I'm scared of the amount of distros out there...

[EdiieLives]

I have heard before than Linux is diverse, maybe too diverse.. I think that less distros should exist. I mean, okay so every distro has it's own way of doing things.. but there are many distros which only differs with the big ones in 3 or 4 noticeable things, aside from some small differences that probably don't really matter and work well in one way or the other.

Why do so much people feel compeled to make a distro based on an old one without a real change? I mean, take Knoppix or Damn Small Linux. Now that is a difference. Those should be different distros. But then you get others who are different in that they 'are better at translation and internationalization'. Wtf don't they simply join the big linux distro of their choice and help with the translation?

They just add a name to the list and make things confusing. Some people have asked me which distro they should use, and now I always say Mandrake, just not to confuse them. Before I used to say, "well for a newcomer you got Red hat/Fedora, Mandrake, Xandros or Linspire/Lindows". And then again they would ask from those, which one is better or which one would you think it's better for me? I would say just choose one of those, browse their sites to see which one you like and stuff... pretty much they just got tired of it in the end. They want a taste of Linux but they were many choices, and there was no where to find a somewhat precise description of their differences.

Oh well.. in the end I just think that Linux distros should join forces instead of divide even more, as it is happening every day... yeah pretty much I just want to say how I feel and see how others feel about that.

Also, okay Choice in Linux is great, but choice 1 and choice 2 are like 0.01% different and I don't frigging know which one I should get!

Oh, also I use Gentoo, have tried Red Hat 8 (sadly in my country most people think that Linux = Red Hat..), Debian, Slackware and FreeBSD.. tought I didn't laster more than a couple of days with the later two. I love Gentoo, but sometimes I would like that someone that one distro has was part of Gentoo... why just they can't help each other?

Also you can't really get started on(just as an example) 'some people like source based distros, other like binary ones', as portage has binary distros. Source based and binary systems aren't completely exclusive of each other, as there is many things in the Linux world that all distros should have.

[X_console]

I agree with you on the large number of distros. A lot of people seem to be reinventing the wheel for the sake of saying "I have my own custom distro".

[fatTrav]

yeah...i mean, prolly half of all disros are derived from Redhat or Debian it seems. Gentoo seems like it was one of a few distros in recent memory that was really innovative (even if portage was based off of the bsd ports system). look what knoppix has done--there are prolly 50 knoppix clones around now.

[amgeex]

I think that the number of distros do not reflect the number of actual differences, which mainly are language support and/or the included packages and the easier installers.

Most distros out there, especially the live-cds are derived from Debian, and it isn't the Debian Team's responsibility, but there should be some sort of Debian Compliance or Debian Standard organization that sets some standards and rules for Debian derived distros.

If you could get all the Debian derived distros out there, you could probably find a lot of the same!

[hammer123]

I would love it if those people that won't read a few web pages to figure out the one they want never tried linux.

What if I want my own project instead of doing things some other way. Not everyone likes being part of a distro that runs with a bunch of commissions just like the UN. Not everyone wants to work with a Corporation either. Not everyone wants to join a project with a bunch of hackers either, instead they want the hackers to join their project. These are some reasons for multiple distro's and why to keep them.

[Raoul_Duke]

Diversity is good, it's like evolution......only the best distros survive ;)

[deltaclipper]

I'm scared of the amount of distros out there...

Well then, why don't you make your own ;)

(PS. that was just a poor joke! :) )

[deltaclipper]

Diversity is good, it's like evolution......only the best distros survive ;)

Yeah, just like in the late 80s to early 90s there were loads of great competing OSs, and only the best got 95% of the market share, its Micros... Oh, wait... Something's not quite right there.

Ah, Only the OSs with the most devious business practices survive... ;)

[saikee]

In the short time I have been in Linux I can understand many countries have invested into Linux and developed their own Linux systems independently. There may be a lot of them around but we don't have to use them all, do we? My guess is that many foreign distros do need different names when they are used in the native languages of their own countries.

Every distro needs maintenance and updates to move with the time and the new developments. Many of the unpopular ones will die and only the best will survive.

No need to scare from them.

[blackbelt_jones]

I don't get it. George Bush is ahead in the polls, and you're frightened by THE NUMBER OF LINUX DISTROS IN THE WORLD?!? :eek:

It seems to me that as time goes on, the difference between older established distros and the newer fly-by-night distros will be more and more apparent. Linux wouldn't be Linux if you couldn't create your own, and the creation of even a supposedly useless distro creates a very useful biproduct-- a programmer/developer with a comprehensive understanding of gnu/linux, who may well go on to benefit the community in any number of ways.

Didn't I see something about a new Linux development standard?

[hard candy]

I tink there are too many models of automobiles in the world, all these choices are not good for the average person. Confusion, apathy, and stress may be the result.
Why should there be a Mercedes with tooled leather seats and automatic transmission as well as one with chamois seats and a 5 speed? :)

[saikee]

Good job Linux doesn't sell like Mercedes, otherwise I would have to stick with something like the Damn Small Linux.

Also if Linux sells like the American automobiles no one would know this operating system at all because many of us can afford the fuel to run them. The last time I check UK people pay about 4 to 5 times the Americans for the same gasoline.

[EdiieLives]

I would love it if those people that won't read a few web pages to figure out the one they want never tried linux.

What if I want my own project instead of doing things some other way. Not everyone likes being part of a distro that runs with a bunch of commissions just like the UN. Not everyone wants to work with a Corporation either. Not everyone wants to join a project with a bunch of hackers either, instead they want the hackers to join their project. These are some reasons for multiple distro's and why to keep them.

I read a lot about Linux distros before getting into Linux and I didn't made the right choice for me :p Even when I had done that the caracteristics of the distros that they told you about in the home page weren't what I wanted to know. Also there are many sites that talk about a few distros but it's too much work to say most of the plus and minus of the top 20 distros in distrowatch ;) Maybe distrowatch can become some how a better place for you to choose the distro you want?

Also, probably those reasons to make your own distro aren't good reasons..

Diversity is good, it's like evolution......only the best distros survive
Well yeah but it's still confusing ;) Wouldn't it be better if there was only strong distros and no weak distros that will get smashed? ;) Tought that is probably imposible:p

I don't get it. George Bush is ahead in the polls, and you're frightened by THE NUMBER OF LINUX DISTROS IN THE WORLD?!?
I don't live in the US, near Iraq, or work in the military, so I don't get affected by him directly, not so much for me to worry :p

Tought a good point you made is that the difference between the better distros and the worst ones is becoming more apparent as Linux evolves...

Pretty much I just wish that if you want to contribute to the Linux world you do it responsably:D It's not that I don't want more distros, I just don't want more distros addresing the same issue and making a entire distro because of features that have better places to be.

[happybunny]

but isn't that the "problem" with OpenSource?

Bill Gates fixed this problem years ago...he took code, patented it and locked it down.

There isn't a freightening number of Windows distro's out there....but look where that got us.

[Loki3]

I actually think there are fewer distros out there than you think exist. You see while techinically speaking there's a whole bunch of them there's not that many seperate "distro-theories". There's all the source-based distros, Slackware, Gentoo, VidaLinux, Sourcemage... etc. They all more or less have a similar target user and a similar philosophy towards managment, etc. There's all the "newbie-friendly" distros like Fedora, SuSE & Mandrake. They're all have pretty much the same philosophy. All the LiveCDs, Mepis, Knoppix, Gnoppix all are pretty much the same thing, except with small changes.

If distros were salsa, the main ingrediants would be the same but you'd be using different herbs/spices.

[MMYoung]

Originally posted by Raoul_Duke
Diversity is good, it's like evolution......only the best distros survive ;)
Actually diversity reduces everything to the lowest common denominator.

Just my thoughts,
MMYoung

[mrBen]

I think we have gone through many phases in the development of Linux. Currently we are seeing a big rise in the number of LiveCD distros, which are making it even easier for people to make a custom distribution.

Each phase brings us different benefits when it is over. Custom LiveCD installs could be brilliant in a SOHO setting where you have a simple set of apps that you want - you just create and burn your custom CD which can then install itself.

At the end of the day, what is usually left is a handful of commercial offerings, and a handful of free offerings. At the moment we're talking RedHat/Fedora, SuSE, Mandrake, Debian, Slackware and Gentoo. Six isn't that bad, really. All the others will either be minority general purpose distros (eg Arch) or niche-market (eg Smoothwall).

There are usually one or two new players looking to break into the mainstream - Xandros, Linspire (from the commercial end) and Ubuntu (from the non-commerical end) at the moment, IMO.

In a constantly developing, open market, there will always be this confusion, as new distros come in and old ones die away.

The car market is probably a less helpful analogy, because of the relatively small number of companies involved. Perhaps think of comic books or magazines - a huge preponderance of choice, but generally people go for one or two popular commercial brands, and maybe the odd online comic too.

[rbrimhall]

Originally posted by MMYoung
Actually diversity reduces everything to the lowest common denominator.

Just my thoughts,
MMYoung

How so? While I conceed that diversity opens up the possibility of lowest common denominator distros popping up, the seemingly a priori proposition that diversity tends to "reduce everything to the lowest common denominator" is just not true IMHO. There are a few good distros popping up in the mix every so often... along with the "bad" ones...

[fatTrav]

Originally posted by lupin_the_3rd
There are a few good distros popping up in the mix every so often... along with the "bad" ones...

Honestly, what purpose to 3/4 of all the distros serve? Withe a very _few_ exceptions, it seems most linux distributions offer no innovations to the users. They're just a rehash of something that has already been done with the only difference being a different distro name and that <insert person's name> gets credit for saying they made their own distro.

If you forget about localized distros I bet you can't pick out more than 5 new distros in the past two years that have been really innovative. [I throw out localized distros because often the only difference between them and Distro RD is the default language used.] I've already mentioned Gentoo and Knoppix and I'd really like to know if any others exist.

Also, I really wonder how many loyal users the "fringe" distros have. (Non-fringe distros may include: RH/FC, Slackware, Gentoo, SuSe, Mandrake, Debian, Knoppix, and Mepis) I really can't say that I read (or answer for that matter) a lot of questions people are having from distros other than those I just listed.

I don't know if I agree with MMYoung's statement of Actually diversity reduces everything to the lowest common denominator. because I'm not quite sure what s/he means by "lcd." But I will say that sometimes diversity isn't a good thing because it dillutes or weakens that which it is diversifing. Having more distros isn't necessarily a good thing if the differences are as slight as CFLAG adjustments for an rpm based distro or having a GUI installer.

[rbrimhall]

Well, I did say a "few" good distros with the bad...

I think that saying 3/4 serve no purpose is a bit much (even excluding localized distros---you mean like turbolinux, right?)... I think distros tend to fit into niches and are thus very important for different reasons...

Here's my attempt at five new (or newish) distros on the "fringe" that may be important and not just rehash:

Ubuntu (brand new with a rapidly growing user base-- important b/c it is GNOME centric instead of KDE)

Slax (slackware live -- not new but seems to be getting better with each release and is a live CD not based on Debian)

Yoper (which I personally disdain but many like it for ease of use and speed-- this one is kind of rehash b/c it just blends a variety of tools from different distros but that seems to be the way of distros these days I guess)

Arch (Never used it but many do as I hear about it all the time)

Feather/DSL (Not new but I think these are important b/c they do seem to serve a purpose that you seem to require from a distro)

Anyways, that's all I've got...



:)

[mrBen]

I think that the main confusion here is not over the number of distributions, but actually the nature of open source software, as opposed to proprietary software.

Proprietary software is written to make money. Thus it has to either appeal to a great many people who will pay a small amount for it, or instead appeal to a few people who are willing to pay a large amount of money for it.

Open Source Software, on the other hand, is (95% of the time) written to resolve an issue that is personal to the developer. The developer loves to be recognised, but the ultimate achievement is resolving the issue in hand.

There are so many distros because so many people have different needs. For instance, I can name 2 needs that I perceive that currently have _no_ distributions available:

1. A user-friendly, windows-esque distribution that will run on old hardware (PII with 32Mb RAM, say). There are many that are user-friendly, and many that will run on old hardware, but not many that fulfill both properly.

2. Applicaton specific live/install CDs for organisations - in my instance I was looking for a CD that contained some of the OSS Bible/church admin software, but there isn't one (hardly surprising).


I think the number of distros is a sign both of healthy growth, and, increasingly, the ease of creating your own distro/liveCD. However, where the problem lies is in dispelling the confusion that surrounds distro selection for newcomers.

[fatTrav]

Originally posted by mrBen
Open Source Software, on the other hand, is (95% of the time) written to resolve an issue that is personal to the developer. The developer loves to be recognised, but the ultimate achievement is resolving the issue in hand.

I think the number of distros is a sign both of healthy growth, and, increasingly, the ease of creating your own distro/liveCD. However, where the problem lies is in dispelling the confusion that surrounds distro selection for newcomers.

I agree with you on both points. However, I still insist on my statement that 3/4 of all distros available offer nothing really innovative.

All I mean is that I'm tired of seeing all these new distros out there that don't try anything new. Gentoo was cool because it did something different, so was Knoppix. They had new ideas to bring into the linux distro world. Having a specialized live cd distro is a good thing, so is a localized distro.

But if you want people to really take interest, do something other than replace the default GUI of kde with gnome or adding a few packages to an otherwise un-touched knoppix clone. Make a better package-management system or something.

I'm not saying these distros are totally worthless, it's just they don't really make much of a case for someone to switch to them or use them. I just see no point in making a distro unless you plan to do something really innovative. But then again that's my approach to software development. I won't release anything I write to the public (keep it to myself) unless it is really innovative or there isn't something existing that is remotely similiar.

And that's why I won't recommend to anyone a distro other than RH/FC, Slackware, Gentoo, SuSe, Mandrake, Debian, Knoppix, or Smoothwall. We have too much parity among the distros and very few major clear-cut differences. parity is good, but i like major differences because they make more of an arguement about why I should choose them.

[Sepero]

I think this problem is similar to when you take a person grocery shopping from a third-world country, and bring them to a America(or your favorite country).

When they used to go to the grocery store, they would buy "bread". When you go to the grocery store here, there's bread- white, whole wheat, whole grain, enriched, rye, bannana bread- Arnold, Beefsteak, Boboli, D'Italiano, Freihofer's, Home Pride, Pepperidge Farm, Mariita, Nature's Own, localbrands!

And what's this thing, low-carb bread stuff(*bsd)?!?! Sheesh!


(According to my sig, I just like simple Debian bread. It's like wheat bread; it isn't the most pleasant going down, but at least it's real smooth in the end. ;) )

[CoffeeMan]

If distros were salsa, the main ingrediants would be the same but you'd be using different herbs/spices

This is so true, I have been pondering the reasoning behind the amount of available distributions, and It really comes down to package management. All the other stuff isn't as important. Based on package management, I could name the options on my right hand.
rpm, deb, source....anything I missed?

[fatTrav]

Originally posted by CoffeeMan
This is so true, I have been pondering the reasoning behind the amount of available distributions, and It really comes down to package management. All the other stuff isn't as important. Based on package management, I could name the options on my right hand.
rpm, deb, source....anything I missed?

tgz (slackware) ebuilds (gentoo)

[hlrguy]

Originally posted by EdiieLives
Why do so much people feel compeled to make a distro based on an old one without a real change?

Because they can. Freedom is a wonderful thing. If you wanted, you could make a live distro that only had every security, network config, intrusion detection, sniffer, etc tool in it and call it the NetGuruLinuxDistro.

Anyway, I am still can't find the free beer, where did ya'll hide it?

hlrguy