From: "Adam Flinton" 


"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:3dc7fb77$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Loads of different distributions of more or less the same thing is bad.
IMO.
>

Yes & no. 2 quick reasons:

1) The "main distrib" has always been seen as Red Hat & it's
derivatives whereas most of the current "desktop linux" (e.g.
Knoppix) are based on Debian. How much Corel's orig decision is to do with
this & how much apt-get is I don't know. Never the less w/o Debian
around then we would have rehashes of the Red Hat dist & you'd be
right. How much the current desktop linuxes based on Debian will now help
drive debian forward is anyone's guess but I reckon the desktop linux'es
will be the biggest boost debian has ever had.

2) It's the ability due to the large number of distribs to do a near
constant release cycle for linux which any "one comp one OS"
company/OS can't really compete with. e.g. you want a stable known dist/OS
then you can pick one (e.g. the Red Hat ones) whihc explicitly state 18
months between releases. However if you want the latest & greatest you
simply look at which dists have released most recently & have good
reviews. You simply can't do that with say Windows. There is only one
Windows distrib & it's from one company & they will have a % of
their users/customers who don't want to see a new OS for 18 months & a
% which want the latest rev of the OS often but there is only one OS so
which % will MS listen to? Either way someone is going to be pissed off.


> I want to load a PC with an OS and have that be that. Patches as
necessary.
> But not effectively  a new OS every few months. And managing 'upgrade'
> strategies simply won't happen, there aren't the resources for the
required
> testing. You have to assume that as Linux extends its reach the average
user
> gets dumber.
>

OK so you're in the "18 months + patches" category. Others
aren't. With Linux you could choose say the Red Hat version where they
promise just that. However if you were in the "latest &
greatest" camp you'd be narked if there was going to be no rev of
Windows for 18 months.

> Perhaps there's a future for the Hurd model. I rather like that, although
I
> haven't tried loading it yet.
>

I agree but until the kernel development picks up to near linux levels
then......I'm not going to load it instead of the linux kernel.


Adam

> Paul
>
> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> news:3dc7e809{at}w3.nls.net...
> > What I like about this (& will reward with my custom) are
those distribs
> > which make sure that all the improvements go back into the pot.
> >
> > I don't reckon MS have a hope with their single OS of keeping pace with
> what
> > 5-10 good distribs all releasing at different times etc but sharing the
> same
> > base....
> >
> > Distrib A does well on this but poorly on this so...all the other
distribs
> > nick the good bits & work on the poor bits etc.etc. &
then release so
that
> > their distrib B does well on this but poorly on this so.....all the
other
> > distribs nick the good bits & work on the poor bits etc.etc. & then
> release
> > so that their distrib C does well on this but poorly on this so.....all
> the
> > other distribs nick the good bits & work on the poor bits
etc.etc. &
then
> > release so that their distrib D does well on this but poorly on this
> > so.....all the other distribs nick the good bits & work on
the poor bits
> > etc.etc. & then release so that their distrib E does well on this but
> poorly
> > on this so.....all the other distribs nick the good bits & work on the
> poor
> > bits etc.etc. & then release so that their distrib F does well on this
but
> > poorly on this so.....all the other distribs nick the good bits & work
on
> > the poor bits etc.etc. & then release so that their distrib G does well
on
> > this but poorly on this so.....all the other distribs nick the good bits
&
> > work on the poor bits etc.etc. & then release so that their distrib H
does
> > well on this but poorly on this so.....all the other distribs nick the
> good
> > bits & work on the poor bits etc.etc. & then release so that their
distrib
> I
> > does well on this but poorly on this so.....all the other distribs nick
> the
> > good bits & work on the poor bits etc.etc. & then release
so that their
> > distrib A does well on this but poorly on this so.....
> >
> > etc.etc.etc.
> >
> > That is simply not possible with a single OS (no matter if OSS or closed
> > source). If there were multiple FreeBSD distributors then FreeBSD (or
"A"
> > Free BSD)  might be able to keep up....but w/o the number of different
> > distribs.....
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > "Robert Comer"  wrote in message
> > news:3dc7d117$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > Let us know how it does -- I've been interested in that one for awhile
> but
> > > don't want to pay for it just yet.
> > >
> > > I'm pretty anxious to see what SUSE comes out with in their desktop
> > version
> > > later on too...
> > >
> > > - Bob Comer
> > >
> > >
> > > "Joe Barr"  wrote in message
> > > news:3dc7b990$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > >
> > > > Could be right.  I'm going to try the Xandros distro today.  Who
> knows,
> > it
> > > > might be sooner than you think.
> > > >
> > > > See ya,
> > > > Joe Barr
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 05 Nov 2002 10:49:46 +0000, Adam Flinton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > So lets see....how many distribs are now getting
to the "good
> /useable
> > > on
> > > > > a desktop" state....
> > > > >
> > > > > e.g
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.zdnet.com.au/builder/program/work/story/0,2000034960,20269602,00.
> > > > > htm
> > > > >
> > > > > I reckoned 2 releases before Linux would be ready
for the desktop
/
> > > > > actually start pulling ahead of windows.
> > > > >
> > > > > Adam
> > > > >
> > > > > "Joe Barr"
 wrote in message
> > > > > news:3dc71ada$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
http://www.linuxworld.com/site-stories/2002/1104.barr.html
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> --
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4