Jamie's Random Musings
Various thoughts and adventures, including but not limited to Video IM, Linux, Windows XP and Widows Vista, and various bits of hardware new and old.
Monday 15 December 2008, 11:12 AM
The Range of Linux Distributions
I am frequently asked by family and friends why there are so many Linux distributions, and how one should go about making an informed choice between them. I will not attempt to comment on the first question, other than to say that it is because it can be done, and that is one of the things that makes Linux so wonderful. The second question, though, got me thinking about the breadth of Linux distributions, and that is something worth discussing.
The way that I look at it, Linux distributions run across a rather wide scale. At one end of the scale are what I see as the "base" distributions. The best known of these are probably Debian and Slackware. If you have the time, knowledge, desire and patience you can start with one of these and add exactly the packages that you need. The advantage is that you end up with a tight system that doesn't contain a lot of stuff you don't want. The disadvantage, of course, is that you have to find, download and install almost everything yourself, and you are taking on the responsibility to keep up with patches and updates (of course some will look at that last point as being an advantage).
At the other end of the scale are what I see as the "All In One" distributions, such as Ubuntu and Mandriva. They typically start with one of the "base" distributions, add a LOT of packages, add and tune a variety of the latest drivers, perhaps add some of their own tools and utilities, configure and tune the desktop environments, and distribute the whole thing in a way that makes it easy to install and use. The advantage of these, of course, is that they are (or should be) very quick and easy to install and use, and they are likely to come with most or all of the packages that you need, and for what is included, they take over tracking, downloading and installing patches and updates. The disadvantage is that they may be considered "bloated" with so much stuff, and of course you are dependent on their schedule for updates. While on the whole they major distributions are quite timely in getting out updates, it is still likely to be somewhat slower than you could do it yourself (as I write this, for example, Ubuntu still has OpenOffice 2.4.1).
There are various other points on the Linux distribution scale. Some are what I consider to be "focused" distributions, which concentrate on a specific area, purpose or type of hardware. Some examples of these are the "small" Linux distributions, such as Damn Small Linux, TinyMe Linux and Puppy Linux; these focus on stripping down one of the base or all-in-one distributions, to minimize the disk space, memory size and processor requirements for their distribution. Other typical examples are distributions which focus on security, multimedia, or non-English language interfaces. There are even some distributions which fall beyond the "all-in-ones" on my scale, as they are derived from those but go further by using different desktops, adding even more packages, and sometimes using their own installer or utilities. Examples of these which I have mentioned previously in my blog include PCLinuxOS (derived from Mandriva) and SimplyMEPIS (used to be derived from Ubuntu).
There are two Open Source distributions which don't fit very well on my scale - OpenSuSE and The Fedora Project. These are sponsored by, affiliated with, or otherwise derived from their commercial "parents", Novell SuSE Linux and Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Evaluating, choosing, installing and using a Linux distribution can be considerably easier if you keep this scale in mind, and you have a clear idea of where you want to be on that scale. How much time and effort are you willing to put into your installation and maintenance, and how much control are you willing to surrender in order to have someone else do that for you?
jw 15/12/2008
PreviousComments on this post
Thanks Jamie - this is a post to bookmark and bring out when needed. It's a question that comes up often.
You have left 4 important considerations out of your grouping of GNU/Linux distributions, which plays a big role in how people decide which distribution:
1) The degree a distribution complies with the ethic of "free software", which has an enormous impact on its usability and features since it doesn't include any proprietary bits.
2) The degree to which a distribution is community-based and the type of community, which has a huge impact on the type of support which you will receive and your involvement with the distro.
3) The degree to which a disto is dominated by a corporation and the kind of commercial goals behind the distro. (Note that many distros like Fedora or Ubuntu are community-based, but still controlled by corporate enterprises with commercial interests.)
4) The rate of release and the degree to which a distribution focuses on stability versus bleeding edge and experimental features.
Most people would not regard Ubuntu as an "All In One" distribution because it is a relatively "free" distribution which doesn't include many proprietary bits which a typical person would need with their computer. Ubuntu isn't ready to use out of the box, because it won't play any proprietary video and audio formats and doesn't include Flash, Microsoft True Type fonts, Skype, Adobe Acrobat, etc, nor any proprietary drivers so the wireless card, webcam, memory card reader and graphics cards may not work. The hardest part for a new user is hunting down all those proprietary bits. Ubuntu has made this much easier in recent years, but it is still a challenge for a typical person and downright impractical if you don't have internet service or are stuck with a dialup modem. Most of the world doesn't have the luxury of broadband internet, nor the patience to understand what an ATI video driver is.
For people who just want their computer to work, the "All in One" distribution is one like Mandriva PowerPack, SuSE SLED, Xandros or Linspire, because they include the necessary proprietary bits out of the box. For people who value "free software", gNewSense or Ututo is the best distro. Most people chose a distro somewhere in the middle which strikes a balance between freedom and usability. Most people also chose the "freer" distros because they can be downloaded for gratis.
The second consideration is the community. If you chose Xandros or Linspire, you probably aren't expecting to get on the forums and ask many questions, since they don't have much of a community. If you chose a distro with a community presence, then the kind of community becomes very important. The typical new user is more comfortable in the Ubuntu community than the Slackware community. Many people prefer smaller distros because the community is more intimate, "cooler", etc. Even if you go with a tiny distro, an important consideration is which distro is it based upon because you will be consulting the larger community. For instance I use BoliviaOS which is a derivative of Ubuntu. If I can't find an answer in the BoliviaOS mailing list, I then go to the Ubuntu forums. I would hate to use a distro based upon Xandros or Linspire because there would be no community support and a distro based upon Slackware and Gentoo would probably not suit me since the community is too technical for me to understand their answers in the forums.
The corporation which dominates the distro and its commercial goals are also important factors. People chose Debian or Slackware or one of their hundreds of derivatives because they aren't controlled by a corporations. Most people, however, chose a distro run by a corporation because they generally offer more timely releases and a degree of polish. (Some would also argue better support.) Still, the type of corporation is very important. A lot of people avoid SuSe/OpenSuse because they hate Microsoft and the deals which it made with Novell. Part of the reason Ubuntu became a hit is the fact that it was preceived as being less commercial than Red Hat/Fedora, Mandriva, SuSE and Linspire. Many people chose Red Hat/Fedora because it employs some of the best hackers with big reputations in the community.
Finally the rate of release and degree of stability are a major factor in the decision. Distros like Ubuntu and Fedora which release every 6 months are the favorite distros of many desktop users because they have the latest kernels and are most likely likely to support the newest hardware. They are more likely to contain bugs because they haven't been as well tested. Distros like Red Hat and Debian Stable which focus on stability only release a new version every 1.5 to 3 years, so they are good for servers where stability is paramount, but horrible for people who want to get that latest gizmo to work.
@Peter Judge - Thanks, that means a lot to me coming from you.
@amosbatto - Thanks for reading and commenting. I agree with most of what you say, and I appreciate you adding the points to consider. The only thing which I disagree about, rather strongly, is about Ubuntu. I have found at least the last two releases of Ubuntu to be significantly easier to install than either Mandriva or openSuSE. Likewise, it works flawlessly on my Lifebook S2110, which has the "dreaded ATI graphic adapter". While you are correct, it does not include Sun Java, Adobe Flash and the like in the base distribution, I am able to install those and several others from Synaptic, and that's not too difficult to understand.
You are correct, of course, about degrees of "freedom" in various distributions, and sometimes even within the same distribution, which can be a major factor in making a choice. One time I made a mistake, and started installing Mandriva Free rather than Mandriva One. I had significant problems even on my "normal" Lifebook S6510, with an Intel CPU, graphic adapter and wireless interface, and it wouldn't even make a respectable attempt at the S2110 laptop. So those who like the "warm and fuzzy" feeling of 100% free and open source systems, need to be very careful in selecting the hardware they are going to use.
Thanks again for reading and commenting.
jw 15/12/2008
quite a comprehensive post on the various distros available.
I've been following with interest some of your posts re: linux, and it has prompted me to actually try some for myself!
I'm going to be trying out the ubuntu distro for PS3, simply because I don't have the guts to install it on my laptop (there were plans to use an older desktop downstairs until it died)
if all goes well there, i'll be trying it out on my laptop as well, looks like a small project to keep me amused through the xmas holidays!
@azonei - Thanks for reading and commenting. I'm very glad to hear that I contributed to motivating you to give Linux a try. I hope it goes well, and I hope that you will let us know here how it works out for you.
This post was a long, long way from being comprehensive in terms of the available Linux distributions, but I hope that it did a reasonable job of conveying an idea of why there are so many, and how they relate to each other.
I can give you two small tips from my own experience in trying Linux on laptops. The absolute safest way is to simply buy a new hard drive - the smallest you can find today would be more than adequate, I typically make each of my Linux partitions about 10-15 Gb, that's plenty to just get it loaded and see if it works on your hardware and if you like it. Most modern laptops are quite easy to swap hard drives in, it is usually a matter of a few screws in an access panel on the bottom or side.
The next safest thing to do is to let the Linux installation process reduce the size of your existing Windows partition to make room for Linux. This still makes me nervous, but I have never seen it fail and destroy a Windows partition yet. One very important thing to be aware of and careful about, though. The size that it offers to reduce your Windows partition to will be the absolute minimum possible for whatever your current disk usage is, so if you accept that you will have essentially no free space left in Windows. I would recommend either adding a good bit to what it offers you, or simply take the opposite approach, and have it reduce the Windows partition only enough to make 10-15 Gb of space for a Linux partition and swap space.
Of course, I always forget to mention the most obvious alternative, because I don't use it myself. You could either simply try running your laptop from one of the (very good) Live CDs, or you could set up Linux to run under Windows.
Good luck, and let us know how it goes!
jw
