Linux Community Fragmentation

[Agentl074]

While having many distros to choose from, the Linux community extremely fragmented. If I were to narrow down the best two distros, it would be Mint and Ubuntu. Since Mint is based on Ubuntu, one could make the argument that Mint can do everything Ubuntu can do, but it does it better.

This said, I wonder if Ubuntu learns from the Mint team -- the technologies etc -- and vice versa. I think the Linux community -- as a whole -- would be better if there were more collaboration.

Guarding development and not sharing with a true open source project heart does not help the Linux community as a whole. We've seen Canonical's attempt at guarding their repositories (wanting communities to accept their license) and slapping the face of open sourcing.

Still, we have A LOT of fragmentation -- and other distros that are not sharing as much as they should -- and this raises many questions about distributions.

What are your thoughts?

[xenopeek]

other distros that are not sharing as much as they should

Like what?

[smurphos]

We've seen Canonical's attempt at guarding their repositories (wanting communities to accept their license) and slapping the face of open sourcing.

They are paying for the bandwidth, perfectly reasonable for them to have some say over third party access. Don't forget they are a commercial outfit, basically all they are worried about is another distro a) using their resources whilst b) stepping on their commercial toes. As they make their money from Enterprise and Cloud, not Desktop users they are OK with distros such as Mint etc, unless Mint started trying to attract paid Enterprise business, in which case there would likely be a big barney.

[Agentl074]

We've seen Canonical's attempt at guarding their repositories (wanting communities to accept their license) and slapping the face of open sourcing.

They are paying for the bandwidth, perfectly reasonable for them to have some say over third party access. Don't forget they are a commercial outfit, basically all they are worried about is another distro a) using their resources whilst b) stepping on their commercial toes. As they make their money from Enterprise and Cloud, not Desktop users they are OK with distros such as Mint etc, unless Mint started trying to attract paid Enterprise business, in which case there would likely be a big barney.

I agree completely. If I represented a company that provided a product that would be geared for a general audience (including the corporate world), I would be shy about sharing development, but for 'educational' and non commercial purposes, sharing of information would be great -- and I must say that the Mint team could certainly teach Canonical a few things, but also vice-versa. We could all learn from each other

[rambo919]

This "share as much as they should" kinda sounds like some communistic tendencies I am too familiar with....

It starts off well intenioned (or not) and then ends violently parasitically.

It's an odd sentiment really since the results of their work is open already.... why demand further activism as if they have limitless resources?

[casual linux user]

This said, I wonder if Ubuntu learns from the Mint team -- the technologies etc -- and vice versa. I think the Linux community -- as a whole -- would be better if there were more collaboration.

Guarding development and not sharing with a true open source project heart does not help the Linux community as a whole. We've seen Canonical's attempt at guarding their repositories (wanting communities to accept their license) and slapping the face of open sourcing.

It really depends on whenever or not they have agreed to and are aligned to their own project goals; otherwise collaborations would break down due to disagreements on their own project goals, necessitating they are going to fork their own code, etc. (this is actually true on all FOSS projects/software projects in general TBH)

They are paying for the bandwidth, perfectly reasonable for them to have some say over third party access. Don't forget they are a commercial outfit, basically all they are worried about is another distro a) using their resources whilst b) stepping on their commercial toes. As they make their money from Enterprise and Cloud, not Desktop users they are OK with distros such as Mint etc, unless Mint started trying to attract paid Enterprise business, in which case there would likely be a big barney.

Following your own logic, that kind of puts Linux distributions like Rocky Linux and Alma Linux on an awkward spot considering that these distributions are forks/derivatives of Red Hat Enterprise

unless I'm wrong there

[smurphos]

Following your own logic, that kind of puts Linux distributions like Rocky Linux and Alma Linux on an awkward spot considering that these distributions are forks/derivatives of Red Hat Enterprise

Are Rocky and Alma users directly accessing RedHat owned servers for package installs and updates or are these distros just reusing code and providing their own repos independently - the latter I believe and with the code stripped of RHEL trademarks - perfectly legit in the opensource world.

Every time a Mint user applies an update or installs a new package it's a direct drain on Ubuntu resources (bandwith of the servers hosting the repos), because Mint piggybacks directly on Ubuntu in this regard, and it's this usage which is subject to some licensing agreements with Canonical, which I believe to be basically, if you want your (quite large number of users) to access our repos directly, don't step on our commercial toes.

Take POP-OS/System 76 as another example - also Ubuntu based, but AFAIK they host their own mirrors for all packages, which their users access for updates and software installs. I suspect this is because they are making money from their OS in terms of it being a feature of their laptops, and Ubuntu doesn't want someone else making money by that kind of direct use of their resources. Mint doesn't do this other than for the packages it develops directly or tweaks for Mint users,.

[casual linux user]

Are Rocky and Alma users directly accessing RedHat owned servers for package installs and updates or are these distros just reusing code and providing their own repos independently - the latter I believe and with the code stripped of RHEL trademarks - perfectly legit in the opensource world.

Ah, I guess I was wrong there, sorry for the inaccurate post and thanks for pointing that out.

[Hoser Rob]

Yes, there's a ton of fragmentation in Linux. Big problem. But I fail to see what it has to do with 'sharing'. A pretty but vacuous concept, and I think most devs of FOSS Linux distros have their hands full already.

Most of the problem of fragmentation comes from the absurdly large numbers of Linux distros. I mean, have you looked at the popup list of distros in distrowatch? It's ridiculous how many of them there are, mostly useless. Just imagine if most all of them disappeared, that'd be a lot more developers.

[cliffcoggin]

Just imagine if most all of them disappeared, that'd be a lot more developers.

I am not so sure. If I had developed a distribution to suit my own personal needs, and that distribution fell by the wayside, I doubt I would be inclined to join somebody else's staff without a personal incentive.

[BenTrabetere]

Most of the problem of fragmentation comes from the absurdly large numbers of Linux distros.

I see this fragmentation as one of the things that makes Linux so vibrant. Yes, it spreads the talent, but if you reduce the fragmentation back far enough we are stuck at Slackware, Debian and Red Hat. And if I am not mistaken Slackware and Debian were created out of frustration with SLS. Fragmentation does cause problems, package management is a big one, but I seriously doubt any/many of those problems would evaporate if there were fewer distros.

If you look at it from a distance there are only main Six Families: Slackware, Debian, Red Hat, SuSe, Gentoo, and Arch. Their offspring were created, for the most part, to address a deficiency or dissatisfaction with its parent. Also, there a lot of the small distros that exist to fill a specific, but important need.

Just imagine if most all of them disappeared,

The problem with this Gedankenexperiment needs to address is deciding who gets to decide which ones will remain. I am currently using AlmaLinux on another machine, and I like it - I do not like Gnome, but I like Alma. Until recently I had absolutely no use for OpenWRT, and then I found out it is what drives my router.

that'd be a lot more developers.

That presupposes those developers can and will play nice with the other children. I have my doubts....

[iliketrains]

Imagine there is only one auto company, the efficiencies would be huge. All talent pooled together, parts everywhere and cheap as chips, every technician trained to repair. Also an ugly idea for many reasons. Comparing open source software to auto manufacturing is ridiculous but the point is a bit of rivalry is a good thing and the commercial entities can benefit. I suspect Canonical keeps a close eye on Mint for ideas they may want to incorporate.

Companies like Redhat (now ibm) and Canonical help fund many things including the very local mirror that I use. It's not altruism, it's a business model.

[Portreve]

Imagine there is only one auto company, the efficiencies would be huge. All talent pooled together, parts everywhere and cheap as chips, every technician trained to repair.

Actually no. It would be a monopoly and as such could charge whatever it liked, and you would have no choices but to deal with them or not have a motor vehicle. Without the market force of competition, prices would almost certainly be much higher, and there would be significantly less innovation.

The analogy you suggest cannot be applied to GNU+Linux because it was set up in a way which simply doesn't function like that. The GPL and other similar licenses actively encourage dissemination of knowledge, of source code, and a community esprit de corps, which is something the traditional business world doesn't do and, if anything, is technically (if not in fact) opposed to.

I suspect Canonical keeps a close eye on Mint for ideas they may want to incorporate.

That's not how this works. Anything Clem & Co. do is upstreamed which means just by that mechanism alone it's available for use by the rest of the world. It may well be the case that folk within the Ubuntu community look at various things LM or other distros have and decide that would be a good thing to implement, but the code is already available for them and anyone else to use.

[iliketrains]

Imagine there is only one auto company, the efficiencies would be huge. All talent pooled together, parts everywhere and cheap as chips, every technician trained to repair. Also an ugly idea for many reasons. Comparing open source software to auto manufacturing is ridiculous but the point is a bit of rivalry is a good thing and the commercial entities can benefit.

Emphasis added.
Dragging this even further off-topic: I bought a car that was a best-seller in the fleet market. The other consideration was a Toyota Corolla. Either choice is well represented in the aftermarket and well understood outside the Dealer system. There is probably some correlation to linux distros but I won't risk it.
The dream of a monopoly is everyone gets something like a Lexus. The reality is the Soviet era Lada.
Super extra off-topic: The Government here does monopolize some utilities and services. A simple example is the auto insurance corporation which is an arms-length possession of the taxpayer. An example of publicly owned manufacturing doesn't come to mind but interfering in free market pricing can and does happen. It's a mixed economy or some would say socialist.

[Termy]

While having many distros to choose from, the Linux community extremely fragmented.

The freedom whose side effect created such fragmentation is what allowed distributions like Linux Mint to exist; do I think that's a problem? Nah.

[Portreve]

Dragging this even further off-topic: I bought a car that was a best-seller in the fleet market. The other consideration was a Toyota Corolla. Either choice is well represented in the aftermarket and well understood outside the Dealer system. There is probably some correlation to linux distros but I won't risk it.

The primary correlation would be direct support by developers for given distros. However, this is a very inexact comparison because "most" distros exist within one of several mainstream ecosystems (Debian, openSUSE, Fedora, etc.) which then makes it easier for end users to get programs, device drivers, etc. With cars, there's a much more limited way this works (wheels, tires, sparkplugs, etc.)

The dream of a monopoly is everyone gets something like a Lexus. The reality is the Soviet era Lada.

There are certain kinds of monopolies which thus far there has been no practical alternative. Examples include power plants, water treatment and distribution plants, cable TV and Internet providers, and phone and DSL Internet providers. In fine, anything which requires mass infrastructure to operate, distribute, and consume.

Beyond that, any time there's a new good or service on the market, the creator and thus far sole source is by definition a monopoly. Most of those "monopolies" are too small and inconsequential even to be noticed, much less to cause harm.

Super extra off-topic: The Government here does monopolize some utilities and services. A simple example is the auto insurance corporation which is an arms-length possession of the taxpayer. An example of publicly owned manufacturing doesn't come to mind but interfering in free market pricing can and does happen. It's a mixed economy or some would say socialist.

I think it bears mentioning that communism as defined and explained by Marx and Engels is not the same thing which Lenin tried and which Stalin further changed. People in my country cannot seem to differentiate — or differentiate accurately — between socialism, communism, Leninism, and Stalinism, so it has become a sad fact that no useful discussions can take place relative to these systems.

[DPM]

They are paying for the bandwidth

Actually, the mirror server operators pay for the bandwidth.

[Oraticus]

I think its fragmentation exists and is its greatest strength.
I also think I should not need to justify the above.
If you sit still for a moment, let the wave of cognitive dissonance wash over you like a gentle sea wave on a tranquil beach then engage brain: all will become clear

[smurphos]

They are paying for the bandwidth

Actually, the mirror server operators pay for the bandwidth.

Ubuntu's 'primary' at archive.ubuntu.com is run directly by Canonical. Whilst I understand that many mirror services donate bandwidth from the kindness of their hearts for non-commercial / community distros, I would be surprised if Canonical as didn't provide some financial support to a subset of their mirror services.

[DPM]

I would be surprised if Canonical as didn't provide some financial support to a subset of their mirror services.

I download from an uni mirror server in my country, which is one example where the taxes I pay are put to something useful.