Phoronix: Mageia 2 Linux Released
The second release of Mageia Linux is now available...
Phoronix: Mageia 2 Linux Released
The second release of Mageia Linux is now available...
As I've questioned in an earlier post this week - what is the point of this? I went to their About page and I just see no compelling reason at all to use them vs any other major pre-configured desktop (or server) distro. There's a reason Mandriva is failing, I'm not sure why some of its developers branched off to Mageia.
They branched off exactly because they saw Mandriva was failing, and they wanted to make sure the distribution wasn't dependent on such an unstable company. With Mandriva S. A. giving more things to the community, it would be interesting to see both merge again ("Mandragora Linux"? :D ). But Mageia is still a good project regardless. Their distribution is still small, but that's why it feels very "cozy", developers are being helpful and willing to provide help (and receive help in terms of packaging and such). Oh, and they actually provide a good variety of LiveCDs, with free software.
Also, since when do Linux distributions need a reason for existing? :P
There doesn't need to be a reason for a distro to exist but there absolutely should be. Its stuff just like this why bigger companies don't want to focus on linux - there's too many variations with very little reasoning for almost any of them. I'm a Debian and Arch user and I have yet to hear a GOOD reason for either of those distros to have ever been started in the first place. So you may be wondering why I use them, and its because they do what they intend to do very well. I get the impression that .deb package mangers are more polished than .rpm, and Arch to me seems similar to Gentoo but a hell of a lot less tedious to work with. But my gripe is why couldn't the devs of such distros just contribute to others rather than form a new one? I'd rather get a perfected project with a few quarrels here and there than a bunch of "good enough" projects. I am aware that sometimes there's somebody or a company that is standing in the way. But, even volunteers can be fired/impeached and if a project is open source, a crumbling company (like Mandriva) or a company that could care less about its products (like Oracle with OpenOffice) shouldn't have any problem giving up the project and let people who sincerely care work on it instead. If these people or companies honestly care, then don't get into open source or else listen to your peers.
This concept of mine isn't that ridiculous. Look at the linux kernel for example - today we've got linux, solaris, android, and some console OSes. These are all variants of the linux kernel, but there aren't that many of them and least they all have drastically different purposes. Why can't distros be the same way?
Right but I wasn't talking about server, embedded, or mobile markets - I'm aware its successful in that. I was specifically referring to home/office platforms. And you said it yourself - there's no money in it, but there has to be a REASON for that. I'm not saying that uniformity is the 1 and only thing to get linux more popular for commercial software such as games and office products, but its a notable factor.Quote:
Many/most big companies do focus on Linux on the server/embedded/mobile side. It's because there's money in it. The reason companies do not care about desktop Linux is because there isn't... if Linux manages to penetrate the desktop market then things will change naturally. The ammount of distributions has nothing to do with it.
Fair enough, but I also didn't say I wanted only 1 distro because that would be asinine. The different core distros (such as Debian or Gentoo) have very different approaches to how a user operates linux, so the variations are necessary. I also feel that variations of desktop distros involving different DEs is necessary. What I don't think is necessary is having Ubuntu, Mint, Ultimate, mepis, and so on all at the same time when they all generally strive for the same goals. at least ubuntu has unity so they have SOMETHING different.Quote:
There's no such thing as "perfected" project. People have different intrests and you just can't lump them all together without ruining it for someone else.
On a side note, look at Windows and Mac. Their form of installation has barely changed since their inception, and I have yet to hear anyone sincerely complain how they get things done.
Your right, solaris isn't based on linux, but its linux compatible. Android is different enough that you can't just simply run any linux program you want on android and vise versa, therefore making it more than just a distro variant.Quote:
Solaris is not based on Linux and Android is just another distribution with different toolchain.
PS3 uses a heavily modified form of linux, and it wouldn't surprise me if PS2, gamecube, and wii do too. You can't just call things like that, or the examples you give as "distributions" because they aren't distributed in the way that something like ubuntu or fedora are.Quote:
You don't really make any sense here I mean all these "console OSes (what ever they might be)" are Linux distributions. Linux distribution is something that is based on Linux. There are numerous mobile, embedded (TV, IVI...), server and desktop oriented Linux distributions. Linux kernel itself is just one componet so it's natural that there's less variants than in a set of thousands.
You obviously don't know the context in which I asked that question for you to say a statement like that. I'm asking what benefit do they have of branching. I don't understand why this is such a confusing topic to people. If you've got 5 brands of gum that all have flavors that are almost indistinguishable from each other and offer the same price, why do you seriously care about getting any of the other 4? And then you see another company come along and do the same thing, but why? When there's too much variation, nobody wins.
Seriously for anyone who is disagreeing with me right now, look at distros that are almost identical to each other and tell me what makes it so IMPORTANT for every one of them to continue. Is it REALLY that hard to just install or uninstall a small handful of packages that differ between the others? Hell I use barebone distros, where I'm hundreds of packages away.
Making new slightly varying distros should be stopped because it causes confusion for new users and it discourages major companies to support linux. Companies don't want to have to deal with figuring out what version of every other distro works with their product, it's a waste of time and resources, even if linux were more popular than mac. For example, even though ubuntu is based on debian, not all ubuntu packages can be installed on debian. That's annoying, confusing, and frustrating, and its these sorts of quirks that companies hate. Linux is already a small market, but then a company would have to cater to all these sub-distros like Mageia or else advertise it as only compatible with a small handful of distros. That too is a problem because if a product is advertised as "ubuntu compatible", maybe Mint users don't know that Mint is based on ubuntu, or maybe a year later everyone switches to fedora and then the product is considered unsupported. So no matter what way a company looks at it, these variations become a nuisance.
My point is linux has only a small handful of variations and each of them are drastically different, and I was questioning why linux distros couldn't be the same.Quote:
I have no idea what you point is. That being less open makes it somehow better or what? Is Solaris now better that it's controlled by single corporate entity and is mostly closed source?
My bad, it wasn't linux but freeBSD:Quote:
They don't use Linux; If you happen to have some kind of source then link it. Your point makes very little sense here. The reason there's so few console operating systems is because all of them are closed source. You can't really fork them and as a free software advocate I find that a bad thing.
In my search for this, I have found that linux generally can't be used due to licensing issues, which I for some reason completely forgot about, so it would make sense that many consoles wouldn't support linux.
Well I believe anyone has the right to go ahead and make another distro, and I don't really care if there are hundreds either, what I care about is if the distro has anything compelling to offer. Sometimes the change is as stupid as having chromium on 1 distro while another uses firefox and maybe a theme change. Seriously, that doesn't qualify for an entire new distro. There is such thing as too much variation; Again, nobody benefits if everyone is doing their own little thing.Quote:
It doesn't matter if you or I think that some distributions aren't important. Only thing that matters is that its developers or its community does. I don't see any problem in having hundreds upon hundreds of Linux distributions if that's what people want. That is the beaty of open source. You are free to do what you want.
I think you are in many ways mistaken about Andoird and its uniformity as there are already many forks of it and possibilty thousands of different ROMs avaible at XDA-developers.com that are in a sense compareable with GNU/Linux "distrolets" and like I mentioned before it's the same with Illumous (the open Solaris). If open source operating system gets popular it's bound to have forks. The complete argument is totally flawed because altough the Linux doesn't have forks there are littlerally thousands of distributions built on top of it. You artificial separation between Android and GNU/Linux distributions doesn't change that. Linux is a piece of software and distribution or operating systems is built of thousands of different pieces. They are in no way compareable as they are completely different things.