User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Posted Mar 8, 2011 6:06 UTC (Tue) by rilder (guest, #59804)
In reply to: Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules by kragilkragil
Parent article: Enterprise distributions and free software

"
A distro should be developed like the kernel itself. There should be one community that builds the distro releases and a lot of companies and individuals should drive it into the directions they want.
"

All the upstream components which make up a distro - Xorg, Glibc et.al. among others are developed in a non-fragmented manner. You don't see two different vendors for Qt, do you ? Building a distro is perhaps the easier part, the actual upstream development which the distros refer to for feature enhancements,bugs etc is where the cake lies. Why else do you think there are virtually hundreds of distros ?


(Log in to post comments)

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Posted Mar 8, 2011 12:49 UTC (Tue) by kragilkragil (guest, #72832) [Link]

Most distros are just Debian with a different package selection.

And it is not like RH is a shining beacon of superb collaboration. All their Gnome3 hackers took a giant dump on freedesktop specs for example.

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Posted Mar 8, 2011 20:13 UTC (Tue) by vonbrand (guest, #4458) [Link]

"Most distros are Debian" is just not true in so many different ways...

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Posted Mar 8, 2011 23:42 UTC (Tue) by kragilkragil (guest, #72832) [Link]

http://distrowatch.com/search.php?category=All&origin...

That are 129 and it doesn't even include the Ubuntu, Knoppix etc based ones.

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Posted Mar 9, 2011 4:34 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

You have selection bias and discounting all of the Fedora derived and yes, distrowatch doesn't list the majority of them either. If you go and count all of the different distros in Distrowatch, there is a enormous amount of them not related to Debian in any way.

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Posted Mar 9, 2011 9:55 UTC (Wed) by kragilkragil (guest, #72832) [Link]

Maybe, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority is .deb.

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Posted Mar 9, 2011 10:08 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

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.

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 Distros
Quote :
"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.

Enterprise distributions suck and free software rules

Posted Mar 12, 2011 9:06 UTC (Sat) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]

"And it is not like RH is a shining beacon of superb collaboration. All their Gnome3 hackers took a giant dump on freedesktop specs for example."

GNOME Shell developers have yet implemented a specification that KDE proposed. KDE hasn't implemented some specs that GNOME developers have proposed either. Just because it is hosted by freedesktop.org does not in anyway imply that there is consensus that everybody should use it. This is a common misconception that freedesktop.org is a standards body of some sort. This has never been the case ever since the day Havoc Pennigton from Red Hat launched freedesktop.org back in 2000. Choosing not to implemented a particular spec does not imply lack of collaboration. It can and often is just a technical choice.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds