In favor of diversity in Linux or against?

This is one of the most mentioned points when talking about GNU

I have read there several times: What if instead of so many hundreds of distros they all united efforts and made just one?

It is a good idea to imagine what a world would be like where there is only one Linux distribution, or considering other kernels:
GNU, an operating system created by Richard Stallman available in three cores: BSD; Hurd y Linux

  1. Build it from scratch, download version with emerge (the one from Gentoo), mixed version compiled and precompiled (Sabayon). Precompiled version with scripts, precompiled version with console wizard, version with graphical wizard.
  2. Choose your installer: And many appear.
  3. Choose Repositories: Stable Free, Actual Free, Very actual free, Testing Free, Testing 2 Free, Unstable Free, Very Unstable Free, Experimental Free, and those not Free. PUre KDE, pure GTK2, pure GTK, non mulitlib, multilib….
  4. User repositories.
  5. Choose any version of the programs: Student, Server, Gamer ...
  6. Choose a graphic server: Xorg, Wayland, Mir
  7. Choose a graphical interface: Gnome, Unity, Mate, Cinnamon, LXDE, XFCE,
  8. Choose some artwork, green mint, humanity, kilimanjaro, pears and apples, camaleón verde ...
  9. Choose your tools: Yast, apt-get, emerge, entropy, yaourt, yum, pacman ...

Looking at it from that point where everything was a single system, progress would be made very fast, because the hierarchical structure would be very clear. And for the common user who enters the page of that hypothetical distro and finds 20 ways to install it, he will think that he will never be able to use it.

In addition, you will feel discriminated against because the community will be in difficulty classes. Something similar may happen now, but with different systems. You identify with your distro.

In addition, Bill Gates would arrive and begin to sue, patent for the off button, patents for monkey, patent for the taskbar.

He would start using his money to remove important people from Linux and make them part of his company. Projects would begin to die. Because for one they all carry it now.

Many others would not like to be subjected to so many people and they would be more independent, and they would leave Linux ... And it would begin to destroy this very organized system.

The idea of ​​a single system seems to me the most ideal, but it is a great utopia. There would have to be no freedom for Linux to be like this. Freedom knows no limits and the number of Linux distributions is a great example of cooperation and freedom to the world.

Also the first 50 distros seem very good to me. I like that in GNU / Linux people are recognized for their ways of thinking and not as consumers of a marketing product who have to adapt. Perhaps some prefer to adapt to what they impose.

Your point of view would be very interesting.


40 comments, leave yours

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

*

*

  1. Responsible for the data: Miguel Ángel Gatón
  2. Purpose of the data: Control SPAM, comment management.
  3. Legitimation: Your consent
  4. Communication of the data: The data will not be communicated to third parties except by legal obligation.
  5. Data storage: Database hosted by Occentus Networks (EU)
  6. Rights: At any time you can limit, recover and delete your information.

  1.   elav said

    xDD Why do we keep blaming old Bill for everything? Bill is no longer in charge of Microsoft, he is enjoying his millions and doing charitable works to pay less taxes.

    On diversity, it's good that there are always options. For example, I would be happy if there was the same package system in common. In other words, Debian uses dpkg and apt, RedHat uses rpm, Suse uses zipper or yast ... well, that's not bad, but it would be good if there was one in common for all of them, where it doesn't matter what distro it is, install and voila, without having to compile anything. A bundle? I don't think so, but something similar.

    1.    pandev92 said

      About bill gates .., what happens is that his wife is a believer and they say the evil tongues that he forced him to charitable works XD

      1.    FreeBSDDICK. said

        DEVELOPERS

    2.    Angel_Le_Blanc said

      It is an icon.
      It is easier to imagine the scenario with someone you know than with a company.

      1.    Angel_Le_Blanc said

        There is wow! -About my user agent-, I am using Manjaro, as I use several distros I use symbolic links to the chromium folder, because I use the Chrome one is another story. At least Arch is my favorite.

    3.    Germán said

      The same package format for all distros would never work. Linux distros are very different from each other, and having the same format for installing packages does not guarantee compatibility at all. The packages install files in different places depending on the distro, they even run very specific pre / post installation scripts for each distro. Highly recommended reading on this matter:

      http://www.happyassassin.net/2013/04/29/the-great-package-format-debate-why-theres-no-need-for-distributions-to-use-the-same-package-format/

      Hugs!!

    4.    Clear up pisha said

      Did you mean:

      Debian / Ubuntus use dpkg and SuSE / OpenSuSE, Ferdora / RedHat / CentOS / SCL, use rpm

      and further

      Debian / Ubuntus use apt and SuSE / OpenSuSE zypper and Fedora / RedHat / CentOS / SCL yum and Rosa / Mageia / Drades urpmi

      and also that if you use KDE you will probably use Muon or Apper graphically and if you use something GTK Synaptic in Debian / Ubuntus, etc ...

      In short, zypper uses the same rpm as urpmi, yum, smart, etc. Furthermore, some of these tools can use rpm and deb and vice versa.

  2.   elruiz1993 said

    The diversity of Linux distros are inherent in the system, as well as modest computers at very high prices for OSX or a very expensive system with nothing of series to which you have to go to the digital Bronx to get free programs for Windows

    1.    vicky said

      XD the digital Bronx is very true. I don't know why but there are many Windows users who have an obsession for having everything pirated, having free programs that do the same.

      1.    sieg84 said

        for example, Windows ...

  3.   curefox said

    Very good reflection, that diversity exists in Linux is not a problem, what if Linux should have is specific standards such as packaging in a single format that is the same for all distros (at this point some may or may not agree).
    Graphic server, etc.
    I repeat specific aspects, otherwise I see no problem.

    1.    juanr said

      Exactly, something like that I was going to comment, the graphic server is a critical piece and should have the consensus of the ENTIRE community, but you see what they did to us. I know that there are people who agree with this move and will have their reasons, right or wrong, personally I just hope that this issue does not go away and it becomes a real problem for us.

      1.    curefox said

        This is Juanr, standardize the most important and critical parts as you say, that's what they should do, instead of taking forks for everything.

    2.    truko22 said

      Let them compile>.

      1.    FreeBSDDICK. said

        Compiling even gives you more diversity so this comment does not benefit ... xD

      2.    giskard said

        Eat cake!

    3.    gnamboo said

      That is the question. It is not that we all go through the same ring (the single ring) or that, as now, watertight distributions focus on developing similar responses, which is a waste. The point is that in GNU / Linux there should be basic consensus, if not on the part of all at least on the part of some distributions belonging to the same "family".

      Didn't Mandrake and Conectiva get together in the past?

  4.   netdragon said

    Hello, in my opinion, diversity is a, one of the key points that linux has, in favor of other systems, although sometimes there is the issue of fractionation and not diversity. but my point is that diversity helps everyone to choose their operating system according to their needs. ex. I love Archlinux, but if it were the only system and it was installed by a friend who is just starting with linux, it throws the computer over my head, but luckily there are other distros like linux, mint, fedora that are very easy.

  5.   Eulalio said

    totally in favor of diversity. Many distros, several office packages, a lot of everything. Freedom is diversity, it's horrible, uncreative, frustrating, uniqueness, the only thing. If there was only one distro then it wouldn't be GNU.

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      That I give you the reason. What's more, what I like the most about GNU / Linux is that you can see that each distro has its own personality.

  6.   netdragon said

    Hello in my option, diversity is one, one of the key points that Linux has, in favor of other systems, although sometimes there is the issue of fractionation and not diversified. but my point is that diversity helps everyone to choose their operating system according to their needs. ex. I love arch linux. But if it were the only system and it was installed by a friend who has just started with linux, he throws the computer over my head, but luckily there are other distro such as linux, mint, fedora that are very good but oriented to another type of user that for ease or to be more practical, or others out there if you have to configure more or gentoo, they should have other tastes. Also see several types of distributions for the same there is a competition that leads the different distributions to improve themselves. the evolution is adapting the best and the different areas .PD: sorry for the faults

  7.   dhunter said

    Diversity is a good thing, the idea that if all efforts went to the same distro is nice but not so achievable, imagine so many people with different interests and different abilities working on THE UNICA distro, it would be chaos.

    Who could order? Who is going to dictate what to do with my free time?

    Free and open source software in general is a very complex process, something like genetic mutations, even failed projects are important because others learn what does not work and what does, and thus creates an entropy between all projects that enhances common development.

    1.    charlie brown said

      +100

  8.   vicky said

    It depends what it is. I have no problem with things like desktop environments or having a lot of music players. But the graphical server thing seems quite serious to me. I think it's one of the worst things Canonical has done for linux

  9.   Outdated said

    My opinion is like that of other colleagues, that diversity is good up to a point. Some things should be standardized and we would all win, what happens is that it is difficult to agree with so many people who work for pleasure.

    Let's try not to be extreme. I think that this way it will be easier for everything to advance.
    Health!

  10.   nosferatuxx said

    What a great dilemma right?
    Diversity or not diversity?
    To discriminate or not to discriminate?
    Black or white?
    And why not better a rainbow?

    Cheers..!

    1.    Outdated said

      Good comparison with the companion colors.

      I believe that having a rainbow to choose which color I like is the best, but I believe that there are certain specific things in which all those who understand have to choose which color is better so that it is easier to move forward. For example, imagine a world where the World Wide Web was not a standard and we had to choose between different internets (which in fact can be chosen relatively since there is the Tor network, FreeNet, etc).

      Even so, it is good that there are standards, that then each one goes beyond the standard once they have the necessary knowledge since to choose freely, one must be aware of many things that are learned through use.

      Anyway, that the Linux ecosystem continues its course, which for the moment seems very good to me.

      regards!

  11.   DanielC said

    I am in favor of the possibility of diversifying the options, but today what there is is a debauchery. Distros left and right that don't add anything new (it brings more ElementaryOS than dozens of other Ubuntu-based distros put together).

    1.    eliotime3000 said

      And for that reason is that I like the matrix distros like Debian, RHEL / CentOS and Slackware more, since they are veterans and they are the ones that contribute the most in the GNU / Linux universe.

  12.   eliotime3000 said

    They will always attack Bill Gates because he was the first to treat software as if it were something physical, as an object, as something concrete on a computer. Furthermore, he is regarded as the John D. Rockefeller of the software "industry."

    As for Jobs, they started out making hardware, and Bill Gates is the one who came up with the idea of ​​profiting from his basic compiler instead of sharing it as many did in his day.

  13.   eliotime3000 said

    Sorry for the previous comment if it is an off-topic.

    Diversity is great up to a point. The problem is that there is a real debauchery that causes distros to be generated that end up being more of the same (as is the case with the Canaima and Huaira distros, which offer nothing new).

    As for the matrix distros like RHEL / CentOS, Debian and Slackware, they have their pros and cons, but they are the ideal options for beginners as previously mentioned by Fico in his post about his experience with Linux, to fall into distro-hopping .

  14.   Hugo said

    Personally, I believe that it is impossible to limit the diversity that free software allows without limiting some of the four basic freedoms of it. My conclusion is that things are fine the way they are, similar to Darwin's theory of natural selection.

    1.    blondfu said

      I think natural selection is a good example. Distros are born, grow, evolve, reproduce ... Those that do not contribute anything or do not adapt or have an ugly logo will die, and so the cycle of life continues. If there are so many distros, it's because people have wanted it that way, each with its own philosophy and way of doing things. I don't understand much but there are things that are common, right? the kernel or something like that (explained by those who control the issue) if they would not stop being GNU / Linux and would be another OS. I don't think everything could be unified, Linux is made by users and there are as many opinions as people and if we all knew how to do it, there would be almost one distro for each user.

  15.   Pepito said

    JE JE JE, for that you stay with the only and omnipont WINDOWS ………………………… .. DO NOT COMMENT PLEASE.

  16.   Naza said

    I think diversity is fine, but what happens today is too much, I think that with about 10 totally different distributions between them it is more than enough and then focus all efforts on improving these or one that you can download from the first moment à la carte, let me explain, it would be great a distribution in which before downloading it you could choose absolutely all the software it will have, the one that prefers one environment or another, the one that prefers only free, proprietary or mixed software, is that you want a browser or the other, whether or not I want a video editor and whether to choose which one ...

    That would be great, but the important thing is to give an image of unity so that support increases, which never hurts.

    1.    Naza said

      In short, and whatever opinion you have, if a little more organization is necessary and if after that a joint project is carried out in parallel it would be fantastic.

  17.   legion said

    Hello ! Greetings to all! Just the subject on which I was meditating.-
    The Cathedral and the Bazaar, was it not? Eric S. Raymond

  18.   joakoej said

    Bill Gates? I don't think that will happen, besides that guy stole everything from Apple, he can't patent anything.
    By the way, I think diversity is good, after all, there are actually few real distros, the rest are just forks of others, which add or take a few things. If people take that into account, there will be no problem, since we are all looking for something different, for example I like to be up-to-date and others prefer not to sacrifice stability.
    Let's say of so many distros that there are, 20, maybe a little more are original and of those most normal people discard them quickly, in general for Ubuntu. Although, it is true that it is confusing and for the most curious people, who like to try, it is very annoying. I went through it, but you almost always end up where you started

  19.   LMJR said

    Diversity is good because it ends with monopolies, as there are many options you can jump to the one that suits you best. YOU ARE NOT BOUND. But there is a problem, which is that when there is a lot of diversity, the genius goes down the drain. There are many who try to "do" if they joined forces we would have a large number of quality free programs and we would not have the problems that we have. We also need an "easy installation disk". Many of my friends tell me that "installing Linux is very difficult that partitions scare them." Not everyone is willing to study and search the web for the tutorials they need (as I did, and surely many of you), they are used to the "yes" "next" "I accept"…. of that system that I do not want to mention or remember. Well I do not roll it up again. greetings to all-ace.