Why are there so many linux distros? is the special snowflake syndrome...

why are there so many linux distros? is the special snowflake syndrome? wouldn't be better for devs to concentrate their efforts on 1 or 2 and make linux a more pleasant experience for everybody?

Other urls found in this thread:

qubes-os.org
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions#Slackware-based
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>is the special snowflake syndrome?
That's the beauty of buzzwords user. They apply to everything if you just believe!

To answer your question though yeah it would be much better.

Go back to your grave, Stalin.

why are there so many software projects that perform the same function as other software projects? is the special snowflake syndrome? wouldn't be better for devs to concentrate their efforts on 1 or 2 and make software a more pleasant experience for everybody?

so you want as many OSes as programs?

Because there are special needs and levels of skill.

For example someone who have a bit of skill and want a solid OS with lots of security might go for qubes-os.org that makes it easy to run instances of VMs to compartmentalize financial stuff in one instance, personal in another and work in another. Everything is set up to do that easily and with nice security features built in.

Such a person COULD do that with another Linux distro, but it would require specialist knowledge and lots of extra work.

Other people want a quick OS to put on a USB drive so they can do some quick penetration testing. Maybe they don't want to fill up their computer with all that nonsense and they might want to do stuff like spoof their mac address and other stuff which might be a pain to fix in their regular distro.

While other people are beginners and want something easy like ubuntu or mint to get up and running.

Other people are power users and want stuff like Gentoo to compile and make everything fit their computer seamlessly without anything unnecessary on it. Different needs, different skills for different jobs and different folks.

so you want only one or two of each type of program? one or two email clients, one or two browsers, one or two file managers, one or two word processors?

>why?
autists.

no, but then again your analogy is fucking shit, OSes aren't programs dedicated to a single, specialize use. One program could vastly differ from another. Windows could vastly differ from OS X. Now, what would you need 873985724857924 versions of Linux? I've always wondered, what important shit can you do with one distro that you couldn't with another?

Because anyone who wants to make one can. Nobody can stop him. This is as it should be.

In any case it's much less of a problem than you make it out to be, since the guts of all the different distros are mostly the same. They just come with different DEs, default configurations, and package-management systems.

what important shit can you do with one text editor/email client/torrent client/file manager that you couldn't do with another?

>why are there so many linux distros

Everyone wants Linux to do different things

Basically this >wouldn't be better for devs to concentrate their efforts on 1 or 2 and make linux a more pleasant experience for everybody

Probably not, but they should at least fix the fucking package manager nightmare that is Linux. The Linux space is pretty much "Go fuck yourself" to newbies who just want to install their favorite programs or things they're interested in.

Most of it could be done by an installation file that could attempt to identify what distro you're running and downloads via the appropriate package manager, a kind of

"
if debian: sudo apt-get install program;
if redhat: dnf install program;
else
unpack, query OS for appropriate folders to copy binaries to, copy files
"

Fix this problem and most of the distros become indistinguishable to most users, the way Android is. It'd still let you pick the shit you want the OS doing and still letting you do everything else without having to become a neckbeard.

Windows and Mac both have systems like this to make program installation dick simple. In Linux, it's a shit show if you're scared of the terminal. Even then, better hope you have the right distro for the particular project on Github you're interested in.

But concerning the vast amount of distros, people would rather be in charge of their stupid, idiotic fork than be a contributor of an existing project. This is why there are so many spinoffs of Firefox. Until you get people to get over that, it'll never happen.

An OS is a program.

basically time travellers saw Solus and went back in time and tried to recreate it, but now they're in a panic because Solus already dropped in this timeline and they never managed to catch up

Too many noob distros out there. Only needs Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSUSE and Mint. Elementary OS? Into the trash it goes.

Stop making it too difficult for yourselves, focus on fixing bugs instead.

Cause most are nothing except a reskin of certain things.

10000 distros
less than 2% market share
ROFL Linux

Agreed. Oversaturation of the Linux market ruined it for me.

Just pick one and concentrate on making that one better . Microsoft and apple do that and look how successful their OSs are.

so in your consolidated-Linux world, what happens when two groups disagree on what "better" means?

case in point: systemd

You put options in the OS to choose what you want.
It's that simple.

well then you don't get any of the benefits that advocates of consolidating distros and reducing fragmentation want, because you greatly multiply the number of possible configurations. Essentially all you're doing is having the same amount of fragmentation, but having it all be called by one name. It's an illusory change.

>concentrate their efforts on 1 or 2 and make linux a more pleasant experience for everybody?

That's not how freedom works.

Both Windows 10 and OSX do it. Linux should be able to do it as well.

I don't think you understand the argument there.

MS and Apple are both trying to gain the benefits of easier development that reduced fragmentation brings by reducing the number of possible configurations of their software. You must do that to get the benefits of centralization, because those benefits come from developers having only one, consistent, target to hit. (This is very similar to the strategy of game consoles vs. PCs, actually) So user choice and developer fragmentation are zero-sum. More of one leads to less of the other. You can't have both at once. Windows 10 and OS X do what they do by being more towards less fragmentation and explicitly sacrificing user choice to get there.

The *nix world being mostly composed of free software, there's a limit on how far down that road distros can go even if they want to. I'd say this is a very good thing, because as a user, I want more choice, and view the job of the developers to worry about the complexity for me. I don't want to just accept what I'm given to make their lives a bit easier.

but windows sucks and apples are expensive

LINKEKS BTFO

ding ding ding! We have a winner

There are so many distros because everyone's idea of how the system should be out of the box is different. Having all of the different options for that under the same name would only be more confusing, not less.

OSes are a group of programs, dedicated for user-hardware interaction, and they're software. The reason for many Linux distributions is usually a preference in included packages, default desktop environment and giving users functions they seek out of the box (Although there are several competing teams in every category, for example desktop distros). Most distributions are based on another "base" distribution like arch, debian/Ubuntu, fedora, etc, and each gives you something different by default in purpose to save you time installing and configuring software you need. Linux is for people who know what they want, not for someone who just heard about it and wants to try everything out. There are less than 100 relevant distributions, most of which have a purpose (basic desktop, privacy, security, servers, media, development, anonymization, data rescue, and even gaming). Most Linux distributions give much better out of the box support and functionality than any other OS.
Also, most fork distributions (such as Ubuntu, Mint, Elementary, Zorin, etc) are debian based so they'll support the same software, so it's like having a choice between different versions of Windows just each with a different UI and/or pre-installed software to suit the needs of different people.

>Both Windows 10 and OSX do it

Windows comes with one boatloader
Windows comes with one init system
Windows comes with one graphical interface
Windows comes with one *kernel* (Debian GNU/Hurd is still technically a thing)

Sure, some of those do have third-party alternatives, but you have to jump through even more hoops than you do on Linux to change to them. The level of variety in Linux is gargantuan compared to what Windows afford.

Yes, there is a lot of Linux distros. Generally speaking though, you can group them together. I know I will get flamed for not mentioning someone's obscure Distro, but...

>Debian
Mint, Ubuntu, Ubuntu flavors, Elementary, etc.

>Red Hat
Fedora and CentOS

>Arch
Manjaro Antergos

>openSUSE
Leap and Tumbleweed (Stable and Bleeding Edge)

Sure there are some other honorable mentions like Gentoo or FreeBSD. However, in general a lot of desktop and server use cases are under one of these major 4. Depending on your end goal, you can choose to go with bleeding edge or stable.

>so you want only one or two of each type of program?

Exactly. We have 100s of distros and only two or three are decent. There are like 600,000 free software projects in the repositories of Linuxes, and out of those only like 50 are used more than proprietary alternatives, and it's all server stuff. Every single popular proprietary suite like Photoshop has 200 free clones, but none of them can do the same; if you try to fully replace it with GIMP you'll end up using two scripts and 37 plugins and that will allow you to do the same work in 110% the time.

No matter how you look at it, free software is a steaming pile of shit. There should be just 1 program for every thing.

>There should be just 1 program for every thing.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly

>no Slackware

Is ignoring Slackware some sort of a silent meme?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_distributions#Slackware-based

i think gentoo and slackware are in the grey area between a distro and linux from scratch