Too many distros?

Just stumbled across this article:

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/too_many_linux.html

Ok, apart from the article itself, I find it interesting how all the comments completely refuse to even consider the point of the article. Would we be better off with fewer distros?

I once read another article by a guy suggesting that all these distros were a major waste of time. Sure, some of the distros add in innovative little features, but why couldn't they do it in an existing distro instead? Why start from scratch, discarding all the work and features put into other distros?

Just a desire to "do our own thing" or reinventing the wheel? Or is there actually an advantage to everyone and their uncle making their own distro, completely ignoring the hundreds of other distros that exist?

 

This has been rehashed numerous times for many many years, but yes, it can make things confusing for end-users that want to try out Linux. For corporate customers, you just go to Red Hat or Novell or maybe Canonical and see who has the best support contract and use their Linux-based operating system, it's not like many large companies are going to seriously look at LinuxMint or Sabayon.

I think that personal choice is an important part of the Linux/Free Software philosophy. If you really believe in free software, use Debian or gNewSense, if you want enterprise-level capabilities, grab some CentOS ISO images, if you just want ease of use, Ubuntu or FreeSpire are there.

Sure, all this choice doesn't foster as great a cohesion as some may wish, but neither does free speech in the "real" world.

 

Well, As I see it, it isn't so much about confusion (You can always just choose to ignore most of the distros), but rather, isn't it a waste of effort to have 300 groups of developers all trying to do the exact same thing in parallel, withhout taking advantage of what all the others have done?

Sure, it's a good thing that there are multiple distros, and yes, they serve different purposes.

But it's not about personal choice, or confusion. But where do I get the most choice? When the developers involved all try to *improve* on each others work, or when they work completely in parallel, not taking advantage of what all the others have achieved, but instead (at best) try to copy it, and at worst, leave it out and ignore it?

And the other 350 distros you didn't account for? What purpose do they serve?

Put more simply, I have a choice in what browser I want to use. Because there are multiple browsers being made that work across distros and across OS'es. And it's an actual choice, because I can use Firefox or Opera *regardless* of everything else.

But something like, say, Gentoo's package management system is unavailable to me if I run Ubuntu. And all Ubuntu's nifty features are unavailable to me if I run, say, Red Hat. Where's the choice in that? Since when did vendor lock-in, which is basically what the distro crazy boils down to, give you *more* choice?

My point is that all these separate and exclusive distro's seem to give the end user *less* choice, by coming up with things for *our* distro only, instead of trying to implement this feature in a way so it works regardless of distro.

So how does it give us more choice that when a developer comes up with a new idea for a brilliant new feature that'll make everyone's life easier, he starts a new distro which means I can only get access to that feature by discarding all the nifty stuff the other distro's offer?

It's not so much a question of choice, more of wasted effort, if everyone are trying to reinvent the same wheel. Who does that benefit?

Anyway, it just seems to me to be a point that most linux fans tend to do all they can to ignore (usually using vague catchphrases like "freedom" or "choice", or pretending it's just a whine about "confusion" without actually explaining *how* freedom or choice benefits from everyone trying to do basically the same thing.

(Yes, playing devil's advocate a bit here. I think it's a valid point to consider, but of course some of the above might be taking things to extremes a bit...)

 

I agree it does seem like theres a lot of wasted effort with all the different distros making their own thing. It kinda reminds me of a bunch of tribes competing with each other over attention of the community.

Sure theres distros that have their niche purpose but a lot of them are working toward the same goal yet in separate camps. I also agree that they should build on top of other distros instead of making their own, if they have a great idea, just throw it in an already existing version of Linux.

If everyone would just band together and work on a smaller set of base distros then there could be a better chance of actually competing with the evil known has Microsoft . (I'm sure a lot of Linux people don't want to admit it but it's really the main objective)

But I'm sure theres always going to be the "hardcore" Linux users that would want their own distro to be able to customize their workspace but that really shouldn't any reason to go out and make your own instead of expanding on another.

 

If the existing distros don't do what you want the way you want, fork.

And due to the open source-ness, the improvements of one distro generally make it ino the others within a month.

 

From my point of view almost any distribution can do the same thing as others. I would really like to see some standards here. I hate it when I see too many options. Just look at Distrowatch and you'll see what I mean. If they wouldn't waste time on making distributions and focus on the ease of use and standardization people would really take a good look at Linux. Now there are too many choices (most suck), none of those are easy to use (K/Ubuntu sucks in my opinion) and they all do the same things.
Many may not agree with me, but the real Linux distributions are the Gentoo based ones. The rest simply suck. When you're using Linux you'll want speed, not ease of use as it's clearly not it's area of expertise.
The only open-source OS I like is FreeBSD (and maybe OpenBSD). Why? It's not pretending to be easy to use (just like Ubuntu does, but completely lies), it's fast, very fast and it has a great documentation and community.
To conclude this mini-against Linux thing: I hate that there are too many choices!
I feel this is left incomplete, so I'll continue my anti-Ubuntu thing:
1. First of all it wants to compete with Windows (I believe they call it bug #1), which will never happen (from an ease of use point of view);
2. Not as fast as Gentoo;
3. Too many people are using it...which kind of makes it uncool if you know what I mean.
4. Linux was designed for enthusiasts by enthusiasts and right now the poor hardware support (like lacking good video drivers) still persists. Yes, nVidia started supporting the 8800 series in their next FreeBSD/Linux driver after the release, but who cares about that? What's the point of such powerful video cards in such a light operating system? Not many people need that, but a lot of people might want PureVideo support in the drivers and some of the functions already implemented in Windows drivers. Maybe the Linux community should put a lot more pressure on software developers.
5. I know remember about the upgrade/update process. You might think it's simple...but oh no, there are dependencies to think about, missing libraries and stuff. Just a big pain in the ass. I bet not all the people tried to install X.org or KDE manually to find out just how fun it is (I'm not kidding, I liked compiling for a day).
6. The purpose? What's it supposed to do? If anyone can tell me a purpose and working implementation (besides most distributions being free) I will owe him/her a beer.

Not every point addresses Ubuntu, sorry for the mess.
More to come when I wake up and starting reminding about the love that I have for Ubuntu .

 

Why stop with Gentoo? It has a package management system which makes it easy to maintain. Why not just do away with ease of use completely and have everyone make an LFS install?

Actually, Ubuntu bug #1 doesn't say they want to overtake Microsoft, just foster the innovation that Microsoft's market share has stifled.

Sure it is. Ubuntu is up and running in 30 minutes, Gentoo took me 45 hours to get a fully featured system running.

Only if you're one of those people who thinks popularity is inversely proportional to quality. I just use what is good and "coolness" be damed. If I wanted to be cool and hip I'd spend $4000 on a Mac.

We can only put so much pressure on the companies. And progress is being made, but its slow.

I don't see the point in compiling manually when I type in one line and get it in a matter of minutes. If my hardware was ancient, I might care about optimization.

It's an operating system, it's purpose is to facilitate communication between the user, hardware, and software.

 

Lysander I believe you don't know what speed is. Who the hell cares about install time? Nobody does that daily. I'm referring to the actual speed.
The bug #1 is not that one. They want a big piece of the market share: "Microsoft has a majority market share".
iLoser is not always cool from my point of view. Big doesn't always mean better. Mostly it means it sucks.
All the operating systems do that, but how does it facilitates the user interaction part? It's definitely not easy to use. Not working, focus on what I said, not what you want to believe.

 

Fade to Black, no offense but you've got a pretty big case of elitism going on. Not everyone can learn every intricate little detail of making linux work. Ly brings up some very good points. The way you sound, why dont we all switch to LFS. All get a lot of elitism going on and end up sounding like those mac people that cant see past the fad. Linux is currently the underdog and we have to be accepting of newbies. I encourage people to use linux, even if they wont be learning the intricacies of the OS. I've converted a few friends since all they do is browse the web, look at email, and type reports. They have no trouble and a "standard" distro like Ubuntu serves them very well and they were up and running in about 20 minutes.

No what most people want is the ability to use the computer. And right now. Not in 45+ hours. It took me much longer than Ly to setup a working Gentoo install. I admit, the OS was fast, but every single distro I've tried is faster than windows. No matter what you're already going faster than the "big dog". But think about this, on modern hardware, almost ANY OS is going to be quite speedy, even Windows Vista.

I find it odd that you seem to be lacking so much time that those extra few seconds you get from less load time are that precious to you but you somehow have the time to take, lets be generous and day, 20 hours to setup your Gentoo or even longer for LFS.

So what? Most people I see use Vista now. I'm the unique one almost everywhere I go with computers.

Modern package management make stuff like that a thing of the past. Like Ly said, type one line and I suddenly have everything needed, including dependencies.

I agree with Ly.

Ubuntu's purpose is also to setup an easy linux system for anyone to use. And yes it is easy. You seem to be describing some of the very first releases of ubuntu. Ubuntu 5.10 and 6.06 really started making ubuntu one of the easiest linux OS's out there.

 

About 5, not every distro has a fully working package manager. The thing that bothers me is that there are too many changes in between releases that you sometime need to figure out what's not working. It's not exactly fun.
I've got two words for you: ATi drivers! Have you tried to install any recently? Yes, I can agree that it's one of the easies Linux distros, but definitely not easy to use, unless you don't install anything and don't need to configure anything.

 

I deal with ATi Drivers on a regular basis. Both computers I use regularly are ATI. Most distros, not all, can recognize the video cards right off the bat and drivers work.

 

It's a pain installing though. nVidia's are quite good, but ATi's are simply horrifying.

 

My experience with installing ati's drivers hasnt been that bad. And I've done it the manual way several times.

 

Too many distros is confusing for newcomers, but once you get into Linux, you recognize the choices and begin to appreciate them. Sure, most people start out with Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS or Linux Mint, but if they stick with Linux, they almost always try something else out eventually.

I ask myself often why I stick with Ubuntu, even though I've tried several other distros (PCLinuxOS, Fedora, SuSE, Linux Mint, Arch, etc). And really, it comes down to the fact that Ubuntu pretty much has what I need and want. Sure, Linux Mint may really just be Ubuntu with a different menu and codecs installed. But it lags behind in development, has limited support and documentation, and just doesn't create a sense of community for me.

As long as developers continue to make things open source, there really isn't much of an issue porting something from one distro to the next if you wish or forking off for someone else. Compiz is a great example; it started out as an OpenSUSE thing, but it was easily ported to many other distros (and is installed by default in Ubuntu 7.04) and Beryl forked from it to create more options. Of course, now Compiz and Beryl have re-merged.

Would things be easier if there were only a few choice distros? Absolutely. But as long as things remain open, there shouldn't be a problem porting anything if you want it, even if your distro of choice doesn't provide it.

 

I don't have ATI, but I had a hard time installing my nVidia drivers. I tried following the manual, but somehow I must've misread... and screwed up my xorg.conf file... Heheheh. So. I looked around and found ENVY. I use that to install my nVidia. Sure, it might not be the bleeding edge drivers, but it's better than the legacy ones included in ubuntu feisty.

Someone mentioned that operating systems generally run smoothly on modern hardware. I completely agree. Right now, I don't think hardware is the limiting factor. I think it's more of hardware SUPPORT.

As a two-week-old ubuntu feisty user, I am quite pleased with the distro. Learning stuff and reading up on forums is actually interesting for me. I have never had any problems updating, and usually it's just a case of looking for update manager icon in the panel, and clicking the mouse a few times. I know nothing about dependencies, and I have managed to get what I need to work.

Now about the numerous distros. I believe that may be a little excessive... However, we definitely shouldn't narrow it down to one distro per function. Some competition is good, and stimulates improvement. Just like how people compete for the fastest runner or whatnot in the Olympics, if each event only had ONE contestant it wouldn't be that interesting eh?

So I think the newbie-focused distros should get together and learn from each other. Example: I really liked the feel of LinuxMint, and even though it's based on Ubuntu, it doesn't have the same language support (I couldn't display chinese correctly...). Also to note, Kubuntu didn't work as well as Ubuntu for some reason. I tried both, and Kubuntu doesn't mute the sound when I lower the volume to 0. I hear static/crackling...

Back to the point. Linux isn't the easiest operating system to use. But it's great fun to learn, and it's quite efficient once you know what you're doing. Besides, it's FREE. No one's paying these people to develop new drivers or whatever for new distros. I don't think we're entitled to make any demands on something we haven't paid for. It's like, someone gives you a motorbike, and you complain about the color, suspension stiffness, tire width, drag coefficient, horsepower, and signal light colour. That's just ridiculous!

 

Yes, for basic needs Ubuntu is the best. Definitely easy to use compared to others (due to high compatibility mostly).
I wasn't referring to only one distribution, but to at most 10 - 20. It's always fun to learn and if you have plenty of time you can really learn a lot of exciting things. It's always great at the beginning, and you can really get amazed by something you debug or make it work without any help. It's for enthusiasts.

 

It's basically "Intelligent Design" vs. Evolution (I put "Intelligent Design" in quotes because I believe it's a crock of horse apples, but that's a different discussion). Linux is evolution in action. With the multitudes of distros, you find things that work and things that don't, and generally the things that work are migrated to all the different distributions, and the other ones die out. But the smaller distros are where people experiment. The nature of the GPL doesn't mean effort is ever wasted with code anywhere. If you like the code, take it, and use it under the GPL license. If we limit the number of outlets for talent, then we could theoretically have more "directed" development, but we would also lose out on a lot of experimentation.

Or you could think of it like writing a "Hello World!" application. It's been done billions of times... why do we keep wasting effort doing it? It's a learning experience, and perhaps one of the learners will come up with something brilliant that changes the system. Or even just incrementally improves it.

 

I don't see how too MANY can be a problem at all.

The best ones will arise to the top, or at least, a select few mediocre ones will get a large market-share backing enough to allow given distro(s) (Debian, (K)Ubuntu, Red Hat) to rise above and gain popularity and functionality beyond the rest.

Plus, making your own distro may just be a learning process for the developers. Or, it may be a way to make a statement, or support a certain group of people (Ubuntu Christian Edition ??) Let's not forget that some distros are made to cater to certain people with specific demands (Linux Mint, Mepis)

 

Allow me to give you the Linux n00b view on this, condensed in one easy to use paraphrase of the original point:

"Why isn't Linux more like Windows?"

 

Yep, which is why Linux is NOT Windows...

 

You can't beat Windows at being Windows. You play to your strengths and do it differently to the competition.

 

I know that. That is why I said paraphrased.