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."
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
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.
Otherwise, no. of Linux distros would soon exceed no. of Linux users!
Do something!
After all...
This. Is. SLASHDOT!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.
It has validity, the argument that more is better does not necessarily hold true. If you look at the uptake numbers you will see large clusters around projects like: Red Hat, Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, Red Flag and SuSE (and perhaps 1 or 2 others I forget now). The rest of the distributions leads a marginal existence unless they satisfy a very local need (Red Flag or one of those Indic-supporting ones).
So what else do those distributions serve except egocentrical purposes, especially since the majority consists from taking a large well-known distribution and only tweaking it slightly and, tada, Monkey Nutsack Linux is born.
Seriously, for most consumers, assuming Linux is still going after Windows and the desktop, more choice is not necessarily better, especially not when it numbers in the hundreds.
Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai
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.
Indeed. JoeLinux may be "competing" with the major distributions for attention, but there really are only a few major players out there. JoeLinux is going to have to be one awesome distribution if it is going to really come out of nowhere and get somebody's attention, something like Gentoo and Ubuntu did.
Until that happens, JoeLinux may as well only exist for Joe and his nerd buddies; to complain about having "too many distributions" is (to me) kind of like complaining at having too many McDonalds (or whatever your preferred chain is). They are all similar. They all serve mostly the same food, with mostly the same flavour. So you should only need one or two, right?
(Disclaimer: I checked for the existence of JoeLinux at distrowatch, but the closest match I found was "JoLinux," which is absolutely not the fictitious distribution to which I was referring)
There are also too many flavors of ice cream. I mean, with the hundreds of flavors around, how can businesses buying ice cream for their employees ever narrow it to just a few flavors that their employees will likely approve of? The choice is just too difficult.
Hmm.. we probably need to rename them as "Linux Ultimate", "Linux Server 2008", "Linux Home Edition", "Linux for fscktards" and so on, just to make things more understandable.
which is totally what she said
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.
300 distros against the mighty empire of Microsoft. This is insanity! No, this is Linux!
The problem is not actual complexity, but rather perceived complexity. Joe User decides he doesn't want to pay $600 to upgrade to Vista, so he decides to look at Linux. What does he see: Red Hat, SuSE/Novell, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Debian, Gentoo, Fedora, Slackware, etc.
What should he pick? Which is right for him? If they are all Linux then what is the differences? Is one as good as the next?
The problem is not that there is choice, but that there is too much choice. Most average users would rather just fork over the money and get Vista rather than spend hours, days, or even weeks trying to figure out what distribution of Linux to get, then installing it, then learning how to do actually use it.
What you and so many other people forget is that people are willing pay for familiarity and ease of use rather than accept strange, confusing and a learning curve for free.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
As a major contributor to JeauxLinux, I'm concerned that your distro's name will confuse our users.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.