Distributions considered harmful

submited by

Style Pass

2024-10-02 01:00:05

We've got at least four different package conventions (SLS, Slackware, Debian and Yggdrasil). Why? No good reason I can see. FTP sites carry these different distributions, most of which differ only slightly.

I feel that there is need, and room, for two Linux distributions, one conservative, and the other radical. The conservative distribution is probably the harder, and potentially more money-making, distribution to do. It is marketed at Linux "users". People who don't want to have to fiddle. People who are willing to pay for the software to "just work". So the conservative distribution has its work (and profit) cut out for it.

And there's plenty of money to be made on the radical distribution, because it's obvious that some people out there want the latest and greatest, and they're willing to pay for it. "Who has the latest CD" is the subject of a recent Usenet message.

And multiple distributions are not good, because they tend to fragment the market. The Linux market is small enough as it is -- we don't need to make it smaller! If I'm running Slackware, I don't feel like I can purchase SLS's support package. Or if I've bought Yggdrasil's CD-ROM, can I install an slackware package? And not break everything?