Why so many distros?

[Nicki]

I have now installed Linux Mint 7 on my stationery and Mandriva 2009 on my laptop. This is because one distro of another is better to take care of sound card drivers and an other is better to take care of wifi. For example. Many times I was confused over how many distros there are, more than 50, nearly 100. But 5 of these are most popular.

When reading different forums, there are lots of people who are so mad at Windows. Why? Stop doing this and concentrate on working more on Linux. Windows has about 97 % of the market and Linux users want to overcome this fact. How?

If all of you out there, including me, can work on only one distribution, we can reach more people who want to migrate to Linux. As it is now, in fact much better nowadays, much problems with sound and wifi is to solved by the terminal. This is like working in DOS, wish is not useful in this century.

What I mean, is that we must concentrate to making the distro much easier to handle for those who can nothing about computers. And how many are they? They represent about 3/4 of all users. And if we don't take care of them, they are not willing to migrate to Linux. We must get rid of the terminal, it is yesterday.

When I tried some distros, I found Ubuntu boring and Mandriva, PCLinuxOS and Linux Mint much better to work in. My favorite is Mint. But there is more, we have Gnome and KDE. I prefere Gnome sense KDE was to slowly for my music collection. But that is an other story.

So if we can work just only around Mint, this distro will become so popular and interesting for other, that it can rise to a market of 10-20% in a few years. Is this realistic?

But now some people say that Linux is a free OS and people want to do what they want, so we must have so many distros as possible. Why? OK, I haven't said that we are going to kill the other distros. Just make the best distro much better. It would be enough whit 3 distors: one for home user, one for professional and then one distro for servers.

If more people want to go over to Linux (Mint), how much money can they spare? What is the cost for example for the goverment if each ones has a computer with Windows and then an Office pack. And antivirus program? This is a yearly cost of about 300 - 400 Euro for each one. A total cost for a country like Sweden including companies etc, for about Millions of Euro. On what reason? Because they don't know how to install or use Linux/Mint. We must learn them and the best way is to make the distro so easy to use as it looks like Windows. Of course Linux is not Windows and will never be, but as useful as Windows. Then will Linux reach higher and higher.

Or maybe. We are satisfied to be used by only 3 % of the users even in the future. No, this is not evaluation.

[emorrp1]

Ok, so this comes up every so often, always with a slightly different emphasis, but I've not responded to one before, so here's my reasoning as to why what you're suggesting will never work:

The main issue is that you're buying into the concept of "A perfect OS", or, at the very least, an OS that is the best choice for everyone. This idea extends to distros, desktop environments (gnome/kde/...), web browsers etc. and it applies all the way down to the age-old debates about which is the "best" text-editor or programming language. Then taking it out of the realm of software and into the realm of the commercial world: dishwashers, alchohol, carpets, holidays, clothes and even political parties. The one thing that all these products have in common is choice. The ability to choose what's the right product for you, the ability of a community to come together based on liking similar products, the ability for one choice to *temporarily* emerge as the most popular by innovating and making the product more desirable to a large number of people before an alternative catches the public interest once again. Choice penetrates our whole world, so why not our Computers?

Another point to consider is the implementation as without a suggested method (yours or otherwise) your post is little more than a rant, no matter how politely phrased. Similar to the commercial world, the linux world has companies with a vested interest in getting their software accepted as the de-facto standard, though unlike the commercial world, they don't (usually) make money directly, but more by support etc. Also similar to real life there are volunteer communities trying to do their best to improve the sector, the difference being the size and power of the linux communities relative to their commercial counterparts. Think of it as kind of like if all the local markets were part of one large community supporting each other and spreading the word, while also capable of supplying the majority of the produce the public demands, and if the major supermarkets were only just turning a profit because they had to hire people from the already existing market community. If the companies disappear, the products they're distributing won't because the workers would be free to rejoin the active volunteer communities, with all of their knowledge, and all the recipies the companies used to make their products. Ok, now (I hope - I'm really proud of that extended analogy) you've got a better understanding of the way Linux is developed, I can come to my point. Co-ordinating volunteer effort is hard work, as soon as you suggest something that they don't like they can just leave your community, they are not forced to continue working for your ideals. The only way people will volunteer their time with your community over someone else's is if they agree with what you're proposing. It's all come round full circle to my original point - choice.

ok, so I'll address some your points more directly now:

This is like working in DOS, wish is not useful in this century. ... We must get rid of the terminal, it is yesterday.

I'm still hanging around the crucial point of choice here. What you propose is abhorrent to me. I like the terminal a LOT, other than web browsing (atm) I practically live in the terminal/console. It is fast, efficient, script-able, all-permeating, though you're right that it does have a bit of a learning curve. As soon as you try to give a lot of end-use support, you're glad for the power of the terminal. e.g. common situation: install third party software (from a ppa)

Terminal method:
Note that the below method is only 3 steps, not 6 steps, as the entire series of commands can be copied and pasted into the terminal at once, or they can even be concatenated into a single string of commands.
1) Go to website, find the ppa details (e.g. deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/emorrp1/ppa/ubuntu jaunty main ).
2) Open terminal - Menu --> Terminal
3) Input the following series of commands into the terminal (entering password after the sudo stage):

Code: Select all

sudo su
echo "deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/emorrp1/ppa/ubuntu jaunty main" >> /etc/apt/sources.list
apt-get update
apt-get install -y emorrp1

GUI method:
1) Go to website, find the ppa details
2) Start synaptic - Menu --> Package Manager
3) Open sources editor - Settings --> Repositories --> New
4) Add URI - http://ppa.launchpad.net/emorrp1/ppa/ubuntu
5) Add distribution - jaunty
6) Add section - main
7) Apply changes - OK --> Close --> Reload
Find the package - quick search for emorrp1
9) Right-click --> Mark for installation --> Apply --> Apply

Not only is the GUI method longer (even leaving out which exact mouse clicks you need), it's more prone to errors, they need to find every item you mention somewhere in the gui and it's completely different for different distros, whereas the terminal method will work on any apt-using distros.

Just make the best distro much better.

See above for why this fails, let alone deciding which is the "best" distro, and getting everyone else to agree with you. As I've only just mentioned, your idea of the best distro is one where there's no terminal but my idea of the best distro is where there're more apps ideal for the terminal (e.g. mintUpload)

As it is now, in fact much better nowadays, much problems with sound and wifi is to solved by the terminal.

But they are solved much more quickly, efficiently and with fewer mistakes. It's usually not that you *can't* do the same thing via a GUI, it's just much less efficient for the problem-solver to convey the equivalent instructions.

the best way is to make the distro so easy to use as it looks like Windows

The problem (assuming we ignore the assumption that windows is easier to use, it's not) is that if you make it too much like windows, then people will expect it to behave like windows, and then it's a sharp shock to discover that Linux is not Windows ( http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm ). By keeping it slightly different, we do not fool our users, but instead educate them gradually.

What we can all agree on is that we want more hardware support. XP was an absolute PITA for installing new hardware, unless you were lucky enough to get a driver CD which did it for you. In linux it's much easier for common hardware (huge support out of the box), but we're missing the driver CDs from the OEMs for the esoteric hardware. In fact we're missing the existence of any drivers from the OEMs in many cases, even though they are reportedly easier to write that the equivalent windows ones.

OK, I think that just about sums it up, I really should get back to work.

[Nicki]

Thank you.
This was a long story from you and I really agree with you in some cases. But take this example: I installed Linux Mint 7 on my stationary computer. It worked so well from the beginning. Everything. And I would like to have the same distro on my laptop, HP Pavilion dv5. But I couldn't. Why? There was problem with connecting to internet via my Atheros wireless card. In Mint's forum there are lots of different solutions and links to try solve this. A lots of people have problem with Atheros in Mint. Therefore I tried ones again Mandriva 2009 in my laptop. No problem at all with the wireless connection. But now I had no sound. I installed Alsa-mixer and adjusted the output for the speaker and then I had the sound.

So I'm still wondering why do Mint have problem with Atheros when Mandriva does not have it? A clone of Mandriva and Mint would be great.

[slider]

I dont usually get invovled in post's like these either, mostly because sometimes they become a flame war.

Emorrp1 said it better than I ever could. He captured a lot of my feelings on this subject in his words. I do have a few more though.

By having so many different distros not only is a users choice multiplied, but each distro benefits the others in ways that you may have not realized. Being Linux, when a new technological breakthrough is made in one distro or application it is usually applied, ported and shared with all of the others as well, with any added appropriate changes as needed. This does take time, but is usually done in as timely of manner as possible. The more people involved, the more ideas and fixes, etc there are available for the entire Linux community to work with, thereby making things better for everyone. Having a large base of distros available is not an detriment to Linux by any means. It is just exactly the opposite. You've heard the old saying "Two heads are better than one". Well in this case we are talking thousands upon thousands, if not millions. Everyone can contribute something to Linux in whatever form they can do best. Doesnt matter how small or large, but that something was given back. It can be anything. This is what makes Linux special. For true Linux users, Linux is a passion, a kind of lifestyle so to speak at least in the digital world. It provides and gives us the freedom to do the things we love as we think and feel that they should be done.

We must get rid of the terminal, it is yesterday.

I totally abhor even the thought of that! The terminal is the BEST tool that we have on our systems. Its fast, reliable and does exactly what a person tells it to do. I wish that I could put it into better words, but then again, I dont really need to I guess as this has already been illustrated above by emorrp1.

While it is a good thing to make Linux easier to use for all users, I dont believe that this should include watering down Linux all the way to the point of trying to make it as close to M$ Windows, while in turn taking away any functionality that Linux users need and use. ie: Just because you can drive a car does not mean that you can drive a truck, or fly an airplane, or even ride a horse. If a person chooses to do those things that they do not know, they must learn the aspects and rules needed to operate or ride them. While some aspects and rules of driving a car will be similar, there are many more new things that the user will need to learn and know in order to do those things successfully.

As for "Why some things still dont work as well as people think that they should"?

What is needed is for more users to contact their computer or software manufacturer and ask them why they are not supporting Linux with a current driver, etc. This is a request that I have seen posted on the web many times from open source software Dev's. This fact is one of the main reasons for any bad wifi, sound or other performance problems in most FOSS systems. Maybe its about money, greed and control of the big corporations? Thats a different topic, but it is very well connected to this one.

Let us all be good stewards as we stand on the shoulders of those that have come before us and guard and nurture the kernel, improving it where needed, but keeping it safe and free at the same time....

[adrianx]

I haven't read through the entire thread, I admit, but what is all this "we must be kind to Windows" stuff? I'm seeing it in every single Linux forum that I visit. Some people are claiming that the "M$/Micro$haft/Windblows" thing is a new trend.... I don't know so much - it's more like the resistance to it is a new trend. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned.

Edit: I resist Microsoft and because of it, I'm in a better position to learn about FOSS and Linux in general. Not that I don't keep a beady eye on Microsoft's latest and greatest, or reject them outright. I just try very hard to not jump ship when things don't go my way. You know, the "I'm going back to Vista if you don't tell me how to get ... to do ..." attitude.

[Nicki]

No no, not at all. I'm not going back to Vista. I do like Linux and just Mint. Vista speciality is a joke, that can be confirmed by Windows.

To make an example in an other way. When I worked in the industrial manufacturing and made parts for our customers, I learned that we must look on our competitors and be better than them so we can sell and produce more than them. See if the competitors made anything wrong and make it better. Am I wrong?

[Nicki]

slider wrote:

"What is needed is for more users to contact their computer or software manufacturer and ask them why they are not supporting Linux with a current driver, etc."

If the market would be such easy like that, we need an other society all over the world. This is not a reality. Can we ask Microsoft to let us have their kernel of Windows 7? No, forget it.

[slider]

If the market would be such easy like that, we need an other society all over the world. This is not a reality. Can we ask Microsoft to let us have their kernel of Windows 7? No, forget it.

I never said anything was easy. What I posted was what many FOSS developers have posted and recommended at their sites for users to do. I think its an option that most people can easily do if they would just take the time. That too is another way of contributing. I would call it "being a Linux advocate or activist", which is a very good thing in my book. We need all of the voices that we can get.

For as kernels....... I only speak of the Linux kernel and nothing else....

[monkeyboy]

If all of you out there, including me, can work on only one distribution, we can reach more people who want to migrate to Linux. As it is now, in fact much better nowadays, much problems with sound and wifi is to solved by the terminal. This is like working in DOS, wish is not useful in this century.

My take is that we are all better off with multiple flavours of Linux packaging. Its like motorcycles, no one model can do it all. The motorcycles that go through the high speed turns best suck once they hit the dirt and there is no way I would want to do multiple days worth of high speed highway travel on a dirt bike. You need a wide varity of bikes and styles to meet the varied needs of all the riders.
The same thing goes for Linux distros, no one mega distro will meet all the needs of all the users. The version that serves the servers well may not be the best choice for a sub-notebook user or a person with a desktop gaming rig. Better to have more choices and a little chaos then to have only one peg for all varied shaped holes. But then I still have a DR DOS box.

[Nicki]

I can agree with you "monkeyboy" at some parts. But when we have so many distros to choose between, like bikes and cars, this is a hard problem for new users that have no experience in computers. They test the first distro they take and maybe stumble on an error and if they can't solve it, they went back to Windows. How should they know wish distro is the right for their computer? If a novice in cars for example just got their driving licence, goes out and by a car and hopefully are satisfied. But it could also be a problem for her/he if they want to use it in a wrong situation. That is correct, you have a point. It's the same with computer programs. They who have a minimum of knowledge, will buy or get the wrong program. Take a user that have a computer and want to change from Windows to Linux and have that same minimum of knowledge, how should they act? They take the first distro they find and if they have luck it will go well for them. But if not. I am in an other situation. I have a medium of knowledge and will try and try other programs. Install and reinstall both hardware and software. If it doesn't work at the first time, I will go further and test an other solution. Check in forums, ask friends and so on. Therefore I have tested 5 different distros and now get the right one for each computers of mine. It took me more than a month but now they work so good together that I will never loose them. I am satisfied. Is all new users satisfied? I can only hope that they will be. But if not?

[emorrp1]

Well considering Linux still works mostly by word of mouth referral, that person is likely to know which distro to suggest for their friends. Also, that's what research is for: google for "which distro is right for me" or "which distro is the best one for a windows convert" or "which distro is best for programming" (<-- any one with a terminal )

[slider]

Well considering Linux still works mostly by word of mouth referral, that person is likely to know which distro to suggest for their friends. Also, that's what research is for: google for "which distro is right for me" or "which distro is the best one for a windows convert" or "which distro is best for programming" (<-- any one with a terminal )

Exactly! You nailed it! And thats what sites like this are for as well:
http://www.zegeniestudios.net/ldc/
http://news.cnet.com/Linux-newbies-get- ... &subj=news

Very very easy to find by doing a simple web search!

People must learn to do some of the leg work themselves. Research! Research! Research!

If a person doesnt want to help themselves then there is nothing that anyone can do for them. Its up to them to take the initiative and learn from what ever source that they have available, and most people have Google I think! All of the info is out there already. Maybe a prerequisite should be improving their computer search engine skills before doing anything else.

I never try to force Linux or anything for that matter on anyone else. If or when I see a decent opportunity to tell someone about it, then I do it. I also have in my signature of all my emails a link to Linux Mint, that way if someone is curious they can click it and go see what it is. If they need help or any question answered then I will be there for them. This has actually been the case a couple of times. Would I only steer them towards Mint? No! I would do my best to find out their needs and experience first then try my best to help them make an informed decision along with providing them any support that I can give in their endeavor.

But when we have so many distros to choose between, like bikes and cars, this is a hard problem for new users that have no experience in computers. They test the first distro they take and maybe stumble on an error and if they can't solve it, they went back to Windows. How should they know wish distro is the right for their computer? If a novice in cars for example just got their driving licence, goes out and by a car and hopefully are satisfied. But it could also be a problem for her/he if they want to use it in a wrong situation. That is correct, you have a point. It's the same with computer programs. They who have a minimum of knowledge, will buy or get the wrong program. Take a user that have a computer and want to change from Windows to Linux and have that same minimum of knowledge, how should they act? They take the first distro they find and if they have luck it will go well for them. But if not. I am in an other situation. I have a medium of knowledge and will try and try other programs. Install and reinstall both hardware and software. If it doesn't work at the first time, I will go further and test an other solution. Check in forums, ask friends and so on. Is all new users satisfied?

Although I can see your point (we've all thought these things before), I think that you should give people the benefit of the doubt that they are not so ignorant, at least generally speaking. Who helped them decide whether to use Mac or M$ before? Possibly the monetary cost difference? Who knows without asking them? A simple fact is that Linux just may not be for everyone. What material thing in this world has one single solution? People are diverse in their likes and dislikes. Now we come back to choices again. Linux has many choices and many freedoms. In the end its up to people to recognize and pursue them. The real life evidence is there, all thats left for them to make is the choice. Thanks to Linux, at least they have one to make....

[Nicki]

OK slider, you are right. In some points. You have more and longer experience of Linux than me and much more than those who are beginner in computers. For example, how many Windows users knows that they MUST use an anitivirus program and a firewall and have them UPDATED? And have their wireless connection encrypted? Maybe 3/4. The rest will be hacked at ones. They don't know what Windows really is? It's an OS, of course.

I can handle different distros of Linux, but I still wondering how the computer world would be with ONE or just a few Linux distros. Would it be negative? You who are experts can handle this anyway. What are the consequences with one or few distros? You must reply with: Freedom. OK, I can buy it. But it's not enough.

With a more stably Linux OS, I am afraid that the forums will not have so many visitors. And not so many answers. Would that be a problem for the freedom?

[iironjade]

Isn't the number of distributions one of Linux' strengths? If one folds for any reason, there are plenty of others to take its place. You don't buy a revolver and just put one bullet in the chamber do you?

[slider]

Really Im not trying to be right. Im just replying with the few simple things that I know from my experiences. By the way, Im no expert or guru. Just a regular guy thank you.

For example, how many Windows users knows that they MUST use an anitivirus program and a firewall and have them UPDATED? And have their wireless connection encrypted? Maybe 3/4. The rest will be hacked at ones. They don't know what Windows really is? It's an OS, of course.

Again, before starting the engine and driving off in a car its totally the responsibility of the driver/user to become familiar with what they are doing and any rules that will be applied to them in the pursuit of such activity. Can an OS maker force this? Should they? There are plenty of warning devices that try to educate the user when they first begin on of some of the things that they need to do to safely operate their system. Even with cars or whatever, so ignorance of not knowing how to properly operate something is brought to bear on the end user. They have the responsibility to educate themselves before using the system. Unless you're a pilot would you jump in an airplane an attempt to take off??? I hope not! All things have a learning curve and require that someone seeking to do that activity do their part as well, which could mean anything from reading manuals, how-to's, "read me" documents, help sections, etc.

I can handle different distros of Linux, but I still wondering how the computer world would be with ONE or just a few Linux distros. Would it be negative? You who are experts can handle this anyway. What are the consequences with one or few distros? You must reply with: Freedom. OK, I can buy it. But it's not enough.

I will answer this with a few questions ok. What would it be like if you only had one type of beverage to drink, or food to eat, or car to drive, or video to watch, or the sky looked the same always, or there was only one kind of flower or tree. (or only one type of female they're all awesome! Thank God!) The world is diverse. People are diverse. Thats the way things are and I think that this is great. Theres something for everyone everywhere.

I guess the best answer to "What are the consequences with one or few distros?" would be to simply have you take another look at the world according to MAC and M$. What comes to your mind first? Maybe control, spying, DRM or perhaps outrageous monetary fees for a bunch of 1's and 0's??? I think that is best left for you to decide for yourself based on your own knowledge and experience. With Linux I dont think most of that would apply, but true diversity in operational and cosmetic choices would definitely come into play at some point I believe. Diversity IMHO is good and promotes growth in all areas, not to mention freedom.

With a more stably Linux OS, I am afraid that the forums will not have so many visitors. And not so many answers. Would that be a problem for the freedom?

Im not really sure that I understood what you meant or are asking with this question, Im sorry....

[Nicki]

You do have some points "slider". I wouldn't have ONE kind of girls or ONE kind of cars or ONE kind of flowers. No, not at all. But in fact it's not fare to compare those things with OS. Of course you are right if we talk about ONE kind of computer. This would be terrifying. But I can't get out of my mind what the problem would be with only few distros. If we clone Mint+Mandriva+SuseLinux+Fedora, then we have overcome most of the problems with drivers for sound, video, and wifi card. And for a normal user, I'm now talking about the average of users who ONLY want to have their computers to go out on internet, listen to music, store their photos and check the mail. They are not interested in configure the hardware or something like that. No matter what you say about responsibility of taking care of their hardware (car or bike or airplane). You must just compare apples with apples, not with pears. This is not fare.
If they could get such distro, they are not in use with the forums. The system works well from the beginning and they are happy with that. This is what I meant with less visitors in the forum. You will be out of tasks. Is this what it all handles about? The freedom to give mass support? If anyone don't use me or my knowledge, I am not sorry for that, no not at all. I can spend my time on more important things in life.