Why do people change their linux distributions so often????

[james_in_denver]

Personally, I don't understand it?. I started out using linux by downloading about a zillion floppy disks back in the days when a 9,600 baud modem was fast. Then Slackware came out with their nice CD-Rom package, and shortly thereafter RedHat....

But when all is said and done, is there really that much of a difference between distributions??? "vi" is the the same, the kernel is the same, X-windows is (pretty much the same now that we have xorg), KDE and Gnome libraries are the same (from distro to distro), Apache, MySQL, Postgres, gcc, etc, etc, etc, all still work the same.

So why do people switch so often????

[neo2k.dk]

I change linux-dist, when i need to try something new, and still not all dists looks the same.

I'm using Fedora 3 on my laptop and gentoo on my stationary PC, my laptop needs little downtime and my stationary needs great stability and the newest software..

[kosmosik]

well userland software is usualy the same... but here it ends... often glibc, kernel, gcc varies across distributions, startup scripts (and other scripts) vary, filesystem layout also, build and package system also... people have different needs and to satisfy them lots of distros are being made. it is a good thing :) you can choose whatever suits you best... for me it happened to be RHL and now Fedora... but I am considering a switch to Debian (I am waiting for their new release)... Fedora is too fast moving for me (on desktop it is OK, on servers I prefer stability meaning I install a distro and it runs 4 years without major version upgrade)...

[msimplay]

Personally, I don't understand it?. I started out using linux by downloading about a zillion floppy disks back in the days when a 9,600 baud modem was fast. Then Slackware came out with their nice CD-Rom package, and shortly thereafter RedHat....

But when all is said and done, is there really that much of a difference between distributions??? "vi" is the the same, the kernel is the same, X-windows is (pretty much the same now that we have xorg), KDE and Gnome libraries are the same (from distro to distro), Apache, MySQL, Postgres, gcc, etc, etc, etc, all still work the same.

So why do people switch so often????
i'd have to disagree not all distros are the same sure they use the same backends like gnome / kde / x.org etc however they way they implement them is unique to each distro for example mandrake has a nice setup with support for mp3 playback as standard with kde as its main desktop
where Fedora has yum with good support for gnome and also one of the most supported Linux distros out there. Then compare Gentoos do it all yourself approach with the main feature being portage without which Gentoo isn't possible

Also what each distro installs by default can be distro specific for example
xfree >< xorg
kde >< gnome
which kernel modules are available
what package installation method they use and the list goes on
Just try a few of the major or most popular distros and you'll see what i mean
some you just won't like where some will just grip you and draw you in

[bunsen]

there are several reasons for switching, but one point after the other...

1.) "all distros are the same":
linux distros are VERY different. some, as mandrake or suse or yoper are heavily tweaked. they behave differently, use different packages in some critical parts, they use mostly tweaked kernels, they are aimed at the desktop. thus they are equipped with more of the libraries and apps a desktopuser might need. the newly released novell desktop is especially made for offices in large companies. thus they have implemented some "novell-only" tools that are already known from their previous dealing with servers. other distros, like agnula are only for mulitmedia-stuff and lack office apps. others again are specially suited for old pcs, for laptops, for coders, as firewalls or servers. there are over 300 distros out there and not even ONE distro is 100% identical to another.

2.) reasons for changing distros:
some users start with a distro that is easier to start with (like linspire or mandrake) and as they continue learning, they are maybe interested in tweaking some stuff lby themselves. so, they switch to e.g. slackware or gentoo or arch. others again will say: "this distro was nice, but it had too much apps /not enough apps for my purposes". thus they will start searching for the distro that suits their purposes best. during this process, the average linux user with broadband connection switches at least five times.

others are forced to switch from one distro to another due to hardware problems. many people had e.g. problems with nvidia drivers or ati in e.g. mandrake or fedora and found out that these problems did not exist e.g. in suse. others used debian and had serious problems, once they bought usb-devices. they switched to e.g. yoper, mandrake or mepis and their problems were gone.

these hardware-problems and/or networking problems are different to handle in every distro. some need heavy tweaking, some not. and some users like tweaking the hell out of their box, till it is completely broken while others avoid conflicts and only want "plug&play/work".

i do not see any problem in switching distros. (i have done it at least 20 times :P)

[imdeemvp]

I have only tried 4 distros but I always stick to RH/Fedora. I do like mandrake it has always worked right out the box for me but I have never spent enough time to master it. Slackware and college linux ok.

[james_in_denver]

I guess I still don't get it, if a package isn't in a distro, why not just snag the source and compile it? seems easier than installing a whole new distribution?

Are the other distros really that different? are there any "must have" apps that I haven't seen on Fedora (aside from Eclipse, jakarta, and skype????)

[elgreco]

I think one of the main reason for a noob (like me) is that I need to find a distro that fits me. I first began with Suse than Mandrake, Aurox and finally Fedora Core. For me it was a totaly new experience to have the possibilty to change between various Distiributions.

[Jman]

I have not switched hardly at all, so I can't give much first hand experience.

My theory is that people like new stuff, even if it is just repackaged. When a new distro release comes out it hits the Linux news channels and suddenly everybody has to try it.

The goal is to get things the way you like it. If you like Gnome and the bluecurve look, rpm package management, and the Red Hat config tools, Fedora is probably for you. Another distro may accomplish the same thing but in a slightly different way.

To those of you who change frequently: do you want something newly packaged or are you still looking for that perfect distro?

Also, some people (including myself in some ways) like setting things up, but not using them. It's a learning experience to setup a wide variety of Linux distros.

Of course you could say that they all mostly have the same software and there are too many Linux distros. Your choice.

[AliOop]

When I think really about it, I've only use four distros. I started out with Mandrake. Went to SuSE then installed FC2 after that. Each of these three have been used as my main OS for over a year. I'm currently using Ubuntu as well as Fedora Core 2. In between I've tried at least 15 to 20 other distros. Most didn't last beyond a few days. Luckily I have a test box I can do all this on while keeping the current distro of choice on my main PC.

So why change distros? For me it was looking for the one I felt I could manage without feeling I needed a college degree to do so. I don't mind tweaking some but I don't want to spend too much time doing that. After all these years of exploring I think I've found the one I'm sticking with. I started playing around with PCs late in life and don't have the mental capacity the young bucks do. So for me it's the ease of managing packages that keeps me with a distro. Mandrake has Urpmi. SuSE has Yast and Fedora has Yum. Ubuntu being a Debian has Apt. Four great ways to manage your OS

An added benefit of trying other flavors is that one picks up information and tips as well as experience along the way. With each distro I've tried I seem to add to my knowledge base. Terms that left me scratching my head in wonder now make sense. At least I know what is being discussed even if I can't do it or don't want to do it. Like compiling a kernel.

Eye candy plays a big part in the continuing jumping from distro to distro. Community support is another factor. And the final reason to try different distros is to find that one with the 'feel' you were looking for. When you do find it, you'll know.

[chega]

well, the human think that if he or she didn't probe other distributions he didn't know what is perfect. Because the humans are search the perfect in the world. The Operating System isn't the exclusion

[imdeemvp]

if he or she didn't probe other distributions he didn't know what is perfect
I agree, thats why I did. Up to this day I think mdk is the most orginizied distro. Fedora second and I am use to it.

[wallace]

Changes add spice to the life! I have used two distributions personally. SuSE and Fedora. Something is better in one and something in other. Have you seen "My Computer" icon on the SuSE desktop through which you can browse Windows drive( w/o having a hard time with /etc/fstab ). But Yes FC3 rocks, and it is because of the community that supports it.

Choices are always there, but you get connected to one emotionally...and that becomes your favorite !

[goldstar1]

we change because we can...

[Dog-One]

How's that song go... Change will do you good.

Or maybe it comes from that other song... Too much time on my hands.

I like the songs but I've been with Redhat/Fedora all the way. My brother tried to learn Mandrake and when I tried to help him, I was a bit surprised that things were in different places and different system services were installed. For me, I've always been able to get Redhat/Fedora to do what I want--might take a while, but I usually get it working in the end. Until just recently, I've really only used Linux as a server. Starting with FC2, I've actually been able to use my system as a server and workstation at the same time, which is way cool to me.

I actually thought for maybe two or three minutes about downloading the free Solaris 10 and giving it a try. I've used Sun SparcStations in the past and could probably make it work, but it's a hassle that I don't really want at the moment. I feel basically the same about trying other distros.

[telmo]

we change because we can...

Also true! :cool:

[SuperNu]

I haven't changed Linux distros on my main machine except for upgrades. Began with RH 7.2, 7.3, 9.0, FC1, FC2 and now FC3. When I got my laptop, I installed Debian on it with the intention of trying other distros. So far, I have only installed Arch as well. I intend to eventually try out Slackware and Gentoo but I need to find some free time, especially for the Gentoo install. :D I am just curious and would like to see how other distros work. The more you know, the more you can do.

--SN

[bunsen]

I guess I still don't get it, if a package isn't in a distro, why not just snag the source and compile it? seems easier than installing a whole new distribution?

Are the other distros really that different? are there any "must have" apps that I haven't seen on Fedora (aside from Eclipse, jakarta, and skype????)
you can install every app from source (=grabbing tar.gz file and compile it) IF your distro shhips with compiling-tools. the mayority does not ship with the necessary libraries/tools for compiling. furthermore, there are over 15000 packages for linux. there is not only e.g. one dhcp-client but several. each dhcp-client (pump, dhcp3,...) is coded in a different way and thus it might work with your hardware in a different way. again, you could install them by source if you can.

the most important thing is the kernel. take a look at distrowatch and the packaging of some distros. some use the basic kernel, while some ship with a heavily tweaked version of it. yoper e.g. recompiled its kernel in order to maximize speed. thus, some other stuff that is mainly for servers does not work as well on yoper as e.g. on debian, which is "less" usable for the "average desktop-user". debian for example uses the basic kernel in order to maximize the compatibility with the multitude of packages. mandrake and suse tweak their kernel because the basic layout of their system (folder for libraries and config files) is totally different from a basic debian system.

then there is the possibility of tweaked kernels that can run with nvidia by default, while others need custom work by the end user. there is also something like the mandrake-control center or suses yast, which need some special options in the kernel, otherwise they do not work properly and these tools are intended to make system-administration as easy as possible for joe average. not everyone is willing and/or capable of running and hacking something like slackware, linux from scratch or rock linux!

and as i said: why sould an advanced user who does not want to use kde or gnome use a distro that ships with these by default and USES these as default desktops? or why should a user grab e.g. ubuntu that ships with gnome only (no software-selection available!), if his old pc can only run with something like icewm?

why should someone install a complete system with desktop environments like gnome or kde if he only wants to turn an old p166 into a firewall?

this is why there are so many distros. each one has its own purpose. each one its own strengths. and as the individual demands by users change, thus they change distros.

[kosmosik]

you can install every app from source (=grabbing tar.gz file and compile it)
+/- - some kernel specific stuff (like modules) won't compile against different major kernel version...

[macemoneta]

More than specific applications or versions, there is also the community and process.

I like Fedora for that reason. I like a "closer to bleeding edge" distribution, with the latest and greatest available. I like the community, like this web site, which is associated with the distribution. Just as the Slashdot (http://slashdot.org/) community is different than the Fark (http://www.fark.com/) community, eash distribution's community is different.

I like the visibility into daily operation of the Fedora project, with the Fedora People (http://fedora.linux.duke.edu/fedorapeople/), Bugzilla (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/), mailing lists, IRC (http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/communicate/), online schedules (http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/schedule/), etc. I like that the developers don't have a "not invented here" attitude (that I have seen in some small distributions); I've been able to get a number of small changes incorporated by doing the legwork. I actually feel that the distribution is a real community driven project, and that feels good.

While the distributions will get closer and closer to each other in terms of base software and structure for compatibility (thanks to the Linux Standards Base (http://www.linuxbase.org/)), the aspects listed above will remain unique.

[bunsen]

+/- - some kernel specific stuff (like modules) won't compile against different major kernel version...
oops... you are correct. my mistake. :rolleyes:

[yr2alex]

Also, some people (including myself in some ways) like setting things up, but not using them. It's a learning experience to setup a wide variety of Linux distros.

Of course you could say that they all mostly have the same software and there are too many Linux distros. Your choice.

Yeah! what Jman said.

So why change distros? For me it was looking for the one I felt I could manage without feeling I needed a college degree to do so. I don't mind tweaking some but I don't want to spend too much time doing that. After all these years of exploring I think I've found the one I'm sticking with. I started playing around with PCs late in life and don't have the mental capacity the young bucks do. So for me it's the ease of managing packages that keeps me with a distro. Mandrake has Urpmi. SuSE has Yast and Fedora has Yum. Ubuntu being a Debian has Apt. Four great ways to manage your OS

An added benefit of trying other flavors is that one picks up information and tips as well as experience along the way. With each distro I've tried I seem to add to my knowledge base. Terms that left me scratching my head in wonder now make sense. At least I know what is being discussed even if I can't do it or don't want to do it. Like compiling a kernel.

Eye candy plays a big part in the continuing jumping from distro to distro. Community support is another factor. And the final reason to try different distros is to find that one with the 'feel' you were looking for. When you do find it, you'll know.

Yep that's me in a nut shell. I got into computers in 98 (because type writers were antiquated and now for all intensive purposes obselete). In 2001 pursued mcse among my many absolutely more often then not usless M$ certs (hey! hold the flames down).

While in school learning about AD (formerly and rightfully NDS) a classmate introduced me to RH Linux 7.2 just before the 7.3 release. Needless to say that lit my curiosity fuse I wanted to see what more there was to Linux (beyond the RH 7.2 for dummies paperback that my class mate lent me) so I googled "Linux Screensots". BOOOOM!!!! Needless to say I was blown away by just the asthetics and eventually functionality coupled with stabilty.

Then from RH 7.3, MDK 8.2, RH 9.0, Xandros, FC2, MDK 9.1, 10.0, FC3 etc. I became independent of M$ somewhere around RH 9.0. In short, for me Linux's greatest selling points have been, stabilty, flexibility,asthetics (the first two items were a definite plus because I learned everything I know about Linux from personal fortitude, forums like this, google, and irc -xchat) more recently package management. Oh and look that I have actually learned something about how computers work to add to my enthusiam of the vastness of LINUX.

I had some good times (apt-get install... or rpm -Uvh.....), I've had some not so good times (tar -zxfv, ./configure, make, make install.. or %#@!) through and through Linux has aways had my back. In my quest for the perfect/ suitable distro Fedora formally RedHat will always have a special place on my desktop.

my $0.02 :D

[GreyGeek]

Personally, I don't understand it?. I started out using linux by downloading about a zillion floppy disks back in the days when a 9,600 baud modem was fast. Then Slackware came out with their nice CD-Rom package, and shortly thereafter RedHat....

But when all is said and done, is there really that much of a difference between distributions??? "vi" is the the same, the kernel is the same, X-windows is (pretty much the same now that we have xorg), KDE and Gnome libraries are the same (from distro to distro), Apache, MySQL, Postgres, gcc, etc, etc, etc, all still work the same.

So why do people switch so often????

Well, I purchased a 1949 Chevy fastback before I went to college 45 years ago. If I maintained it properly I suppose it could still be running today. But, I like my 2002 Saturn SL 4 Door with 5 speed stick. It gets 30-35 in town and 40-45 on the Interstate and has all the latest features and gadgets that make driving very safe and comfortable.

Linux is the same way. While I could have continued using my first distro, RH 5.0, lots of usefull gadgets have been added, more powerful safety features, etc... But, by using the FC update feature on a regular basis you DON'T have to keep reinstalling Linux.... just keep upgrading. Free of charge, of course.

It is true that as KDE continues getting more powerful and feature rich (some commandline junkies call it bloat) those running KDE exclusively will find little difference between the distros, especially if they use the same skins. There are, how ever, still significant differences on the Install and in the Admin apps. Xandros, for example, has the most powerful and easy to use install app that I have ever seen in seven years of using Linux, or for Windows for that matter. Bar none. WinXP, FC, SUSE and MDK are all a notch or two below Xandros. After installation, for server functions, FC is a notch above the others, IMO. As far as GUI admin apps are concerned, I prefer Xandros or Mandrake. SUSE has to run the SUSEConfig each time you change a single thing, whereas Mandrake only runs the script for the feature you've changed.

But, in the final analysis, which distro you prefer depends on what you got used to, what you want/need to do, and what your skill level is.

Another consideration that I have been taking more into account recently is the GPL nature of the distro. I counted my old Linux invoices last weekend and, starting with my purchase of RH 5.0 in May of 1997 (which I was free to give away copies of), I have purchased about 22 boxes sets of various commercial Linux distros. (Over the same period, with what I've used at work as a gage, Windows would have cost me 3 to 5X as much.) Recently, however, commercial distro vendors are revoking users GPL rights by mixing proprietary software in with GPL software and then demanding users respect the proprietary licenses by surrendering their priviledges under the GPL... i.e., no making copies, no sharing, etc... :mad: That is also illegal if you check clauses 6 and 7 of the GPL. If it is not stopped then the GPL will become unenforceable. That FC is 100% free and GPL is one reason why I prefer it. It is also the reason why I like Debian. I will now forgo the purchase of commercial Linux distros, use 100% GPL distros and contribute what I would have spent for commercial distros to the free Linux distros.

[jult]

for me it happened to be RHL and now Fedora... but I am considering a switch to Debian (I am waiting for their new release)... Fedora is too fast moving for me (on desktop it is OK, on servers I prefer stability meaning I install a distro and it runs 4 years without major version upgrade)...We've been over this before ;-) but I don't see why or how that differs from for example Debian. We can run Fedora Core at init-runlevel 3 for 4 years, and it would require pretty much the exact same patches over time, as Debian would. Merely a matter of will-power to not do the Major Version upgrade when it comes out, and be patient for 4 years. How hard can that be?
Plus, I prefer yum, it has many advantages over apt-get. And where I use FC now, all is being served quite fast and stable with FC3 on kernel 2.6.10-1.766 if I say so myself..

Take for example a huge Dutch ISP like XS4All; its webserver daemon is still Apache 1.3.29 and you can try all you want, the distro serving it won't get rooted (or 0wn3d if you prefer that :p ) any time soon. :cool:

[james_in_denver]

+/- - some kernel specific stuff (like modules) won't compile against different major kernel version...

I'm sorry, but I bet to disagree, EVERY linux distribution bases their package on "http://www.kernel.org".

If you compile from source against that kernel EVERY module should work.

ALL Linux distros get their kernel from there, that's the "official" linux.

[msimplay]

I'm sorry, but I bet to disagree, EVERY linux distribution bases their package on "http://www.kernel.org".

If you compile from source against that kernel EVERY module should work.

ALL Linux distros get their kernel from there, that's the "official" linux.

Yes but different distributions tend to have custom patches that enhance it

[t3gah]

Most likely it's because of public or share holder pressure that makes the current distro less and less attractive to the users so they move on to something else only to find the same thing with another distro, etc., etc.

In my case I solved the issue by getting alot of used pc's that people were getting rid of so they could get a faster machine to run bloarware200*. So for me I stopped changing. Now I try to run them all and have fun networking them in various ways. One way someone suggested and I shuddered when I thought about it, is, 10 base-2. Serial coax connections. Sure, that's what I want to do and next I'll want to drill a hole in my head to cool my jets.

But seriously, people change because they can and they do. Now if Fedora Core can just be THE distro that EVERYONE likes, then, and only then will they capture the market. Maybe they are trying to be like M$ because M$ is such a role model for popularity.

M$: Steal windows from IRIX and become the leader....

RH: Remove all the incorrect things that the populace can't understand or don't like and we'll beat those M$ thieves .....

[jadams]

Linux to me has brought the thrill of tinkering with the computer back as it was back in the DOS days. Installing a new Core is an outlet for that same desire to try and tinker with something new, to see just what is under the hood so to speak. ;)

[BoHu]

RE: Why do people change their linux distributions so often????

because we are hopeless optimists looking for the perfect distro :-/

[Jman]

because we are hopeless optimists looking for the perfect distro :-/
Or we're fed up with our distro's quirks and look for a better one.

(I wouldn't know, I haven't really switched.)

[james_in_denver]

ROFMAO Bohu..........

Ah, the perfect distribution for me is any box I can watch DVD's on, and listen to my music collection, surf the web, emulate my work environment at home, (yes, I am a sleep-deprived workaholic), use a decent office tool, and never, ever worry about a virus or see a BSOD........