I'll assume sarcasm, but obviously there are many more than 14. That number of primaries to choose from really isn't bad though. The amount of 'major' distributions naturally remains at a sweet spot and the options are getting more and more fruitful with increased use.
The choice is what makes it great. No doubt that pollution/dilution can occur and does, but with distributions the 'good' ones rise to the top for a reason and from them people select what feels best.
I don't recall making that "dumb" claim. I said some people enjoy the choice.
I would rather have to look through a rack of shoes to find a pair that fits than be handed one that's uncomfortable. It's not universal but I am not alone.
You're right that there is a lot of choice. But most people who like to use Linux actually see this as a big plus. That may be hard to understand for people who only use Windows. Not that there's anything wrong with using Windows, it's just a different paradigm.
When first wanting to get into Linux, the best option is to talk to someone that you trust not just to be a fan boy for their favorite distro, but to tell you honestly which they think would be best for you after you having told them (also honestly) where your computing experience sits on the scale from novice to expert and also what you intend to do with the distro you eventually choose.
These days, for a novice user wishing to experiment with Linux in general, I think the choice is pretty clear. Ubuntu.
Your last sentence seems to imply something along the lines of that MS should feel more secure that Linux as a whole is diluted into numerous distros which assumedly makes it harder for novices to get into Linux. Ergo, Linux is not as much of a threat to Windows' dominance of the market. I think this is missing one point that often comes up at least in the Debian community and this is that Debian has never really had the goal of dethroning Windows and taking on it's mantle as the "dominant" OS or anything like that. Debian doesn't care. The project has different goals to this. Debian is just doing its thing, and if that thing happens to work for you, then great. If not, then try something else.
Maybe Ubuntu does have this goal to dethrone Windows or whatever, and if so, more power to them. But my point is don't assume that all Linux distros even care how popular they are, or care about competing with any other OS, because many don't.
>You're right that there is a lot of choice. But most people who like to use Linux actually see this as a big plus.
By "most people who like to use Linux" - realize that you are talking about 0.5% of the desktop population. The market could be a lot bigger if it were easier to find one's way.
>When first wanting to get into Linux, the best option is to talk to someone that you trust
And what about most of us who are not acquainted with anybody that uses Linux on a regular basis?
>But my point is don't assume that all Linux distros even care how popular they are, or care about competing with any other OS, because many don't.
If their goal is not being popular, then I would say they are succeeding.
>By "most people who like to use Linux" - realize that you are talking about 0.5% of the desktop population. The market could be a lot bigger if it were easier to find one's way.
Your first sentence deliberately ignores my main point which was of course that Linux by and large doesn't care if you're a little too intimidated by the range of choices to try something new. In fact I would go so far as to say if you're a person who likes to have everything spoon fed to you and is not comfortable and/or does not enjoy doing some research for yourself when you encounter issues, then you actually are better off sticking to Windows or possibly a Mac. Linux helps those who help themselves.
> And what about most of us who are not acquainted with anybody that uses Linux on a regular basis?
a) Local Linux user groups.
b) Distro forums.
c) Mailing lists.
d) Google.
I also mentioned that these days, the choice for a newbie wanting to try Linux in general terms is pretty much made for them. You ignored that bit too.
> If their goal is not being popular, then I would say they are succeeding.
I never said their goal was not being popular, this is quite obvious to anyone who actually read my previous reply rather than skimming over it and trying to twist it into something that could be used to reinforce their existing beliefs.
What I did say was that many distros see popularity as a low or non-existent priority when compared to others, such as quality of implementation.
Debian has often gotten flak in the past for its long release cycle. If Debian devs are asked when the next stable Debian release will be ready, the usual answer is "When it's done." (though this is changing somewhat now) When the quality is assured, then it's released.
It's not released when the marketing department says it should be just because they are trying to hit an artificial deadline imposed by some middle manager who's more interested in his coke and hookers.
From the sound of it, I would recommend that you stay as far away from Linux as you can. You do not seem to have the required mind set that would make it an enjoyable experience for you.
I spent days getting conflicting advice from distro partisans the first time I tried to install Linux. I wound up with Gentoo, which was the wrong choice in retrospect.
I've been running gentoo for a couple of years, and been liking it. Quality of the repository did go down a bit last year though. Been looking at Arch, but will probably start to use ubuntu or debian again.
14 is indeed an . . . odd number for them to pick. Looks almost like they just grabbed the top 14 from distrowatch.
My top 10 list is:
1. MEPIS
2. PCLinuxOS
3. Kubuntu
4. Linux Mint
5. Fedora
6. Debian (would be higher on the list, but for that annoying "Iceweasel" thing)
7. Dream Linux
8. Slax
9. Gentoo
10. Sabayon
Though the list changes often.
RE the discussion about having lots of choices . . . yes for some it can be overwhelming, but not everyone is an idiot. That whole notion needs to evaporate already, especially as that generation which has essentially "grown up" with lots of technology, innovation, gadgets and more enters the workforce in full. Of course there are still idiots, but not with as great frequency as less-technical generations past.
When attempting to explain my software obsession / obsession for choice in OSS / to fellow females who aren't hardcore techs, I like to make an analogy to shopping for clothes, which most females relate to well. Some females like to populate a closet full of fancy clothes; I like to fill my website -- http://oss.zentu.net -- have my computers be full of interesting software.
Let's say Firefox 3 has just come out. It is available for Linux as source build, but when it comes to packages for Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, or whatever else that comes in depending on the distro correct?
I know for example Gentoo is for the hardcores who decide to build everything from source but I do not have a true understanding of how packages in Linux work across distro's .. can anyone enlighten me on that?
Some would have a "Firefox3" option in their respective repository or package manager which makes the update very very easy (APT/YUM/RPM). These allow you to check the box and press "update". PCLinuxOS does this, for this specific upgrade, if I remember correctly (Firefox2 -> 3). Others that require a little more work let you just download the tar.bz2 file, decompress via command-line it in the appropriate directory. But sometimes it takes a bit of reading the documentation to understand how to get the symbolic links and such launching the correct instance of the browser.
Actually, I don't know if I should be attempting to answer your question when I'm so tired. Hope that makes sense.
The short answer is that packages don't work across distros. Or perhaps I could say they shouldn't be expected to work across distros.
The longer answer is that in situations where one distro has descended from another (probably the most well know example being Ubuntu descending from Debian) it is possible to use an Ubuntu package on Debian or vice versa, I've done it. But you should have a really good reason to do this and have done your homework (I can only think of one occasion where I did have a good enough reason to do this, and it didn't last long). This is possible (though not recommended) because all the distros that descend from Debian use the package management system derived from Debian also, which is incidentally the best one, IMO.
If you wish to know more about what makes it the best and the policy that guides how packages move through the different Debian releases (Experimental, Unstable, Testing and Stable), check out this link:
Particularly, you could read the section titled "Quality of implementation".
I assume something similar would apply to Red Hat and all the distros that descend from it for example... Their package management policy just doesn't work as well is all. :)
I found this a nice overview. Herring: maybe you could cover some more detailed underground distros, I'd be interested in reading about that. Just for the record I mainly use Umbuntu because its so nice and plain simple.
How much of ones time is it wise to spend on distro-specific stuff? Does the knowledge port well? Are the skills easily applicable in other contexts? I don't want positive features from my OS as much as a lack of negative features.
The main differences are typically in the default paths, the package system, (although they're all pretty similar fundamentally) default software and whatever GUIs they put on top of all of that.
I don't think it's a waste of time to start with the GUIs. Sooner or later, if you're doing anything interesting, you'll need to drop to the terminal and config files. The config files might live somewhere slightly different, and work slightly differently with respect to versioning/updates.
The implementation might vary, but what you gradually learn is primarily where to start digging, and that's transferrable between distros.
Doesn't matter. Any distro that's worth using is just fine as a server. Just use whatever you use on a desktop to minimize niggly almost-the-same-but-not-quite annoyances between them, and you'll be happy.
Personally, I like Debian Testing on my servers -- it's reasonably recent (as opposed to Debian Stable, which gets hopelessly outdated quickly), has no releases (instead it just stays up to date as you update stuff) and is rock solid for me, but it's more a matter of taste than anything else.
Besides, I like Debian's attempts to mostly stick with Free software in their base distro. While I'm not a fanatic, I like knowing that what I use is open source, and that I can fix it and debug by hacking it up (and occasionally have) if it breaks on me.
1. Debian - The grand-daddy of some of the other distros here, and still going strong
2. Fedora - The community distro from Red Hat
3. OpenSUSE - Novell's completely open Linux distro
4. Mandriva - The golden child is making a comeback
5. Ubuntu - The most popular distro of all time... So far
6. Gentoo - The DIY distribution especially for those who want to understand and define how it works
7. DSL - A tiny distro for older machines
8. Arch Linux - A self-assembly distro for power users
9. CentOS - The community variant of Red Hat Enterprise Linux
10. PCLinuxOS - Could this be an Ubuntu-beater in 2008?
11. Sabayon - A binary distro built with Gentoo
12. KNOPPIX - The king of the Live CDs is still going strong
13. Zenwalk - A lightweight Slackware derivative ideal for reinvigorating older, more limited computers
14. Slackware - Back to basics with the oldest of the surviving distros