Slashdot Mirror
The Question Of Too Many Linux Distributions
evenprime writes "In this zdnet column, Evan Leibovitch responds to linux critics who say that Caldera and Red Hat will be the only distributions to survive. Evan points out that the diversity of available distributions, and the ability to roll your own, is a great strength." The arguement Evan makes is one that, IMHO, is correct - and people need to remember that the diversity of the distributions isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, maybe the commericial variants will move down to a couple, but I think for the overall community, diversity is a strength.
The business field will be narrowed because market just isn't there for for 500 distros (but the standards issue will play a roll). Look at the auto industry in the '20s verses the auto industry today.
end communication
The problems you describe are likely to be less of an issue for a big business. They're likely to standardize on a comparatively small number of packages- just the ones that they really need- and stick with them for a good long while. They're not going to be trying to upgrade the version of their CD-ripping software every time it comes out with a new bugfix. They're also capable of doing neat tricks like compiling their own to solve some of the dependancy problems that you mention. (Actually, the next time that sort of problem happens, you might consider downloading the source RPM and running rpm --rebuild to see if it can be compiled with the software you already have. One major flaw of compiled RPMs is that they often require much more specific versions of packages than is strictly necessary.)
Of course you can also solve this problem by using a more advanced package management system. Debian users are constantly (and correctly, IMO) bragging about the ease of using apt-get for package management; it deals with all those annoying dependency details for you. The still-under-development Ximian RedCarpet is also quite nice about resolving RPM dependencies and downloading any updated packages you may need. Both systems do depend on having a blessed source of guaranteed compatible packages, though.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
they use red hat linux at ucla? afaik a majority of the servers run NT and SEAS use Aix/Solaris... and at the installfests the lug generally installs mandrake.
Zetetic
Seeking; proceeding by inquiry.
Elench
A specious but fallacious argument; a sophism.
This sounds like very good advice, unfortunately a lot of companies have taken a different approach. We have a large customer which is a hardware vendor. They develop special purpose systems, and have their own Linux distribution which is tailored to their needs. They support a variety of operatin systems, but Linux's open source nature is a nice advantage when dealing with custom systems. When problems arrive, they don't have to deal with intellectual property issues with the OS vendor when working with their customers to resolve the problems.
When working on a large system, the fast pace of changes in Linux can be a problem, so they have all the different vendors use their version of Linux, which they then control how often it gets updated.
The problem then arrises that Linux doesn't have a binary driver interface. Changes to the kernel often break device drivers. It's very difficult to release a driver in binary form at all, and making it work on a variety of systems and distributions is even worse.
We can't just release a source code version of the driver and have the customer recompile their kernel with our driver built in for three reasons.
1. The customer doesn't want their customers to have to recompile the kernel to install a new driver. The people installing and updating the drivers are not Linux experts. The installation must be simple. If running Linux on the system means they have to have better trained users, then Linux is no longer cost effective.
2. The source code contains intellectual property of the ASIC vendor that we have access to under NDA. We cannot legally release the source.
3. The ASIC we use in available and used by other vendors. Our software is what makes our products superior to our competitors. Making the source available so our competitors, when they've been promising the same features for a year but can't get it to work, can catch up is not a good business decision.
The problems get even worse because the customers want to use software from a third party which they think should work with our hardware. Unfortuately, that software contains kernel patches which are poorly hacked into the kernel. Now we're spending our development time patching a customer specific kernel and third party software.
After a couple months of this we think we've got it worked out. My managers are happy and mentioned that they have some other customers who want Linux drivers and can't wait to give the customers the new code. Of course the customer has a different distribution with a different kernel version. My boss was not happy to find our that changes to the kernel break our driver, and more development needs to be done to get the driver working for that customer, who also has some very specialized needs.
Our product has a lot of features. Fully running our verification tests takes several weeks to a month. Supporting a large number of OSes is expensive. Supporting an OS like Linux where everyone cooks there own version is very expensive. Support for anything but Red Hat or Linux PPC (yes we support PPC) will likely not be a free product from us in the future. It just isn't cost effective unless there's a very large order involved.
Friendly graphical installers like the one that comes with Red Hat, or like the one that comes with Windows? There are only 5 varieties of Windows, but their installer still confuses most 1-2year Windows admins I've seen.
Of course, most Windows desktops come pre-installed, which if that were the case for Linux, installers wouldn't really be the issue.
What's the benefit or why does it matter if Linux fits on a floppy for a firewall? Let's say the environment is grown to 200-300 Linux boxes strong and each one is totally different. How does having a machine that's nothing like the rest help make the admin's job any easier at 2:00am when it goes down? Or what if a new person walks in the door to take over the environment and has to figure out wtf is going on and how each one works, learning curve goes waaay up.
Not trying to start a war, but it's the custimization and optimization that makes it harder to administrate in my opinion. It makes it an elegant hack job of bubble gum and duct tape...
I love this really dumb argument that we shouldn't have too many choices. We should have only one car company, one airline, one oil company, .... That way we would always know for sure which one was best. Is this just a tech problem with micosoft or are all consumers fools?
Cosnidering that I turn down several job offers a month and am now looking at another one pretty closely yes I do think being an admin is a long term good thing.
Yup and of course winders *never* loses it's mind and goes all to hell and needs to have people called in to fix it. The simple fact of the matter is when it is up and running it is just as easy if not more so than winders and when it breaks Susie is not going to be fixing winders anymore than she can fix *nix.
You will notice that I used the past tense in those statements. Yes it is somewhat better with winders 2000 but still no where as nice as *nix.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
I'm a firm beleiver of free competition. It's never a good idea to have a monopolist in this (see Windows). One of the things that must be observed is the cross-compatibility. If you constantly have to change software when you have to change distibution, peolple feel like their stuck inside a distrib. Thake the installation procedure for instance. Sometimes it's a tarball, then an rpm, then is a binary with an install script allways assuming a different configuration (read: distubution). Usually it's possible to make them work, but it annoys me every time.
Slackware rulez! But I would appricate it if Slack 8.0 would be released soon...
Since I use Slackware 7.1 it usua
b) and c) is already supported on Debian.
Debian has this menus program. When you install a X program on Debian, a new menu item will be created which is available no matter which WM you are using (I tried KDE, GNOME, Enlightenment and WindowMaker).
Debian also supports dependency checks and downloads.
Je ne parle pas francais.
When it comes to deciding whether or not to use Linux in your work environment, these arguments are all very poor cop-outs.
Here is why. I used to do tech support for IBM Global Services for the Lucent account. Massive outsourcing effort. One of the first things my group did was enforce standardization of the desktop for our users. At the time, the standard desktop was Windows95 with Office95 and very specific network shares for specific groups. If you installed anything else on your system, you had to support it yourself. We only supported Windows95/Office95. Period.
So what is keeping the CTO of a given company from mandating that servers shall run Debian stable (for example) and nothing else? Workstations shall run Debian stable with Gnome/Gnumeric/Abiword and nothing else? Hell, you can enforce running RedHat servers sharing samba and Windows98 clients running KDE inside X servers for all I care.
The point is, Linux provides you with not only options and choices but the opportunity to build and control *any* type of environment that suites your business needs. If you cannot enforce standardization of your own business's computing environment, that is your own fault and is independent of OS or GUI.
Tyler's words coming out of my mouth.
Uhm, then why did you post?
Then you must be a developer, because you definately aren't a Systems Admin...
At least in the German speaking parts...
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
Diversity in Linux is a good thing. Darwin will take care of the rest!
Second, the problems I describe are a huge issue for business large and small regardless of the OS and it is not easily solved. All distribution packages are a nightmare to use and unless your deploying on a very large network are often times far more work than not. Every try to deploy and update to an application only to have it fail on 1/2 the machines for various and sundry reasons. Many update packages are fine, in theory, but in reality are not too helpful.
My point remains: Linux distros are just as bloated and top heavy as other OS's and just becuase it says linux doesn't make it easier.
ps: Can't install the frigging source RPM because I need rpm 4.0, which I can't install ...
If people would actually hack at Windows as much as they hack at Linux, Windows would never "blow up". I run Windows 95OSR2. It never crashes and runs nice and quick.Why? Because I actually manage my DLL's, VXD's and registry to the point that I do not have such problems.
I have never seen a Linux user just install a program that they have downloaded off some wayward site without checking it, yet I see the same people just grab the latest version of whatever and install it into Windows. These people have full system trays with the most useless things and several files loading at boot that they'll never use. Then they complain because Windows is slow and buggy. The same user will also spend hours working on a config file in /etc but will never use Regedit in their life.
I like Linux and Windows for their individual strengths, and I don't have a huge problem with either. This has become sort of a rant, but I think both are fine in their own way once you actually learn to use them both to the proper extent.
The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
Have you tried the RedHat beta yet then? :), but is very easy to install compared to previous versions and once installed it's child's play.
It's beta (so by definition it sucks
The only thing that might be hard is choosing what you want to install.
It has been a long time for linux geeks to fight internally, wait a bit longer and OS X "might" take over the *NIX world iff they allow some open source/license method to their GUI.
Pondering...
As has been pointed out before, there is plenty of room for diversity and personalization - and distribution-specific wackiness, even - but a simple set of agreed standards would solve most of these problems. If the major distributions follow a standard, open and reasonable set of installation standards - oh, say the LSB - then commerical and noncommercial software makers lives will be made easier. I am impressed with the variety of places various rpms want to put those files (/usr/lib, /usr/local, etc, etc, etc). Each user can still place tarballs where they want to, and minor distributions can continue to follow any old wild idea that comes in their head. Vive la difference!
You shank my Jengaship!
"No offense, but I think you must know some really stupid "windows admins" then"
;-)
Of course, these are not the most clued in people ever. I find the Linux installers to be easy to use (a little on the feature-rich side, which can be confusing), but I know folks who see "what kind of keyboard are you using" and their brains lock up. AND THESE ARE PROFESSIONALS.
We live in a world where we're damn lucky most machines come with an OS because most people who do admin for a living could not install one to save their lives. Most of the admins I know wouldn't break a sweat on a Linux, Windows or BSD install. But, then most of the admins in the world are nothing like most of the admins I know....
That said, I've been baffled by Windows installs when they get... odd. The thing most people forget is that 99% of the time, when you're installing Windows you're doing so on a system that was meant to run Windows. When you try to install Windows on a home-grown system with a blend of old and new parts, it can be a refreshing dream to install Linux on it
Download the latest kernel, then the latest version of XFree86, the latest version of Gnome, KDE, Apache, etc., then assemble it yourself for a no-name Linux. We do it with computers all the time by buying the parts separately to get our own tailored computer, why not the OS too? Then you know exactly what you got and won't have the needless bloat like full Red Hat or Mandrake distros. Not that they don't have their uses, I installed Mandrake 7.2 on my machine so I can learn Linux, play around with it, and try out all the apps to see what they do, but then I discovered www.linuxfromscratch.org.
Slackware : Redhat :: Asus : Soyo
In other words, same difference. It all comes down to a matter of personal preference. Arguments can be made between distros just like mobo mfgrs.
Windows will run on all mobos, but a mobo can run any OS adapted to the architecture. The mobo is not tied to Windows (save those with built in Winmodems, etc.) Whoops, I shouldn't have said that, Microsoft might bribe mobo companies to embed its kernel into the chipset so that only Windows will work on that motherboard. (The only company to ever tie the motherboard to the OS was Amiga with its Kickstart ROM, right? If you bought an upgraded OS, it came with a new Kickstart ROM, thus giving rise to companies that manufactured dual Kickstart boards.)
fstream io_fil("zerowing.rom",ios_base::are belong to us);
i knew i would leave someone out. the point is...in the german market, once you combine the market shares of SuSE (as you mention), and (insert two other major distros like RedHat or Mandrake), how much of the market is actually left for the other distros? in practical terms i don't think a truly large amount of diversity really exists.
You have never heard someone say 'I am gay' for something?
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
I agree. This feeling of protectionism for these distibutions is akin to the stomach churn associated with wild life documentaries containing footage of those hapless wildebeest attempting to cross the swollen, croc infested waters.
Jump, old fella! You can make it! [crunch] Oh, dear.
I wish they would specialize a little more. Mandrake uses KDE and uses aurora, Redhat uses Gnome and uses a beta gcc. Suse is like mandrake with a different default config tool. Other than that they look the same. It's like having twelve different flavors of ice cream that are all strawberry.
I would much rather have a couple great server distros, a couple great desktop distros, and a couple low-cpu requirement distros. Better than having twelve that each try to do all three.
I love going down to the elementary school, watching all the kids jump and shout, but they dont know I'm using blanks.
My point was that Linux is almost too open and fragmented, two distros look absolutely nothing alike and by being so diverse you become a jack of all trades and master of none. Just as no one can claim to be a UNIX guru (or they can until you ask of which platform and type) no one will be able to say they are a Linux guru because in a couple more years RedHat's gonna look like HP/UX and Mandrake like AIX.
That was definatly ON topic - I was talking about diversity that comes from linux including distros - damn morons ps Slow down cowboy! Slashdot requires you to wait 1 minute between each submission of /comments.pl in order to allow everyone to have a fair chance to post.
It's been 1 minute since your last submission!
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
Don't forget:
4. A couple of dozen "botique" distributions aimed at specialized purposes. There will long be a need for distributions that are optimized for specific applications. These might include single floppy versions for rescue disks, versions for single purpose devices like routers and firewalls, versions for embedded devices that have to boot off a ROM, CD-ROM only versions for internet appliances, etc. There might even be versions that are aimed at markets that we don't think of as being separate right now but that would take off when available. I'll bet, for instance, that blind people would appreciate a distribution that had an audio based install and included lots of packages aimed at making it more accessible. These special purpose distros may be originally based as a derivative of one of the general purpose distributions, but they'll probably wind up taking on a life of their own and being maintained separately.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
I'm a crusty old greenscreener who lived through the Unix fragmentation of the 80's and I fear this is happening all over again with Linux.
Yup, I remember all that too, cept I had an amber screen. It was not a pretty scene at all.
The key difference between Unix and Linux with regards to forking is that with Linux, forked projects can merge back together much more easily than with Unix.
Forking is good, and it generally only happens for good reason, i.e. when a project leader is taking the project in a direction that some of the users don't want it to go.
--
Every time I search news groups looking for the answer to a problem, I have to wade through hundreds of replys from know nothings telling me to install the latest RPM! THIS IS -NOT- ADMINISTRATION! It is the same mentality as blindly reinstalling Windows everytime it misbehaves.
If I had been hooked on a distro other than Slackware, I doubt I would have learned enough about UN!X systems to graduate to Solaris on SPARC, or learned how to patch, modify, or write programs in C++. Both have led to better jobs.
Distros do nothing but give people options..
hmmm... CTO, Chief Technology Officer, um management type isn't he supposed to be? know a little something about technology? Supposed to make decisions?
"Typical desktop workplace environment
Susie the secretary will not understand *Nix vs. point and click."
Has he looked at either KDE or Gnome or compared the two? How do either of these NOT provide the point 'n click solution that he is looking for. That would be much better information then something that might be said from someone who hasn't used *nix in 20 years.
"Too many variations of Linux
Which one is really better as they all claim one or two niches over the other"
If he doesn't know what he wants to do, then "choice" can be daunting. Linux is scary as hell for those who don't know what they want. It's excellent for those who know specifically what they want to do.
"Gnome vs. KDE vs. etc.
Why so many desktop environments, sure alternatives are good, but when work needs to be done, money is burnt by time spent figuring out whats what on Linux vs. point and click MS"
A CTO is paid to make a decision, SO DECIDE!! KDE or Gnome for your organization. Who cares about the others. Spend some time comparing the 2, then make a decision.
Oh, This is a Windows CTO, some one who has allowed an outside vendor to make the decisions for them, to do their job for them. Maybe it might be better to understand the technology and it's implications better to do the job better for your company, customers, shareholders and employees. Then again this means there would e some responsibility involved and no more, We can't do that, windows doesn't support it or allow it.
Feature enhancements and nug fixes generally appear faster.... as do new bugs and compatibility issues. I a gree with the poster down below: if it sticks in your craw then stay with one distro - or try FreeBSD. Both approaches have their advantages.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
we Linux geeks wouldn't be able to spend nearly so much time installing differents ones. Where's the fun in that? We'd even be stuck using friendly graphical installers... (shudder)
I'm aware that several solutions exist for these problems - what's causing trouble is the fact that there are several incompatible solutions out there!
Red Hat also seems to have a program that's supposed to update menu items on supported WMs (KDE, Gnome and FVWM at least), but few people seem to take the necessary steps to make their RPM packages take advantage of this.
They'll take away my precious debian when they pry the hard drive from my cold dead fingers! Code on you Debian Project Gods! ;)
Diversity good. If mutations weren't everywhere, not as many things could survive a changing environment.
:o) has shown, while it is true that mutations are an important part of evolution and adaptativity, the most efficient tool for optimizing a population is still sexual reproduction (ie crossing-over between similar-but-different genotypes).
:o) : they get better and better by inventing new features, but also by borrowing each other's inventions and adding them their own little tweaks.
:o)
As artificial life research (read: hundreds of underpaid graduate students
We can see a brilliant example of this in the distro problem: distros evolve not only by inventing new things, but also by borrowing from each other. Imagine if Red Hat or Caldera or Debian could prevent others from using this or that package in their distro ! Same thing for Gnome/KDE (disclaimer: I use X & Blackbox, period
For the benefit of us all
Thomas Miconi
So you are reaching for your .45 to put your computer out of its misery, but Wait! You have an idea: You install Borton Brain Utilities on your brain.
Choose one:
Borton Speedbrain: Defragments your brain in 10 minutes, works much faster than MS Sleep(TM), which takes 8 hours.
Borton Brain Doctor: Recovers lost brain cell clusters and broken synapse chains and repairs them.
Borton Frontal Lobe Optimizery: Optimizes your thought patterns and plugs that notorius memory leak, so you won't need spinal taps as often.
Borton Brain Washer: Scrubs out unneeded registry entries and removes unneeded DLLs from the medulla oblongata directory.
It's not difference for difference's sake, it's differences for choice's sake! We get plenty of choice to run our system the way we want, whether it's to run apt-get or rpm, use BSD printing management or CUPS, or even how many virtual desktops you want. This isn't just a distro specific thing, this is the UNIX philosophy that allows us to string together programs the way we want. The Linux distros are simply an extension of this. It's a matter of choosing the right tool for the right job.
I don't know if you actually use linux, but I've never had something really break because of some inane thing like a different window manager, screensaver, or font. The things that break things are much like those on Mac or Windows... missing dll's (lib.so's), broken programs and drivers, and misconfigured systems. These things are no different in Mac or Windows, it's just easier to mess up in linux because the user is generally trusted.
And there are higher rules to the system, but even a system that says "screw that" can still take a piece of software, rearrange it, and redistribute it so that it will run and install just fine on their system. It's choice. You can't do these things most other places. And if diversity and choice doesn't spawn innovation, then I don't know what does.
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
"I may not have morals, but I have standards."
IMHO, Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols should open his eyes.
Only two distributions left?
Not even a mention of my favorite desktop distribution.
What about special distributions?
Heck, there's so many niche markets that even Redhat has almost a dozen different versions. and that list doesn't include the Cheapbytes , or Embedded versions.
Don't get me wrong, Redhat makes a great distribution, but do you really expect them to fit every market niche?
Standards are badly needed, DJB has a nice plea here: http://cr.yp.to/compatibility.html
Most users never need to install drivers.
I think that, if you are comfortable with the command line, then you will not tend to explore the alternatives. That doesn't mean they are not there.
Yes it has. That has nothing to do with my argument. Windows still has a long way to go before it's easy to use as well. When I go six months without anyone asking me for help on Windows then I will concede that it's easy to use.
And if your company will hire just anyone to admin their systems then they've got real problems in their IT department.
However, there needs to be a consistent UI that can be chosen at Install that configures the machine a particular way. Users NEED consistent UIs.
How do people manage to cope with the enormous variety of private telephone systems then? There might be a case for a consistant UI within an organisation, or within a department. But that is up to the people running the system to configure appropriatly.
It's not as if people even get a consistant UI with Microsoft. every version of Windows and every version of MS Office changes the UI. Even before you start using corporate customisations. (Or as MS calls them "Resource Kits".)
I think the biggest issue comes down to convenient packaging, software installation, and a single consistent interface. If people want Linux to keep growing on the desktop, these three issues are extremely important. The variety offered by different distributions is a great thing, but it can also result in a lot of headaches. Any time you have a lack of standards or competing standards it causes confusion for the end users. That said, I think the Linux community is doing a good job of developing and incorporating standards on what is an extremely fast growing platform.
/usr/local because it didn't come on the distributions 5 CDs of software?
/opt because it is optional software, and commercial (which some feel belongs in /opt).
Wait, what if it comes on Distribuition XYZ's 3rd CD out of the 7 CD set?? Then we stick it in /usr/bin?
FHS is NOT 100% clear on this. Yes, there is a standard in place. But, the reason it's being ignored is because it's as clear as milk.
/*I'm so tired of bullshit arguments like this*/
/restore and they keep asking why they don't have a mouse pointer. You think Linux would solve that? "Oh, but we can remotely admin that system." YEAH FUCKING RIGHT. Can you imagine the kind of abuses that would happen if you implemented that with home users? And are you willing to *pay* for that kind of support? And then, while you're admining, you stumble upon tons of pr0n, etc, you think the customer wants you to see their dirty laundry? I think not. It's hard enough to get a customer to tell you just exactly what icon they want to get rid of on their desktop and why "I want to suck your dick" keeps emanating from their speakers (that you can hear over the phone). TO have a Linux world of remote admininistration sounds like the FBI's wet dream.
And I'm so tired of bullshit answers to bullshit arguments like this.
Let's face it: Office workers use what you put in front of them. You may have to train them to do things a "certain" way, but in reality I've found they don't care what OS they're on. A friend of mine's mother uses some apps that run on WindowMaker. She's oblivious to the fact that she's working on a fully functional UNIX machine, she just does her job (open this application via that icon, blah blah) and then goes home. She doesn't care nor does is she aware of the MS vs. *nix debate. What it comes down to is this: you can find a million kids on the street that know and can support windows. You can't say the same for Linux or any UNIX (although the number is growing). If your Linux geek quits, it may take you a couple weeks to find a replacement. If your Windows geek quits, you can find another by the end of the day, or hell, you could probably train Susie Secretary to do some of the tasks herself.
Linux is *hard* for those that want to use the OS as something more than a tool for the job. For the Susie Secretaries and Joey DataEntry Guys, they don't care. If the system goes down, hey, it's break time, let the "geeks" fix it. Making a fucking "shortcut" icon on the desktop, as of RH 6.0 was still a cumbersome and annoying process (I haven't tried KDE's flavor of desktop management). Joey DataEntry and Susie Secretary may or may not have an interest in making "shortcut" icons. I've found windows to be fairly intuitive. I've not found the same to be true of Linux. I can tool around on my Windows box and discover neat stuff just by delving down the context and properties menus. I've got to read manpages, slashdot, IRC, books, etc, just to get some more functionality out of Linux. Granted, there's no "registry" hacking involved, but maybe you get the idea (or maybe you don't).
I do telephone tech support during the day. It's *hard enough* to get Joe Dumbfuck to *right click* on an icon. It's harder still to boot to MSDOS and tell the person to choose some option in scanreg
Linux has a long way to go to reach the HOME desktop. Quit arguing and get coding and let's get it there!
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Actually, if Suzie the secretary is working in a typical business environment, she won't be doing the install, anyway. Instead, the system will be installed and configured by professional sysadmins who will set up /home/suzie so that she'll have access to all of the programs she needs from her GNOME/KDE desktop. I know the admins at my workplace would be right pissed if our secretaries tried doing any serious adminstrative tasks for their own computers.
As an aside, I actually wonder why people view secretaries as the perfect example of computer incompetents. My experience has been that they're using their computers for most of the day and eventually become quite adept at doing all of the computer related tasks that are required as part of their everyday job- much more so than the rest of the people around who only use computers occasionally. In fact, I suspect that they're exactly the kind of people who might appreciate the customizability and flexibility of Linux the most. All of the secretaries at my workplace have their desktops customized on Windows (while just about nobody else does), and I strongly suspect that they'd be the people who would have the most fun fiddling with getting just the right window manager and theme.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
The advantages:
ETC..!
Moving Windows to .NET services is suicide for MS if the buying public figures out the benefits of Free software. Free-as-in-freedom software promotes ownership and independence, while providing a very responsive support network. Copy schemes, obfuscation, and decision waffling are knocks against MS.
Furthermore, MS is ultimately going to disenfranchise itself from it's consumer base once it tries implementing massive copy controls. Windows would not be so popular today if it wasn't for pirating amongst casual users. Without the ever-ignored underground Windows distribution mechanism, which really is the root of Windows dominance on the desktop, Windows will eventualy die.
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
-- kwashiorkor --
Leaps in Logic
should not be confused with
Jumping to Conclusions.
Still sounds easier than Windows to me... (shrug)
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
What about Netscape? Is Netscape diffrent from Oracle or Adobe? They are all not open source... So... ? Is open source relevent to system administration (IMHO, NO, it's not). It's either part of the OS and goes in /usr/bin (which I HARDLY consider any of those examples part of an OS), or it's an add on (and doesn't matter if it came on a distribution CD or downloaded directly from the company that wrote it) so it should go OUTSIDE of /usr/bin and maybe into /usr/local or /opt.
People often base their perceptions about computing based on what they understand. What they understand is overwhelmingly MS Windows. In this world virtually anything that isn't Microsoft is incompatible. They extend this reasoning and assume that multiple distributions means multiple incompatibilities.
It is part of the *nix advocates job to point out that all Unices are functionally compatible with each other. Exchange of information between the different platforms is easy because of the very simple text file standard. Legacy binary compatibility is a non-issue due to source code distribution. When a new architecture arrives the *nix world just recompiles.
The number of distros doesn't matter. Underlying architecture doesn't matter. Users matter.
You didn't respond to the point he made. This is an rpm problem it's a problem of using packages on Redhat 6.x that are designed for Rehdat 7.x. I have come across this problem as well, and that is why I switched to Debian for my personal machine. Apt-get install has yet to cause a serious problem. And updating sources.list and running apt-get dist-upgrade to go from 2.1 to 2.2 was much easier then dealing with Redhat's installer.
This is also why a company would buy a support contract from Redhat. When these problems come up, you call up your Redhat support dude and worse comes to worse, they'd probably provide you with a package for an older version of their distro.
I'm a crusty old greenscreener who lived through the Unix fragmentation of the 80's and I fear this is happening all over again with Linux. Ask any ISV (independent software vendor) how much of a nightmare their porting center is if they support more than a couple flavors of Unix.
The key to widespread Linux acceptance is ISV support. That's right, commercial, closed source products people have been using for years, whether or not there's an open-source "equivalent" (e.g., Photoshop vs. Gimp).
The big applications have to run on Linux for Linux to penetrate anywhere other than, well, here. And as the whole FrameMaker thing showed us, that's not a foregone conclusion even for applications with Unix origins, much less things that come from the M$ world (e.g., convincing Intuit to port Quicken to Linux).
ISV support on Linux, over the long term, will be inversely proportional to how difficult it is to develop a distribution-independent application.
[And I won't even get into whether or not an open-source product can ever avail itself of "closed" resources like the Pantone color database Photoshop uses or Avery's office stationery specs that M$ Office knows about.]
That's a Redhat problem. They support approx 1500 packages (I'm guessing). Debian supports about 4500 packages. So with Debian, you have a better chance of getting a Debian approved package for a piece of software. When you download Joe Schmoe's gnome toaster RPM it probably won't be as well integrated and tested as if Redhat made it. Maybe Redhat should let contributers help them maintain their distro? Who knows, but when you get stock packages straight from the distro maintainer, they are all up to snuff (from what I've seen).
And even so, with all these "Windows distributions", there is one vendor, and one place to go for tech support.
If Linux didn't have so many different distros with different configuration files, different GUI libraries, different window managers.. it would make the job of developing and installing programs on all platforms much easier. How many times do you have to download and install a bunch of extra libraries before you can install the main program you wanted to use? This is one of the things that makes MS-Windows so easy to use to install applications. All the basic libraries applications need are already on the system. Linux on the other hand has so many different libraries competeing with each other that no distro can fit every single one on the same distro and so users have to go around downloading all these libraries just to install a simple program.
This brings up another point. With Open Source, libraries shouldn't be fighting against each other. All developers have access to the libraries code so they should work together and make one very good library. If they go off and make their own library then we end up with a bunch of poor libraries that are pretty much the same. Open Source means people should be working together, yet for most applications this isn't true.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
The post you replied to was mostly speaking of business use. You're right on that note.
But what about at home, where the users are the administrators? For common problems, buttons are less intimidating to than config files. Your wife has it easy -- you admin the system for her. What if you weren't there to do it?
I will agree that for the average home user Linux is not there. Although I've been told that Mandrake is close. But for the most part when speaking of home use you are right.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
I know I'm starting to sound like a broken record with this :) (just look at my user info posts) but I still think an IBM Linux distro would be a good thing. The GPL insures that Linux will always have diversity, and their will always be distros based purely on "hacker enthusiasm" like Slackware and Debian.
However, I think it would do a lot of good to have one big, honkin' corporate-backed distro with a familiar name that all the corporate types and quasi-techs could support... and I think an IBM distro is just the thing. Perhaps IBM should buy Redhat or whatever... IBM already have been good citizens with Apache/Websphere, and the GPL, as well as their being primarily a hardware company, will keep them in line.
Like I said before, it would be very much like the IBM PC... a defacto standard that IBM truly does not own, but everyone supports because of the big name and the snowball effect of it.
My school made it's own Linux distribution. It's little more than a slightly altered Redhat 6.1. But, for a Linux newbie such as myself, it was great to be able to install a distro with working AFS/Kerberos that was designed to be interoperable with UofM's other systems.
Lots of customized distros are good. Lots of generalized distros are good too.
Windows doesn't have a diversity problem at all; after all, Microsoft is the sole distributor of Windows. However, back in the DOS days, I can remember not being able to format or rescue a machine that was running PC DOS by IBM.
Let's hope that the Linux distro companies don't start making the same mistakes that IBM did with PC DOS or OS/2.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I've recently started down this golden road of linux wonderland and had no idea as to what distro to start with. For the beginner, it's impossible to filter through all the hype. So, hearing more about Redhat than any other I started out with 6.2. I've since had folks tell me to go with Mandrake, SuSe, etc. There will always be opinions. However, if one or two distros win the popularity contest, then they're going to be the ones that get the MS users up off their knees.
You should look at Mandrake 7.2. It has a reputation for being the nicest home desktop distro. I just recently installed it and have to agree. And I've tried all the major ones, execept Debian, which I haven't been able to install yet, with most of my experience being with Red Hat and Mandrake, beause I like them the best. Red Hat 7.0 might also be a good choice if you are on a network. I'm on DSL and I never got it working with Red Hat after a couple of months, but Mandrake set it up on the install and it works. But Red Hat would be incredibly easy if you were on a network, i.e. a campus network or something.
That said, I'd take a look at www.linux.org and go to the distro page and check out some of the distros claiming to be easy to use. One of the ones I'd keep an eye on is Redmond Linux (http://www.redmondlinux.org/). They are claiming to have a distro that the user does not need to touch the command line to use. My biggest gripe with it is that it is going to be KDE centric, and I'm more of a GNOME user. But, I will run through the streets naked with joy when I can get a GNOME biased distro with a GTK web browser and without the need for the command line. Until then I'll be playing around with Ximian and Nautilus and with every distro I can get my hands on.
Lastly, I'd say that if you haven't checked out the lastest releases of the most well know distros, you should. They have all gotten considerably better in just the last few months, due to KDE 2.0 coming out and GNOME getting alot more applications for it. If you have, and they weren't up to snuff for you, wait six months and try again. Linux just might be ready for you by then.
Ben Porter.
Linux[ because the best things in life are free ];
I see several strong commercial releases that draw from the 'lower', smaller releases. In other words, a two-tiered approach. The commercial versions will appeal to the conservative businesses mindset, while the smaller distributions allow for innovation and growth. The conservative versions can introduce innovations and advancements after a Darwinian process determines the strengths and weaknesses of the innovations - which open source will then clean up as needed.
This is far better than Microsoft, which simply swallows the ideas of others and then regurgitates them in a closed (and usually badly reimplemented) form.
If by 'major' Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols meant 'comercial' versions of Linux sold in large numbers by US companies, then yes there will be only 2-3 left in a few years. There will be plenty of other 'major' distros around the world however. There will also be a few European distros, a couple Japanese distros, a Brasilian distro, etc.
There will also be a plethora of smaller distros that fit various niches, just as we have today. It's just too easy to make your own customised distro, that exactly fits your needs, for this not to occur.
The problem is the incompatability and fragmentation between the distributions. I'm not talking about diffrent kernel or library versions, or even about diffrent package management. I'm talking about diffrent init levels, diffrent init scripts, diffrent paths for add on software, and totally diffrent layouts. (Maybe even diffrent packaging, but I like diffrent packages, I would only ask that they maybe consider standardizing the metadata, which is something they are quitely talking about already).
I agree with many of the artical points, but I say that he is dead wrong, and companies like Chilliware (or whatever it's called), Conectiva, and have plenty of room to create specific nitch application or language focused distributions.
The problems all stem from lack of standards (again), which make ALL distributions result in some "roll your own" needs when you start adding stuff you want (like Adobe, Oracle, or any ISV applications) and integrating diffrent systems into the same network. Time will tell, but (again, IMHO, and probably flamebait) it's just because the standards groups are more worried about finding a middle ground through the path of least resistance, rather than doing what they should and laying down a few laws based in logic and substance.
Yes, this is a fundamental point that is overlooked every time this sort of topic comes up. Open Source is a good thing and we've established that time after time. Competition is great amongst the Linux distro community. However, some of the distros are going to die off because of they can't turn a profit or because the just aren't that good. These companys have to generate at least some income to survive. I don't care if the money comes from selling t-shirts to so they can burn distro CDs.
Apple would never open their GUI.
It's all they have left.
--
Soma: because a gramme is better than a damn.
With the more user friendly GUI's such as nautilus. & with more advanced package management & as well as the UNIX friendlyness of Darwin & ability to run M$ office on Macs - fairly soon there will be an alternative to M$. I give M$'s monopolistic hold on the buisness world two more years. And talk to ANY secretary - ask them which word processor they favour. Wordperfect will be the most common answer.
Move 'zig'!
There is some truth to this, but I was at a small bank the other day an noticed they had small weak machines running windows but they used some kind of proprietary app to do everything in. This took up the whole screen and I don't think that they really even had to deal much with windows to do their work. So this could eaisly be done with Linux to save on OS costs, but then again, they couldn't usethe computers for personal stuff, so I don't know if this would be a plus or a minus.
This Wiki Feeds You TV and Anime - vidwiki.org
While the whole Windows-will-overwrite-DLL's-nightmare is well understood, the upgade path for *most* users is pretty pain free.
Not so with Linux. Here is an example using RedHat 6.1 distro.
Today, I try to install a package that requires an specific lib package. Ok, I try to install it but can't because I have rpm 3.x and I need rpm 4.0. Can't install rpm 4.x because rpm 3.x can't decompress it. Need to update to 4.0 with out updating to 4.0.
Ok, go look for that (spend about an hour at redhat.com (shame on you)) and find an errata. Ok, follow the directions and I get updated to 3.0.5. On my way. Try to install rpm 4.0. Can't because rpm 4.0 needs an updated glibc. Ok, go get that. Try to install it and--can't because glibc will break what? You probably didn't guess it. It breaks dependencies on rpm 3.0.5?
Now tell me. Is Susie secretary, or a supposedly knowledgeable tech support person, gonna have to time/ability to fix this one?
Point is, Linux distros are just as bloated and broken as Microsoft, Mac, OS/2, [insert the OS you love to hate here].
One of the reasons Windows windows apps do so well is because, for good or bad, the problems with the windows enviornment are pretty well understood and are farily standardized. The high-end Unix world is no different with Solaris leading the pack.
(Please, let's not pick nits. I know that is a sweeping statement, take it in the spirit intended--a generalization)
No argument here; make it half a dozen, to keep everybody happy :)
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
The "ease-of-use" claim for Windows has never made all that much sense to me. It doesn't hold water from two either of the two classes of "users" (as opposed to admins/hackers/developers/hobbyists):
User Type #1: Suzie the Secretary - she runs 5 programs total and was utterly mortified by DOS prompt back in day. She still can't install a piece of shareware if her life depends on it. I've got the perfect setup for her - a drawer in GNOME that contains StarOffice, Netscape, a mail client, XMMS, and GAIM. It's like the Win XP "common tasks" list, except StarOffice won't dissappear if I use AbiWord for a couple days.
User Type #2: Joe the Tinkerer. Joe's job may not be different than Suzie, but he's comfortable doing more things with his machine - he has a shareware program that randomly changes his desktop image every day, and he installed Napster for spare time usage He could swap a PCI card if he had to. Joe used to be somewhat handy with DOS prompt. You give Joe a DOS-to-UNIX cheat sheet, explain the fundamental structure of UNIX directories and "./configue", "make", "make install", and in a couple days he's happy.
What boggles my mind is the CTO who's willing to pay current MS prices. $199 for an Office upgrade?!?! Multiply that by x licenses (and multiply by 0.yy for volume discounts) and you've just dropped many thousands of dollars on a program with a free alternative that's 100% compatible. Ditto for the operating system. Repeat this process every two years, or until replaced with subscription-ware.
When the average corporate user needs only Windows and Office, why not use RedHat and StarOffice instead? Doesn't software cost play any factor in these decisions?
BTW, VMWare fully emulates the instability of the emulated OS, so it won't really help in the way you suggest. Win4Lin -- haven't used it, but I doubt it is more stable than running native. (Especially since running native Win2k is just as stable as running native Linux in my experience.)
------
Your views are correct! :-)
You have to remember that in larger companies or organizations, it's good to try to standardize on system configurations as much as possible. That makes it much easier to do company-wide systems management and upgrades.
What I find interesting is that many so-called roll your own distributions are actually modified versions of commercial Linux distributions, customized for the local organization's needs. A good example of this is the Linux used at UCLA, which is essentially Red Hat Linux modified to take advantage of the network infrastructure at UCLA.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
Diversity can be good. It gives you choice, it promotes creativity, and it promotes freedom.
Standardization can be good. It prevents chaos, dupicity, and redundancy, and allows predictability and consistence in the implementation.
Things can get better faster in a diverse environment. However, when the best way to solve a problem has been found and an implementation is optimized, it only makes sense to standardize it and then move on to other areas that need optimization, choosing from the diversity that we have. This way, we are always solving problems and we waste less time, energy, and brain-power in redundant duplication. When things get to the point that the standard is outdated, we propose a new one and from the diversity we have.
So indeed, with free software, we can have the best of both worlds. We have a rich yet open specification with a most diverse feature set, as well as the freedom and ability to choose as we desire. With free software, we also have an excellent system of checks and balances - if predatory methods are included in a package, we have a multitude of others to choose in its stead. The worst that could happen is that we take the parts that are desirable from that package and develope our own without having to start from scratch. (Little wonder why proprietary corporations hate us.) There is also another subtle advantage to publicly-specified intellectual property: Peer review. Since we have the entire intellectual resources of the internet, when there is a problem or a bug with an implementation, it is quickly pointed out and a solution is immediately proposed.
And compared to proprietary methods, we do this at a cost next to nothing. (Now they really fear us.)
They attempt to make us dependent on them,
but it simply increases our desire for freedom.
They attempt to control us with their code,
but instead we are motivated to write our own.
Distros that will survive are those which have people behind them who give a damn. Slackware, Suse, Mandrake, Debian. These will be the survivors.
---
IMHO, of course.
May the SOURCE be with you.
I remember the Unix fragmentation of the 80s too.
I don't think Linux forking is nearly as bad. Everyone's using the same. Most kernel upgrades don't seem to break most program binaries. The most painful compatibility issue I can recall was when some distros had upgraded to glibc and others had not.
You can often use binary RPMS from one distro with another (although following the dependency tree to ensure all the necessary libraries are in place may get painful). Things will get even better as the LSB standards emerge. You shouldn't need to turn your code into a rats nest of #ifdefs like you did back in the 80s.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Some months ago we decided it was time to upgrade all our webservers. I have been less than happy with the current (7.0) RedHat offering so we agreed to re-evaluate all the distributions on the market. Each has it merits, but nothing seemed to really fit the purpose as well as it might.
So we turned to LFS (Linux From Scratch). In the process we decided to just start making binary packages of everything we compiled for convenience. And of course the next step was to make a bootable CD with reiser and network support and a simple install shell script.
Gosh, now that we have all this 'in the can' we might as well share it, and maybe even get some feedback, bug reports, and help with packages. And thus was born Beehive Linux.
The point is that the Linux world is the only place that this could have ever happend. Don't like the available solutions for your particular need? Fine, make your own. Offer it up to others. If it's a good concept is good then it will flourish, if it's not it will die eventually.
Think of it as technical Darwinism.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - BF
Yes you are right: Germany is *included* in Europe, no *equal* to Europe ;) I'm in France and UK and I don't know any SuSE user.
get some ;p
We would like to think Linux would overtake MS as the most used OS, but the fact remains, most of the people jumping online, and working on the "typical" PC based application solely need simple functions out of their pc, and them having to gcc -o something something.c or ./configure --with-some-new-package ; make ; make install is just not going to cut it.
Do you really have to compile your own stuff these days??? Sure, some crazy hackers (like me!) compile everything from scratch, but it's hardly nessary. Run Debian? It's by far easier to install a program on Debian then Windows:`apt-get install `. On Windows, you have to click the program, click through the license agreement written by Nazi war criminal lawyers, decide where to install it, sit there waiting for it to install (and hope it doesn't blue screen in the process), then you're done.
Then what do you do when you want to get rid of a program on Windows *shudder*. No, the little uninstall icon is not enough, as it often leaves cruft in the system (this is why it's a good idea to do a clean reinstall of Windows a lot, especialy if you install and uninstall a lot of stuff). To *really* get rid of a program on Windows, you have to go digging through the registry, and the \windows directory, and the \windows\system directory, and the \windows\system32 directory, and the \Program Files directory, and the . . . well, you get the point.
Want to get rid of that program on Debian? `apt-get remove `
------
Not a typewriter
As long as the goal isn't to attempt to replace Windows, or even compete with it then diversity is a good thing.
It keeps Linux from becoming a behemoth of code that win-me is. However, it also keeps it from being simple to write for, hence it won't ever threaten windows.
2 or 3 good distributions would be nice... just to keep each other in line. However, make no mistake, more than this, hell even this many, and there is zero chance of competeing with windows for the public. It just won't happen. Windows suceeded because the public favors simplicity - (granted in the wrong area). They don't want to know what "flavor" of Linux/Windows they run... they run Windows or they run Linux...
hence...
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I can't accept these as valid arguments.
./configure --with-some-new-package ; make ; make install is just not going to cut it."
"Susie the secretary will not understand *Nix vs. point and click."
Many desktop GUI environments for Linux are every bit as easy to use as Windows. It's just a matter of what people are already used to. "We've always done it this way" does not carry much weight with me. Besides, did they make that same argument when Windows changed the environment from 3.x to 95?
"Which one is really better as they all claim one or two niches over the other."
"Why so many desktop environments, sure Alternatives are good, but when work needs to be done, money is burnt by time spent figuring out Whats what on Linux vs. point and click MS"
"and them having to gcc -o something something.c or
NONE of which are really valid arguments for MS over Linux. Have you looked at how much the IT dept. of a corporation spends on maintaining Windows? Or do you really think that "Susie Secretary" installed her own pc, set up the domain, built the firewall and proxy, etc. Why do we insist that sysadmin functions be dumbed down enough that everyone can do them? MS want you to THINK that Windows is so simple even a child could get an MCSE (ok, maybe they can), but in reality decent sized companies pay experts for that. Small companies where the secretary actually DOES set up her own pc DO have an advantage in sticking with the comfortable and familiar, but that doesn't seem to be what we're talking about here.
Ignorance is the root of all evil.
... which ironically used to be commonly known as the "IBM PC" platform! :)
A distro for the Power PC architecture would also be a natural fit for IBM.
I think this is both true and untrue. Assuming Linux is widely in adopted in some markets I think we'll end up with more distros than that for commercial use. I don't think the Linux market will look like the auto market, with a Big Three distros or something like that. The Linux market will look more like the OEM market, with a couple very large vendors, dozens of second-tier vendors, and more little shops than you can count.
Why? The cost to enter the Linux market is pretty low - you can take somebody else's GPL software, modify it a bit, and make your own distribution at relatively low cost. Then you charge less for support and try to undercut them. Like the OEM market, the Linux market is based completely on a open standard - there are no proprietary secrets needed to bust in and everything you need is readily available. The difference will be in levels of support. I have no hope that my no-name OEM will answer the phone if I call - they might even be out of business by tommorrow, but the price was right. RedHat and other first-tier distributions will offer any level of support you care to buy. Other commercial distros will limit support to a minimum and keep it cheap.
Susie the secretary will not understand *Nix vs. point and click.
Unless Susie the secretary installs a distro from '96 then she will probably never have to use the command line. Do you need to know how the Windows kernel works to use Word 2000. Also if Susie has problems with her machine she calls tech support who logon remotely and fix it for her.
As for 'which one is better', I suppose having several choices of server company is also a bad thing. How are you supposed to know who's the best.
How about anti-virus software, groupware, fault-logging software? Is the plethora of choices also a bad thing.
I'm so tired of bullshit arguments like this. Linux is no harder to use than Windows. I have to help my family out on a regular basis because Windows plays up on them, and unlike Linux there is no way for me to find out why.
If Windows is easy to use then obviously no tech support is required as well.
Linux nowadays needs as much command line intervention as Windows does, which is to say occasionally, usually when network information is required.
If you can name me a situation when command line is the only option I'll be impressed.
This article seems to fall into the category of "Linux in Business" more than a general-interest Linux story. What the managers don't seem to realise is that non-commerical distros like Debian and, to a lesser extent, Slackware (which is good enough to be non-commercial ;-) can survive with just one maintainer. The commercial distros like Red Hat will die if there is no commercial interest or too much competition. Think of the power of free software, guys! It applies to distros too - Linux or any of its non-commercial distros will survive as long as there is sustained interest by hobbyists and hackers.
I love the fact that Linux is diverse and has multiple distrobutions. I started with Redhat 6 (late starter) and moved to Mandrake 7. I know use Mandrake 8 beta. I know Mandrake is traditionally for newbies but I like the way they work.
But I still use Debian for my web server, when a blind person asked me for help we installed SuSE because it has Braille Support out of the box. I use MuLinux for embedded floppy work and have just downloaded Midori Linux ofr embedded work.
Kondara has a great emphasis on Eastern modifications and Slackware is there for the Gurus.
Yes businesse might like one standard distro but they can put their ideas where the sun doesn't shine.
-- Be careful what you say. Someone might remind you about it another day.
Please forgive me for playing the devils advocate here, and I totally agree on most your points, hell I've been using BSD's for some time now and Windows is completely banned (as I jokingly put it) from my home.
Take a quick look at the sagging markets, and truthfully ask yourself if things will continue to flourish for sysadmins who get paid well. I'm in the sys admin/security based field and get paid well, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty, I often wonder is it really neccessary, when by using simple products, most people can be taught to fix things on their own leaving a sys admin in the cold.
What about when X has a huge gaping security hole, or she gets an error like connection refused, or anyone with simple relative skills, should companies spend their money waiting for admins to fix these problems often having few minutes worth of unproductive downtime?
Uh yes MS' Windows NT has perms just like Unix based systems, sure people are going to want to modify their own systems since they are the ones using it. Now take a *Nix based system and by chance you get a curious user who asks whats rm do on a live machine? Well I hope the admin took the time to ensure everything was in the proper groups.
If you haven't noticed Windows has remote administration tools including ssh now. It can easily be modified remotely.
Anyways I don't want to sound at all like an MS advocate or even Linux advocate, I just wanted to point out instances which for us geeks are simple, but in a simple world difficult.
360 degrees of Karma
Many distros can be a good thing in a certain environmental niche. But then you can't complain that others in a different niche don't come over to play.
Yeah, right. I think the driver deployment model of Linux is almost completely wrong. The supported hardware gets fixed when the kernel is compiled. So writing a new driver requires patching the kernel sources? Oh and I hate browsing through all the different models of HAM radios and ISDN adapters when I just wanna compile firewalling support to my kernel.
My SMC NIC simply doesn't to work with the kernel module drivers. The ALSA driver for my sound card refused to load since Red Hat precompiled kernels didnt have the support compiled in. Only once have I managed to install X without manually editing refresh rates etc. That's so automatic...
Linux is not (yet) as easy to use as Windows. I'm sorry, but it's the truth.
If I remember from a comment on a older Slashdot article, the Linux given to any interested UCLA student for some time was essentially Red Hat Linux 5.0 with a pre-canned configuration so the user can quickly log onto the UCLA computer network.
:)
Mind you, Mandrake Linux is in many ways derived from Red Hat Linux.
I think for neophyte Linux users they should be using either Mandrake 7.2 or Caldera OpenLinux 2.4.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
And even so, with all these "Windows distributions", there is one vendor, and one place to go for tech support.
Erm... in your world is that considered an advantage? Multiple vendors and multiple sources of support is usually considered a good thing.
If you want single vendor you'd be better switching to Macintosh than running Windows on a PC.
It's possible, surely...
You want examples? Well, with most Linux programs, you need to use the command line to build and install them. In some cases (ok, a lot of cases) you might be lucky enough to find an RPM. Well, so what? You install the RPM, and then what? How do you start the program?
You select it from the KDE/Gnome menu. Your distro doesn't do that? Too bad. Alternatively, you can also click on it in the file manager.
Another example -- drivers. How do you install new drivers in Linux?
You don't. Hardware is detected and configured automatically these days. New drivers come as packages or package updates.
I have been using Linux for two and a half years, BTW. It has been my primary OS for most of that time. I am running on a custom-compiled 2.4.2 kernel under Debian/unstable right now -- I know how Linux works. But the simple fact is that Linux is not (yet) as easy to use as Windows. I eagerly await the day when it is, but there is just so much work that needs to be done before that happens. I'm sorry, but it's the truth.Maybe try a more recent distro. You could be surprised.
Three reasons why multiple distributions are better then a few.
Direction
If you've ever worked on a team of equals (or close to it) you will have noticed that it is often very difficult to agree on a common direction. Half the group may want to work on X while the other half wants to work on Y. When this happens Project Leaders have to get their developers to compromise more than they collaborate. Force the issue and you'll end up with a product that fails to meets either goal.
I think this philosophy is best illustrated by the recent "fork" of the Samba project. A contingency of developers decided that they really wanted to try some new avenues. Avenues that didn't necessarily coincide with the short term vision of the main development effort. Rather than try and compromise, the project leads thought it a better idea to split their forces and hopefully meet again somewhere down the road. While its true that this decreased the number of eyes on the "core" Samba effort, it may very well lead to more quantum leaps in the future.
The same holds true for Linux because the code is open. If Mandrake sees that SuSE has made some great strides in a given area, they can incorporate those changes and vice versa. This in effect puts them in the same development community, but allows them the freedom to explore those areas that interest them.
Competition
Competition fuels innovation. Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE, TurboLinux, and Caldera are all trying to make a buck on Linux. A market without a lot of bucks to go around (at least at the moment). If they want to sell more boxes they've got to demonstrate why their Linux is better than the next guys. Competition is a huge motivator and one that diminishes with fewer players.
Choice
Choice isn't really a reason all its own, in fact it greatly depends on the other two. If they don't exist then we won't have many choices at all. Limit choice, and the next thing you know a young college student is writing his own kernel for his own enjoyment and educational purposes. (which is a good thing by the way, because it reintroduces choice)
"The words of the prophets are written on the Slashdot walls."
I'm sorry I couldn't stop laughing... Im gay for RPMs I'm bustin a nut over here! - hey stop looking at my tarballs!!
Must... control... Fist of Death!
You're kidding, right? I can't imagine going through a day without the command line in Linux, even if I tried.
You want examples? Well, with most Linux programs, you need to use the command line to build and install them. In some cases (ok, a lot of cases) you might be lucky enough to find an RPM. Well, so what? You install the RPM, and then what? How do you start the program?
This is a problem my cousin was having. He complained that he'd try to install an RPM, and it would claim to have succeeded, but then the program wasn't installed. In fact, the program simply wasn't showing up in his start menu (or whatever you call the GNOME equivalent -- the foot menu if you will). Whe I heard him say this, I was shocked. I said, "You mean you don't know how to use the command line?" I then explained to him that you can do very little without the CLI in Linux, and I taught him how to use it.
Another example -- drivers. How do you install new drivers in Linux? Well, frankly, every freeking driver is different. My sound driver is a kernel module. My video driver is a combo kernel module / X driver. Both of these had to be installed from the command line, and in very different ways. On Windows, OTOH, you have the convenient hardware manager, which is a nice, consistent interface for any kind of driver installations and updates. I don't have to read the readme when I download a Windows driver -- I just go to the hardware manager, click the hardware I want to update, and update the driver.
I have been using Linux for two and a half years, BTW. It has been my primary OS for most of that time. I am running on a custom-compiled 2.4.2 kernel under Debian/unstable right now -- I know how Linux works. But the simple fact is that Linux is not (yet) as easy to use as Windows. I eagerly await the day when it is, but there is just so much work that needs to be done before that happens. I'm sorry, but it's the truth.
------
Susie wouldn't be installing new software to her machine at work, either, she would expect everything that she needs to be there, and if it's not, she'd call for help to get it installed. Even in Windows, the sys admins would be doing these things, and the users could go along happily without the command-line.
How about some examples that would affect Susie?
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
What's she to do in Windows when she sets the video driver to a resolution that her monitor can't handle and all she gets is trash accross the screen (and yes, I've seen it happen).
All the Linux installations I've done lately don't require you to type startx. They set up the system so that it boots in the graphic runlevel. You never see the command line unless you open up a term (which I do, first thing).
No, Linux isn't perfect yet. ;) But it's not as far behind Windows as you emply.
--
--
Unscrample my email, win a prize.
This is why sys admins exist and why we are paid rather well. What about Linux with X up and a well configured WM is *not* point and click. My wife can do it. I have given it to many secretaries all of whom with ~1 hour of training can do it. Hell my 5 year old son can navigate E + gnome. While it is not possible to admin a Linux system without the command line it is very possible to use one without. The simple answer to too much choice which is what your other two points come down to is have a good admin test demonstarte and explain. Then make a decision based on your needs and wants and stick with it. Most arguments I have heard of this type stem from a confusion between using and system and admining a system. With M$ it has been the case that people have had to play amatuer sys admin either because there was no good way to stop them from doing it or there was no really good way to do it for them. With *nix I can use SSH to admin boxen on the other side of town and not get out of my chair. Thus we can once again have a sharp division between admins and users. And then Susie the secratary can set down at her machine and do her work instead of having to worry about doing admin duties on her machine. This is a good thing.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
It's not really that diverse. Think about it.
Linux is just a variation of *NIX. Then you have variation of Linux, such as Mandrake, which has some features added with it, but is derived from Red Hat. In the end, what is it all? Variations of *NIX. An "ls" is still an "ls", a "| more" is a "| more". If I work on an SGI and switch to a HPUX and switch to a Solaris and then switch to Linux box, I won't be completely flummoxed because it's all *NIX in the end and they implement the interface/commands/etc. almost the same.
What would really be nice is an open source operating system that got away from *NIX; an OS with a completely different design paradigm than that of Linux and *NIX. Sure, Linux is nice, but nobody should accept that the only way to become more diverse is to make more variations of Linux.
Given all the available distributions, I can think of only two things that are important in how the various distributions vary...package management method and Default security installation. The former is probably the biggest one, distinguishing Slackware from Redhat/Mandrake/etc from Debian, and is probably where people have the most 'religious' conviction to their preferred distro. The latter is basically a more 'personal' touch, using one's opinion on what is 'secure' to set up how the box is initially installed. Given that this can vary from person to person, there is definitely potental for an infinite number of linux distros out there; and unless apt and rpm combine into one tool, there will never be a consolidation of distros.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
Study your biology a bit more. Evolution doesn't rely on major mutations.
It's much slower and the result of slight variation. I.e. limbs become a few centimeters longer over the course of several centuries.
A lot of mutation leads to extinction. And Darwinism is generally a poor metaphor.
Some here have said that multiple distros are in accordance with the principle of "everyone puts a piece in", but I disagree -- Everyone is contributing pieces, but to different projects.
Spiffy Tiffany!
Just think of the many distributions of Windows out there in current use...
Windows 95
Windows 95 OSR1
Windows 95 OSR2
Windows 95 OSR3
Windows 98
Windows 98 SE
Windows ME
Windows NT 4.0
Windows NT 4.0 SP1...Windows NT 4.0 SP6
Windows NT 4.0 Server
Windows NT 4.0 Server SP1...Windows NT 4.0 Server SP6
Windows CE 1.0
Windows CE 2.0
Windows CE 3.0
Windows 2000 Professional
Windows 2000 Server
Windows 2000 Advanced Server
Windows 2000 Datacenter Server
Windows.NET
Sounds fragmented to me!
who's distribution is aimed at the average luser
Windows 98, ME or soon to be XP or whatever + MSOffice. That's what a luser, who probably doesn't even want to use the damn thing should use. They should pay for it, and teach them how to reboot and not to bug the admin over every little issue that pops up - yes, we KNOW it buggy, just reboot and finish your assignment. Then thank Stallman and Linus and the supporting cast of millions that the rest of us don't have to use that crap.
Personally I wouldn't want to have to support a distro that's been bozofied with all kinds of semiautomatic help for lusers - it'd be worse than Windows - like I'm getting pissed at the RH "found new hardware" boot screen lately - just boot, give me total control and I'll take care of it.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
It seems that the fluff has taken the front seat in a world of alternatives. I personally have found that for the average user/sysadmin in the medium to small size shop is better off using the non mainstream distribution. It allows those people to give customized solutions for free. If those users, whom I think are the mainstay of linux in the first place, wanted just another commercial bloatware product to use, why even bother using linux in the first place?
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
I don't think that multiple Linux distros are beneficial because instead of having everyone contribute to the same project, they are contributing to their own projects which just happen to have a kernel in common. You have said that multiple distros are in accordance with the principle of "everyone puts a piece in", but I disagree -- Everyone is contributing pieces, but to different projects
Spiffy Tiffany!
Basically I agree with everyone else here that diversity is a good thing. However, I do not see the point in difference for difference's sake. When stuff start to break just because you're using a different distribution, windows manager, screen saver or font, It Just Ain't Worth It Anymore. In such situations something is missing, and if you can't conform and agree on the current level, there should be guidelines so that everything can conform on the meta-level. Higher rules to rule different distros could be a way to take the OS to a whole new and (damnit) innovative level.
- Steeltoe
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
The last point here is really the important one; what Linux, and Unix in general, really needs is a quick and easy _standard_ way to install software. Compiling from source, while tolerable when it works without modifications, is not really user friendly. If something goes wrong during compilation (say, you don't have a header file expected by the source), most users probably won't have a clue what to do, and those who have can easily lose hours fixing something like this. Package managers like RPM, especially when a graphical front-end is available, make installation easy enough in most cases, but have a few problems:
a) Different distributions use different formats. Is it too hard to agree on a unified package format, instead of having different package managers for Red Hat, Debian, et.c.? Correcting this would help a lot.
b) We really need a way to tell _any_ desktop environment that a new program has been installed, and that it should update its start menus or whatever accordingly. The current system where a user has to dig out a freshly installed program by hand from somewhere on his/her hard disk is horrible.
c) Precompiled binaries tend to rely on very specific library versions. In many cases, I've tried to install one package, only to find that I have to update or install another to get it to work, only to find that the second package needs a third to work, and so on. Most Windows apps solve this by bunching together all the required shared libraries with the program; this may be a bloated solution, but at least it's simple. A more efficient idea, of course, would be to give the package managing program the ability to find and install dependencies by itself (does Debian do this?) instead of complaining and leaving it up to the user to hunt for updates (like RPM).
Diversity good. If mutations weren't everywhere, not as many things could survive a changing environment. If Critter A makes millions of subtly different copies of itself, while every instance of Critter B is identical, and a large disaster comes along that only rare mutations of Critters can survive, Critter A will be the only one to carry on its genes. Critter B, due to it's lack of mutations, would not live to see another day.
Tell me what makes you so afraid
Of all those people you say you hate
I have been trying to use linux for 3 years plus - just never had a dedicated box for it! However, now that I have started - I love it. It is fun (mainly because windows bores me now - ive been there and done that - I wanna learn more)! However, certain things I just don't like. I really don't like tarballs and make installs. Im gay for RPMs. I really like the ability to install via RPMs. However - thank you diversity - if RPMs rub you the wrong way and you would rather have tar-balls - or apt-get - then hey, there it is for YEE! Diversity rocks. I can run vi and you emacs and we can actually get along, yes? We both are happy with our own lil varient. Sure arguments will ensue of which is better for this and that but diversity just fuels the wide range of preferences - and it owns.
Ok my Linux comercial is over now
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
You must be unlucky. I have had Win2k going on three boxes for the last eight months or so. One of them is my mom's computer (which she uses all the time), and the other two are secondary computers of mine, which I actually use quite regularly and usually leave on 24x7. I have seen one blue screen in that time, and it was due to my mom forcibly installing some sort of CDR drivers meant for Win9x. The funny thing is, the bluescreen actually gave instructions on how to fix the problem, and the instructions worked!
On one of the three computers, I had uptimes well over a month before I had to turn the computer off for some reason -- usually in order to transport it to a LAN party. The other two were not quite as stable (reboot every, oh, week or two), but clearly that indicates driver issues, not OS issues. Namely, the NVidia reference drivers are not perfect.
In the same time, I have had one Linux kernel panic (kernel 2.4.2 paniced on shutdown of lpd) and several Linux hard crashes (all driver problems). I have also, in the past, had many more problems with Linux stability. Of course, it was usually the fault of some driver. It also seems that I have to recompile my kernel every other week to fix the latest IDE write corruption bug or some crap like that.
Actually, the computer of mine with the most uptime right now is the Mac running OSX beta: 24 days. And no, the last reboot wasn't due to any sort of crash.
Look, Linux isn't perfect. Neither is Win2k. Depending on how you use them, and on what hardware you use them, you can get all kinds of results for stability. However, at the core, both systems are stable. It's only crappy drivers that take them down.
------
Commericial companies (and single developers) want their packages to be installed easily and correctly.
I doubt if anyone cares if you use debian's package format or RPM, but the installation routine must be the same regardless of distribution and it must be easy enough that anyone can do it. (Furthermore, it should uninstallable.)
If I was smart, I'd suggest a database for each system that the would tell the package what to install where.
I think the people the author is responding to were suggesting the Linux field will be narrowed for business. Sure, there will always be 500 separate distibutions out there, but businesses really like standards. Two or three distributions will prevail in a big way for business, and the other 497 will still be around.
There was an article on informationweek.com about this last week. The article talks about all the different flavors of Linux, and how great it is to have something which you can make so unique to you with so little effort, but how bad this can be to business. The main point of the article is that, without standards, Linux isn't a viable platoform for businesses.
It's an interresting read, check it out.
[Note: Informationweek updates a lot, so the article may get flushed to an archive soon. I suggest someone paste it below if they find it as usefull as I did.]
---
---
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." --Dennis Miller
Does anyone else think its odd that he picked out the two most corperately run linux distros out there? Also there probably the least two respect distros out there. I personaly don't think any distro will (not even sure if they can) die. If he was talking about usership, he's dead wrong. I think Debian Slackware(my fave) and Mandrake probably could all win on their own, much less togeather.
You are only young once, but you can stay immature indefinitely.
Linux moves fast because it does for the OS what the IBM PC platform did for the hardware. I don't mind if the masses continue to use Windows. Windows has to improve more because of Linux, too. It's a win-win situation for the masses all around, and with Linux/KDE/GNOME/ReiserFS/etc steady improvement (and the distros making it available it whatever fashion is best for their target audience), many newbie complaints will disappear with time.
Maybe I'm just optimistic, but I think it's a fair analysis. Competition almost always helps things out.
- Tom
- Tom
"O, to grace how great a debtor daily I'm constrained to be."
Oh but learning to install service packs, how to use regedit to keep it stable, how to rescue self-corrupted office files and reinstall the whole mess when it finally dies... that's easy enough? But ./configure && make && su -c 'make install' is too hard?
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
Gnome vs. KDE vs. etc. Why so many desktop environments, sure alternatives are good, but when work needs to be done, money is burnt by time spent figuring out whats what on Linux vs. point and click MS
Others have already noted the flaws with the "command line is too hard" attitude. As far as these two points go, what people fail to consider is that a company that's rolling out Linux on the desktop is going to choose ONE distribution for everyone, with ONE desktop environment. The end user doesn't need to be bothered with the multitude of choices.
In fact, I'd imagine that the most common situation would be where most desktops were just X terminals to a central server, giving tech support full control over desktop configurations. This would actually provide a greater degree of conformity and control than you can easily get under Windows without add-on products (like MS's SMS or Novell's ZENworks).
I can only assume that this is intentional blindness, as many of the people that advance these arguments are the same people that would not hesitate to establish corporate computing standards in other situations. It's really just a matter of planning.
(Note that I am not saying that Linux is actually ready for the corporate desktop -- that's a separate discussion, and I don't personally think it is outside of very specific situations. But the argument that the diversity of options available actually hurts Linux is at best silly.)
To get back to the contention of the original article, even if you only consider the corporate environment, I don't think we'll see the playing field narrowed to Caldera and Red Hat. I think some Debian-based distribution (possibly Debian itself) will very likely be in the mix, by virtue of the apt system (would make it trivial to install and upgrade new -- even custom -- packages on every Linux system in the company; just put up your own server with .deb packages and add that server to sources.list and there you are). This could change if someone created a similarly easy system for RPM, but the options out there now for RPM just aren't as good yet.
With GNOME / KDE up front she'll never have to.
The problem I have with the arguement, "Secretaries just want to get their job done" usually assumes they people aren't willing to learn anything to improve themselves. I don't usually see this as the case and don't like tarring with a brush that big.
"Too many variations of Linux Which one is really better as they all claim one or two niches over the other."
Variations within Distros are really small compared with Win9x / WinNT. I'm no Linux guru, but I can already switch between distros confidently. The underpinings ("Linux") remains constant, and the biggest problem I personally had to deal with was a different directory structure. Now, I became comfortable with RH / Mandrake early on and come with that slant, but I personally don't find Debian jarring.
"Gnome vs. KDE vs. etc. Why so many desktop environments, sure alternatives are good, but when work needs to be done, money is burnt by time spent figuring out whats what on Linux vs. point and click MS"
Oho -- I love arguing with someone on this one. After half an hour of arguing configurability vs. a standard "look and feel", and arguing the strength of choices vs. the strength of a known method of plugging into the GUI, I usually have made a point or two that there are some advantages with alternatives.
That's when I tell them to log off and change to another window manager. "They're already there. Once you've picked your favourite, you can stick with it on most machines."
KDE & GNOME still need work to interoperate, but this is work that's happening and is clearly improving. From a Mandrake view-point, I hardly care which I'm in because I can use my commonly used apps in either.
With a few more details under your belt and you'll argue that guy into the ground and leave him spinning in the wind. :)
Great. When you get Fat Ballmer's job, you can make the big decisions in Microsoft's best interest.
Myself, I think they are well aware of potential risks, not just from Free Software, but also from competitors such as IBM/Lotus who have shown willingness to compete with MS on price.
But look at it this way. They've got few problems:
+ Office has so many features they can't even think of new ones to add
+ Customer base can't see value of upgrades
+ Market is saturated, but there's a huge base of users not in licence-compliance
So, they gotta do something. (Being a monopoly is tough, eh?) So their solution is two fold:
+ Add corporate-friendly integration features to Office, making it a client-server platform (should have mentioned this before... See SharePoint portal server and Exchange 2000), increasing both the value of upgrades and the lock-in.
+ Lower the cost of entry and decrease the ease of piracy.
Of course, there's always Plan B, which is what you seem to be suggesting:
+ Put the software in maintence mode and either cut the price to keep marketshare or gouge legacy customers until the end of time.
But they ain't quite there yet, and they won't be until they get new revenue streams that are the size of MS Office's.
I concur that mutations are a good thing for Linux. However, there needs to be a consistent UI that can be chosen at Install that configures the machine a particular way. Users NEED consistent UIs. What we need is a way so that on most popular distributions during install you can check a box and that will configure the machine with a commonly agreed upon GUI and windowmanager that people are familiar with. This wouldn't be necessary on all distributions but would be a great start to making the Linux GUI similar on all ends for end users that simply want a consistent interface.
If the company maintaining your favourite distro (mandrake in my case) were to vanish tomorrow then it would be possible for anyone sufficiently dedicated to simply take over the maintainance and rename it.
;-)
There will be distributions for as long as someone has requirements that aren't met by any of the existing players. Now all I have to do is spend a few weeks updating my old copy of SLS....
Correct me if i am wrong but all distro's use the same kernal? So wheres the problem. Its like saying KDE vs Gnome is bad.
I think the media has just got used to its Windows one GUI fits all, one solution, one company, one standard.
In reality Linux will do well because of its Flexibility, for idiots like me, learning Linux i can install RedHat with its pretty GUI install. For someone setting up a highly customised server they can mix and match.
Linux's Flexibility is its strength. Uhh and they haven't got all there eggy weggys in one basket and they haven't counted there chickens.
I'm not a Troll i prefer to be called a Goblin.
Recently I was in a discussion with some older CTO type people and the arguements of Linux vs. MS came into play. Attempting to explain why (I thought) Linux can make some steps in the future to be where Microsoft is, I brought up the different distros, their functions, benefits over MS, etc.. One of the gentleman made some very sharp points though which no one can really refute, sure Linux is better at certain aspects of computing vs. other OS' but heres some of the failures which came in the picture of which I could not think up a retribution based answer.
Typical dekstop workplace environment
Susie the secretary will not understand *Nix vs. point and click.
Too many variations of Linux
Which one is really better as they all claim one or two niches over the other.
Gnome vs. KDE vs. etc.
./configure --with-some-new-package ; make ; make install is just not going to cut it.
Why so many desktop environments, sure alternatives are good, but when work needs to be done, money is burnt by time spent figuring out whats what on Linux vs. point and click MS
And this went on for hours. We would like to think Linux would overtake MS as the most used OS, but the fact remains, most of the people jumping online, and working on the "typical" PC based application solely need simple functions out of their pc, and them having to gcc -o something something.c or
The Big Breach"
360 degrees of Karma
does anyone have any vaguely reliable statistics on how many people are using what (and i know that's going to be close to impossible)?
If Redhat were the only mainstream distribution viewed as credible, Linux probably would not survive serious strategic mistakes, such as a major release which cannot run Oracle8i.
Instead, the diversity of Linux platforms enables workarounds, with minimal fuss. In our experience, SUSE Linux 7.0 has been an excellent server OS.
Interesting that the trade commentators continue to mention Caldera as a likely survivor of these distro consolidations. Their series of moves aligning Linux with DOS, Netware, SCO, and the like has always seemed doubtful. It don't see it deployed much in companies, FWIW.
Matt
And the community that builds and uses it is not as easily appeased as the Red Hat shareholders! That's why Debian is so great. Not meant to troll, but with every passing version of Red Hat it becomes more and more obvious that the motivation behind that distro is purely commercial. It seems like they just want to release a new version so they can sell some more boxes, and damned with the quality of the contents.
Debian on the other hand, takes a 'slow and steady wins the race approach.' And I think that when the Linux-mania smoke clears, Debian will most certainly be at the finish line.
-B
benjones@superutility.net
-B
But it is not. It is free, and it will always be free. And anyone can make his or her own customizations. Of course you want to be able to run all Linux software on your distribution, and you can.
To give an example: RedHat does hardly differ from Slackware, it's just a brand, but that actually means nothing.
Commercial software, like Oracle, which would only run on RedHat, runs on Slackware just as good.
So there's not point in the existence of many distributions, as long as you are free to choose.
Don't get me wrong - I'm in favor of diversity and have run most of the major distributions at one time or another but...
In working at a hardware company and looking for technology partners who do software my eyes have been opened to the ignorances of the software world. Companies who aren't really linux-centric want to have a commercial linux product but don't have the time to test their stuff on a bunch of different flavors of linux.
These software companies choose RedHat and that's what they will support. For example... We attended Linux Business expo and had a couple of booth parthers exibiting in our booth. We were running caldera on our demo boxes. One of the partners threatened to pull out because we weren't running RedHat because they didn't think their stuff would run on RedHat.
It wasn't worth it to them to try and get it up on caldera (I could have done the testing and verification for them and they could now say that it worked on caldera if they would have given me 20 minutes - but the point is that it didn't matter to them).
The other issue is that some software companies release binary only software which has only been tested on RedHat 6.x. with a 2.2.xx kernel.It doesn't matter to many users if this software will work on Caldera or Mandrake (or even debian) because the software company won't support it.
I no longer need to punish, deceive, or compromise myself. Unless, of course, I want to stay employed.
Linux is not about consistency, linux is about choices and customization. About picking your favorite distribution, your favorite window manager, your favorite theme within that window manager.
If the skeptics are right - that linux must be a single distribution with a single interface to become the operating system of the "masses", then I hope it never happens.
Honestly, I like linux for what it is - diversity, choices and customization. After all, isn't that why we have the source code in the first place? So if we, as users, think an application or feature could be made to better fit us - then we can make that change?
If it takes sacrificing diversity to appease the masses, I don't want the masses. This is just my honest opinion. Even if the masses don't adopt linux, it will still be a success - and I will still use it.
--
Twivel
The great thing about multiple distros is how specialized they can be. With Winblow$ you get this generic one size fits all. But each application of systems has different needs. Fight with anything long enough and you learn use the right tool for the job.
By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more. - Albert Camus
OK, I mostly use Slack and SuSe, but lately I have witnessed a new users immersion into the Linux world and it is frustrating for them to have too many options. So far they have tried Slack, SuSe, and Mandrake and I am tired of going over the RPM vs tarball vs lilo vs grub (yuck) vs KDE vs Gnome followed with why doesn't X work in Slack for my box, it works with Mandrake type questions. The shit is frustrating for new users, Linux will have to present a unified front at some point *if* the target audience is new users. And by the way, this person really like Linux overall so at least something is being done right! Most people would have left by now I think..
In terms of diversity of distros, it's very clear that this has helped Linux to date, in terms of technical advancement and user acceptance. No argument there. But in terms of commercial success and trying to dislodge Windows from the 92% of desktop OS shipments it supposedly owns (according to the latest numbers I've seen), this is a case of "diversity == confusion", since it just makes support, training, and app selection all the more difficult.
What do you think happens when a CIO/CTO type looks online and sees both distro and version specific RPMs, debs, and tar.gz files for the same app? He/she runs for the hills of Redmond, that's what happens.
There are not enough distributions.
For example, who's distribution is aimed at the average luser (now that Corel is dead)?
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
what the?
great comedy company.
I have been following the linux movement for some time but must admit that I am still a Windows user (thank god for 2000 because I couldnt take much more of 98). I am studying to be an engineer so I dont have much time to play with the software/programming side of computers. I think that there are too many distros but that is a good thing. One thing that lacks though, is a really user friendly distro just for desktop users. I tried many times to convert to linux but don't have the time, or know how to get it done. My computer is mainly intel architect and I have always had problems when I installed the different distros of linux. I am looking for the day when I can install linux easily without doing too much research and use it just as a desktop OS.