4 ms·

I thought this quote was interesting: 'helped keep Linux together and defy the trend for forking and fractionalization' when compared with images like this rega

by saw-lau 15y ago

I thought this quote was interesting: 'helped keep Linux together and defy the trend for forking and fractionalization' when compared with images like this regarding the numerous distributions: http://files.cyberciti.biz/uploads/tips/2007/06/44218-linuxdistrotimeline-7.2.png http://files.cyberciti.biz/uploads/tips/2007/06/44218-linuxd... DISCLAIMER: I've never used Linux, partly because of the above ('which one should I pick?'). Also, I'm not trolling here, but would welcome the opportunity to understand why (to a newcomer at least) there seem to be so many variations to choose from.

ordinary 15y ago
Here's a more recent version, though it lacks the early history that your image has: http://futurist.se/gldt/wp-content/uploads/11.07/gldt1107.png http://futurist.se/gldt/wp-content/uploads/11.07/gldt1107.pn... It's important to understand that the kernel and the distribution aren't the same thing. All these distributions share the same kernel. We're not dealing with forks of the Linux kernel, just packages around the Linux kernel. > Also, I'm not trolling here, but would welcome the opportunity to understand why (to a newcomer at least) there seem to be so many variations to choose from. Tthe closest I've been able to come to a reason is "because we can". Make of that what you will. :)
BCM43 15y ago
There are so many variations because different people have different needs, and people will roll their own distros to suit their needs. If you want to pick one, go with debian or ubuntu. Both are relatively user friendly, widely used, and will give you a good taste of linux.
onemoreact 15y ago
The really short answer is, you don't need to install the same software on a phone, answering machine, router, bootable CD, tablet, server, and desktop. Windows does the same thing, but Linux makes it so easy that people take it a little further.
lawn 15y ago
Different variations for different needs. It's one of the goods points with linux I'd say, you probably wouldn't like the setup I'm using and the same way around. It's really hard to choose, especially for someone new, but the points is there's something that suits everyone or at least you can come much closer than you could ever come with only one to choose. Some people like a graphic interface while others love the command line and want to do everything there. Some are power users who configure everything to the smallest detail (I've lost count of how many hours I've personally spent on configuring stuff so it's just the way I want) and others simply don't care. What you must remember is that all distros are just a kernel with various programs, setups and philosophies surrounding it. Some are easy to use but huge and complex, others are bare-bone but simple and there are lot's in the middle, or little of both. You could start with a kernel-only setup or create your own collection of stuff you like, make your own distro. You can draw similarities to whatever really - Which car should I pick? Why aren't all kitchen tables the same? Why are there so many linux distros when there's only one windows and mac os you might ask? To begin they are different too, both versions (xp, vista, win 7..) and specialization (professional, home user..) but not all too different. Why? Probably because there's a company promoting, developing and supporting them and it's too hard, expensive and generally unfeasible. Why make two competing products? Let someone else do that, and they have! Unix, Linux, BSD etc. As someone else said "it's because we can" explains quite a lot. Because someone finds it useful I'd say. * Sorry it got a bit long winding.
danieldk 15y ago
It is not that much of a problem, since 95% of the people probably use one of the top-5 distributions. If we go by Distrowatch's popularity, those are Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, Debian, and openSUSE. Two those are derived directly or indirectly from Debian (Ubuntu and Mint). So, three of the five are virtually the same, except that Ubuntu and Mint are more focused on user-friendliness. The more serious problem is the immense amount of resources that are wasted on developing multiple desktops, photo editors, photo managers, music players, chat clients, etc. Some people will say that competition is good, but if you have that tiny market share, I think it would be better to focus on the overall experience.
- jacquesm 15y ago
  > if you have that tiny market share, I think it would be better to focus on the overall experience. If there is one lesson to be taken from the Apple saga that would be the one I'd pick.
perlgeek 15y ago
Note that this article is mostly about the linux kernel, while your link is about distributions. Yes, distributions are fractionalized to some degree, but most of them use a pretty standard kernel, and if not, their kernel patches are also open sources, so other distributions can still use them.
ori_b 15y ago
> 'helped keep Linux together and defy the trend for forking and fractionalization' He's talking about the kernel, and to my knowledge there are no significant forks of that. > 'which one should I pick?' Ubuntu or Fedora. (Really, it doesn't matter too much).
eru 15y ago
In contrast the `fork-happy' BSDs use different kernels, but their userland is closer to each other than the Linux distributions are.

by saw-lau 15y ago

ordinary 15y ago

Here's a more recent version, though it lacks the early history that your image has: http://futurist.se/gldt/wp-content/uploads/11.07/gldt1107.png http://futurist.se/gldt/wp-content/uploads/11.07/gldt1107.pn... It's important to understand that the kernel and the distribution aren't the same thing. All these distributions share the same kernel. We're not dealing with forks of the Linux kernel, just packages around the Linux kernel. > Also, I'm not trolling here, but would welcome the opportunity to understand why (to a newcomer at least) there seem to be so many variations to choose from. Tthe closest I've been able to come to a reason is "because we can". Make of that what you will. :)

BCM43 15y ago

There are so many variations because different people have different needs, and people will roll their own distros to suit their needs. If you want to pick one, go with debian or ubuntu. Both are relatively user friendly, widely used, and will give you a good taste of linux.

onemoreact 15y ago

The really short answer is, you don't need to install the same software on a phone, answering machine, router, bootable CD, tablet, server, and desktop. Windows does the same thing, but Linux makes it so easy that people take it a little further.

lawn 15y ago

Different variations for different needs. It's one of the goods points with linux I'd say, you probably wouldn't like the setup I'm using and the same way around. It's really hard to choose, especially for someone new, but the points is there's something that suits everyone or at least you can come much closer than you could ever come with only one to choose. Some people like a graphic interface while others love the command line and want to do everything there. Some are power users who configure everything to the smallest detail (I've lost count of how many hours I've personally spent on configuring stuff so it's just the way I want) and others simply don't care. What you must remember is that all distros are just a kernel with various programs, setups and philosophies surrounding it. Some are easy to use but huge and complex, others are bare-bone but simple and there are lot's in the middle, or little of both. You could start with a kernel-only setup or create your own collection of stuff you like, make your own distro. You can draw similarities to whatever really - Which car should I pick? Why aren't all kitchen tables the same? Why are there so many linux distros when there's only one windows and mac os you might ask? To begin they are different too, both versions (xp, vista, win 7..) and specialization (professional, home user..) but not all too different. Why? Probably because there's a company promoting, developing and supporting them and it's too hard, expensive and generally unfeasible. Why make two competing products? Let someone else do that, and they have! Unix, Linux, BSD etc. As someone else said "it's because we can" explains quite a lot. Because someone finds it useful I'd say. * Sorry it got a bit long winding.

danieldk 15y ago

It is not that much of a problem, since 95% of the people probably use one of the top-5 distributions. If we go by Distrowatch's popularity, those are Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, Debian, and openSUSE. Two those are derived directly or indirectly from Debian (Ubuntu and Mint). So, three of the five are virtually the same, except that Ubuntu and Mint are more focused on user-friendliness. The more serious problem is the immense amount of resources that are wasted on developing multiple desktops, photo editors, photo managers, music players, chat clients, etc. Some people will say that competition is good, but if you have that tiny market share, I think it would be better to focus on the overall experience.

jacquesm 15y ago
> if you have that tiny market share, I think it would be better to focus on the overall experience. If there is one lesson to be taken from the Apple saga that would be the one I'd pick.

perlgeek 15y ago

Note that this article is mostly about the linux kernel, while your link is about distributions. Yes, distributions are fractionalized to some degree, but most of them use a pretty standard kernel, and if not, their kernel patches are also open sources, so other distributions can still use them.

ori_b 15y ago

> 'helped keep Linux together and defy the trend for forking and fractionalization' He's talking about the kernel, and to my knowledge there are no significant forks of that. > 'which one should I pick?' Ubuntu or Fedora. (Really, it doesn't matter too much).

eru 15y ago

In contrast the `fork-happy' BSDs use different kernels, but their userland is closer to each other than the Linux distributions are.