why does every distribution have different approach ?

[GarryRicketson]

In this thread, http://forums.debian.net/posting.php?mo ... 7#pr592922
The OP asks,

Can anyone explain why two distribution have different approach.

I was going to start trying to answer, but since it really is not related to the topic they started, but does make a interesting, good question.
I don't know exactly how to start to answer that, in a way, it is self explanatary..obvious,
We have a linux kernel, Debian developer took the linux kernel, and started developing
Debian, but there were and are some other linux users,developers, that have different preferences, ideas, as to how they want the distro look, and work, so they needed to take a different approach to achieve the concepts, and design of the new distro they had/have in mind,.. since a different approach is needed, to make something different it is only logical each new distro would and will have a different approach.
My wife just called me, lunch is ready and I am hungry, ,,, so that is all for now,
edited: Thanks :Postby Wheelerof4te » I was still writing when you posted, but good answer,..

[Wheelerof4te]

It would be boring to have only one approach, don't you think? Having different ways means more choice and more freedom. Not to mention dangers of turning GNU/Linux into new Windows.

The question is a bit incomplete. There are numerous approaches to certain things, and there are numerous things that can be done differently.

I do like Debian's approach, so I use Debian. Someone else might try Ubuntu for greater hardware support. Or Fedora and Arch for bleeding edge software. Or Antix for very old hardware. Choice.

[dasein]

...(there) are some other linux users,developers, that have different preferences, ideas, as to how they want the distro look, and work, so they needed to take a different approach to achieve the concepts, and design of the new distro they had/have in mind,.. since a different approach is needed, to make something different it is only logical each new distro would and will have a different approach.

I think you nailed it exactly.

The thread you referenced asked a specific question about multimedia codecs in Fedora -vs- Debian, which I suspect has a more specific and more circumscribed answer.

But different people have different use-cases, and many of the differences among distros/respins/derivatives reflect those different use-cases. It makes sense, for instance, for OpenELEC or Mythbuntu to ship with every multimedia codec known to humankind, because those distros exist specifically to provide a hassle-free multimedia/home theater experience. But it also makes exactly as much sense for a distro run by FOSS zealots to include only libre/gratis open-source codecs.

Of course, some differences are bigger than others, and the number of "distros" far exceeds the number of genuinely distinct use-cases. These days, many "distros" (most of which are only "respins") exist only to feed the individual ego of their BDFL. Any differences among such respins are almost certainly arbitrary.

[spacex]

Of course, some differences are bigger than others, and the number of "distros" far exceeds the number of genuinely distinct use-cases. These days, many "distros" (most of which are only "respins") exist only to feed the individual ego of their BDFL. Any differences among such respins are almost certainly arbitrary.

Not necessarily. Many of us who are doing such respins are not doing so because of our big individual ego's. But because simply using Debian is to boring, as it offers no challenge for us, and there's not enough happening. Also, Debian doesn't come with functional setups for users that prefers no DE. There is no doubt that there is a real need for remixes with alternative user interfaces and improved functionality.

In my mind, making a Debian XFCE4 respin is pointless and redundant, but making let's say a JWM, Fluxbox or Openbox-remix, makes a lot of sense. As common users out there, are not able to fully do it for themselves.

[Randicus]

In my mind, making a Debian XFCE4 respin is pointless and redundant, but making let's say a JWM, Fluxbox or Openbox-remix, makes a lot of sense. As common users out there, are not able to fully do it for themselves.

I would say yes and no. You are correct that beginners cannot use some WMs, because they do not know how to configure them. So a pre-configured GUI is very useful for them. On the other hand, those WMs are intended to be used by people with at least an advanced beginner level of knowledge. Although a pre-configured WM is convenient, the down side is it may retard the learning process. I see the glass as half empty, whereas I am sure you see the glass as half full.

[spacex]

I have to agree with both Randicus and Wizard1000, because it can work both ways.

If someone doesn't show you a nice openbox-setup, you probably never are going to think that it's something for you.

So I'm kind of split here. People can get too comfortable and not learn much at all, but at the same time, a well configured user-interface might trigger the interest in the first place, and also the interest to tweak it further. And of course, it's nice that someone service those that aren't just lazy, but who simply have a hard time with this kind of stuff. To be diplomatic, people aren't bright in the same areas

[cpoakes]

Because we can...

[millpond]

A large Linux install can be enormous, and potenially unwieldy - particularly around upgrade time. Just try it with 20,000+ packages installed.

So, for most folks specialization is more or less necessary.

Modern systems that are geared towards entertainment systems needs lots of codecs, drivers, and peripherals that would be absolutely useless to a hosting server. The hosting server would require stringent security meaasures largely unacceptable to a software programmer. The software programmer would need tools and utilities absolutely unthinkable for someone using their system for home schooling. And CERN spins would have no use for games.

Actually the vast mumbers of distros are a bit absurd.
Ideally there would be (and to a large extant *ARE*) master distros which support specialized SPINS.

The problem largely is in the distros themselves. They determine which software they will accept, and which is apocrypha.
And they do not make their package makers easily filterable for proper spins to be done by the heretical.

Case in point is Devuan. It had to hack DPKG and filter its own packages in, while permitting the 99% remainder of Debian. Its really a spin, much like LMDE.

Ideally, distros should just be a starting point. Debian and redhat have nice packages, the others encourage compiling.

If one is on a production system, then stability is a crucial factor, and business software *SHOULD* be extremely conservative. If it works dont fix it, or it could cost a fortune.

Home multimedia systems can well afford to try out the latest and greatest in display technology and drivers/software.
If it breaks too bad, just reinstall. Something unthinkable and irresponsible on a large multi-user network.

[runfrodorun]

These things are just window managers though. How valuable is the skill of configuring your own window manager?

I think I said this in another thread but I watched an interview/open forum with Linus Torvalds, and he said he used Linux Mint, becuase he prefers his system to just work. Obviously he's not a stupid guy but I don't think configuring his desktop and tools is as important to him as developing the kernel. I can definitely appreciate that.

That being said, I regularly use i3, icewm, or frequently no X terminals at all... It's definitely good to know how to work without a very babied setup, but Sometimes you just want to skip that and get to what you care about, which is not just using iceweasel and playing steam games for some.

Even if that is all you want out of your computer... then you probably have no incentive to use anything but kde.

-RJ

[spacex]

Even if that is all you want out of your computer... then you probably have no incentive to use anything but kde.

-RJ

Strongly disagree. There is no imaginable reason to use kde what so ever. It's heavy and slow, and even if you have the hardware for it, why the heck should you bloat down your system with resource-hungry apps? No matter what the hardware is, lighter is always better, and even more important, having a system that's easy and clean, and which doesn't get in your way. Workflow is what it's all about, and there is no DE that delivers a optimal workflow.

That's why people need to do custom openbox, fluxbox, jwm or whatever...

[Randicus]

Among today's general population raised on video games and Star Wars, most people have no incentive to use something that does not have eye candy and bells and whistles. Just look at all the people on various Linux fora who complain about Xfce being ugly. So the claim is half correct. Instead of using the word incentive, it would be more accurate to state that most people cannot imagine not using a GUI loaded with all the "goodness" imaginable. In their eyes that is progress. A GUI designed for work, as opposed to wowing the user with beautiful colours and dancing icons, is out-dated and oh so '90s.

[runfrodorun]

Even if that is all you want out of your computer... then you probably have no incentive to use anything but kde.

-RJ

Strongly disagree. There is no imaginable reason to use kde what so ever. It's heavy and slow, and if you have the hardware, why the heck should you bloat down your system with resource-hungry apps? No matter what the hardware is, lighter is alwaysbetter, and even more important, having a system that's easy and clean, and which doesn't get in your way. Workflow is what it's all about, and there is no DE that delivers a optimal workflow.

That's why people need to do custom openbox, fluxbox, jwm or whatever...

-1

In a world where everything is logical, you are right. But a lot of people won't switch to linux from Mac OS because 'it's harder,' when in fact that is debatable. but there's so much more to using your computer than usability performance; there's a psychological factor as Randicus points out, and higher performance desktops come up hard against the point of diminishing returns when most of people's interaction with their computer is through maybe steam and firefox and that's it. And a lot of people don't care about saving 1/4 second a couple times a day when alt-tabbing between those two applications.

You're also forgetting about just how deep the difference in user experience is. Picture a user that has never used a computer before try to use i3. They would never figure it out without a softer introduction, or heavy heavy reliance on the internet and like a year of patience.

Among today's general population raised on video games and Star Wars, most people have no incentive to use something that does not have eye candy and bells and whistles. Just look at all the people on various Linux fora who complain about Xfce being ugly. So the claim is half correct. Instead of using the word incentive, it would be more accurate to state that most people cannot imagine not using a GUI loaded with all the "goodness" imaginable. In their eyes that is progress. A GUI designed for work, as opposed to wowing the user with beautiful colours and dancing icons, is out-dated and oh so '90s.

+1

Yep. If stranger dangers can lure kids into the van with candy, then I can lure windows users into linux with eye candy! I guess instead of incentive, I should say the relative difference in terms of expectations is lowered between windows users and linux users when comparing against a prettied up desktop. i.e. it's less scary.

As far as performance, some people don't care. I can't imagine my grandma complaining about how many clicks it took her to get to X, or complaining about the fact that it isn't a tiled window manager. Not to be mean, but it's going to take her 10 minutes to check her email no matter what, and mouse-only use and glowing flashing buttons is about as guided as it is going to get, so they could probably put in the most preposterous performance intensive graphical effects, and then run it on a pentium II so it all runs at like one frame per second and it wouldn't even make a difference for her.

Even though I grew one with tiling window managers and stripped down stuff, Vim editor, I can sometimes say the same thing about myself even still. I can use my computer only so fast, and I can think only so fast, and it's only worth speeding up my workflow until it exceeds the speed at which I can think. So as I get older and slower I care less and less...

I had a dream about text editors last night!

-RJ

[runfrodorun]

Wait! One last thought!

With regards to my comment 'no incentive to use anything but kde.'

Think about Ubuntu users. Probably 50% or more don't even know that there are options other than unity. A lot of fugitive windows users are used to 'the desktop' being 'the desktop' and the ms way of doing things. So think of it that way I guess... point I was trying to make was that if you are a basic computer user you probably don't even know you're using this thing called KDE. If you're a user like that, you've probably never even considered what it might be like to use a window manager with more shortcuts, and don't realize that you can save so much time per day. Basically I am addressing the experience level gap in users again.

I used to really like KDE back in 1.x! Gave my desktop the good old irix feel.

-RJ

[Randicus]

lure windows users into linux

Which is one of the problems at the heart of Linux. An evangelical desire to convert the heathens that is common among Linux users, especially new "converts".

[Bulkley]

lure windows users into linux

Which is one of the problems at the heart of Linux. An evangelical desire to convert the heathens that is common among Linux users, especially new "converts".

Agreed. It isn't going to happen. At this point, using Windows is being part of the Microsoft fan club and nothing will persuade most of its users to switch to Linux.

Of all the people who have seen my Linux boxes, who have used one or the other, who have learned that my Linux is more reliable than their Windows, who ask me to fix their Windows boxes, none of them, none at all, have any intention to switch; not going to happen. Why? The most cogent answer supplied by any of them, even those with the skills to do so, is don't want to.

[Wheelerof4te]

^Those people have OS that works for them, that's why they don't want to switch. Even I wouldn't switch if my OS works just fine and it's supported long-term. But the problem is:WinXP isn't supported anymore and I need something that works well with my hardware.

It's hard to imagine why does one need to dump a perfectly good, operational and configured OS. Not to mention loaded with gigabytes of data that can't be quickly backed up.

And since we have touched the ancient DE vs WM question, I would rather use pre-configured, light DE (such as XFCE4 or LXDE) over any WM. The only reason to use WM only is to experiment and learn more about the way your system works.

That said, if I have to choose, Openbox would be my choice. OBmenu and OBconf make things much easier.

[runfrodorun]

lure windows users into linux

Which is one of the problems at the heart of Linux. An evangelical desire to convert the heathens that is common among Linux users, especially new "converts".

Every time I try to be funny Randicus is always there to tell me I'm dumb. No being funny on this forum guys!

You're right Randicus, every linux user who wants to show others their operating system is a new "convert!" I can't believe I didn't see it before!

And a truly relevant comment as well. Visionary.

And it's good to know that having been using linux for 20+ years (With a 9 year break on Solaris, a lot changed to be fair), I've been the problem the whole time. Sorry guys! Maybe if I wasn't around you wouldn't have systemd.

/Sarcasm

It's important to share linux. Here's why:

All seriousness, People talk about how popularity would be the death of linux, but I'm not convinced. Windows was always destined to fall because of its inherent design flaws. Maybe it'll take 100 years, and then again... maybe they'll actually re-write windows from the ground up and scrap compatibility. Unix/unix-like systems are not invincible but they have a far superior design in terms of security. I am not convinced that popularity will be the death of linux.

I am a programmer, but I'm also a record producer, so I lead a bit of a double life. The state of things today means that I can't run Pro-Tools in linux, and a program that complicated with that many one-off drivers isn't even worth trying in wine. And unfortunately, since Pro-Tools is hardware and software, the chances that there will be an open source alternative within the next 50 years that is truly competitive or a good replacement are not good. That means I have a mac. Yes. I don't like it, but I own a mac.

Point: There are some proprietary softwares that I would love to have in linux and that will not happen in the current state of operating system complacency. It's easy for people who are not record producers to say otherwise. There was a time when big production was happening on Unix machines, I remember we used to have some Irix boxes about 20 years ago that were fantastic for our researchers who were more computer-illiterate, and less technical tasks, the likes of which I have not seen on a unix or unix-like since. You have to remember that massive projects like Pro-Tools are not producing software for super users, they're producing software for people who know how to do one thing, which is make music. So you need to bridge that gap. Shepherds will take their sheep where the grass is tallest. This is politics not technology.

I think you jump to snap conclusions a little too quickly for as experienced of a linux user as you say you are.

I wonder if richard stallman is a problem for free software, trying to spread the word on the dangers of software patents. He must be a free software n00b!

-RJ

[mor]

I think that what most fear from an indiscriminate diffusion of "linux", is becoming a minority against a vast majority of people who, while not necessarily completely uninterested in the same values (mainly software freedom I guess), would definitely put their convenience first all the time, and we know how this is not good for those values.

It is a fair concern, one that should not become paranoia but that also keeps us from mistaking sheer increased use with overall benefit.
Proselytism is good only as long as it is aimed at interesting people in software freedom, rather than mere "linux" usage.
A user, like you, stuck on Mac but that would contribute to free projects or that would care and understand the important of software freedom, is better to have than any number of "linux" users who only care they no longer need to worry about viruses and just want their skype and flash and photoshop-on-wine ready to go.
If you could run your recording software on Debian, would it make any real difference, considering it would still be non-free?

Bye

[runfrodorun]

You know, in a lot of ways I think I agree with you. This is something that I've said about popular distributions and their interaction with systemd, and it is a mainstream following that is driving the mass adoption of systemd.

At the same time, there is still gentoo and slack... and I am using debian with sysvinit still, albeit compiled with libsystemd0.

So you see, it's not a worry that it will happen... because it's already happening. I suppose there are also some dangers of complacency here, because if there is a proprietary graphics server available that works really good, X and wayland developers might lose motivation, to cite one example. This could happen to any number of things. The need for open source alternatives does drive them to a certain extent, but as with everything, that's not the whole story.

If you could run your recording software on Debian, would it make any real difference, considering it would still be non-free?

If I could do this, I wouldn't own a mac and that would be immediately desirable for me, as booting up a mac feels like lighting myself on fire.

Thanks for your insight by the way, that is a great way of looking at things. At the same time though, I will stipulate that I do promote linux usage for the software freedom as you have suggested here because that is what is most important to me, but that is seconded by a unix inspired philosophy, which linux will likely have for years and years to come, it would be very hard to microsoftify it without starting again, so some things being taken for granted will always be there. Important to remember.

-RJ