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.

Comments

TOo many distros?

[fantom_winter]

I think that's the whole idea of Linux. From a design aspect, Linux is more of a bazaar, where everyone puts a piece in. It works pretty well for the hobbyist. If you want something more consistent and slower moving, try FreeBSD, or a commercial Unix.

Distros do nothing but give people options..

Re:TOo many distros?

[SquadBoy]

That would be wrong. Let's take a look at the facts.
1. Most distros use a stock kernel just with diffrent compile options. Thanks to the GPL anyone anywhere working on the kernel is helping everyone.
2. Many distros are derivied from RH or Debian. And in the case or Progeny help Debian out while working on their own goals. This is a good thing.
3. People are going to work on what they think is cool. Even with some of the economic woes going on if you have the skills to be a Linux developer you are still not going to have any trouble paying the rent. This means that almost every person out there who is paid to write Linux code is doing it because they want to if they did not want to work on that bit of code they could very easily go somewhere else and do it and get paid. The people who are doing it on their own ar going to do what they want to end of story.
4. Point to a distro that has caused fragmentation in the kernel. There is not a major one with more than a handfull of people working on it. Go back to 3 for comments on fragmentation of desktops packaging systems etc.
5. My job would be *much* harder if we only had one distro. For example I have a client who really wants a phone number to call in case I fall off the face of the earth. I need RH (shudder) for that person. Another wants the samllest cleanest system I can give him. Debian to the rescue. Yet another needs a very small braindead easy to manage firewall system. god I love the guys who work on floppyfw. In short multiple distros are a great thing for anybody who really understands and works with the code.

Re:TOo many distros?

[SnapShot]

Now I'm not a Linux expert, but it seems to me there could be a market for three or so comercial distributions, plus Debian acting as the reference platform for the others. What might we see in a stable Linux marketplace??

1. A simple Windows migration distribution with two click setup into KDE or GNOME. This could be the AOL of Linux distributions; the kind of distribution Slashdoters sneer at, but the one that would introduce many people to Linux in the same way that AOL introduced many people to the internet. It's too bad that Corel gave up since they seemed to be working in that direction.

2. Two or three competing hobbiest / proffessional distributions. Each would have the kind of subtle differences that people who know what they are talking about (and those that don't) could argue about for days... This competition would drive the bleeding edge of Linux evolution.

3. Finally, Debian -- the Amish farmer of Linux -- carefully examining what should and should not be included in the software, probing the political, ethical, and social differences between Free Software and Open Source, asking the question "whether we should", and, acting as a standard; the "Microsoft seal of approval" for the Linux world.

These opinions are from someone who is just starting to enter this world...

If there weren't so many distributions...

[blueg3]

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)

Microsoft Think

[jimlintott]

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.

Re:Variations

[cyber-vandal]

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.

Only two things that differentiate distributions

[Masem]

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.

Windows Fragmentation?

[flipper9]

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!

Flamewar alert!

[bonzoesc]

This type of story will probably start a flamewar, but here's my take:
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

Re:Flamewar alert!

[Syberghost]

In other words, the Anna Kournikova virus could come along and wipe out Critter B.

-

The real problem is that of

[S1mon_Jester]

installations - not customization.

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.)

// configure; make config; make is way too difficult for most folks.

If I was smart, I'd suggest a database for each system that the would tell the package what to install where.

Diversity is good, but . . .

[micromoog]

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.

What?!

[grovertime]

The idea that Linux could be too widely distributed (by that I mean by too many competitors) is not only ridiculous but appears to be ignorant. If Linux is to continue resembling and possibly leading the open-source generation of programming, it is not just important but INHERENT that many distributions co-exist. Sure, there will be bottom-feeders and top-dogs, but this is a quality not quantity situation where we all just want the bugs worked out. The prediction that we will be down to 2 distros is not just ludicrous, it's damaging, ignorant and wholly implausible.

1. 
   what the?