Making Ubuntu different to other distributions

[Linux_junkie]

I've been a user of Linux since 2003 and have discovered for the main distributions at least anyway that there all the same in the sense that they give away the same applications and desktops (Ubuntu; Redhat/Fedora; Mandriva; OpenSUSE etc). As they are all in effect the same what benefits does the end user really get when installing say Ubuntu to Fedora.

Would it be much better if these common distributions merged to really compete with Microsoft? And if you wanted to have a different distribution then it would be different by having different applications and desktop.

What does anyone else think?

Linux_junkie

[Georgia boy]

Nah, leave the way it is.

Tom

[Uncle Spellbinder]

Nah, leave the way it is.

I tend to agree. Part of the allure for me are the many different flavors of Linux.

Having said that, unless there is one Linux (and that will never happen), there will never be any real competition with Microsoft. Linux will forever be a tick on the lion's back.

[cariboo]

Most distributions are the same under the skin, the main difference is the packaging manager. I feel there is no need for the various distributions to compete with Microsoft. Until the oem's give us the choice of Linux or Windows preinstalled, there can't be any competition.

[blueshiftoverwatch]

Linux is fragmented, but it's not like it was with Unix where the different distributions are incompatible. So I don't really see it as an issue. Sure, some resources are wasted due to having to constantly reinvent the wheel. For example, I like Debian based distros, so even if OpenSUSE was really good (which it is) I would still use Ubuntu because I don't like RPM package management.

[Dharmachakra]

I agree. Distributions really aren't that different from eachother. Like cariboo907 said, the most noticable difference is the package manager. But, then again, that may make or break a distribution for someone. I don't really care too much myself.

[Skripka]

I agree. Distributions really aren't that different from eachother.

O Rly?

You should try say Slitaz, and get back to us about that.

[starcannon]

I've been a user of Linux since 2003 and have discovered for the main distributions at least anyway that there all the same in the sense that they give away the same applications and desktops (Ubuntu; Redhat/Fedora; Mandriva; OpenSUSE etc). As they are all in effect the same what benefits does the end user really get when installing say Ubuntu to Fedora.

Would it be much better if these common distributions merged to really compete with Microsoft? And if you wanted to have a different distribution then it would be different by having different applications and desktop.

What does anyone else think?

Linux_junkie
I think variety is a strong point; it offers choice to the user, and it breeds generally healthy competition. Sure, there are some projects that would be better suited in my opinion to merge, but generally, the current system works. As far as competing with Microsoft, first there would have to be a spirit of competition, and then there would have to be a very expensive and lengthy marketing campaign.

Finally, there is the whole "herding cats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herding_cats)" issue.

GL and HF

[xuCGC002]

hey, we have BROWN. No other distro can pull that off, ok?

[Skripka]

hey, we have BROWN. No other distro can pull that off, ok?

The only question being whether this is a good or bad thing. :)

[Uncle Spellbinder]

...Until the oem's give us the choice of Linux or Windows preinstalled, there can't be any competition.
So true. But oem's want a standardized OS. Not a choice of among dozens.

I know that Ubuntu comes pre-installed on some systems, but there's still catch 22 of sorts. Until the oem's give us the choice of Linux or Windows pre-installed, there can't be any competition. There can't be any competition because there is no one Linux for oem's to offer.

[Dharmachakra]

O Rly?

You should try say Slitaz, and get back to us about that.

Have. Point still stands.

[Xbehave]

As they are all in effect the same what benefits does the end user really get when installing say Ubuntu to Fedora.
Try using MS fonts on fedora or an nvidia card on debian, ubuntu makes a real effort to be easy to setup out of the box, Suse makes a real effort with kde, debian goes for stability and security, fedora tries out experimental stuff and they all benefit from eachothers work.

[Xbehave]

So true. But oem's want a standardized OS. Not a choice of among dozens.AFAIK there are only 2 serious vendor backed desktop/netbook linux distros openSuse or ubuntu, short of hardware problems (given this is OEMs we are talking about) both are almost identical except for packagemanagement (but with packageKit, even that doesn't matter)

[cariboo]

So true. But oem's want a standardized OS. Not a choice of among dozens.

I know that Ubuntu comes pre-installed on some systems, but there's still catch 22 of sorts. Until the oem's give us the choice of Linux or Windows pre-installed, there can't be any competition. There can't be any competition because there is no one Linux for oem's to offer.

The oen's don't have to offer a variety of Linux distributions, just one, be it Fedora, OpenSUSE, Ubuntu, or a custom version that they have come up with themselves. They only have to support what they sell.

[starcannon]

So true. But oem's want a standardized OS. Not a choice of among dozens.

I know that Ubuntu comes pre-installed on some systems, but there's still catch 22 of sorts. Until the oem's give us the choice of Linux or Windows pre-installed, there can't be any competition. There can't be any competition because there is no one Linux for oem's to offer.

If OEM's start promoting Linux in a big way, not the current as an after thought way; then the OEM's will ultimately decide which distro becomes "the standard"; or the OEM's will each be known for the particular distro that they choose to install. Or, the OEM's will be known for the distro they create to run on their hardware, and thats where it can truly get cool. Apple isn't the only OEM that can take advantage of a hardware/operating system blend that results in a nearly flawless end user experience, OEM's using the power of Open Source already have this ability at their finger tips, sure there would be initial up front R&D costs, but those would resolve after the second or third generation of their platforms(see Android).

In the end, Linux will remain where it is, until such time as vendors/oem's decide to leverage it to make a lot of money. It won't be FOSS philosophy, or philanthropy, or some other sort of act of kindness that will take GNU/Linux on the desktop to the common market place, it will be unadulterated greed and blatant capitalism wrapped in a humanity marketing campaign.

[judge jankum]

I'm not a techie or dev....As and end user I'm not interested in different as much as I am stable and solid....

[vacc73]

[SIZE="4"] I believe merging of distros will happen if the people involved see it as the best way, but as long as there are those whose need are not being met by what is already out there, there will always be other distros and that makes all distros stronger in that more ideas will be tried where they might not otherwise be. I think a main obstacle to be addressed before ubuntu or suse can make the impact on the general public we all know and want, is to capture the hearts and minds(lol) of the gamers. They have a humungous impact on what is available, whether its hardware or soft ware. If all the people playing W.O.W could spend their money on more server time or faster gear rather than on mikey-soft because the game was as easly to set up and play on ubuntu, then Dell or HP would start to ship their machines with Ubuntu preinstalled.:KS /SIZE]

[Uncle Spellbinder]

...you should try say Slitaz...
As a side note, I've been using SliTaz "cooking" for about a week. And it's wonderful via the live CD. Would like to triple-boot Win 7/Ubuntu 9.10/SliTaz.

[adeypoop]

I've been a user of Linux since 2003 and have discovered for the main distributions at least anyway that there all the same in the sense that they give away the same applications and desktops (Ubuntu; Redhat/Fedora; Mandriva; OpenSUSE etc). As they are all in effect the same what benefits does the end user really get when installing say Ubuntu to Fedora.

Would it be much better if these common distributions merged to really compete with Microsoft? And if you wanted to have a different distribution then it would be different by having different applications and desktop.

What does anyone else think?

Linux_junkie

there are practical impossibilities of merging all the distros eg according to GNU license anyone could create a new fork straight after (and almost definately would). Imagining those difficulties could be overcome somehow, don't you think innovation may become stifled and eventually linux would be hard to tell apart from windows if it was all done by one house. Additionally the freedom would soon dissappear down the tubes. In fact, why is there a need to 'compete' with microsoft anyway ?

Personally I think linux should remain on the trajectory it is on, it's completely awesome as it is and getting better all the time, and it is free in all senses of the word, no need to change anything.

[earthpigg]

EDIT: ignore this post. while editing, i accidentally copy/pasted/deleted stuff all over the place, rendering it mostly incoherent. what i was getting at is this: number of OEMs * releases of Win7 * every applied list of preinstalled software * every applied method of automatic updates = number of Microsoft Windows 7 Distributions, if the same standards are applied to both... Linux is not more fragmented than windows.


default installed software
package manager
repos
release cycle


there, i just listed all significant differences between distros.

they are very trivial.
multiply that by the number of various different OEMs. Dell. IBM. etc. some include Nortan crapware. some include McAfee crapware. some include HP Speech Recognition, some include Dell Updates. et cetera.

i dare you to count the different Distributions of Microsoft Windows. keep multiplying, and have fun.

if you can work one package manager, you can work them all. rinse and repeat that statement with all four.

Linux distros are not fragmented. at all.

2 significantly different release cycles (X months and rolling release) and 2 or 3 package managers dominate desktop linux 'market' share. the other two bullets i mentioned are ridiculously t
multiply that by the number of various different OEMs. Dell. IBM. etc. some include Nortan crapware. some include McAfee crapware. some include HP Speech Recognition, some include Dell Updates. et cetera.

i dare you to count the different Distributions of Microsoft Windows. keep multiplying, and have fun.rivial.

2 times 3 is six.

there are exactly six significant flavors of Linux. 50000 different sets of default installed packages and artwork, but only six truly different variations of the same stuff.

how many different releases of Microsoft Windows 7 are there?

then factor in that each Windows OEM includes their own default different variation of default installed software and default
multiply that by the number of various different OEMs. Dell. IBM. etc. some include Nortan crapware. some include McAfee crapware. some include HP Speech Recognition, some include Dell Updates. et cetera.

i dare you to count the different Distributions of Microsoft Windows. keep multiplying, and have fun.update methods and all of that... this is that OEM's distribution of Microsoft Windows. and there are plenty. multiply major OEMs by the different versions of windows they ship.

HP x Win7 Pro x Win7 Basic x Win7 Home Craptacular x Win7 whatever else x etc

multiply that by the number of various different OEMs. Dell. IBM. etc. some include Nortan crapware. some include McAfee crapware. some include HP Speech Recognition, some include Dell Updates. et cetera.

i dare you to count the different Distributions of Microsoft Windows. keep multiplying, and have fun.... that is, if you want to use the same standards that make a linux distro a distro and apply them to windows.

if not, then there are a half dozen linux distros, and a half dozen windows distros. branding and artwork are trivial. Ubuntu. Debian. Crunchbang. Masonux. Kubuntu. all pretty much the same damn thing. a qualified sysadmin at one is a qualified sysadmin on all.

Linux distributions are no more fragmented than Windows distributions.

[Georgia boy]

But isn't one of the nice things of using Linux is there's so many flavors to choose from? That each individual is able to choose their own flavor or even have the option to create their own version? Why take that option away and become a standard OS to compete with Windows? I personally prefer to have the various flavors available to play with if I decide to do so. I've seen where many people here in this forum are dual, triple and more if they have the room to do so. Why mess with a good thing that has taken many years to get where it's at now. Granted I'm still considered a newbie because of not being skilled in Linux OS' and you've probably guessed that already from my thread and previous threads I have written throughout the forums, but I still like the options of being able to choose from the many that we have available to us. Why condense it to where there's only Windows, Mac, & one Linux? As the old saying goes if it's not broke don't mess with it?
Maybe I'm looking at this wrong but I can't help but feel that there should still be more than one choice for individuals to pull from.

Tom

[judge jankum]

If my choices were only Vista/7,,Mac...or Ubuntu 9.10 I'd have to throw my machine in the garbage...But thanks to the choices, I have an OS that works on my old dinosaur....

[Hallvor]

Would it be much better if these common distributions merged to really compete with Microsoft?


In theory and from a pure business perspective you might have a point. In the real world that is a lunatic suggestion as it would create as many forks the next day.