Why so many linux distros?
 

Hi

It's about time I changed my OS. Ubuntu gnome, what to change to so many choices.
So I got to thinking when a 1st time user asks what "linux distro" more times than not they are pointed to ubuntu, Which when migrating from windows it's all easy, the gnome or kde desktop are easy to use not dissimilar to windows,Both have point and click, and for an every day user, surf the web word docs pictures etc. So why not point them to fedora with gnome not much difference at the end of the day it,s the desktop that makes the easy of using a pc. There are lots of distros with kde gnome so why point towards ubuntu. I know there are other desktops xfce lxde but they are not quite the same but again all distros use them. Even why change from windows Apart from it's free source, theres nothing you cant do on windows that can be done on linux,
I have tried Fedora gnome xfce lxde yes all looks the same as ubuntu just running centos6.3, Again gnome2 looking "which I prefer"
So pointing new users to ubuntu, hmmm maybe it should be "gnome kde" base distro dosn't matter.
Under the desktop again distro to distro, The commands still work the same I,ve even tried openbsd no desktop still moved around the system same commands so to learn/move around cli again not much difference between distros.
I have dabbled with lfs again users ask which distro to build lfs, it dosen't matter as long as it,s compliant it will build. I have built xfce again just the same as a mainline distro I know building gnome it will be the same as all the others.
I mention gnome alot as I like it for an everyday desktop I have tried kde to heavy for me xfce to light but thats my choice.
So why are there so many linux distros????

While the DE makes a large point of the user experience, there are also other parts. Fedora, for example, is a bleeding edge testing ground for Red Hat and can be unstable, which will totally destroy the user experience of a new user, not being able to fix it if it breaks.
You also have to consider that Ubuntu can (almost?) be totally configured using GUI dialogs. So while you can use KDE on Ubuntu and on Slackware, the user experience will be wide apart when it comes to system configuration.

Really? Tell me that again when you have tried to setup a single purpose Windows system in just 5MB. Or when you can come up with an up to date Windows system that can run with just 256MB of RAM on a 400MHz CPU.

Different needs, different tastes, different philosophies. Simple as that.

Why? Freedom.

As I said I have only really used ubunutu from 8.10 started using it everyday then used cli
I agree desktop is all most everyday people want to use. I didn't know fedora wasn't stable. I thought I would try it turned it on back where i started familier gnome (not used it to any extent)
Setting windows on old hardware yes your right, but again Joe blogs who wants to, surf, docs, pics etc on his reasonable machine (because the old 1 was out of date).

(256MB of RAM on a 400MHz CPU.)
But then again linux cant run heavy desktop on that machine. So you would end up with all be it out of date an old windows os I know is old.
I have even got a 333 with 32 megs running with DSL although it had W98 when I got it.
I,m not having a rant or maybe I am, I felt like a change and end up with the same.
I,m expecting that when I try pcbsd it,ll feel the same.

Freeedom yes You can choose But what I,m getting at is the everyday user surfing, documents etc it,s all the same. I have centos running I could plonk it in front of any pc user and ask them to surf write a doc open a pic within seconds they could. Not asking them to install software from source just everyday use

So again it's more down to desktop?
Tobi you said fedora is unstable but there are many others
They all run the same desktops just different base distro
the base distros are "similar" just basic stuff "ls mkdir rm cp etc" again it's the same.

I think what has started this off is I tried a few distros yes gnome the same ok, maybe in cli, still the same I know there must be a basic setup,
So I could just pick any distro and it just feels the same except now I would say I,m using centos gnome or open suse,

Thks drugan I think I just got pissed off with ending up with what I already had and just wanted to sound off And didn't bother googling

Not at all. I can run a fully up to date Slackware, Ubuntu or Debian (or any other distro) with the latest LXDE, Fluxbox, whatever, on such a machine, no need at all for outdated or old software. Impossible with Windows 7 or 8.
Keep in mind that resource-hungry doesn't mean newer or better, in the same way low on resources doesn't mean old or bad.

If that would be the case we all still would be using Windows with Internet Explorer, there would be no need for Firefox or Chrome, no need for Android on Phones, since we could use iOS, no need for Linux at all, since Windows already exists. But it is not all the same, the people have different needs, different tastes and different habits. Some people prefer IE, some Firefox, some Chrome and some totally different browsers. I personally use currently Firefox with the Pentadactyl plugin, configured to my needs (I would use the dwb browser, but it currently is not stable enough for me). I doubt that most people would have much fun with that (or the i3 WM, or Mutt as mail-client or Ranger as file-manager, Vim as text editor, or ..., or ...).
In short, even in everyday use we are not all the same, we are different.

Of course they could, as you could do the same in KDE or XFCE. Ask yourself, when all is the same, why do you prefer Gnome? Because it is not important that you can, it is important what you like. Don't like the look and feel of Gnome? That is why something different exist.

Actually no, they are not. While many basic commands are the same, many are not. Try to start a service with CentOS commands on Slackware, try to install software in Debian with yum, ... .

Ask yourself: Why are there so many different cars? They (almost) all have four wheels, a few pedals and a steering wheel? They all are the same and the usual driver should not have many problems to change to a different car, so why do we have so many different of them?
Again the same answer: Different needs (you won't move large furniture with a Ferrari), different tastes (some people just prefer the design of a Rolls Royce to the design of a Mercedes), different philosophies (prefer manual or automatic shifting?).

The headline question is actually kinda weird. I really never got it. That said, I do wonder why are there so many different types of music? :p

Or so many different types of dogs.

A lot of the distros listed at Distrowatch are really respins: Kubuntu, Lubuntu, Xubuntu for a start. If there's no software that isn't in the parent's repository, it's a respin. Conversely, Slacko Puppy and Quirky Puppy are taken as the same, but they have different repositories!

I never point anyone to Ubuntu! There are too many beginners and not enough experts among the user base. That's why you get the installation disk failing on older computers: hardly anyone is downloading the alpha and beta test versions. And look at the number of unanswered posts at their forum: they all have to come here and be helped by CentOS and Slackware users.

There's also the question of attitude. People who use Windows (or OSX) accept things: they may occasionally feel that a different approach would be easier, but "that's how it's done: you get used to it." I suspect a lot of Linux users are like me. I don't expect to get used to things, but to have them get used to me!

People make Linux distros because they find some personal benefit in doing so. Whether you are RedHat making beeelllyons of dollars or some teenager feeling über-l33t distributing your dwm-based arch respin, you do it because doing it benefits YOU. Other people don't make distros solely to benefit the user; the fact that any distro actually DOES benefit users is merely a side effect or a necessary contingency for it benefitting the developer.

My point is, these distros don't exist because someone said "The world really needs me to create a distro like $DISTRO"; they exist because people said "I need to create a distro like $DISTRO to achieve $SOME_PERSONAL_GOAL".

Like Tobi said everybody has different tastes, some people prefer cli over gui tools, some like lots of eye candy. Linux gives the user the power to mold your OS to your preferences and taste.

If you think Gnome and KDE are the only environments that linux users work with then you are seriously mistaken, there are so many WM out there that all have there own way of doing things.