bad thing (Score:3, Interesting)