Well it is now Monday (USA), just got LQ email update. Voted for Debian. Strength in numbers. Linux desktop market fragmentation is high on the MS wish list. Sometimes I wonder whose side the "purists" are really on....

It depends what you're trying to do. If you're just trying to make a specially customized version of ubuntu or slack, that's one thing. Tweak a couple configure files, change the default installation, add some different artwork, and you're done.

If, on the other hand, you really plan to build a distro from the ground up, that's a little bit different. In that case, it is more about choosing your package manager rather than your base distro. Also, you obviously need to know how to make packages for your package manager. Debian packages can be difficult to make, while rpms are easier. Pacman packages are easy too, and tarballs are the easiest of all.

In any event, READ LFS. They've already figured out how to work around the most common problems encountered when building weird stuff in the toolchain.

If everyone worked on one Linux distribution, with the same zeal and enthusiasm, we could have already overtaken the Microsoft desktop market. That so many distributions try to clone (basically) Slackware and Debian says (IMO) two things:

1 - Though different philosophies, Slack and Debian have great followings and work well;
2 - A lot of people want to 'do their own thing' rather than 'playing well with others'.

Yes, choice is a Linux distinction -- so is lack of intuitiveness, lack of following the same standards, lack of ease of use, lack of the same quality of software that's written for Windows ...

I would never consider having more than one distribution not being able to work well with others. Even geeks aren't that childish.

Not True. Linux is very intuitive. Look at Ubuntu or Fedora. My mom could install Fedora with its anaconda installer. She'd never make it past the start screen of XP without being confused. Once installed there is very little difference. KDE does an excellent job of explaining what program does what.
Not true. Standards do exist. Believe it or not most programs (that have standards) do try very hard to follow them, and meet them in many cases. Granted its not always possible to meet every standard. If Windows meets all the standards, then why does IE fail the Acid Test? The MS community is no better off standards wise.
Not True.Same as intuitiveness really. In most opinions, Linux wins the ease of use contest. Windows is only "easy" because you grew up with it, not necessarily because its truly "easy." Think about it.
Not True. Open Source programs on XP computers crash constantly. On Linux I never have trouble with them. My Linux computer has to be 10x more stable than any XP setup, just run a simple endurance test. Who can go the longest without a reboot and still remain completely stable. Any Linux distrobution could win easily. If thats not enough to convince you there are plenty of other measurments to go by that show Linux is better written (code) and more stable.

hrmm thanks all for the reply's, I have taken note on what many have said. As regards to the distro packaging I am actually better with apt-get .debs than RPMs, this is not to say I don't want to learn more. Personally Debian is my favourite distro and I would like to work on that, but voters seem to think Slackware by 1... The only real reason I prefer Debian over Slack is firstly because I like apt-get and am more familiar with Debian. I downloaded etch on Monday and I am starting work on that, however I am really only making a CNR program using C++ and a PHP backend. I would like to see some comments on why people think Slackware over Debian and vice versa because both of these seem like the most viable option at the moment. The current dev teams votes are:

Debian = 2
Gentoo = 1
Slackware = 1

(they haven't voted on the forums... but this would mean as of now 'unofficially' Debian and Slackware are tied)

However this is part of our initial research and we would like to know what others have to think as we essentially see Linux as a community and a pool of knowledge. There are many people out there that know a lot more than us and we would like to learn from them. Once again thankyou to everyone who has posted and voted, it is greatly appreciated. I will defiantly make sure you guys are given the first option to test the Beta.

I don't know how on earth it slipped me the first time around, but how are Debian and Slackware tied? 2 > 1

Slackware because it is run by one man. This autocratic form of distribution does not have conflicts between different developers over libraries. That type of situation ran me from Debian to Slackware in the first place.

Also, Debian is too political in their philosophy.

However, both are great Linux distributions -- each with it's own pros and cons.

Sorry at the time if you added those results to the community vote slack and deb would have been a tie, but its a different story now! They are a draw on the site now... This is the hardest part of the task, I want to get work started now, I think I'll split our team in two for research purposes, half are going to 'remaster' Slackware while the others will help me with my progress on Debian. Its going to take a bit more time but I'm sure the quality of the final product will benefit greatly from this.

Feel free to keep voting/posting as when we do our final test of the 'striped' and 'semi remastered' distros if they are neck and neck we will use the polls to make the final decision. Once again thanks everyone!!

To be quite honest with all of you, do we need yet another Linux distro (YaLD)? The reason Linux is seeing such slow permeation of the market place is exactly because of this. In my opinion, why don't you just join forces with an innovative team, for instance, and contribute that way?

The first thing about creating a product is creating something that fills a void and has a large return on investment -- and thus -- makes it a viable option for someone to spend their cash on. There are a couple projects that can use more good manpower. And, for those who suggest Ubuntu is a failure, I believe you are quite wrong.

Linux's failure is because of market saturation, confusion, and not leading the path. It's called following in someone else's footsteps. That doesn't mean that basing something on Debian's foundation is wrong. Debian is one of the most solid choices for people doing serious stuff. Not nightly portage updates.

If you want to do it right, then you need some capital and some solid research. Go to people such as CIOs and Infrastructure Directors, etc. They are the ones that can reveal the actual direction you need to take.

You are right, we don't, but like I said (it's only my opinion of course) it's no reason for someone to stop making a new one. In any case, the knowlegde-experience or even friends you can get on the process is reason enough. And if this person/team comes looking for advices or help, we should try to do so, instead of discourage them (I'm not saying you are, I can see you're just puting things clear)

Totally agree, there is A linux for "everybody", but there is not ONE linux for ANYONE.

Once again, I agree, but like I said on a previous post, it depends on how much time, effort and dedication you are willing to put on this. If you truly wan't to "fill a void" on the linux world, you are going to need "capital and some solid research". But if you just want to make your own distro, based on slackware/debian/etc, it should be just fine too.

Unlike the guys above me, I'm going to have to disagree. I see nothing wrong with making a new distro and letting others use it as well. The Linux market has been "flooded" for a long time. This isn't a recent turn of events. Imagine if the guys at Ubuntu decieded they weren't going to make thier own distro because we already had to many. Or what if the creater of SLAX said the same thing. Both of those came about during a flooded market and both are tremendously successful. I've used, and in SLAX's case still us, both.

Finally, who said Linux was a failure? How has it failed? Because Redhad or Novell don't rule the world like Microsoft does? I'd hardly call that a failure. Linux has its own special search on Google. Look at the massive number of distrobutions, forums, and websites devoted to it. Look how many companies make and use Linux. Redhat and Novell are just the tip of the iceberg. Linux hasn't failed, far from it. Besides, I don't personally believe that "ONE linux for ANYONE" exists. I don't think it ever will and I don't think that is a bad thing.

That's exactly my point, SlaX and Ubuntu are perfect examples of why not stoping a new distro just because there is a bunch out there.

Oh, and with "failure" I mean there are still people using Windows

I know I'm a little late in posting, but I feel compelled to put my two cents in.

This is what I look for in a distro. I really do like pacman and its conventions... and for that matter I really like Arch itself. I just find that the maturity of Slackware and the massive amount of documentation that exists for it is what means the most to me. Arch lacks the ability to reliably manage configuration files after updating software with pacman, and that is why I switched back to Slackware.

So to clarify my ramblings, my two cents amounts to this:
1. The availability of quality documentation is paramount to a distro's success.
2. The ability to manage all the available software that users can install, along with their configuration files is a daunting task, but one that must be a top priority.

I am going to disagree, there will never be too many distros... I have know this for some time, the first real hint was back when that Unity Linux came out , the project wanted to unite everything and make one distro, but people were not happy, that limited ones freedom. I agree, it would be good in a way just to have one distro as it could result in greater pressure on companies to support Linux, but there are also a large number of trade offs, I think how its running at the moment is fine, we seem to be gaining support from a lot of people Like said before "there is A Linux for 'everybody', but there is not ONE Linux for ANYONE" extremly true and using my example from above if we only wanted a limited number of distros more people would have supported the 'unity' project.

I believe by creating another distro it will help the community, sure its going to ad another choice but that's a good thing in my opinion. By working on this distro and moulding it into the image the team has come up with I will be more motivated to create programs, it will also give me more reason to fund it. I have little capital at the moment, I'm running my own business and I plan on stepping it up for next year. Don't think I'm being selfish I'm not only going to sit and fund my own things, if I get enough I would like to sponsor projects to help the community, possibly offer grants every set interval... This will help both the distro and the community as a whole! This is the effect I am after.

Besides, the discussion here should be WHICH distro use as base, WHOW to do, WHO will help and not "WHY to do", why is out of place here, in my opinion.