Friday Feb 22, 2008
Friday Feb 22, 2008
I just worked out why I am having trouble deciding what OS platform I want to go with for the next 3 yrs, after using Linux variants for the last 8 yrs, there is nothing new for the user. I feel that the Linux market has matured with one dominat supplier, Red Hat. With Ubuntu being the only new popular distribution on the market.
So Linux is in a mid life crisis, other distributions did not last this long, my old favourite Mandrake has gone. Suse, I just do not hear about. It is Red Hat this, Red Hat that, all the time. When I ask people what are they using they say Linux, so I ask them, so you make your own and they do not know what that means, 99% of the time people answer Red Hat. Does IBM put together a nice Linux distribution no, they resell others. Does HP create theie own distribution, no they resell others. OK nor does Sun, but I am writing this on a old Sun created distribution of Linux. So the only real creatives in the Linux world are Red Hat and Ubuntu, Red Hat is dominant, smoothering the rest. So Linux is Red Hat in reality.
We should report the Linux market by distribution not by the total, there does not seem much left. Red Hat, Ubuntu or nothing.
This is not too dissimilar in the UNIX server market where it is Solaris, AIX or HP-UX.
Is there some natural law where the industry or market place can only sustain 3 versions of a platform.
In the database market it seems to be Oracle, DB2 and MySQL.
I have a 3yr OS upgrade cycle on my PC, and have been running Sun's Java Desktop System 3 for 3 yrs now. My options are Red Hat, Apple, Ubuntu or I may try Solaris Developer edition, well that will be something new.
Are we searching for eternal youth by trying something new ?
the problem is you're making the wrong questions.
the market has shifted, the concept of operating system release is is going through a redefinition too.
the wide variety of linux distributions out there appeal to the long tail of operating systems.
no longer a distribution release has to be controlled by a few megacorporations.
in exchange you get tailored linux distros for about any imaginable usage or use case, so it all depends on your needs.
Don't ask what you can do for Linux, but what Linux can do for you :-)
Have a look at:
http: // distrowatch.com
Posted by vruz on February 22, 2008 at 08:12 PM CET #
Thanks for the comment, yes I agree the concept of an OS changes, I have no problem fixing OSes, and have been doing so for a long time. But I waiver from being a very technical hacker to a simple user. Sometime after 20yrs years hacking systems I just want them to work. The question behind the question is, whatever I chose in the next month or so, I want to have running and supported on my laptop for the next 3 yrs. Even with Suse, Mandrake and Red Hat often problems were not fixed. I have a Nvidia graphics card and I needed to manually install the Linux drivers for these myself, also all sorts of wireless drivers. I did look at distrowatch and what do I see Ubuntu, which is actually quite far on the top of my list (I just do not like the brown colour, I am a blue person, long story, may blog about it). There are lots of nice distro's there but I do not want to go down a dead end to find there is no support of fixes in 12-18 months. I know I can take the source, compile/make and fix from another place, but too be honest all distros have their idiosyncracies and it is a pain. That why I think that Linux is basically Unix with even more flavours. A fix for Suse, will not work on Red Hat eg. Say I use Foresight if they do not have a fix for a problem I get where do I get it from. So it is a trade off where you need sufficient traction/size to have longevity, to breed and multiply and you need to have a sufficient number of different species to avoid extermination by viruses or natural disasters. This is what I am looking for.
Thinking about it, this has anologies in nature
Well after working with mainframes for 10yrs, then Unix for 10 yrs, intermixed with all Windows flavours, I also went through various Linux/Unix flavours. OS/2 was very interesting and a excellent OS. Problem is there does not seem to be anything much new in Linux, just more distros. What can I do for Linux, Linux has taught me a couple new Unix commands and package structure, which I now realise is actually not that new as it is Unix. Without knowing Unix well Linux would have been difficult.
Posted by Valdis on February 23, 2008 at 11:44 AM CET #
A quick look at distrowatch shows that there are many popular distros:
PCLinuxOS, openSuse, Debian and yes FreeBSD.
And AFAIK, openSUSE is so popular in Europe.
>>This is not too dissimilar in the UNIX server market where it is Solaris, AIX or HP-UX.
Personally, I think people are aware of Linux distros more than they are in Unix.
Many people don't ever hear about Solaris or FreeBSD because those systems are used mainly for workstations and servers.
Any way, I use Ubuntu for my laptop and FreeBSD on my desktop.
I'm thinking to give OpenSolaris a shot but its RAM consumption is a stopper for me...
Posted by Hussein Baghdadi on February 24, 2008 at 08:53 AM CET #
My problem is that there is no shortage of Linux distros, but I want solid innovation and support for the next 3 yrs. This will be for my work laptop which now runs Sun Linux ,e.g Java Desktop System. At home we have 2 x Window servers and 1 x Mac. I have no more spare time to fix everything. Constant updates for Win XP, Mac broken. So I have to put my bets on either Red Hat, Ubuntu or OpenSolaris. If I go with any of the small distros then I do not want to be put in a corner or become extinct. Or more exactly spend my time maintaining computers.
Posted by Valdis on February 25, 2008 at 09:44 AM CET #