Slashdot Mirror
Too Many Linux Distros Make For Open Source Mess
AlexGr writes "Remember the 1980s worries about how the "forking" of Unix could hurt that operating system's chances for adoption? That was nothing compared to the mess we've got today with Linux, where upwards of 300 distributions vie for the attention of computer users seeking an alternative to Windows."
Must be a really slow news day to bring back this ancient argument.
are actually in use though? Ubuntu, Fedora, SUSE, Redhat, Gentoo, Slackware, Debian? There are many distros, but most are specialized forks. Most people would use one of the listed ones.
kill all the fucking niggers
The thing is, a distro for Linux is shaping more and more to be a complete product out of the box. It has dev tools, office tools, web tools, games, whatever you want. While it would be nice to have a setup program that worked across all Linuxes that developers wrote too, it might be constraining too.
It makes sense, though, in a way, because if all the software is actually free, why not upgrade all of it at once and be done with it? I've downloaded a ton of stuff for Windows over the last year, but I've not really done anything with my Linux but -use it- over the same. Except, I blew away my X windows and I have no idea how to get it back... Time for a new distro.
It's really simple.
This is my sig.
I think that they help make each other better - different ideas can be explored and good ones are eventually incorporated in all.
Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
You don't need to know all 300 distros to make a good choice. It is pretty clear which distros are mainstream and which ones are not. If you are looking for a general-purpose replacement for general-purpose Windows, you can go with Ubuntu, Suse, Redhat, Debian or Mandriva. Almost only if you're "hardcore", you will dive into special-purpose distros such as business card/feather linux, freesco, etc. That is from a user perspective. From developers perspective there is such a thing as LSB.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
I have always kinda thought that this was at least one of the reasons why linux adoption is low among the 'mild computer user' crowd. It isn't easy to explain to them either, since there isn't a corollary in the "windows world" where nearly all of those users reside (with good reason).
maybe with this recent gathering of support behind ubuntu there is the potential for more of a standard-bearer in the linux world, at least in the eyes of those who only use windows/osx.
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun the frumious Bandersnatch.
Forking of software development projects has interesting consequences,sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes neither. Having more than onedistribution... I'm not sure that "forking" is even the right word toapply to that.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I don't normally tag, but I tagged this baby 'slownewsday'.
http://bbspot.com/News/2000/4/linux_distros.html
Regards,
John
Falling You - beautiful
Otherwise, no. of Linux distros would soon exceed no. of Linux users!
Do something!
This was and maybe still is a valid point (although diversity isn't that troublesome for businesses), but now Debian-based distributions and especially *Ubuntu got extremely popular, and are in the way to become the defacto standard for Linux, whereas other distributions will remain domain-specific. For example, if you have a business and want tech service and all that, you may want to try SuSE or Red Hat. And if you are a ricer, you may want to try Gentoo :p .
Fortunately, natural selection and evolution of distros made one very popular, which means more packages and less compiling for the general public. This is what Linux needs. The fact there are many other distros for more specific or purist purposes is alright - it doesn't affect Linux' adoption because if you're concerned about popularity you get *Ubuntu.
I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
A distro is not a fork. It is not a fork if the patches flow upstream.
...
I know there are exceptions to this rule (iceweasel, icedove) but in general, all distros contribute back to the same pool.
The only issue here is consumer choice, not wasted developer power (unlike real forks). And the Novell fiasco shows the problems
with having a single "one true way" distro - even if it is a community project (in which case its death comes from group
think and dragging its feet on decisions).
A distro, 'taint a fork
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
FUD and whining. To be honest, I thought we didn't want the Windows users unless they were going to meet us on our terms. They can stick with their $$$Windows until they're ready to learn the ~$. Not to mention, Ubuntu isn't good enough for them?
As usual, having lots of distros is good. There's still several key majority leaders (Red Hat, Ubuntu, etc) that are what any starter is going to be directed to. This is a non issue and has been dealt with many times before, in fact every time the "Year of Linux?" question comes up.
Actually, I've never been one to criticize moderation/story submission selection, but this dead horse has been beaten and beaten over and over to a pulp. Why did samzenpus post this?
After all...
This. Is. SLASHDOT!Also, there are to many brands (not to speak of models!) of cars. My prediction is that cars will TOTALY fail within a year or two and the horse+carridge will make a glorious return!
what if there's 300 linux distro's? i can compile just about anything on all of them. More choice, is NEVER a bad thing.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
How many different models/marques of cars (automobiles) are there? The good ones survive and get developed and the less popular ones disappear. I haven't noticed anyone crying out that everybody is getting confused regarding which model to buy. They look at what they want from a car, narrow down the field to a reasonable number of choices and then make their decision. But there will always be a place for a vehicle that has a specific role or function - farm tractor, fork-lift truck, armoured vehicle etc. It is the same with distros.
Have a look at soylentnews.org for a different view
This is excactly why I direct everyone to the Apple store when people come to me and ask advice when they have doubts about Windows and want something else.
Having choice is good, having too many choices leads to confusion and self-doubt.
Remember the 1980s worries about how the "forking" of Unix could hurt that operating system's chances for adoption?
Yes, I remember. All of us can see now how "forking" hurt Linux's adoption. Not. Besides, wouldn't hurt to try figuring out what the difference between forks and distros are before next time.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
It's simply evolution taking its course - some distros will arise from the soup and start to out-reproduce the others. It's already happening with the likes of Fedora, Debian, SUSE, Red Hat, the-ones-you've-heard-of etc etc.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
With Microsoft working in so many ways to "compete" with Linux, it complicates their plans when they've got so many different "companies" to "compete" with. Toss in a little GPL V3 and I'll bet the ivory tower crowd at MS are drinking Maalox and ducking chairs these days...
The car analogy is a good one too. There are now far fewer platforms than there are models, e.g. in Europe VW has the Polo, Golf, A4, A5 and A6 platforms that are used by a wide range of models spread over several brand names (SEAT, Skoda, AUDI, VW). Ubuntu can be seen as using exactly the same approach, with Kubuntu, Edubuntu and Ubuntu as brands but based on a small number of real platform variants. You can argue that the Linux world is actually more visibly attuned to the consumer market, while Windows is more like Communism - the State of Gates decides what the factories will make, and the end users put up with what they are given.
Pining for the fjords
Too many Linux distros make for Open Source mess
Isn't that the same as suggesting too many different brands of cellular telephone make for a communications mess?
"Oh dear me, there are far too many different cell phones! How do I choose? What do I do? Oh, damn it, I'll just send letters instead."
I think not.
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
Most people don't know a thing about the throng of Linux based distros. It's more an insider joke. You're mild computer user knows one or two at best. If they know more they've been digging around and no longer fit the category.
The truth is that the diversity is great. I don't want to see 1000's of distros pushed mainstream per-se, but there is often a reason for the variety. It suits someone anyway.
What I would like to see is more collaboration. Why is Redhat/Fedora building the cludgy system-config* and Suse sticking with YAST while Mandrake (who seems to be losing favor but has committed all their development to the GPL) created DrakeConfig, which actually almost worked.
Quack, quack.
It's like evolution, only better.
Why? If Linux evolved like animals, then only the strongest would survive, and characteristics of the weaker distros (even good ones) would die with them. But distro evolution is even better, the good characteristics of all distros make their way into the strongest distros.
The evolution of Linux distros may look messy, but it is underpinned by natural force that, over time, comes up with wonderful results.
Don't feed the trolls.
Which I am about to break.
And with Bill Gates in charge - how many versions of windows are currently supported?
Please include the all the different flavours of Vista . And that is from one company.
The Singularity is closer than you think
Quant
When there were many UNIXes, the problem was that software written on one would not work on the other. Linux has maintained almost complete binary compatibility for applications for ages (I guess a.out binaries could now be considered "not compatible"). All that is needed is to install a compatibility library. This means that essentially all of those different distributions are equivalent to one single UNIX version.
People really don't remember their history any more. There wasn't even really source level compatibility from UNIX to UNIX. There were two completely different operating systems (BSD and SystemV) both used as the basis for the different incompatible UNIXes. If you used, for example the "ps" command, the arguments would be different from one to the other. This meant that even shell scripts weren't portable. Claiming that the different Linux distributions are like different UNIXes is crazy when you compare the differences between SunOS4 and SunOS5 (also known as Solaris) which are bigger than the differences between RedHat 6 and Gentoo 2007. Damn youngsters.
Because the average person that has even heard of Linux only knows of one distro: Ubuntu.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...Too much light makes it difficult to see. News at eleven.
nt
IBM? I don't recall that distribution.
For big business, it's down to either RedHat or SuSE because they graciously allow you pay huge amounts of money for support, training and so on. Debian is fine but the lack of "The Debian Company" means it's more limited to non critical roles or small businesses/non profit organisations. Ubuntu is more for home users.
Deleted
ppl get annoyed at microsoft for having a few "distros".. linux has 300+ and ppl expect nobody to complain? only a linux user would think like that..
way back nixers used to bash windows for their DLL issues.. these days dependencies and libraries on nix is a far bigger problem than DLL ever was.. funny that.. walking right into their own trap..
linux is great for being opensource.. but ppl who says it ISNT a mess are just plain retarded..but as usual ppl who are linuxfanboys would refuse to realize this regardless of how big the problem was cos in their eyes linux is "teh god" who cannot do wrong.. this is the primary reason I cant stand linux.. the fucking anal attitude of so many in the community....
but lets not kid ourselfs here..microsoft sucks.. someone buy me a mac..? plz..
If this piece of pointless fluff is in the paper edition of Information Week, there are number of the more clue-free CTOs in this world reading it and going 'hmmm, maybe I shouldn't listen to the sysadmins and put this new application on Windows Server 2003 instead of Debian Linux'. Microsoft win another couple of licenses and the CTO gains a few more enemies. This sort of article has 'FNORD' overprinted on it in invisible ink. The answer, as always, is to be more prepared than the bosses.
Shouldn't there be a virtual machine that runs binaries across all new distros sorta like the windows .exe file? That way you could have a closed source software vendor that sells it's products to the Linux OS.
God spoke to me.
The Title should read
"300 Linux Distros stand against the thousand corporate fronts of the Microsoft Army"
Before this thread is over, the internet shall know - that on this day few stood against many!
Though I have to say, Windows is not the God-King Xerxes was - but perhaps cleverer than Xerxes - for because Windows is so flawed - causing Windows to bleed, or even nearly killing windows - would do nothing!
I also remember the 1980s worries about how the "multiplication" of restaurants could hurt the chances of people eating out. That was nothing compared to the mess we've got today with tourism, where upwards of 1 million destinations vie for the attention of tourists seeking an alternative to holidaying at home.
- Linux distros ovieview: http://polishlinux.org/linux/
- BSD family ovieview: http://polishlinux.org/bsd/
- Distro chooser: http://polishlinux.org/choose/quiz/
- Distro comparisons: http://polishlinux.org/choose/comparison/
And you're all set. If not, there's always DistroWatchPolish your GNU/Linux! http://polishlinux.org
And the car analogy does it again...what can't these thing explain. Seriously, good point.
...
I'll admit, I was a little confused when I first tried out Linux a couple years back, but...
a) thanks to advise from users and my own research on distrowatch, it wasn't too hard to find a disto to dip my feet in: Mandriva Move (a LiveCD)
b) Ubuntu hadn't gone big yet (at least not according to distrowatch's popular distros list). Now, if a Windows user wants to know how to start with Linux, Ubuntu is the no-brainer (Ubuntu/Kubuntu would be the only choice to make). The install disk is even a LiveCD now.
If I starting with Linux with out giving up immediatly (or at all) (how the heck did I survive compatibility and dependancy-hell?), then I don't think there is any issue at all for anyone smart enough to be using it at all--starting with near-perfect hardware compatibility, easy app installs, and without wiping their hard drive to try it... "Get off my lawn!"
"I don't care that I'm barely older than Linux itself!"
There's several Linux distributions, but relatively few offer themselves as legitimate "alternatives to Windows". Certainly, I wouldn't describe Gentoo as "like Windows, but Free". Many distributions are solving fundamentally different problems than what Windows is sold for. KNOPPIX doesn't strike me as a replacement for Windows, although it is highly popular. Some are better considered OSX alternatives, as they're intended for PPC platforms.
Not that there aren't several distributions pining for Windows converts, but many are little more than venues to demonstrate some piece of software, or built to satisfy some narrow need, be it wireless router or multimedia studio. They serve their purpose adequately and there's no reason to believe that that they distract from the much smaller set of world class desktop Linux offerings. The number of distributions is a function of the flexibility of their design (ie dpkg isn't perfect for embedded systems with the cross compiling and all), and their willingness to integrate diverse communities. Personally, I'm beginning to think that Ubuntu may put an end to this discussion over the next few years. dpkg's limitations are not insurmountable, and they've done a much better job of attracting and integrating projects, unlike Debian's explicit efforts to distance itself from KNOPPIX etc. But don't mistake this for a prediction that they'll somehow put an end to hobbyist distros ("I want to do this because I can") or the motivation to fork-for-profit (Ulteo?).
I Browse at +4 Flamebait
Open Source Sysadmin
I'm thinking evolution. Distros that have what it takes will be the preferred choice. Those who don't fall behind. And some never make it because there are better options already. Ubuntu came out of nowhere, (blablabla, debian, etc) yet it is one of the most popular Linux distros there is today.
Some choice is better than no choices at all.
A lot of choices can be less useful than fewer choices.
Too many choices could be useless.
I'd prefer something like the BSD world where there are a few mainstream distributions and some destop oriented derivatives.
The real advantage coming from fewer distributions is that there would be a low fragmentation in resource assignment, bot human and economic.
I fear that Linus never thought about such a pletora when he gave freedom to the community.
Maybe.
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
I guess you must have extreme distress buying cars, cell phones, or even computers: all those choices! Oh the clarity of an oligopoly where you can "choose" between two or three relevant options and still be confident that it does not really make a difference. No confusion, no self-doubt. Just the reassuring feeling that it does not matter what you choose anyways.
I mean, how large is the Persian army?
We might need more than 300.
Broadly speaking, most Linux distros have the same core, the Linux kernel plus the tools to build whatever you need. This is basically what Slackware is. The distros add their choice of application management and distribution, GUI and overall philosophy to Linux, which is a strength, not a weakness. This is basically what the other 394 distros are. If you assume that all have the same sets of headers and libraries available to them (they don't, but there is a common set), you will find that many binaries will compile and run on every distribution. For the rest, there's always VMWare.
300 Distros?? C'mon, everybody knows that anything other than [insert distro here] is crap!
I read TFA (I did! Honest!) and I don't get it. The headline suggest some sort of case will be made but it doesn't. All it says is that it is many Linux distributions. What about the open source mess? I want to know so I can avoid it! I have been using open source for years. Am I caught in a mess I haven't noticed? I mean, if some software isn't packaged for my distribution I take the source and build it my self. I can get the exact same program version working on all my three Linux boxes... is that the mess? "Holy crap! You got consistency even though you're running three different flavors of an operating system... what a mess!!"
All I can say is no duh!
PJ at Groklaw ranted about this grudge already. Presumably on account of the release of GPLv3, InformationWeek is now on a rampage of FUD and misinformation against open-source software and particularly Linux. Last week they declared Open Source / Linux "Dead". The author of that one has since written a correction, so it appears everyone at InformationWeek had a few synapses fuse this month and we're still sifting through the fallout of that.
This troll didn't need to make it to the front page.
why does Slashdot even bother with content from those idiots?
Us Linux users are not mindless cattle to stampede the shops and get the latest and greatest distro there.
Instead, we are gentlemen of leisure; our systems are updated via network as soon as the new packages hit the server - we have no need to wait for them to be burnt onto CDs, packaged in pretty boxes, delivered to stores and sold at premium price, while we risk our lives in the stampede.
Then again, when you wait for a new version of your OS for five years or more, it is understandable that you want to upgrade immediately; you have tested your patience long enough. We, on the other hand, live upgrading what we choose, when we choose; our patience is never tried, never tested, never gone.
Oh, yes. I nearly forgot. If we really really want the CDs with Linux on them and can't afford to download the ISO, we simply order a bunch from Canonical and have them delivered to our doorstep. And we chuckle when they arrive, for we imagine you standing in line or stampeding the stores to get the bestest and latest, while we sip our drinks and surf the net while our systems upgrade.
Keep your mad rushes. We don't need them, we don't want them.
Ignore this signature. By order.
When I first started looking at Linux, Win98 was the hot potato. I tried Corel Linux, and couldn't get X to work, so gave up on it. Now had that been the only distro around, what choice would I have had but to put it down to experience and go back to DOS, I mean Windows...
Fortunately that wasn't the case. I tried RedHat (5.2 or 6, I don't remember) and that worked reasonably, but I didn't really like the feel of it too much. Then I tried SuSE and liked it! I say more choice is good, and it kept my interest when the first candidate fell at the first hurdle.
Most of the smaller distros aim at a specific niche, very technical users, those that want to tweak the system, novice users, embedded systems, wireless hacking the list goes on.
It doesn't change the fact that choice is good, each distro puts improvements it makes back into the whole.
I can't imagine any other case where people would say more choice is bad
Do more LCD TVs on the market make it more likely people will buy a plasma instead?
Do more car models available mean people will look at a motorbike instead?
Choice is a good thing
$_="Slashdotter";$syn="OTT";s;..;;;sub _{print shift||$_};s!ash!Perl !;s=$syn=ack=i;tr+LLEd+BLAH+;_"Just Another ";_
And means ultimately that Linux will NEVER make it onto the desktop.
Each disto does things differently, whilst the basics are the same, if you try a new disto, new users (even Linux users with experience), can still feel ending up lost.
It good for retaining your users. I never stray from Gentoo, as I know it, give me some other distro, and I can survive, but it's a painful experience.
The last glimmer of hope faded when that project witl Suse/Redhat and aload of other big players, who wanted to consolodate all their differences fell apart (what was than initiative called???)
It's a complete mess. The paralysis of choice overwhelms us, just like it does with the shoe, car, haircut, real-estate, literature, Fine Art and computer hardware markets.
Why people just can't work together, I don't know.
..and what does he claim is being forked?
i don't think he understands the term.
otoh, if i'd spent the last couple of decades earning a crust by writing articles about windows, i'd be annoyed as well.
with a beard like that you don't get offered writing gigs for linux magazines, thats for sure.
I work with QA in a team that produces traditional closed-source software for Linux. The thing is, thanks do the fact that there are so many Linux distribution, our software quality automatically increases. This is how it works: we, of course, need to test on as many distros as possible. Naturally, we focus on the distros that customers use. But basically, we just shove in as many different Linux variants as possible into our testing systems (given our hardware constraints), and each night test the latest nightly builds on some 30+ different distribution/version/architecture combinations. This might seem like a lot of work, but it turns out we can find the most obscure bugs thanks to testing on such a diverse set of platforms. And in the end, this gives us an advantage in that it forces us to produce code that works well on pretty much all different kinds of Linux configurations out there. Usually, since the more specialised distributions tend to be based on one of the mainstream ones, we automatically cover most of them too. If a big customer starts using a customized Linux distribution, we're likely to add that to our automatic testing system, too, but usually the big names are enough.
So while it may seem a hassle to test on a vast number of platform, it really makes you think about code robustness and quality in a different way. Of course, there is a long way to go in certain areas, not to mention universal third-party package management and desktop integration, but we're slowly getting there, too.
It wasn't ever true. Linux distros were never like the great Unix fragmentation mess.
/opt (e.g., SuSE) which others install in /usr. And about 90% which just download RedHat's RPM's and put their own name and logo on it, so basically they don't even really count as different distros.
What we have now are maybe 10% distros which pack a _slightly_ different mix of the same tools, or just different default tools, or sometimes just and maybe have a slightly different config tool. Or maybe they'll install one tool in
Either way, from an end-user point of view, whop-de-do, you run the same tools, with the same options and the same interface. That's especially important because for an end-user the OS doesn't even really matter. The computer is just a tool, and the OS is... well, I think Joe Average isn't even sure what the OS is, he just knows he has to have one to run the important part: the apps. What matters is what you can run on that computer. (See the endless "but it doesn't run MS Office" and "but I can't play the latest games on it" arguments.)
Even if one distro skipped a tool you want, you know, there's nothing to stop you to download it yourself.
The Unix fragmentation was a whole different issue. Each of the major vendors actually worked hard to lock their customers in. Unix got fuc^H^H^H forked so hard, it wasn't compatible even at source level any more.
As I always remind people, people want interoperability and open standards when they're the underdog, and they want free access to the top dog's customers. When they're on top, even on a niche, they don't want that any more. Then they want walled gardens and penned captive customers that they can milk and shear regularly. Then they want you to think, "damn, if I get a mainframe to replace these aging Sun servers we have, we'll have to change all this mountain of source code, and for some we don't even have the devs any more and for some, well, we thought we're smart if we get it cheaper without sources... oh well, better buy the next servers from Sun too." And the difference in parameters and effects for the supplied tools, meant you got to retrain all your admins and rewrite your scripts too.
When you're at the top of your own niche, it's all about trade barriers. You want to make it as hard as possible for a competitor to steal your customers. (And unsurprisingly, IBM for example was not only on the receiving end of an antitrust trial long before MS, but also the word FUD was originally used about IBM's practices.)
So, anyway, that's what they did there: each took their own fork of Unix and ran in their own direction with it, as far from everyone else as they could and could afford to. AIX and Solarix, for example, weren't just different distros, they were almost different operating systems. "Portability" was only a buzzword everyone used only in marketing, but tried to keep it to a minimum otherwise. It meant little more than that they all had a C compiler (but even then with subtle "improvements" of their own), and they had to have the same standard C library (but again, each felt free to make their own subtle "improvements" to it.)
What I'm getting at is: in a way the plethora of distros is even a good thing in that aspect. Noone is that secure at the top, or even king of the hill at all. (Not to mention they're all underdogs in the shadow of the 800 pound gorilla called Microsoft.) Noone is in a position to fork their version of Linux and try to lock customers in it.
Lock-in doesn't work when you're the underdog. The same fence that keeps your customers from escaping, also keeps you from reaching everyone else's customers. So noone does it when they have 10% of the market. At that point, you want open standards.
And with the current Linux market structure, we're pretty safe and secure that everyone will want open standards for the next decade straight. Unless MS manages to implode, anyway.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
tl;dr
It's really not that big a deal. Distros are aimed at specific niches. You might as well say there are too many sorts of knife, after all, they're all for cutting; but then, you probably don't really want a machete for opening a parcel, and there are better things than a Stanley knife for gutting fish.
/usr/local (or $HOME if you are not root) all the ones not found on the system.
For businesses that want paid support, it basically comes down to a choice between RHEL or SUSE. For businesses with knowledgable in-house IT staff, CentOS or Debian. For businesses with really knowledgeable in-house IT staff, Slackware. For obsessive boy racers with pimped PCs, it has to be Gentoo. For n00bs, Mandriva or Ubuntu. If you want to pretend you're running Windows and don't care about your system being polluted with closed-source shite over which you have no control, then there is always Xandros or Linspire. All the other distributions are much less "mainstream"; nearly all are derivatives based on Fedora or Debian and accept packages intended for the parent distribution.
At any rate, the fragmentation is unimportant. Thanks to the GNU autotools, if they are used properly, it's possible to create packages which will compile and run on just about anything vaguely UNIX-like. And since nobody has an internet connection slower than 512kb/s or a HDD smaller than 80GB anymore, it's getting to the point where it is going to be feasible to include all a program's dependencies (or perhaps just the niggly little ones; for instance, I'd not expect a CD/MP3 collection organising tool using a MySQL database actually to install MySQL, but if it used cdparanoia and lame then I'd expect it to install the appropriate libraries) right there in the installation tarball, and just have the main configure script set up in
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/07/18/congress.br oadcasting.ap/index.html
420,000,000.00$ PER YEAR. less than the cost of 1 hour of baby killing.
now what whoreabully infactdead greed/fear/ego based LIEform would consider dissolving the last 'free' press outlet for many of US?
don't forget. get more oxygen on yOUR brain. consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone, whilst badtolling unprecedented evile with an unlimited supply of newclear power since/until forever. see you there?
There is no one particular type of car. When you buy a car, you can go for a product from a mainstream manufacturer (Ford, GM, Toyota, ...) or you can buy a car from a specialist ( e.g. Lamborghini). The specialist manufacturers make vehicles for niche markets in the same way that the majority of smaller Linux distributions target specialist applications and the mainstream (Ubuntu, Red Hat...) target the mainstream. In addition, you can select what you want from a distribution in the same way you can put alloy wheels or neon lighting (shudder) on your car.
Having worked on 5 or 6 different distributions, I will confess that the different installation practises are sometimes a nuisance, but no more than finding out where the controls are on your new vehicle before driving it around.
I could extend this analogy to things like cross fertilisation of ideas and technology, but I have other things to to.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
"You can argue that the Linux world is actually more visibly attuned to the consumer market, while Windows is more like Communism - the State of Gates decides what the factories will make, and the end users put up with what they are given."
Interesting, is this some kind of Inverse Godwin's Law? "Any slashdot article will eventually end up with a defence of the free market and a declaration that the opposition are ungodly communists?"
You could equally argue that Windows represents the perfection of the US free market system (being slightly American in origin) and the linux alternative represents dodgy euro-socialism...
They're right, we only need one distro..... Microsoft Linux
wait!
It there someway I can get Slashdot without the blogs?
You know, professional writers and editors.
E.G. the slashdot that used to be????
Maybe "http://news.slashdot.org" ?????
*Gets on stage* ...
"Banale 640k & Balmer chair joke style!"
"Banale 640k & Balmer chair joke style!"
"Banale 640k & Balmer chair joke style!"
Now which version of the 7 versions of VISTA should I get?
My karma is not a Chameleon.
What the World Needs Now is... Not Another Linux Distribution
"Ok, so after I install Linspire do I then need to install Fedora Core? But, wouldn't Linspire already have a 'core'? The web site says Fedora Core is for developers, but I'm in insurance, and what's a red hat? Is that when something goes wrong with the software like 'blue screen?' I went to download some software, and what I found was something for Suse. Who's she? Ok, so I think I got it. I need a Fedora 'package' of some kind. But wait, didn't buy the entire Fedora package? Oh, yeah, I just got the CD from you. So what is an apt? A place where Debian lives? Who's she? So, after I get all this installed, what is Unbutu going to do for me? Will I need to install Unbutu to get KDE? What does it mean to have a gnome in my computer? But, wait, well ----- looks like my movies and music won't play in Linux anyway. Ok, thanks, I just don't think I'm ready for Linux."-----
For all the Linux Distro Watch dudes, how many of them are looking for an operating system to absolutely critically rely on, with no thought of getting out of a jam by "booting back into Windows"?
Microsoft must be loving the fracture of Linux - which gets worse everyday. As long as the Linux user's community is approaching Linux as a hobby, the public will perceive it as a hobby. Rather than working on another Linux distribution, contributors should be working on making Linux just work. I did a search on the Suse web site for wireless support - how to configure a wireless card under Suse Linux, and I got links to how to make Suse Linux work with amateur shortwave radio but nothing about wireless cards. Duh, what the heck? Why do most Linux distribution websites make looking up technical details a nightmare of circular or broken links and empty references. Why is looking up something like "hardware compatibility" usually a maddening exercise with often half-answer redirects to "hobby interest" sites ("A guy that works for NASA got this working one time"), and undependable results?
What I want for potential Linux users and myself is software choice. Not choice as in whether I want to be one of 12,000 people running Unbutu Linux, or 17,000 people running Outofmyass Linux, but as in having two or three Linux distributions that can go head-to-head with Windows, that vendors perceive as being worth supporting with drivers and updates, that my Best Buy toys will work with, that I can expect will be around in a year or two, that costs a reasonable amount - but not a ridiculously high amount, that is supported with a clear and organized website that a viable company is standing behind, that the name doesn't change every year, that I can recommend to friends without expecting they will become lost in a sea of Linux distro contention, and in which everything just --- works.
Absolutely, the average guy is blown away by the Linux distro mess and that is a critical factor in the stall of getting Linux onto the average guy's desktop.
I tell the voices they are delusional and schizophrenic whenever they try to talk, that IS fun.
Obviously, I can't say that I've been using a computer as long as I've been eating, but I can at least further appreciate the value of placing my time into searching for a different flavored OS. Learning an OS is a huge time investment, to get to the point where a person feels absolutely comforted in their environment. It's much easier to narrow choices when the rewards are immediate and simple.
Bah! You guys and all your forking Linux distros...
We need to take naming of versions more seriously if we want non-enthusiasts and corporate types to use this stuff.
When we saw the Unix fragmentation, we saw a bunch of different flavors that ran each on some kind of proprietary hardware (or a bit less proprietary, when it used an industry standard bus like VME) that were actively marketed by the makers of such hardware and were deliberately incompatible with each other in order to provide some measure of lock-in and differentiation on a largely common software platform.
If we ignore the vanity Linuxes (the ones someone did to claim they made one) and the specific-purpose ones (router-on-a-floppy, rescue, media-box) and the opportunistic ones ("let's nail some OEM deal to make some cash" kind) we are left with only a handful of very serious vendors pitching what amounts to be the same product plus some limited bells and whistles, that run on mostly any computer you happen to have, and making money out of supporting it rather than selling you disks (or tapes, if we account for those ancient times) and servers/workstations.
The difference is that I could not run the same binaries on my DG Aviion systems and on my IBM AIX boxes. I can install a Red Hat package on my Ubuntu notebook any time I feel like it (I usually don't)
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
If you want an alternative for Windows, Linux will not be your thing. If you want to do you the same things you do on Windows, Linux might be an option. If you want a good desktop environment that allows you to happily use your computer Linux might be an option. If you want all that for free Linux certainly is an option. If you want a stable OS that has some really good programs and features and is for free, then Windows is not an alternative.
My point is: the reason why you should choose Linux is because you like Linux and what it offers. But it should not because you want an alternative for Windows.
Yes, I am the one with the legendary sig.
Earth has 1,250,000 species of animal. This is obviously a bad thing, and we should limit this to just 1 or 2 for the greater good!
Yes some Linux distros are a bit pointless, a fair few are redundant and some serve a niche that doesn't exist. But we actually need a large number of distros suited for different environments and in each niche the needs to be some competition to ensure quality.
A small list of niches off the top of my head:
Ideological (Debian)
Source based (Gentoo)
Business Server (RHEL, SUSE Server)
Business Desktop (RedHat, SUSE Desktop)
Home (Ubuntu, Linspire)
LiveCD (Knoppix, Morphix)
Router (LEAF, FREESCO)
Specialist (Musix, GNUstep)
Localised (Red Flag, this is really a whole extra dimension with server/desktop distros etc. needed for each local).
And that doesn't take into accounts preferences like Gnome/KDE, architecture, stable/bleading edge, security/easy of use etc, all of which can effect distro choice in any of the categories above.
...someone put that Solaris nonsense straight. Now we know that it is a Linux fork after all!
...especially when any idiot can post whatever drivel they want with precisely zero facts to back up their assertions (not that their assertions are quantifiable, testable statements to begin with) and someone will call it "news".
Wake me up when the author presents even one bit of supporting evidence for his assertions. Oh, and wake me up when /. finds editors with a clue.
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
300 and, unlike Miscrosofts' 20-or-so-minus-the-most-expensive-one versions of Windows, none is artificially crippled.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
This is ridiculous. What are we supposed to do? To proscribe all but one or two distributions? To issue a decree forbidding the creation of any new distributions?
I've seen posts of people saying that this is an old argument, what was the conclusion from that time?, or, as is more likely, did the /. debate end up spending hours on how to get feathered wings on a mouse?. I loathe abbreviations but IMHO, I think its a good thing that there are so many distros. Ok, the average user won't be able to get access to linux functionality until ubuntu(or whatever) becomes more popular, but lets take a step back and interpret this conceptually. A few billion years ago the planet was covered in algae, lets call it Redmond algae. Now this algae was instrumental in developing the life sustaining environment in which we now live (oxygen in particular), however, algae can only do so much, so one day, an amazing thing happened called the cambrian explosion in which an explosion of new fantastic forms of life appeared. No prizes for guessing what these lifeforms are called. And it was precisely this fecundity, this frenzied copulation, which furnished our world with the cornucopia of life we now live in. Therefore the vast numbers of distros can only be a good thing. Conclusion : Linux Good, Microsoft Bad.
prepare the survey weasels.
300 distros against the mighty empire of Microsoft. This is insanity! No, this is Linux!
"Precisely how many distros there are is probably unknown"
How is that important, and who really cares?
It's a lot better than being roped into something you have no
way out of. At least with Open Source, you have options to
do things differently if they're not working.
"Ubuntu, which is clearly the flavor of the month "
Debian has been a favorite for a long time. It may be one
of the oldest distros. Ubuntu is merely icing on top of a
Debian based system. If you remove all the init 5 stuff, you
basically have a command line Debian system ready to be anything
you want it to be. As well as a robust update system and all
the great free stuff that makes linux so great.
Other distros follow this same paradigm. Centos, Fedora, Red Hat.
The underpinnings (since you are in an arcane mood) are the same,
It's the name that changes.
"Ah, so Linux is like a religion."
If you mean Linux is based on on the idea of something that works and
has a large following of people that understand it's advantages,
then yes.
"It is indeed true that the kernel hasn't forked in any significant way"
Other than XFree86, I haven't had any other forks impact me in the least.
And the xorg fork was a necessity. I think forking is good to the extent
that it drives people to come up with new ideas. The duplicating effort
argument I dont agree with. If we hadn't re-invented the wheel at least
once, we'd still be riding on round stones.
"There's no other way to put it: Linux is a forking mess."
And not under the control of a forking monopoly. Just because you find
duplicated effort in many different distros doesn't mean that's automatically
bad. You need to understand that people need to experiment. Distrowatch
is evidence of the experimenting people are doing. You should be glad
these people are putting alternatives out there for you. When you go to
write your column in Vista someday and you DRM key says your running a
pirated version and shuts you out, you'll consider it Linux again.
"So I'll grant readers that, if there's anything amiss with my argument"
Oh, there's plenty amiss. I think you got up on the wrong side of the
bed this morning. Everyone has bad days, it sounds like this is your's.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
That's why I always stick to RedHat. I just have no clue what other ones might be better and I don't have the time or patience to sift through the flame-wars to try and figure it out.
I'd say that for Windows users seeking alternative there are only two real options: Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS. Everything else is not for them, frankly.
Go with the most widely used version of Unix(like operating systems). MacOS X!
:^)
It even has commercial application support, unlike Linux.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
The thing about all the different cars, cellphones, etc out there is that they still work in a similar way to each other.
The cellphones that don't have buttons laid out in familiar ways (eg the Nokia that had all the buttons in a circle like a dial, etc) never become mainstream, even if they may be better than the others.
Similarly, if you got into a car and instead of the ignition key there was a touchscreen on the dashboard, and the gears were shortcut keys built into the back of the steering wheel, then even tho this may be more efficient than the mechanical interface we're used to, it would be difficult to catch on.
In short:
- Any mac user can navigate their way around any other Mac desktop with ease.
- Any Windows user can navigate their way around any other Windows desktop with ease.
- The boon and curse of Linux is how configurable the interface is, and hence how different 2 desktops can be from each other.
(Unless you're the girl from Jurassic Park who can recognise "Unix" from a 3D file explorer).
- Windows 98?
- Windows XP?
- A small/compact linux Distro?
I'd surely install linux. This is not a poll, but I know you get my point.What a narrow minded vision espoused in that article.
One of the great things about Linux is that is can be customized and optimized for nearly any application, be it a DVR, a Media Center, a multi-track digital/midi workstation or a home desktop computer.
The more distros the merrier!!
This one has got me! It's great O/S, has some amazing practical uses, I use it as main desktop at Work ( Fed 7 ) and Ubuntu at home, alongside the WinXP. My God, I even know a professional Windows admin we convinced to run Ubuntu, he loves it! Face it, unless Wilma and Betty, who work all week in the local factory/government office/shop can take little Johnny down to the local PC World store and buy the latest, greatest game and run it on Tux, it ain't gonna happen, whether there's one all powerful distro or 300! So enjoy the diversity, revel in it for all it's worth. I bet if you counted up all the publicly available distros, then tried count the number private distros built by the fans and those who enjoy building their own O/S, the private ones would probably outnumber the public ones 20-1! That's it's strength, it's not a weakness, you can do what you want with it, however you wish! Jeez, what's this constant need to beat the great blue beast in Redmond?! Knock it off, it's only gonna happen in a tru-Linux fanboy's wet one, deal with it! I'll stop ranting now...(deep breaths)
> We need more people saying "it doesn't really matter, pick one"
/boot/grub/menu.lst may also be /boot/grub/grub.config or I create an exercise in which they find out themselves. That's not really a problem, even for those students who have never used a command line before, since we start from zero. In the lab, I let them install and configure (firewall, webserver, SaMBa, DHCP...) a lot of different distros: Debian, Centos, eLive, Ubuntu, Gentoo, anything the student comes up with - the strong students I even let install *BSD, Solaris and HP/UX (we have HP Integrity hardware). On the exam, the students can choose to use any distro they like. They can also use any website or book they like. So, all in all I do not teach them to use distro X, I teach them to use Linux and how to find the specific information of distro X, Y and Z.
This is insightful.
I am teaching Linux system administration. In the class, I use SuSE, because that's the distro I know best. I never use YaST though, because I teach the students to do _everything_ on the prompt - I tell them the
Also remember, a distro is not a fork.
I'm not a Linux junkie, but I have worked in IT for a while. "Forking" in UNIX certainly didn't hurt its adoption. It seems well entrenched and perhaps at its strongest point ever. Our new SAP systems are all using it. 300 versions of Linux simply shows that there is a tremendous interest in the OS. Of the 300, I know of only six or seven. I recently chose Ubuntu as a learning platform (it loaded in VMWare). It was that or Fedora, and I had no confusion at all in making my choice.
We could either have one great product, or many competing small products. I think the main reason people start distros is to want to "own" some innovation or another. As a result, Linux remains a confusing minefield to the average user. Maybe it's time that F/OSS get what it wanted in Linus, a King, who can then divide between the worthy and the worthless and get the consumer a single answer.
technical writing / development
It doesn't matter. There could be 3,000 distributions and counting and it wouldn't make the Linux world any more of a mess than it is now, because you don't have to be familiar with any more than one or two distributions to implement and maintain Linux in a corporate environment. If 10,000 new distributions were to spring up tonight, tomorrow morning you'd still find that companies pick Red Hat or SuSE. They provide the best-known enterprise support. This is particularly true if a company uses Oracle databases, since they are only certified to run in a finite number of environments.
New distributions (and the existing ones) are not "forks," but rather different builds based upon the same code base. It's not like they'll end up with entirely different kernels in a couple years - what's in the pipeline for major projects like Linux and Xorg will be in the pipeline for all of these distributions. Companies can choose amongst the majors without too much pain, as most Linux-supporting staff are familiar with more than one distro.
Personal desktop systems will largely be *buntu or Fedora, with small numbers of enthusiasts using other distributions.
The notion that an increasing number of distributions equals increasing complexity is a delusion. Let's get over it.
Assuming that this post was written out of ignorance rather than as a simple troll:
> Who has ever heard of a MAD RUSH to get the latest and greatest Linux "distro"
Me.
In 2004, the demand for Fedora Core 2 was so high that the servers at the top of the bittorrent pyramid fell over. Ironically, the only way to download it in the first week was *very*slowly* through Redhat's ftp servers.
Since then interest in the main linux distros has only increased. Ubuntu & Fedora now routinely take a couple of months to hit a million downloads. Not quite Windows numbers yet, but still impressive, and definitely qualifies as a mad rush.
> - wasn't there a new kernel release a month ago -- did anyone give a rats arse --- nope!
The vast majority of users don't compile their own kernel. Kernel updates are compiled, vetted, etc, and finally rolled out via automatic distro updates. There's no "mad rush" to download the latest kernel any more than there's a "mad rush" to download the latest non-security-critical Windows DLL.
But then again, if you'd tested Linux objectively in recent years, you'd know that. Since you clearly haven't, please tell me why you think your opinion counts?
I suggest you go away and test drive a mainstream distro properly for a month or two. If you hit problems (make that "when" - it's an unfamiliar system), approach the Linux community for help honestly and non-confrontationally. At the end of that time if you're still as fiercely anti-linux, you'll be much more specific and astute in your criticisms, and I'm sure people will be readier to take your opinions on board.
Best regards,
Conrad
Wait... didn't we have this discussion before.
Sorry my bullshit sensor overloaded.
See it's so much easier with windows, I only have to chose between:
Windows Vista Starter Edition
Windows Vista Home Basic Edition
Windows Vista Home Premium Edition
Windows Vista Business Edition
Windows Vista Enterprise Edition
Windows Vista Ultimate Edition
Each of these has a very clear purpose, with a name that makes absolutely clear what features the user will be getting. It's so such simpler than choosing between Ubuntu or Debian or Redhat or Suse or all the other output of Linus Torvalds' socialistic 5 year plan.
Oh wait...
You can use it the way you wanted it. It's the FREEDOM!!!! Anyone can roll their own if they wish. Everything you need is there, including all the help in doing it. And yes you can contribute your own work to it as well. :)
Linux as in LINUX or linux or liNux or LiNuX, whether it's in courier, monospace courier, sans courier, dejavu courier, italic courier, on..on..on, it's still linux to me.
By the way, I apologize if you can't read this as my browser support only one size, style font - WINGDING.
Open source proponents often talk so glowingly over the fact that they're not limited to one or two distributions. They never seem to ponder the fact that too much choice is crippling for most folks. People who are new to linux don't want to have to make a choice. Why isn't there just one good linux distro to go with? Why are there like 10 major ones and 300+ in total? That first decision is so overwhelming most folks just drop the idea and stick with Windows or Mac OS X.
This is the #1 issue blocking wider Linux adoption but the hardcore folks who use open source software will never realize it because to them choice is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Its amazing but its actually a form of self-imposed marginalization. I honestly don't know why Microsoft is worrying so much about Linux adoption. This self sabotaging by the community will keep capping its progress as long the sentiment that "overwhelming choice is good" remains in place.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Let me guess, someone used to MS or apple made this article? Those are the only places where such a lame argument as "Choice is bad" could come from...
In what way do having multiple distros is actually a problem? If you are distributing software, you may simply target the rpm and deb based distros, those sum the job of 2 and then a "source package" when your software is popular enough, people will actually make the binary packages for their distros themselves... Not to mention the method the big closed source players use for distribution that seems to work for most distributions...
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
...because most all of these distros are compatible with the LSB. Linux has SOME standards, and they seem to be getting better all the time, unlike Unix did.
Promote true freedom - support standards and interoperability.
I took the time to go on the website to check the real article and I discovered
that the same guy who is really unhappy with so many distros is actually one
which is not even able to install Ubuntu 7.04 on a HP laptop and says in the title:
Ubuntu is really difficult to get going on a mobile computer...
He wasn't even able to partition his drive on his desktop.
He should be really an idiot.
Like the dozens of different base versions of Windows that are in use and the hundreds of different customizations by system vendors? And let's not forget the dozens of install and packaging formats that exist on Windows.
Yes- there should be one Linux distro and it should be owned by a company that charges money for it. That way quality will improve and there will be accountability. This will be a significant improvement over the current petri dish of despair that's only led to ... wait, wait just one moment. It's lead to increased adoption and a faster rate of meaningful evolution than has been demonstrated by commercial counterparts. Perhaps things should stay the same.
Look at how confused people are when trying to decide which version of Vista they need.
Of course, let's forget about 99% of the Linux distros. A lot of them are too specialized, too specific. But even if there's "only" five or six distros to choose from, that's not good. And then when you start installing you're given even more confusing choices. KDE or Gnome? (and others), etc.
People want to dump Windows, not learn how computer works or even become programmers.
Too many distros? Don't want to "dumb it down"? Too bad. What we need is an "official" Windows-switcher distro.
... what you're counting is available solutions, not actual different OSes. As we move to more specialized Live CDs emerge we'll shift from having only OS-ready-to-have-apps-added to apps which essentially carry their own optimized OS around with them as part of the install.
By the traditional nomenclature, I expect to see 1000s of "distros" soon
300 penguins, they all have a common enemy....windows...
Yesterday, there were an acceptable number of distros, today the n+1th distro hit the tubes, and all hell broke loose. I don't think anybody at all cares that there's over 300 distros. Most geeks can't name more than a couple dozen without thinking about it a while. To the average Joe, the number seems much smaller.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Businesses are mainly shopping for a support program. Their options are more like RHEL vs. Oracle Unbreakable Linux even though they're essentially the same distro.
Variety is good for businesses so that they're never locked into one vendor. Even if they don't adopt RHEL, they might say they will just to negotiate better contracts for AIX, HP-UX, etc.
For the rest of us, if we only had one distro to choose I suspect that it would just be the least common denominator...
The problem is that these Windows users enforce the notion on the rest of the computing world that there needs to be One Product, and One Product, only.
So there are 500 separate "Distributions". There's still "One Kernel". There are thousands of potential variations from one kernel build to the next, but in this regard, Linux is still Linux.
Not everybody wants or needs desktop computing. Come to grips with this, Windows users, and your collective panic will vaporize.
Having too many distros is OK. It prevents Lunix from being ready for the desktop, which turns out to be a good thing for computing in general.
And on the great side, it means Lunix will always have a few new text editors released every month, and always have the distant tail lights of Windows 95 bringing stability to our lives (if not our OS).
...upwards of 300 distributions vie for the attention of computer users seeking an alternative to Windows.
But they don't! Most of these distros do not clamor for users to switch from Windows to them. No, they are specific solutions crafted by someone or another to "scratch a personal itch", collect a specific set of software for a task or just one person's idea of what a congenial working environment might be.
Hell, my personal network includes IPCop for a firewall/router, FreeBSD for a Web/FTP/file server and workstations include several flavors of Windows, Linux and even a Mac OS9 machine. All play together nicely.
Saying there are "too many" distros implies there has to be some negative consequence. There isn't. The article is completely devoid of any mention of a down side, specific or general.
What will happen if there are more distros? Fewer? Nothing! At least the author has no ideas on this topic.
Moreover, the article is naive: The number of distros matters less than the number of kernels, userlands, large application projects, and package management systems. There are less than a handful of widely used alternatives in each of these categories, and added choices are usually a positive development. For example, if Sun succeeds in turning Solaris into an alternative kernel in the Debian repositories or something like that, it would be a Very Good Thing.
And on top of all that, the article misses substantive issues such as the reach across CPUs for each distribution.
This is an article without a point, without research, and with such atrociously bad writing as "a giant hairball" without a single word about what that means, to whom, or why. If this article were turned in as a J school homework assignment, it would get a D-, only for being spelled correctly.
I wrote parts of this stuff
Isn't anyone concerned that the forking of our current Time-Space-Continuum Thingy into the Multiverse will lessen the likelyhood of our stream being selected as the Earth Prime? Someone, please, stop all this forking.
Starting right now, everyone, stop making decisions.
O.K., now, don't think about, just stop...o.k. now, wait, no, now...on second thought....NOW.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
This is madness. THIS ... IS ... LINUX!
In all serious 300 linux distributions should be able to stand against the mighty windows army, 1 million vista derivatives strong. Lead by the evil Longhorn deluxe server double plus edition and a photo of bill gates they seek to destroy the land these young linuxes came from. For Linus!!!
Most businesses want to spend time deploying solutions, not evaluating options.
While I don't see the number of distros as a problem, IT management often does. There have been many illustrations used to highlight where a variety of options is good. Let me cite one where similar branching has been bad: the Church.
Regardless where you weigh in on the whole concept of God, I think you'll agree that Christianity's voice is not as strong as it once was. I would argue that the constant multiplication of denominations has watered down the central message: there is often more focus on the areas where they disagree than on the area where they all (presumably) should agree.
Now, let's port that back to the whole *nix argument. [I won't explore the whole parallel with fan(boy)aticism.] While each distro has brought its unique flavor to the *nix buffet, most IT managers are looking for solutions that won't require a lot of advance time to decide which distro is best. They also are accustomed to a model that allows them to leverage training and support resources across the broadest possible base. While some of their concerns may be addressed through education (e.g., knowledge that techs who are up to speed on one distro already know 98%+ of every other distro), their concerns should not be dismissed out of hand. After all, one of the precepts of the open source community is that improvements made by one eventually benefit all.
Lost you there? Is there no room for the multiplicity of distros to begin to amalgamize into more normative releases? Can the diversity of choice be narrowed to provided clearer options? Sure, there will always be a place for specialized distros, but [imo] *nix could have already decimated Microsoft's house of cards had there been a unified front. Think of the unification of the Greek city-states. Compared to empire (Microsoft), those city-states are weak and prone to infighting. Heck, if the Church were to reconcile itself--thereby reducing the number of competing voices--people might actually think that there is something to its teachings (Wow! They're living in unity and harmony the way they're supposed to live! Maybe it isn't as much crap as I once thought it was.).
Now, I'm not proposing that there be a purge of distros. I'm just trying to highlight the fact that those unfamiliar with *nix--whether you think they should be in power or not--are in power, and they come at this issue from traditional business paradigms. Come to them with a unified voice, and they'll be more likely to listen. Preach unity (under the Linux banner) while squabbling between camps, and you'll end up like the church: dozens, hundreds, even thousands of self-satisfied communities, each working its hardest to spread the good news of Open Source until you have a cacophony of opinion so diverse that others won't see what you have in common.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Alexander Wolfe has been writing anti-linux fud for sometime. He has no technical qualifications at all. From TFA talking about kernel forking:
/ 2007/07/ubuntu_aftermat.html "Ubuntu: puncturing the urban legend"
/ 2007/07/ubuntu_linux_ai.html "ubuntu: linux aint as easy as dell"
"It's also true that the few deviations that can fairly be called forks are very valuable, in that they are patches or shell add-ons (the latter are not really forks) to support real time and load balancing."
I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't know my kernel had any shell at all let alone a shell "to support real time and load balancing"...
In the past few days he has written two anti-Ubuntu FUD articles:
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives
In which he makes various assertions including reporting that you need to install gcc and compile laTeX to get it
working on Ubuntu
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives
in which he claims that ubuntu is too for him to install, so the Dell preinstalled ubuntu pcs must be bad
I don't know what his credentials are. Honestly I don't think he's qualified to say anything about tech, and we should do our best to discredit him before he causes more damage and spreads too much misinformation.
For someone who's only moderately interested in Linux (especially Ubuntu), can anyone tell me if it's as fast and feature-rich (efficient scheduling/multi-tasking) as BeOS or QNX. If yes, then I'll try it out properly. If no, then I'll wait for it to improve to obtain the best features of all OSs before I consider switching from Windows.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
http://www.opera.com/download/
I went here to get Opera for my Redhat machine at work.
There are on the order of 40 different variants for download. If they are binary compatible, why isn't there just one or two? As there is for windows/OSX/Solaris.
I am not Open Source Hater, but I tend to agree with the article. Linux is totally fragmenting it's minuscule desktop share amongst 50 pseudo-compatible variations.
I just love how Alex Wolfe and InformationWeek in general keep baiting Linux community into reading and commenting to this self-important tripe.
r ring-print-blogs-tech-media-cx_bc_0716techmedia.ht ml
Couple of days ago there was "Ubuntu is hard to install on laptops" article (utter bs, btw), now this.
The reason for all this?
Diminishing readership, which leads to less ad revenue.
Solution? Write semi-inflammatory articles that will sure bring clicks to the site.
Forbes' Brian Caulfield said it the best in his recent article "Tech Boom, Media Bust" - traditional IT rags (and their accompanying web sites) are things of the past, bloggers are killing them.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/2007/07/16/redhe
OK, so we've all had this "discussion" before a million times, but it is important to revisit it right now. The reason is because never before has adoption and attention been so rapid and public as it is right now.
I don't mind there being 400+ distros available, but what is needed is a single solid foundation to build the main desktop around. Focused and intense development and streamlining needs to happen. Unifying UI across all packaged apps, ensuring ease of use, stability, and strength.
In my mind Ubuntu is the framework to use. Sure, people may have their own issues with it (even I do) but that doesn't take away from the fact that it is the best Linux has ever been on the desktop. We need to rally around it and make it as polished as possible, with as much attention and focus and more importantly *goals*. Apple has been able to do wonders with OS X due to this, yet many issues still remain 15 years later with Linux. Chaos and choice are great, but a full solid foundation to then let people build upon is better. Just as it is with the kernel it needs to be with the main package of apps and utils.
MHO.
http://teasphere.wordpress.com - A little spot of tea
Paper documentation (e.g. a book from bookstore) is a big reassurance to people just thinking about going to Linux (or Macintosh or whatever). If they can find a consistent voice on paper that answers 90% of their questions they have before they get started, they seem much more likely to actually go through and make the jump.
The chorus of online help about Linux is massive; this is not always helpful though. There are date issues since people don't always date their advice or take it down / update it when new advice supercedes it. Some Linux writing isn't meant as a tutorial but as argument about future direction (x feature is easy to use because it could be a massive security hole in the future!). And that's not even accounting for the huge disparity in writing quality, mastery of the language (is C or English their native tongue?), and tone of voice (serious & objective vs. playful & fun).
Currently, the two or three paper books about Ubuntu are good deal sealers for those looking at a simple desktop alternative. For more experienced people trying technologies for web serving and programming, the number of LAMP books that test with RedHat and Suse make those good selections. And for those who just want to experiment with something other than Windows but don't find those books appealing, I encourage them to look into a Macintosh and the many good books on it that are available. At least getting them into the Posix world is a good step forward.
So far, it's worked well.
Perhaps in the future this will be resolved by packaging applications with their own minimal operating system as part of the package. The user will simply run the virtual machine package within a generic VM supervisor. Each application need only be packaged with exactly the operating system it needs in an efficient form of virtual device management.
I think most people are missing the fact that even though there are eleventy billion linux distros, the kernel and all software on the system is the exact same code. Linux 2.4 on redhat, is the same code running on slackware etc.
The only difference is the packaging system and in some cases, interfaces provided. Some distro have management doodads made by the packager (which is what a distro really is) that make things easier.
Linux and GNU are not "forked" by each distro maintainer. Saying that indicates a serious misunderstanding of how the OSS/Linux community operates.
If they were, the distro would die a hard fast death, since they'd essentially need to become an operating system development house like Apple or Microsoft. Nobody can afford to do that, especially all these small distros.
This is like saying the grocery bagger at the supermarket grows their own bananas. It's preposterous. He just puts the bananas in the bag and makes sure the bread is on top, getting paid a small fee in the process.
He doesn't bake his own brand of bread or grow the bananas organically. By saying the distros are "forking" linux, this is exactly what the OP/Article is saying.
-AC
... as the mother of all distributions: Skapareware 0.0.1
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
I really wouldn't care the least bit about an infinite number of distributions as long as it would be easier to get software running which is not part of the supported set of packages of that distribution.
/opt is somewhat better, but unfortunately often way above what most users are able to do.
;-)
My solution to that? Not a 100% solution, but I think the situation would be a lot improved by copying (or get closer to) the behavior of windows when it comes to shared libraries. Make it easier to put shared libraries beside the binary and make sure those are used first. And use an own shared lib for most applications. At least for all libraries beside the usual system libraries. I see the "you stupid beginner" threads coming in already, so let me defend a little in advance:
First, I know that it is already possible to do it that way. I actually did it already and it is harder to do and it has currently a lot of disadvantages (see next points) because it is not really supported in a good way. For some libraries you have to use tools like chrpath to make it even possible and that feels just bad.
Second, I know that this will take more place on your precious harddisk. This is a downside, but I don't really care if it allows me to install (and update!) more packages without trouble by reducing dependencies.
Third, I heard the security argument and I know how it goes: "In case a vulnerability is detected we can fix it by updating a single shared lib and all applications are fixed now". Great. Except that a) the application author would sometimes maybe be faster to fix it than all the 300 distros. b) not every distro will check if *every* application will actually will run without trouble after the fix. Is a single point of failure really a feature when it means it can break running application which might not even be affected by a vulnerability? I think other solutions can be found - it doesn't sound *that* hard to track the installed libraries check them against a database of security flaws.. and then decide how to fix it. Let the user chose, let the distribution chose, let the applications chose.
Fourthly, non-standard systems which need shared libs not provided by the application. As we need a way to track installed shared libs anyway for security argument lets just use this and offer an (user or distributions defined) override mechanism which makes it easy to override the shared libs installed in the application folder. Currently this is also hard to do once an application has set it's rpath correspondingly. I wouldn't complain if it would be easier. And yeah - those people won't have the benefits.
Fifthly, the "there is no problem, my package manager works perfect already". This arguments usually holds as long as you do not install foreign packages + still regularly update your system. Doing both of those two things make it hard in any distribution which I checked so far. And no, just using alien ain't enough. Just installing to
Last, I didn't see the real reason. Maybe. Just teach me - I'm always eager to learn. Actually part of the reason of my post is that I really want to understand why this isn't already changed despite the fact that the current solution causes troubles so often. Centralized solutions never work - the current shared library concept is just one more example for this
Call me a troll, but it's true. Many end users see the operating system as just "the computer" the same way they see the monitor as "the computer". There's the Apple computer which is different from the nebulous PC (not Apple) computer. Many people will believe that in order to get a new operating system, you will have to get a new computer. So why research a new OS when it's gonna cost a lot to "get a new computer"? Even with a slightly more tech savvy audience, they practically went crosseyed when I tried to explain distros to them.
I have been reading through most of the comments, and I have come to a conclusion. Linux needs: .debs that do not install!
- Games. You know, those expensive, crappy based-on-a-movie things...
- Polished software. Less bugs, cleaner, easier interfaces.
- IDEs. A fully functional IDEs with GUI constructor, syntax check (like Eclipse), and support for C, C++, C# (don't shoot), Python and more.
- Less dependencies. If you need some weird functions, bundle them. I hate
- Video editing. Give Kino support for importing more codecs or complete PiTiVi.
- "A new Apache". A better reason for people to change.
- Give away Linux CDs in shops.
- Sell machines with Linux, like Dell do.
- Special hardware should work out of the box. Especially webcams.
I hate to say it, but most of these need to be fixed before Linux outgrows even Mac.
Linux is great, but remember, a Windows user will try to think of any excuse to change back and avoid learning something new.
(Excuse my English. I am Norwegian.)
That's as dumb as saying that people get confused by cars because there is too many makes and models. It comes down to a question of education, if they know the differences then they can make a logical choice.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
I think all the forks are a good thing. I don't see forking as the source of the problem of people not adopting Linux. The problem I see with adoption are the desktop applications. I am not trying to say they're bad, because there are a lot of good ones, but they tend to be lacking and in several ways.
There's not much consistency with usability. I don't expect Gimp to work the same way as OpenOffice, but I'd expect a fairly consistent user interface when it comes to watching Video, Music and many other small applications. OpenOffice isn't as good as MS Office and the multimedia suite isn't as good as iLife. Wireless can be a nightmare and you never know if you're going to break the system by installing an application.
These are reasons I see people not adopting linux. How is joe noobie going to play his dvd or make a picture slideshow to share with his friend? Not as easy as 123. Plus forget about asking questions because your answer will be: your stupid. I've tried several times getting Basic users to use Ubuntu. Every one of them switched back to windows. They were all on laptops and they all had one issue or another. The OS was easy enough, but the "applications" were always the problem. They just weren't intuitive enough. They always had too many questions and it always took extra effort to get everything working properly, often spending hours search online for the answers. This is why Linux wont be adopted.
They offer a generic DEB or RPM as well.
In 1998, I read about Linux and thought it would be fun to install it and try it out on one of my computers. I went to the local computer store and found several different dsitributions available. It confused me and I didn't know which one to try, so I didn't get any of them. I did some more research and found FreeBSD. I liked the fact that there was just one distribution, controlled by one group. It was also free and open source, stable and widely used. I've now been using FreeBSD for nearly ten years. In the last couple of years, I've also dabbled with RedHat and Suse Linux with good results, but FreeBSD will remain my main OS.
oh, maybe not at the distro level but below. I mean more kernels, desktop envs, browsers. I know there are a lot of them too but the major distros aren't supporting them.
Distros can easily hook into this, nothing to uncomfortably fit into.
Details of the idea on http://freedomdrive.org/ (notice the catchy name, which is useful too)
Bullshit.
Computer users "seeking an alternative to Windows" are NOT going to jump straight into Gentoo or Slackware. (Well, I did. But I'm not representative.) There are not 300 distributions for people who are looking to try something other than Windows for the first time. I would say there are less than a dozen viable choices for that sort of new user. And personally, there's really only ONE I would recommend to a new user. (You don't even have to ask. You know which one I'm talking about.)
The variety is for experienced users, not new ones.
The problem ain't the number of distros. The problem is the subtle compatibility issues.
If I want to develop commercial software then getting a reliable ABI across (say) 95% of 32-bit Intel distros is hard, because it's a moving target.
The Win32 API may suck, but it's also been pretty much stable for, what, 10 years? And despite the bugginess of Vista, MSFT has made huge efforts to avoid breaking stuff over the years (http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/) to keep that old crapware working.
Let's not resort to irrelevant spin to sweep a legitimate issue under the rug. Any of the Vista versions can run essentially all Win32 software, whether that was built for Win9X, 2000, XP or Vista. As long as the software doesn't use Vista-specific features, it's not an issue. And 90% of software doesn't (and doesn't need to).
Beyond monopoly shenanigans and history, this is the *main* reason people use Windows over Linux. It has had a stable ABI for years now. There are negatives to that, I'm sure. But for all but the widest-market apps, it's a huge boon to be able to target a single platform. Hell, don't ask me. Ask the authors of Firefox and OpenOffice. There's a reason even Open Source apps are better supported on Windows than Linux. Part of it is just that there's a bigger user base, but part of it is the difficulty of targeting multiple distros and coexisting with multiple desktop frameworks.
Saying that's not important may feel good, but it won't help Linux succeed. Maybe Linux can't ever match Windows' single-platform advantage, but if so, it more due to politics and ideology than technology. Still, if that's how it's gonna be, let's figure out where Linux *can* succeed within those parameters and stop assuming that it's being free will inevitably lead to it's being dominant. It won't, because there's no 'it'. There are 300 its - or 4,5 or 6, depending on how you count. There could be 1 - there just won't be.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
Nope, I remember the Snorks, Smurfs, Grape Ape, Transformers, Mask, Charlie Brown, NES, and Christmas trees. :)
I <3 my gadget car
Interestingly, the Prius really supports your argument, since the engineers at Toyota went to great lengths to make it drive like a "normal" car. If they hadn't added the artificial "idling forward" and "slowing down like from engine braking," people might not like it as much because it'd feel too different. Of course, the types of us who also use niche distributions of Linux can complain about how it's inefficient, but that's the reality.
This ia a problem with FOSS in general -- everybody wants to be a chief; nobody wants to be an Indian. If several people work on a project, and one of them gets pissed off, he can just say, 'Fuck you guys, I'm forking the codebase and creating my own ultimately incompatible derivative.' That's why you go onto Freshmeat and see 500 different MP3 decoders, or such-and-such libraries. And they all suck because they're half-baked and feature-poor.
Linux developers are an irresponsible mob who are out of control. What linux needs is a strong project management team to implement unrealistic deadlines, contradictory requirements, unattainable budget constraints, utopian sales targets, and then allocate resources to areas that are needed. Most of all - converge all coding work on a single unified GUI based office system.
The government should implement fines and jail terms for people who go off writing code for whatever THEY think is a good idea - when clearly its project managers who know better.
Work on games, music applications, skins, lightweight distributions, gentoo and its wasteful portage system, and other software 'toys' is a criminal and negligent waste of precious programming resources. There is way too much experimentation happening in linux. What rights (to go off in their own time and do their own thing) do these linux developers think they have ????
I also believe that artists should not be allowed to paint whatever picture they want - there should be a single project management team organizing all the artists out there to only work a small number of already defined images and themes. There is way too much experimentation in the field of art.
Music as well - there is a criminal amount of divergence and outright experimentation happening in the field of music. Its shocking - we have already worked out the ideal genres of songs - there is classical music, country and western and then easy listening ala Celine Dion and Kenny Rogers. Thats all we need to listen to. Who the hell do some of these musos think they are ? - like this My Chemical Romance crowd who go off and make up songs of their own. And whats with these 'Hip Hup Krew' who actually TALK to a rythum - that is not singing!. And then there are these hippy types who use computers to generate 'music' they call psy-trance. Where is the violin, the clarinet, or the vocals ? No - we need a strong management team to allocate these musicians to predefined projects, and get them to just do covers of much loved Country and Western songs.
All this experimentation is counter productive - it creates way too many choices, and just confuses the consumer. After all - capturing the attention of the consumer is the sole god-given purpose of human existence, and the meaning of life itself.
Its about time that linux developers realized this quintessential fact.
1)Linux needs a pretty GUI, nobody wants to use a command line
2)There are too many choices / distros / package managers / window managers, there needs to be one popular one.
3)Linux needs better hardware support and more software support, nobody wants to use an OS that doesn't support my XYZ hardware or run my XYZ program.
While these all may seem like valid reasons to critize Linux, you are wrong. Linux has been a very practical, stable, robust, useful tool before you became a user, and it has been designed to be exactly the way that it is.
Linux is essentially capitalism at its finest, the best solution for the most users will succeed. If users have different opinions, there will be different options. Linux will continue to survive, just as it has. You get one vote in the open source community, vote by contributing to or using whatever software you feel is moving in the right direction, but don't complain because it's not like what you're used to. Use it, or don't.
If knowing is half the battle, what is the other half?
But tonight's troll, who wants to draw traffic to his Information Week blog, got on the Slashdot front page tonight because he knows that baiting us is the way to do it.
Then don't help feed the troll by inadvertently attaching your name to it! When someone of your notoriety in the community makes a comment like that it only helps to give him the traffic that he wants. For example when I saw your post I clicked on his link and read his article just to see what the fuss is all about. You are right, but you baited the hook for him.
Integrity is what you are when nobody is looking.
Why wouldn't you choose Ubuntu for company servers when you've got Canonical right there?
+++ATH0
Quoted for truth. I used to be excited over the prospect of helping a friend or relative switch to Linux or buy a Mac. But these things always come back to bite you.
Myself, I use a MacBook and have great respect Mac OS X. I consider it the best general-purpose OS available. But in spite of my boundless confidence in this operating system that "just works", there are still problems for new users. Same is true of Linux. It might be that they can't open their old documents in some obscure format. It may be that the old peripheral that I didn't even know they had won't work. Whatever it is, there will always be a problem of some sort, and I'm sick of trying to be the hero only to end up putting out fires.
Over time I've learned to be content with what I have and let my friends and relatives use what suits them. If they want advice on which Mac to buy or want me to burn them a Linux install disc, I'll do it. I just don't have the emotional stamina to be that zealous over a damn OS anymore. At the end of the day it's just a tool. I know which one I prefer and I'll advise friends on which one might suite them best, but I'm leaving it at that.
When Unix forked installing a system might take days - Now you can try 10 linisies in an afternoon - totally bogus comparison.
are just competing in the search for Ringux, the one distro to rule them all...
you really expect me to be able to express my opinion of what's so fucked up in this world in 120 characters or less?
Bruce remember this is /. almost nobody reads TFA anyway.
\. argghh das dis dang it, wokwowkwok, oohhooo.
Wabi-Sabi
Matthew
Seriously, thanks for all....
Agreed, except that it's 166.
...
Had the original author bothered checking it's own sources, he would have discovered that DistroWatch.com has a search-function, allowing you to search for distributions of different needs. Looking at Desktop distributions, for x86 Desktop-distributions (which is what the eternal/infernal comparison with Windows is all about), there's currently 166 distributions to choose from.
In that figure, extremly related distributions are still counted many times. Ubuntu, Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Ubunto Studio, and Ubuntu Christian Editions counts as 5 different distributions, for example. Also included are distributions for very specific needs;
* Xubuntu aimed for older hardware
* Two distros aimed explicitly for Christian users
* Several aimed for schools and education
* Ubuntu Studio for music and video-editing
*
If you instead go looking for "Beginner-distros", (the kind of users most likely to be frightened with too many choices) there are 8 alternatives listed today.
In essence, the whole argument "too much choice" is purely and utterly FUD. Especially when there's easily accessible tools like Distrowatch to help you make the choice.
there is a cost of time and trouble, one can only try so many. and i wouldn't think a n00b user would even bother when faced with hundreds of distros. it can be intimidating when its almost chaotic for those who aren't well informed on the stuff to begin with. hassle is a definite barrier to adoption if the goal is to spread to general home users. choice and customization is great for business.
"the last time I tried to set up SELinux by hand, I nearly locked myself out of my own box. So I can see the appeal of a distro where these things are set up for me." - by NickFortune (613926) on Saturday July 21, @04:15AM (#19936341)
2 6e3ec023eb0d850496c9f82b1ac92&p=375355#post375355 ... & it allows me to achieve an 84.735 score (of 100 total), running Windows Server 2003 SP #2 fully security hardened (via methods noted in the posting there in the URL above) on the multiplatform CIS Tool 1.x test (by "The CENTER FOR INTERNET SECURITY")!
i ntsCISToolResult84735.jpg
:)" - by NickFortune (613926) on Saturday July 21, @04:15AM (#19936341)
LOL! I truly DO KNOW THAT FEELING (via experience, especially when it comes to understanding user rights to the filesystem, the registry, & yes, even services on Windows NT-based OS')... NOW though?
I use this (I authored it):
APK "12-STEP PROGRAM" ON HOW TO SECURITY HARDEN WINDOWS NT-BASED OS (2000/XP/Server 2003/VISTA):
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?s=37
SCREENSHOT OF MY SCORE ON THE MULTIPLATFORM CIS TOOL 1.x:
http://img.techpowerup.org/070618/APK14SecurityPo
(& I am certain my score is actually HIGHER than that (because the test does not account for hardware & software firewalls, antivirus/antispyware programs, etc. et al & the fact I KNOW IT MAKES 4-5 SMALL ERRORS in its analysis as well, which I can & have proven to the makers of this ware)):
Here is the screenshot of my score, to go along with the methods of hardening Windows, to show proof of the score... I have challenged BSD folks, SELinux folks, & other *NIX's as well & to date? NOT A SINGLE PERSON FROM THE *NIX CAMP HAS BEATEN MY SCORE...
"OK. Hope that answers your questions. Let me know if I missed anything and I'll see if I can help
You've been very helpful, thanks, but I wonder if you'd take that test (CIS Tool 1.x for Linux) & see if your hardened setups can exceed the score I note above on the same test...
Thanks!
APK
People that are not prepared to Google for half an hour to find answers to all these questions deserve to be using Windows, pay for it and be told by MS's marketing to enjoy it.
People that need to use regularly a computer have to make a choice: inform themselves about the alternatives, or be at the mercy of whatever is thrown at them.
Oh wait, that is yet another choice to make. My bad.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.