Don't you guys think that instead of 10 different companies developing linux (Redhat, Mandrake, Novell etc).. if they join forces and have say 2 or 3 major companies they could accomplish more? I think they can market it better as well as have better hardware support.. Just a thought.. what does everyone think of that?

P.S I am not trying to start a flame war, I am satisfied with the way things are.. I just feel that a lot of effort goes into maintaining these distro's that are slightly different from each other.

Peace

Well, I agree with you to an extent. However,
human nature being what it is, that's not going
to happen. Same reason there are thirty-one
flavors of Baskin Robbins ice cream...

I would not call them distros because the term is misleading. In truth, Linux is a generic name for a family of Operating Systems which share the kernel.

Each OS based on Linux is geared towards different users, different needs. Some OSes based on Linux come with server-based setups, some are good for desktops, others are easy, some come with good GUI tools for various purposes, others do not.

Calling all of them Linux (just because they share the kernel and some similarities) would be misleading.

Fedora is as different from Slackware as Windows is different from Linux (in general). It's just that apart from the kernel, many distributions (as they are called) use their own methods for storing config files, init scripts, boot up parameters. Some OSes come with pre-packaged tools for server configuration, while other Linux OSes are suited for a desktop user and come packaged with a lot of goodies. And many of them use their own package management system while some (Gentoo) is based on source based installation.

Apart from that, different OS makers gear the kernel specifically for particular purposes. Since the kernel is so configurable, different Linux OSes have different kernel setups geared towards particular purposes. That's why some OSes have good hardware support, while others do not and some have auto-detection, others do not and so on.

Really, this many choices are needed because there are a variety of Linux users with varying needs out there and each one cannot use a single OS based on Linux.

Edit: Another thing is that hardware support is not determined by the distribution, but by the kernel. If a particular piece of hardware has a kernel module, then the hardware will be supported.

So everything depends on the kernel for the development of Linux and not on any particular distribution. As long as the kernel is maintained, then Linux will continue to develop.

Why are there so many life forms on the planet?

Each distro is evolving to suit a certain need of niche, and there is a lot of diversity at the moment... Later some will die off. Some already have.

survival of the fittest.

It is why linux will be better than the monculture that MS is struggling to keep alive. Eventually the viruses could kill it.

the number of choises is overwhelming for a newbie, i remember wondering what is should install and why for weeks.
then i desided, that the only way to know is to install them. well, that kinda worked

first fedora core 1 (for 3 months), then slackware (for 6 months), then mandrake (2 mins), then fedora core 2 (2 hours) and finally debian (year and counting).

i really doesn´t matter how many there are since all you lose in trying is some time.

I am talking about a linux company (cough) big enough to even be a main player in OS industry and really threaten companies like microsoft.. flavours can still exist..

why would it be nice to have "Socromift Linux" installed in 90% of the worlds workstations and their CEO calling the shots? I don´t think that would be any different from the situation we have now...
just look how cocky apple has turned when they managed to sell a few ipods. big business spoils the company.

I think this is a confusing statement, especially for newbies.

The truth is they all share the same kernel, with minor differences, and they all use GNU tools to make things run smoothly.

The only differences are, as you say, in a few configuration files, the package management tools and maybe an easy configuration tool. But this is less difference than between, say, Windows 95 and Windows 98.

They all can run the same programs, can all do the same things and can be made to look exactly the same if you want. The difference between distros is just that some are geared towards use as a server, some as a desktop, some minimalist, some all singing and dancing, some bleeding edge and some stable and secure. It is simply a question of what programs are included and how it is configured. Get hold of a stable, secure, minimalist server distro, update to the latest kernel and X, add beta versions of KDE and Gnome, OpenOffice, Gimp etc and you have a bleeding edge desktop.

As for reducing the number of distros, it wont happen. If, for example, Gentoo didn't exist, some people would still want it, so someone would make it and share it. The same goes for all the niche market distros. as long as people want different things, or have different requirements, there will continue to be a plethora of ditros.

why have one big linux company when you can have a few big companies like SuSE and Red Hat, this way M$ have more companies to compete with int the OS market and we will still have the choice

I don't think anyone in the Linux World wants a single main player for Linux.

and really when you think about it, neither Linux nor BSD is in competition with Microsoft.

Microsoft is a corporation that has to pay a dividend to its shareholders by either selling a product or a service.

Linux and BSD are operating systems developed by people who have a belief that they can build a better system and essentially give it away for free. Some people have formed companies to provide a product or service based on that OS. But the OS kernel is still separate from that game.

The real issue for Linux & BSD users is to educate people that there is other OS's out there and that they have a choice.

floppy

When will GNU/HURD be ready? Anybody has any news of that? Or anybody tried that yet?

Agreed, but I really hate how a beautiful OS like linux is just brushed to the side. It's true that we as community are flourishing but its sad when you go to a store to buy some hardware and the sales person does not even know what linux is. I would definately prefer "Socromift Linux" installed on 20% of worlds computers as it would still be under GNU and I highly doubt it can turn into microsoft.. as I said, smaller companies can exist as well. I am talking about 100 people working on 3 or 4 distributions as compared to 100 people working on 30. Apple is a good company which makes high quality products.. really the only competition microsoft has

http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd.html

It is not ready for production use yet but it is available for non critical application usage.

The multitude of distrubutions just shows the power and flexiblity of GNU/Linux. They are all built on the same foundation: the Linux kernel and the GNU tools. With the foundation being the same and standardized by the community that uses it, the OS can be customized and tailored to meet any niche or person's needs without comprimising the aforementioned standards. The same documents and software can be used on any incarnation of the OS, and in many cases, on non-GNU/Linux OS's. That is something that Microsoft will never have. They have problems sharing even within their own "family" of OS's and applications.

Why so many distro's? Because somebody had a need for them. And GNU/Linux can fill any need. Adaptability. Again, something MS will never have.

All hail the penguins.

Open Source --> Linux --> Creativity --> Different Distros...