Maybe there are too many Linux distributions

by Michael J. Jordan, Managing Editor

July 20, 2007

Alexander Wolfe has left his den again and given us his latest anti-Linux piece. His main point is that there are two many Linux distributions, or 'distros' as the cool Linux enthusiasts say. But I have some news for Mr. Wolfe. This is actually an old argument. In fact, some of us in the Linux community have made it before.

Some time ago, I gave my opinion publicly that I thought there were too many Linux distributions. In fact, Steven J. Vaughn-Nichols, Linux journalist and defender of all things free and open if there ever was one is also on the record as saying the same thing. So, Mr. Wolfe, you're not at the vanguard of operating system distribution theory, I'm afraid.

Of course, I didn't write this opinion piece to point out that Mr. Wolfe is, as they say, a day late and a dollar short. I'm here to say that this is a legitimate topic for discussion and a question that Linux enthusiasts should be pondering. From the point of view of the uninformed observer, like Alexander Wolfe, having 300 plus distributions to choose from doesn't really inspire confidence in the consumer. Of course, when you read his piece, he reveals his reason for thinking about it in this way. It's more about fear than any other thing. It's like he's crying out: "Oh my God! 300 versions of Linux! Tell me what to do!" And in his world, Microsoft comes to the rescue with their homogenized and pasteurized products. But that doesn't take away from the fact that his basic question is sound. Isn't that many Linux distributions a bit much?

I suppose I should inject my own personal mea culpa here. I am the person responsible for maintaining the distribution lists at this website. Here at Linux.org we have knowledge of 451 distributions. Of these, around 180 distributions are actively being maintained, according to the information I have. I often think that it's not the best idea to list all of them. To tell you the truth, there are more than a few that I'd like to wipe off the list. There are several Ubuntu knock-offs whose development is totally pointless. It could even be debated whether certain well-known distributions should even be around, but in these cases, the companies have put themselves into a position where the market will eventually decide their fate. Then there are some that really shouldn't be classified as distributions as such. These include versions of Fedora and Ubuntu that are modified to work more easily for speakers of certain languages. We list them as distributions to make it more easy for people to find them.

But the fact is that we add a distribution to the list simply because its maintainers email us and request it. So why do we and other sites like Distrowatch.com do this? I suppose it's out of obligation. This all came about because Linus Torvalds used the GNU tools to create his own first "distribution" if you will. He gives away the Linux kernel for free, the Free Software Foundation lets people use their tools under the GPL and anyone can create a Linux operating system out of that and whatever else she can get her hands on. Who should be the one to decide certain distributions are legitimate or not? In this community, there isn't an entity that does that. That's what makes us unique. It's sad but true, but if somebody knows nothing about Linux and goes to our website and finds 180 distributions to choose from, she's likely to get dizzy.

Then again, we live in a society that embraces choice. How many brands of cereal exist? How many types of sauces can you put on your food? Heinz alone makes 57 such food sauces. I don't see any op-ed pieces advocating that Kellogg's cull their offerings. The Heinz analogy is appropriate here because, like certain sauces, specific distributions meet certain needs. For example, Red Hat Enterprise Linux is geared toward heavy-duty computing use while Xandros is aimed at the home consumer. Ubuntu, which gets the most name recognition, is becoming a sort of jack of all trades Linux distribution - mostly good for everything. But even Ubuntu might not be able to revive some 8 year old Pentium II being used to help disadvantaged kids learn computing. Luckily, we have Damn Small Linux for that. In these cases, choice serves us well.

But we don't need 15 variants of Debian that do the same thing. So if you're thinking about starting a new distribution, my advice for you is: don't do it. Pick an existing distribution that's doing something interesting and volunteer. If you think you're talented enough to roll your own distro, then your skills can be better put to work improving what's already out there. A redundant Linux distribution is just one more talking point for the anti-Linux crowd.

Michael J. Jordan is Managing Editor of Linux Online. He can be reached at Michael.Jordan**AT**linux.org