Linux Distributions Are Too Big

wish bot sent in a link to a ZD Net story that talks about how Linux distributions are too big. Many valid points... of course IMHO my distribution is exactly the right size, and I apt-get all the bloat if I want it, later.

Comments

But do we want another Windows?

[Simon Brooke]

If Joe Public's Mom and Pop want an appliance operating system, there are commercial companies out there who will supply one. It's necessary and natural that the Linux community builds the operating system the Linux community wants, because we build it by scratching our own itches. If Linux gets dumbed down to the point that it's the operating system Joe Public wants, then it won't be the operating system we want, so we'll all drift away to the Hurd or Inferno or something, and there will be no-one left to put volunteer effort into maintaining Linux.

The benefit of volunteer effort in maintenances is not so much that you get a lot of work done, but that you get a lot of committed work done. Things people do in their own time they do well, they do with pride; it's that which (IMHO) gives Open Source software its quality edge, far more than the peer review effect. If the volunteers all drifted away to another OS project, it's probable that the commercial Linux companies could still continue to develop the OS. But it would be developed by wage-slaves driven by marketing agendas, and pretty soon it would have no quality advantage over Uncle Bill's finest.

Linux is good at what it does because the people who know enough to make it what it is care enough about what it does to make it do what it does. If Windows did what we need, Linux wouldn't exist. If Linux did what the Windows audience needs, we would need something different.

It's silly to think of Linux as competing with Windows. The two operating systems address radically different audiences. This is inevitable and a good thing . Let's not dumb down Linux!

What exactly am I missing?

[copponex]

I am lazy, like any other person is. I'm not sure what I want, but I do know I want it to work (without a lot of hassle). I used linux for at least half of my "computing" time about a year ago. I even installed a mandrake box that routed a DSL connection to a small office. Linux is the choice for that kind of application.

However, when I use my computer to produce a document (database, word processing, web pages, graphic design) I'll use Windows or a Mac. Why? Because every time I print, the color matches and the text is where it should be. I find that using Linux, while more fun, slows my productivity by at least 50%. Why? The applications are simply sub-par. They work, but barely. If you don't believe me, then show me the nicest GIMP art, compared with work done in PSP or Photoshop. Compare a web page produced in flash or dreamweaver, to one created with jed. I realize the relationship of good users to good end results, but don't you think the better designer would use the better tools? Could it be that they don't use linux because the applications aren't good, rather than the popular notion that they just don't know about linux?

He made 2 points, not one, and badly at that.

[Crixus]

I thought the author's point was that linux had too many apps (something that most people with a brain would say is a good thing)? But then he goes on to spend more time talking about how it is still too hard configure, and not easy enough to use.

Well which is it??

How can something like a software distribution be too big anyway? (BIG in this case meaning number of apps, not disk space used)

Many of the applications are not installed by default, and if it had fewer apps they'd be complaning that there weren't enough.

So without even meaning to, basically this one article has proclaimed linux to be number one because it has TOO MANY APPLICATIONS!!!!!

:-)

Hooray! Linux has finally made it. We have too many applications!

Rich...

funny...

[EnderWiggnz]

its funny how on one hand, zdnet complains about linux a lack of applications, how there are no consumer apps, etc.

then later, they say that the linux distributions are too big... that tehy come with too much stuff, i.e. applications.

message to ZDNet - make up your mind... does linux have too many applications, or not enough?

this is just childish now... "Hey, there are just too many applications on this distribution... we dont want ALL this... you suck!!! give me less choice!!!"

tagline

Re:funny...

[lizrd]

They seem to be really stuck in the MS mindset where you buy the OS and that's all you get. If you're lucky, they throw in a calculator and an address book. A linux distro is different. It comes with everything that you need to get your work done. To get the functionality that I have in my default Mandrake 7.2 install (yes, I have a good firewall) in a MS environment I would need a hell of a lot more than 2 CDs and that's just for the things that I use. Let's make a list:

• MS Windows - 1 CD
• Visual C++ & MSDN docs - 3 CDs
• Paint Shop Pro | Photoshop - 1-3 CDs
• MS Office - 3 CDs
• Various Drivers for my hardware - 3-5 CDs

In addition, there are a bunch of things that I'd have to download right away. Let's think about those:

• ICQ
• AIM
• WinAmp
• PGP
• Putty

There are probably some others that I've forgotten but it's pretty obvious which is easier to be productive at. I'd estimate that this whole process would take me at least 5 or 6 hours by the time that I got everything installed, setup with my ISP and so forth. My last Mandrake install from 2 CDs took me only about 2 hours from inserting the CD to the point where I was using the Linux equivalent of all the programs listed above and that's mostly because I have a slowish CD reader.
_____________

Debian - increased granularity

[blakestah]

That is another thing I like about Debian. Although I can understand why a beginner would dislike it.

The packaging is done with a finer granularity. They often choose a minimal number of packages to, say, have a working emacs. Then you can apt-get all the elisp you need to increase its function.

The same with tetex. There are, I think, three packages that are necessary. Then you can add docs, fonts, and postprocessors to make it tetex on 'roids.

But it is really about choice and flexibility - the linux way. And I think this applies especially to Debian. Of course, flexibility also means more knowledge is required to achieve the functionality you desire.

Zzzzzz-DNet

[squiggleslash]

Why do people take any notice of ZD-Net? The articles in it usually consist of poorer logic than you'll find at a pub frequented by Windows users on a Friday night, written with less justification than a MPAA legal brief.

Linux is "too big" is it? And what Linux would that be? And compared to what? Is Slackware "too big"? Has RedHat, the thing presumably most ZDNet readers think is Linux, grown larger than one CD lately? [Last time I looked, the other two CDs in the box were bonus bits and source code] The article mentions SUSE and Debian, but correct me if I'm wrong, but SUSE is a distribution that was developed so that users would have everything available in one package. Calling it "too big" is like saying that buildings everywhere are "too tall" because the Empire State Building has "too many" floors.

And Debian? Another distribution aimed at a particular group of users? How much has this guy had to drink?

What exactly is the point of this article? And why is Slashdot taking any notice of it? Is it time we install Censorware on the Slashdot editor's PCs so they can't see certain sites which are havens for third-rate writers who can turn any observation into a complaint?
--

Re:Zzzzzz-DNet

[Col. Klink (retired)]

> Everything the article said was valid and should be heard

So you honestly believe that we need to agree an a single email client and everyone should be expected to use that one client? Expecting a user to choose his email client, after all, is just expecting too much of them.

Aside from a few ease-of-installation issues (which, in general, should be solved by OEM-installation), the majority of the article was basically saying that there are too many choices and too much software.

So how do you propose Debian, solve this problem? Delete all-but-one email client, browser, hex editor, text editor, etc. I guess it would settle the KDE/Gnome holly-war once and for all, as one or the other would be forced into extermination (for the good of Linux). The divided vi users had better all agree on a single flavor (elvis, vim, nvi, etc) lest they be ousted by the stronger emacs/xemacs faction. But one way or another, there's no room for a vi and and emacs. Better still to oust them both and replace them with a notepad clone.

It's just silly. The strength of *nix is that pieces are small, interoperable, and interchangeable. And MTA is an MTA, and one can replace another. Some might be fine with a simple, easy to configure MTA, but others might need more complex options.

Should exim be the One True solution? If the big standardization purge came a few years ago, a program like exim would have been verbotten as it did something that was already being done, and we wouldn't want to confuse newbies by introducing a choice.

Nonsense

[sjames]

So now, Linux has a problem because there are just too many applications that run on it (and come with it)? What happened to 'linux has a problem because nothing runs on it'?

In other anti-news, tiny momNpop stores with limited selections in town are thriving as Wal-Mart superstores crumble un-noticed in the distance. It seems that consumers hate having too much to choose from. Everywhere, mega-malls are shutting down and becoming ghost towns. Single screen theaters are spronging up everywhere while tumble weeds blow through the lobby of the cinema 128. Customers pay a premium price for simple, no frills Yugos while Cadilalcs sell for a paltry $1000.

In the U.S., many citizens are calling for an end to the two party system. "There's just too many choices!", said one man. "Why can't we just have one party and a ballot with just a yes box?", said another. Some are going even further. "Deciding to vote or not is just too much! We need a dictator for life like in Cuba", a sentiment supported by many people wearing identical, 'one size fits all' suits as they exited the polls.

Not too big, but the installs still need work.

[Ami Ganguli]

There's absolutely no harm in packaging as much stuff as possible on the CD. You just have to make the installs easier to manage for the newby user.

That goes beyond nice pointy-clicky interfaces. RedHat (as far as I remember) has the choice between Workstation, Server and Custom install. A good first step. But what you really need is a bunch of tasks, not arbitrary classifications that nobody understands, and not a huge list of applications to choose from.

The install should ask you what tasks you need to perform with your computer:

• [ ] Create Documents
• [ ] Surf the Net
• [ ] Manage my accounts
• [ ] Write 'C' applications
• ...etc.

And should should then install a nice set of applications based on those choices. On top of that, maybe a little guided tour/tutorial that explains what the applications are.

Corel, Corel...

[garcia]

that article seemed more like a plug for CorelLinux than anything... Oh Corel does this, and Corel does that.. Well that is the one great thing about Linux. It has tons of distributions to choose from. If you are a complete newbie and you are wanting a hand-holding while you install, there is a distribution for you.. Don't come crying when you can't find "foo".

For those of us that want everyting it is there and ready...

My other personal favorite is when they say "Linux is not ready for the desktop yet because of X." Yeah well no shit. They are working on it. Instead of whining about it, do something, that is the wonder of OpenSource...

Just my worthless .02

Convenience?

[Fross]

Most people's grievances on Linux distributions seems to do with convenience, ie "i dont want to change CDs". You lazy bastards. ;)

1) This is a redundant argument, as very soon most Linux packages, Microsoft OSes, etc etc, will be distributed on DVD-ROM. 6G should be enough for a while.

2) Anyone who complains "i dont have the time to download 600 Megs" is a complete blithering idiot. READ THE MANUAL. Download the install disks. Do a remote ftp install. Get only what you want. You can get by on 100M if you need to.
apt-get (or equivalent) the rest.

3) Isn't ZDNet turning into something more akin to an agony aunt column for a bunch of journalists thinking they're techies because they stole a copy of RedHat 6.0 from the office and managed to kill their machine at home with it?

Fross

My opinion

[Flavio]

This article's author had to write about something and didn't have a topic. So he decided to comment on Linux distributions and their "flaws".

So what exactly does he suggest? That we whip out "Debian Lite" and "RedHat Lite", costing $30 each? NO! The distribution's cost is for the support that comes with it, so the Lite version would cost exactly the same as the full one (not counting Enterprise licenses and the like, of course).

He claims Linux gives the user too many options. In other words, to simplify matters the "perfect" distro would give as many options to the user as MacOS or Windows does.

What these people don't usually get (and I'll be writing it in bold) is that Linux is NOT MacOS or Windows. One shouldn't expect a perfectly smooth transition because one isn't possible!

Is it so hard to understand that a perfect transition from Windows to "something else" can only be achieved if the something else is Windows itself?

The virtues of Linux come from variety and configurability. The user, no matter how much computer illiterate, must learn at least what the basic distributed programs do. The user must take a couple of hours out of his life and press '?' to read a paragraph about each RPM (or .deb or .tar.gz).

This is only my opinion, of course, but I would personally NOT make a Windows equivalent distro of Linux. Even if I or someone else did, complaints would still exist and it installation wouldn't be that much easier anyway because we're talking about a different OS.

Now take a look at these quotes from the article:

And then there's Linux--chock-full of these kinds of peccadilloes and proud of it.

It seems like he's trying to piss us all off. Linux is designed for power and flexibility. If you can't handle it, either ignore the extra features you don't understand (and Linux will still run fine) or shut up about it.

Add a peripheral (or just sneeze, for that matter) and you'll spend a good chunk of time trying to figure out how to recompile your kernel.

Yeah, right. It takes about 2 minutes to teach someone how to recompile a kernel. It's a matter of "make menuconfig; make dep; make clean; make bzImage; make modules; make modules_install" with slight variations.

Yesterday I installed an USB intellimouse in my box. I didn't have USB support, but it took about 1 minute to choose the USB+HID support in the kernel and about 2 minutes to recompile it (I didn't make clean). After that, I edited XF86Config and changed "ms" for "imps2" and changed the /dev/mouse symbolic link.

That stuff isn't intuitive, but it can be taught in a matter of a few minutes and is all over the place in HOWTO files.

And there's also KUDZU, which already setup GPM automatically for me the next time I restarted. On the near future, X will already detect USB mice easily.

Now in Windows I had to reboot, see that message that no mice were detected. Then I:

1. inserted the CD that came with the mouse.
2. inserted the Win98 CD
3. restarted
4. inserted the CD that came with the mouse. some software installed.
5. restarted
6. I saw that the software was installed but the driver wasn't, DESPITE STEP #2!
7. reinstalled the driver that supposedly was in the CD that came with the mouse.
8. restarted
9. that INF file wasn't the USB mouse driver, but didn't call any installation program either. I still haven't figured that out and don't want to.
10. inserted the Win98 CD and installed the REAL, correct driver.
11. restarted. it worked.

SEE? The Win98 setup process takes forever and what's worse: you don't know what goes on.

Even something as simple as changing the desktop resolution in X can be quite a chore, depending on the distribution.

False. The distribution has nothing to do with it. Edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and change ONE LINE, which will be a very intuitive process if you know about that file.

Let's face it, for all but hackers and pros, Linux is too much of a hassle to be of much use on the desktop.

False. You just didn't have anything to write about and spreaded anti-Linux propaganda.

Linux IS harder than Windows to use, OF COURSE. But you don't have the feeling that you're banging your head against a wall when you're installing drivers for a MOUSE!

Once users realise there's something called a "kernel" that holds drivers and there are "configuration files" which you can change with "text editors", everything's fine.

One just can't expect such a major change to be done without some effort on the user's side.

Flavio

Re:how so?

[BRock97]

So either learn what you want and need or suffer.

Yes, that's the type of mentality that will get Linux quickly adopted by the common user. If the article was read in full, you would have seen that it discusses the average users response to a typical install of a Linux distro. To be a first time user in any of the distros out there is a daunting task, as all of the pre-installed software is overwhelming. Load up Mandrake and take a look at your KDE/GNOME software selection. Yikes. That is one area that, IMHO, the soon to be late Corel Linux did correctly, and that was to limit the software that is installed, unlike other distros that, for example, believe CVS server should be installed on a desktop system.

My idea of a perfect distro would be one that you download the ISO and it installs the X, a desktop, and the tools need to either

1) install my software via packages, or
2)compile any programs that are needed.

What is that, a 150MB install? It would be even better to have the iso be desktop specific, be it GNOME or KDE. I know that you can take the time to sift through all the packages and make sure that dependencies are maintained, but hey, I'm lazy like that.

Bryan R.

Re:And now that I've READ the article... :)

[jbert]

> If I have to compile it, I ain't running it,
> and I'm FAR from the only one.

The interesting variation here is that there is no need for you to know that things are being compiled.

Maybe installation takes a little longer, but the package gets built according to your local preferences and installation. This is just a packaging issue.

Whilst I don't recommend this is the right thing to do with large packages like KDE, Gnome, etc. this *is* the right thing to do for plug-in modules (think kernel drivers, X graphics drivers) which have a closer dependency on the app into which they insert.

For many things, source could become the default method of distribution, as long as it is wrapped nicely by dpkg and/or RPM who cares?

Take a reality pill guys

[segmond]

Everyone is virtually flaming ZDnet for their article. If Linux is to grow stronger and better we must learn to accept criticism. I have been using Linux for 7 years, and believe I am qualified enough to comment on this. I have to agree with ZDnet. Linux is bloated, My last SuSE distribution was 6 CDs. Is this good? Yes and No.

It was good for me, because my connection at home is 28.8. It is bad for me because when I want to install, I have to go through thousands of packages to find out what I want. Linux needs a desktop standard. This means, a core set of applications. You pop in a CD, you click the giant OK button and it is all done. If you then desire, you can use the other CDs to install your favorite app. If I tried to install SuSE, I would have to insert CD 2, insert CD 3, ... insert CD 6.

I gave a friend SuSE, and that turned him off about it, he wouldn't even give it a try. I am sure that if we came up with a desktop standard for linux that it can be done in a very good 300-400meg for very useable system. I am not asking for a core system with no X, no network, etc, etc.

We must remember that bigger is not necessarily better, more is not necessarily better. KISS is good. Keep it Small/Simple Stupid.

I use BSD as well, and this is why I love NetBSD and OpenBSD. They are very small, whenever I install it, I install just the standard (1 CD). If I then use I can install applications via the ports collection. Let's not let our Linux pride blind us. Happy Holidays.

Cheers

less is more

[jilles]

I tried out mandrake 7.2 just after it was released. It required 2.5 Gb. That's a lot. I'have no idea what they include in their distribution to get to that number but it is almost certain I won't ever use 95 % of it.

The problem is redundancy. For each type of application there are more than one implementation. Take editors for example, the average linux distribution will install at least half a dozen (and probably more) without even asking. Then you usually get both KDE and Gnome, half a dozen xterm apps, a bunch of shells, a bunch of filesystem browsers (all of them crap IMHO), and a zillion other apps. Not to mention apache is installed, an smtp server is launched, you can telnet, ftp and god knows what to your machine while all you wanted is a stupid firewall :).

I don't want all that, I want a tailored system that only includes what I need, configured in a simple way and preferably not running all sorts of server apps I won't use anyway. In the unlikely case I want to use emacs or vi, I'll install it myself. What the hell am I going to do with programs for faxing and ISDN? I don't have even have a modem! Why waste diskspace on useless apps such as Xroach. It's only a few kilobytes, I know, but all this bloat apparently manages to sum up to about 2.5 gigabytes.

None of the linux distributions I know off meet these requirements and I doubt any distribution will meet them anytime soon. Debian is too complicated, Mandrake is too bloated, Red hat too buggy, Corel is too annoying. It seems that all the parts for making a nice OS are available but nobody has managed to put them together in the right way. Perhaps we do need MS Linux :)

My wife said this months ago...

[Raleel]

I think that the distros are not ...um.. cohesive enough. Let me give you an example. My wife, who is pretty computer literate, installs Mandrake. She goes to get an editor and promptly is greeted with a dozen!! Wonderful that she has all those choices, but sheesh, do we really need a dozen listed? And on top of that, that didn't include a number of smaller ones that I know were installed (such as vi).

Why can't we just have a distribution that has a cohesive and simple feel. Most users don't care that they can use one of a hundred editors, they only care about using one editor. Maybe two on the outside. Look at windows default install...it's pretty bare, but it does have the basics there.

I think something like helix goes a long ways into this area, but it still needs to be worked on. I've been arguing this on our LUG mailing list for a while. Just a single desktop environment is all that is needed. Don't put in a lot of extra stuff. a word processing app, a little editor, a calculator, a mail app, a spreadsheet app, an icq app, etc. Not 8 mail apps, 3 spreadsheets, 6 icqs, 3 aol aim clients, etc.