Re: Guess who's right behind Ubuntu at Distrowatch

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


[email protected] wrote:
Of course Distrowatch's stats don't mean much: it's only how many click a
distro received. But I doubt that Fedora users, contrary to Ubuntu's users
maybe, go to Distrowatch only to give the counter a ride.

Here are the figures:

1  	Ubuntu          2003>
2 	Fedora 	        1605>
3 	Mint 	        1226<
4 	openSUSE 	1171>
5 	Slackware 	940>
6 	Debian 	        926>
7 	Mandriva 	913>
8 	PCLinuxOS 	822<
9 	Arch 	        767<
10 	Puppy 	        713>

Not bad for a so-called bleeding-edge expert-only distro!

There are two very distinct types of Linux Admins: Those who prefer
BSD, and those who prefer SYSV5.
Those who prefer BSD enjoy working on Debian or Debian based distros
(Like Ubuntu) and provide base level tools and administration likely to
please the BSD centric crowd. The problem is that BSD and SYSV5 both
had very rudimentary packaging tools, with the SYSV5 pkg tools being
best of class for the time.
I don't mean to create revisionist history here, just point out that
after Linux became popular, as in usable, the package management issue
came front and center, and the two camps remained divided.
The BSD camps chose deb (for the most part) and the SYSV5 camps went
with RedHat's package manager, rpm.
It is still that way.

The other major split in the camps/distros has been installation tools.

In the old days of just UNIX in the data center, there was the Solaris Jumpstart installation manager that really ran away with the ball. Nothing else was close for automated, customizable installs. I personally installed Solaris over 1500 times, on at least 30 different configurations, on a wide variety of hardware, without ever leaving my desk.
Today, the RedHat anaconda/kickstart tools are as good, or better than
the Jumpstart tools. For data center use, there is no comparison to any
other install tools available for Linux.
It is the interactive user controlled installs that most people see, and
which the UBUNTU (Canonical) team have really spent some time on. Red
hat does both, with emphasis on data center tools. Therefore, the
installer that end users of Fedora generally see may not be as polished
as some of the others. But underneath, it can play tricks and offer
features you may never have dreamed of.
In the end, the automated installs are important to professional
installers and system admins. The interactive installers are the most
important part of first time users experience. This is where distros
generally differentiate.
As they say, first impressions stick with you. For me personally, my
first test of any distro is with automated install tools. That is why I
am still here. :)

fedora-list mailing list
[email protected]
To unsubscribe:

[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux