if all distros are based on one kernel....

[macogw]

But if distro A does sound cards better and distro B does WIFI better and all this stuff is FOSS, would they not incorporate the best features of each distro into each one and have two distros that are better than either one?

Does that make sense?

Because it takes a lot of effort to hunt around and find and test all the patches all the others are using. Wanna go to all the other distros and ask for copies of all their patches and what do the patches do and then test them all and then give them to Ubuntu's kernel lead and then try to convince him they won't hurt anything or conflict with each other? And then they have to actually be integrated... That's why patches need to be sent upstream, to Linus. Only then do all the distros get the patches.

Too bad the whole FOSS community is ignorant and doesn't want to work towards a few good options instead upon the load of unneeded choices we have today.

Too bad the hardware manufacturers are ignorant and don't want to work toward a few high-quality models that conform to their specifications instead of creating hundreds of variations on each model number that are implemented slightly differently and thus break drivers in many different ways.

[mips]

If all distros are based on one kernel

If all distros use the same

If all distros use the same version

You see, now that is where you are wrong.
They don't all use the same kernel.
They don't all use the same Gnome, KDE etc
They don't all use the same version of applications.

Then there are people that apply patches to their distros.

You cannot really compare say Fedora to Ubuntu. Fedora has newer versions of most things compared to Ubuntu.

[SnappyU]

I must say I was having the same wonderment as well. Can't we pool our resources together instead of having numerous distros doing similar things.

The numerous distros forked for various reasons, some because the key dev just couldn't party together, and sometimes due to a philo diff.

IMO, Ubuntu has so far done a good part of what you mentioned, ie piece together as much as possible the good work done by various groups and presenting a OOTB solution for end users. It is based on Debian, supports Gnome, KDE and XFCE, like some other distros, and comes with a good starter meal of apps for most (say 80%) of new users to begin with.

Distros are to me like real estate developers. They all use cement, iron beams, wood, glass, etc etc. But the way they piece everything together is a bit diff. The ease or sophistication of installation differs to suit diff users. The built-in apps are diff as mentioned (kind like how diff condos offer diff kind of furnishing etc).

Ubuntu also support proprietary drivers while some refuses totally. I see it as philo-hair-splitting, but some see it as pertinent to their cause; I really just want an OS that works, OSS, proprietary or otherwise.

A touchy area is the dev's sensitivity or openness to merging with other devs. While OSS is about freedom, the individual dev's ego does get in the way at times. I don't blame them for it, 'cos as a dev myself, I see why they feel so strongly abt their own code. But at times, I just can't see how they can put their code ego above the overall benefit of the community. I thought that was the pt of OSS?

To be fair, OSS is really great and I've benefitted tremendously from it. The one gripe I have besides the one you mentioned is how OSS projects always seem to break things just when it seemed to be working. It's like the dev guys are playing lego here and can never stay still or be content with the supercool megatron lego toy they built. The good thing about OSS is that you can then fork so that you have a distro that is as stable as you like without joining in for the bumpy ride. With your own distro, you can then choose when to incorporate new features or support for hw. Ah, and that's why we have all these forking and distros because that way everyone get their flavor of ice-cream.

[mips]

Can't we pool our resources together instead of having numerous distros doing similar things.

NO!

I prefer choice. You would like to use Ubuntu and so would many other people. I on the other hand am not the biggest Ubuntu fan and prefer to use something else. I do not want to be restricted by the choice of the masses.

What works for some people does not work for others, thus we have choices and I would like to keep it that way.

[m0ntels]

If you give 100 different artists the same set of paints, brushes, and canvas, and tell them all to paint a pictures of a cat, they will all paint a cat using the same materials, but how many do you think would look the same if they were all working independently of each other? They all end up with cat paintings, but none are exactly the same. Some could be cubist, some impressionist, some pointillist, some realistic....but they are all cat paintings.

Afterward, you could let them see each others paintings and let them paint a second cat painting. Now they will have ideas that they like from others' paintings and can incorporate them if they choose. But not everyone will like all other painters' ideas.

I used to not understand why all distros were so different until I spent some time with a few different ones with different roots. I used Mint, Fedora, Mandriva, and Zenwalk for example. Each starts with relatively the same set of building blocks, but they all arrange and use them differently. Some choose not to use some parts at all. They all work as Linux distros, but differently.

[pbpersson]

I used Mint, Fedora, Mandriva, and Zenwalk for example. Each starts with relatively the same set of building blocks, but they all arrange and use them differently. Some choose not to use some parts at all. They all work as Linux distros, but differently.

This is true and I can understand the concept of artistic differences.

However, as a user if I try four different distros and three do not recognize my hardware then those distros are FAILURES and WORTHLESS to me.

Also, as Joe Six Pack if I venture into LinuxLand, try two distros and neither one works I would conclude that Linux as a whole is just a joke.

I am not saying that this is good or bad, it is just a comment.

EVERYONE should send their kernel changes upstream to Linus, that is the best way to make Linux the best OS on the planet. Shame on anyone who does not.

[mips]

EVERYONE should send their kernel changes upstream to Linus, that is the best way to make Linux the best OS on the planet. Shame on anyone who does not.

That does not mean your changes will be incorporated into mainline...

[simtaalo]

That does not mean your changes will be incorporated into mainline...

but if its a device driver its 99% likely to make it in.

[m0ntels]

But what if Linus does make the only distro and that makes me not like Linux anymore?

Get away from calling everything Linux and you'll be better off understanding why there are so many. It's like the art analogy again...I wouldn't say I don't like art after looking at only one or 2 artists' work. Dismissing everything else based on one or 2 experiences isn't the way to do things.

If you or your hardware don't like Fedora, then don't use it. If you don't like CentOS, don't use it. If you are simply in love with Debian, then use that. But don't forget, Debian might not do what someone else wants, so while you love it, they think it's garbage. For example, hibernate worked for me in Mint, but not Ubunutu. They are 2 near identical distros, but one simple change made a world of difference.

If everyone consolidated into one distro, eventually someone else would say this stinks and make something else and we'd be back where we are now.

[23meg]

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=170434