| |||||||||||||
Enterprise distributions suck and free software rulesEnterprise distributions suck and free software rulesPosted Mar 9, 2011 10:08 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)In reply to: Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules by kragilkragil Parent article: Enterprise distributions and free software
Claiming that it is a fact, doesn't make it so. Even if it true, it is different from your original claim that most distributions are just Debian with a different package selection. It is a world view of Linux distributions that revolves around packaging format, which is quite obsolete. SUSE for example is originally derived from Slackware and Mandriva while originally a Red Hat Linux derivative has diverge enough from its roots. While Fedora and CentOS share a packaging format, they are very different distributions. The interesting differences between distributions have nothing to do with a package format which is pretty much a archive with additional metadata and RPM/Deb is similar enough that this isn't worth pointing out anymore. Especially in the enterprise world, things like certification and lifecycle (RHEL is 7 to 10 years) are far more relevant.
(Log in to post comments)
Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules Posted Mar 9, 2011 10:35 UTC (Wed) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470) [Link] Article from Bruce Byfield here : Linux Leaders: Debian and Ubuntu Derivative DistrosQuote : "just under 63% of all distributions now being developed come ultimately from Debian. By comparison, 50 (15%) are based on Fedora or Red Hat, 28 (9%) on Slackware, and 12 (4%) on Gentoo."
Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules Posted Mar 9, 2011 10:44 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
As I already pointed out, Distrowatch list isn't exhaustive. Even my own derivative isn't listed there despite active releases for a long time for unknown reasons. The original source of the distribution isn't that important either. Even if the package format is the same, in practise there are all sort of interesting differences in the installer, packaging guidelines, higher level tools, patches, lifecycle, commercial support, certifications etc.
Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules Posted Mar 9, 2011 11:33 UTC (Wed) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470) [Link] If better data are not available elsewhere I must use this study based on Distrowatch as reference.Do you have more precise figures ?
Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules Posted Mar 9, 2011 11:44 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
No precise figures will ever exist on something like this because a number of derivatives are not public or distrowatch refuses to list them. This is similar to asking how many users a particular distribution has. People can give you ballpark figures but nothing very precise. Even if you choose to rely on distrowatch figures, they are ultimately not a meaningful number because the raw count isn't a useful thing to look at the other factors I mentioned earlier. The claim of "Most distros are just Debian with a different package selection" is obviously false no matter how you dice it.
Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules Posted Mar 9, 2011 11:54 UTC (Wed) by kragilkragil (guest, #72832) [Link]
There is no distrowatch conspiracy.
Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules Posted Mar 9, 2011 12:09 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Now you are just being very silly. Distrowatch doesn't list several distros, for semi-arbitrary reasons. They try to make a judgement on which ones are likely to stick around and don't list all of them immediately. Some of them languish in the waiting period forever for instance. Noone claimed any of this was a conspiracy but rather that the raw count is a unreliable reference and there are significant and more important differences besides the package format and distro origin.
|
|||||||||||||