Are There Too Many Distributions?

Michael J. Jordan, Linux Online Staff

April 26, 2005

Linux.org gets requests all the time to list what submitters call a Linux 'distribution'. We are now listing over 350 different active distributions. As I write this, I have a requests to add a few more distributions in my in-box.

At present, we gladly list these, since it is our mission to inform the public. We list everything that developers submit with a unique name, a place where it can be downloaded and some basic instructions on how to install it. For quite some time, however, I have seen very few submissions for inclusion in our lists that bring anything really new and innovative to the Linux world. Most distribution submissions are slight variations on existing ones. I often ask myself: should these really be considered Linux distributions with a status all their own? With Linux's growing popularity in the main stream, I believe that it's a very important question. And since there are more websites than just Linux.org that list distributions in circulation (the well-regarded Distrowatch, for example) it's a question we should all be asking ourselves.

Actually, even before we can begin a debate on what should be considered a distribution, I believe that the term 'distribution' is problematic in the first place. Let's face it - to those who have never touched Linux and know little or nothing about it, the term "distribution" is meaningless. It only means something to us navel-gazing Linux enthusiasts. Strictly speaking, to create a "Linux distribution" means that someone has taken the Linux kernel and has packaged programs with it in such a way that it's considered an operating system - that is - it can run your computer. So if developers take Fedora Core and remove certain programs because they don't like them and then re-name it 'Bill and Bob's Bloatless Fedora', should this be considered a Linux distribution? Just my asking that is bound to be quite polemical. It's a lot like asking what constitutes art, which seems to me to be a good comparison. DaVinci's Mona Lisa is almost universally considered art, but if I make a copy and paint a mustache on her and call it 'Mona Lisa with a Mustache' - is that art?

You may think that this debate can only interest the Linux crowd, but it's going to interest more people as Linux becomes more popular. Right now, the way that people decide whether or not they want to run Linux is to get information about 'Linux'. The first thing they find out is that there are a lot of "Linuxes". If they happen to talk to people who know a good deal about Linux, they're in luck. If they've heard about it in the press, they'll likely be confused because the press normally talks about 'Linux', period. Only the specialized tech press talks about distributions, but this is often limited to Red Hat's stock price or Mandrake merging with Conectiva to form Mandriva. This doesn't tell you which Linux distribution you ought to try.

The slow uptake of Linux on home and office desktops can really be traced to an underinformed public. How people actually start using Linux reminds me of a TV commercial I often saw as I was growing up outside of Boston. It was for a well-known men's clothing store. This store never had a sale and their ads always ended with the slogan: 'an educated consumer is our best customer'. That can also be applied to Linux, but not to say that the educated consumer is Linux's best customer. They are our only customer because we expect them to be educated. We expect them to wade through the descriptions of 350 Linux distributions and make an informed and educated choice from this. According to Fortune, Windows is going to market Longhorn with the slogan 'Windows, It Just Works'. After you've had good laugh when you think that one synonym of 'just' is 'barely', you might realize that there is some truth there. Microsoft is successful because those who run it know what to expect. That is, they could also use the slogan 'Windows. I just know what it is'. With 350 distributions, can the Linux community make that claim?

I don't think it boils down to establishing some standard for creating a distribution. This is the Linux world and developers are free to take the available tools and create 'distributions'. In fact, I personally admire the developers who create them. I'm sure that in most cases, it requires technical skills that I don't have and patience that I am also lacking. But there is a downside to it that really needs to be addressed. That is that there are now too many distributions and the ability to identify exactly what Linux is and to "sell" it may become more difficult when it should be getting easier. I think developers need to ask themselves whether it might be more advantageous for the community as a whole for them to volunteer on existing, popular distributions rather than to create their own. Those of us who disseminate Linux information can also do our part by providing better explanations as to what a distribution is and how to choose one. The first step, however, is to recognize that sheer number of Linux distributions is a problem that needs to be addressed. I'm sure that the same creativity and hard work that goes into creating a distribution can be re-focused to find a solution.

Michael J. Jordan can be reached at Michael.Jordan**AT**Linux.org