Like many OSNews readers, I use Ubuntu. I also use several less popular distros. What is it like to use these lesser-known distros compared to the dominant systems? How does running, say, VectorLinux or Puppy or PC-BSD, differ from using Ubuntu or Fedora? This article offers a few ideas. Obviously, it broadly generalizes about distros for the purpose of discussion.
Community
The size of community supporting a distro affects your use of the
distro. Say you need help solving a problem. With the dominant distros
you have a wide variety of sources for help. There are formal online
and printed documentation, and even books you can download or buy. With
the less popular distros, formal doc is the exception rather than the
rule. You’ll rely on forums for answers.
When you go to the forums, the popular products offer several from
which to choose. Even the generic Linux forums, like LinuxForums or LinuxQuestions,
include specific sections for the big name systems. With the less
popular distros, your only dedicated forum may be at the
product’s website.
Some users like having multiple forums supporting their distro
because they think it more likely they’ll get their questions answered.
My experience has been that the less popular product forums do just as
well in this regard due to the dedication of their communities. (Your
mileage may vary by product and the questions you ask.)
I find a stronger sense of community on the forums of the less
popular products. With fewer participants and more leisurely posting,
you get to know the people with whom you interact. That can
happen on the websites of the dominant distros but it isn’t as common.
Post on the Ubuntu forum, for example, and your question rolls off the
first page within hours. You’ll probably get a quick answer, but that’s
the end of it. Post at the Vector or Puppy or PC-BSD forums, and your
question remains visible for days or even weeks. Responses linger
longer, so discussions persist. This results in closer-knit
communities.
Hyperactive
forums narrow your scope for participation. On the Ubuntu forum, for
example, you
must either answer an easy question almost as soon as it’s posted, or
be the expert who answers the really tough questions to which no one
else
replies. Otherwise your post quickly gets buried under so many others.
I prefer the relaxed pace of the smaller forums. With the most popular
distros I participate in the secondary forums.
Here’s something to consider: not all minor distros survive. For
example, Vector has a decade-long track
record, and one could argue that Puppy has broken into the big
leagues. But Damn Small Linux was only reactivated recently after a
four-year
hiatus, and two products I once had fun with, Wolvix and BeatrIX, have
gone the way of the Dodo. Check the viability of an online community
before you give your heart to it.
Technology
Packaging quality is another differentiator between the dominant and
less popular distros. Perhaps it’s unfair to generalize — but it’s
probably true that you run a greater chance of uncovering a
previously-unknown problem in a distro with fewer users than one that
has millions. (Many other factors play here, too, such as how well a
project tests new versions prior to release and the testing methods
they use.) In my experience, I’ve uncovered more “new” bugs in the
lesser-used products than in the big name systems.
Dependency checking is a good example. The repositories of the less
widely-used products contain fewer apps. Package testing for new
releases and compatibility testing across apps may be spotty compared
to the big distros with their many users. If an inexperienced user
installs lots of apps or makes big changes to his base install, he is
more likely to encounter problems with a less popular distro than if he
sticks with a name brand. (Obviously this gross generalization varies
by product.)
Do the more popular distros roll out new technology faster? It makes
sense that they could, given their much larger project teams. But much
depends on the projects’ priorities. The big name distros with their
greater resources often more quickly roll out technologies like new
user interfaces or 64-bit versions. But one can certainly find
exceptions where smaller projects beat them to the punch. In fact, the
very raison d’etre of some smaller projects
is to test or introduce a new technology.
Small projects can address important technology niches or specific
goals
the more popular general-purpose distros don’t.
Many less popular distros rely on point
releases rather than automatic updates to fix bugs. Their fixes thus
often come slower than those from the
big name products.
Who Should Use the Less Popular Distros?
For naive end users, the less widely used distros work well — if the user is
satisfied with the product as distributed. VectorLinux, Puppy, PC-BSD,
Damn Small, and distros of similar popularity are good tools for end
users who will “set it and forget it.”
If a user of lesser expertise or limited patience installs one of these
distros and then expects to make lots of changes without “wasting”
time, they may be disappointed. Incompatibilities and breakage are more
likely, as are undocumented problems. A smaller user
base increases the chances that others have not yet run into any
particular problem. And there is less doc to guide beginners.
For hobbyists and sophisticated users, the
less popular distros are good options even when making lots of changes.
These folks have both the willingness and the ability
to do some testing and poking around. They’re comfortable asking
questions and digging answers out of
forums.
For those who have the time and the interest, the less popular distros
offer a unique opportunity to participate in a Linux community. Want
to learn more about Linux? Support open source? Become a key
project contributor? The less popular distros could be a great match
for you.
They have been for me.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Howard Fosdick (President, FCI) is an independent consultant. Four
Lightweight Distros Compared summarizes his OS News reviews of VectorLinux,
Puppy
Linux, Lubuntu,
and Damn
Small Linux. You may also be interested in Which
Linux Distro is Best?
PC-BSD it’s not a distro. It’s FreeBSD tailored to GUI/desktop users.
Can you explain what is the difference? It always seemed like it had the same coupling present on Linux Mint Debian Edition -> Debian (except that PC-BSD is older than LMDE, I think) and we call LMDE a distro.
Actually, to me, if someone gives a new name to a new generated system install, they create a new distribution. This is precisely what CentOS does (well, there is the problem related to compilation order too on this case).
Edited 2013-03-28 22:57 UTC
I used to be an IBM Linux instructor and that is where I learned that Linux is only a kernel around which many purveyors put their own choice of userland programs and applications.
So Linux packaged with other stuff makes a distribution.
I use OpenBSD which, like all the BSDs that I have ever seen together with other Unix and Unix-like OSes, comes with a comprehensive collection of typical Unix-derived tools.
All those pieces are compiled using the toolset that produced the matching kernel. Thus we get an Operating System. AIX, SunOS, Micronix, HP-Ux are others.
PC-BSD is an OS. Linuces with BSD bits hung on are still distros.
However, PC-BSD is a FreeBSD “distro” which does not use Linux kernel at all.
PC-BSD is a BSD guess what BSD stands for… you know Berkley System Distribution. so clearly it is a Distro
FAIL! “Software” not “System”. Trying to be clever?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution
BSD’s are distributions of UNI*. Linux distros are a kernel (Linux) with *BSD, Solaris, AIX, GNU… user land utilities slapped on and configured in various ways.
BTW PC-BSD is still a complete FreeBSD. All the userland apps/utils are still FreeBSD + some additional ones.
KRR
I think the fact that PC-BSD contains FreeBSD is what makes it a distro. They’re just value adding stuff on top of someone else’s operating system. There are no customizations to the base system.
It’s FreeBSD + a different package manager + packages for GUI apps. Debian is a Linux kernel + GNU tool chain + a package manager + packages. I don’t see a difference here.
I never saw the benefit of LMDE compared to Neptune or aptosid. Would you plase care to enlighten me?
(neptune seems to have newer packages of almost all Qt software i use.)
I think it depends on whether you miss/want Mint artwork, extensions and Cinnamon/Nemo or not. Like with lots of Debian derivatives it is all about details, and most of the times they are really “subtle”.
Anyway, my time trying a lot of distros is over now. I settled around openSUSE (my main option mostly) and LMDE for desktop. On servers I use the usual suspects, CentOS and Debian. For NAS it is OpenMediaVault or FreeNAS. And for a media center is XMBC + Debian.
I really like the fact that with Debian there are lots of stable applications pre-packaged and ready to use but I like also the up-to-date nature of openSUSE for development and yast to easy configuration.
It is a FreeBSD distro tailored to desktop users where as FreeBSD is a BSD distro(distribution).
http://www.freebsdwiki.net/index.php/FreeBSD-Distros
Well, you could call it a FreeBSD distro….
Nope. It’s just FreeBSD with a new installer and PBI system. Any change in FreeBSD base will reflect in PC-BSD. Anytime FreeBSD version is bumped, PC-BSD version is bumped, too.
Partial-nope. 🙂 It’s a bit more than that. PC-BSD first of all is the FreeBSD operating system plus a new installer and the PBI packaging system. Furthermore it includes a desktop environment and preinstalled and preconfigured applications. This provides a nice “out of the box experience” for novice users who take those components as granted, usually in conjunction with desktop systems.
FreeBSD as an operating system, consisting of a kernel and the userland programs that comprise a fully functional OS, is created and maintained in a standardized way by the FreeBSD team. The big difference to Linux distributions is that they are based on a kernel, maybe add changes to it, and then add packages to deliver the functionality they intend: Lightweight distros or server systems are composed completely different from desktop, gaming or multimedia systems. So everything on a Linux system can be considered a package, even the kernel. There is no OS per se. Instead the creator of a specific distribution has to deciede how he wants his system to appear, e. g. which shell is the scripting shell, if there is a different default dialog shell, what packaging system to use, what mail subsystem and so on. There are many differences among the Linusi.
If you would remove the /usr/local subtree from a FreeBSD or probably even PC-BSD system, you would still have a fully intact OS. This differentiation between “the OS” (maintained by OS tools) and “additional applications” (maintained by package management) is often considered a disadvantage, as updating “the whole thing” consists of two parts. On the other hand, it can be really nice if a recent “simple update” renders the boot process unfunctional, as it can happen a few times on some Linux systems. On PC-BSD, binary updating for OS and applications has been mostly unified with PBI, so the desired experience can be delivered. But the means to do this in “the FreeBSD way” are still present: You can update world (the OS) and ports (installed applications) from source, if you wish, or use a port management tool, or even the new pkg tool.
Taken this consideration into mind, PC-BSD can be considered a “distro of FreeBSD”. However, PC-BSD is not a Linux distribution. I still remember having read an article in some german computer magazine, titeled “FreeBSD – the professional Linux”… 🙂
Ha ha, I love when non tech guys write articles about IT.
I have found that some of the smaller ones have better support. OS4 which I have mentioned on this site, http://www.os4online.com and PCLinuxOS, http://www.pclinuxos.com are two great examples of this, Roberto and Mike with OS4 are always very helpful and get me answers QUICK whenever I have problems. They recently ventured into the Enterprise sector with OS4 Enterprise and it was a great way to support the distribution. At first I thought, $100.00 USD was a little steep but when I bought it, installed it and the capabilities are well worth the money. It has become my main distro and now that they went with a more traditional desktop layout, its become a really great distribution.
PCLinuxOS is my favorite KDE based distribution. Texstar and team are always on top of it when it comes to service and support. Its fast, very professional looking. A couple of the apps crash and dont work well unlike with OS4, but for a good XFCE professional distribution, OS4 is the distro of choice. KDE which seems like the red headed stepchild on most other Linux distributions with PCLinuxOS, its the distro of choice.
I had the same experience with PC-BSD. When I had an installation issue due to having two kinds of disk controllers on my machine, Kris Moore himself stepped in to help out. You just don’t get that kind of personal attention with the big distros.
Did you actually really try that? From my experience, there is no problem which people in the various Debian IRC channels and mailing list couldn’t solve. Just ask.
Adrian
You’d better donated these $100 to the Debian project where the *actual* work on the distribution is done.
Such mini distributions do some theming amd custom configuration, that’s it. They can’t do any real engineering, they simply don’t have the man power.
We have over 1000 official developers in Debian (Debian Developers) and even more Debian Maintainers. We are the ones who are doing the actual job. Without Debian, Ubuntu, Knoppix and anything Debian-based wouldn’t even exist in the first place.
And I don’t even understand the advantage of these mini distributions. If want a certain theme or configuration, I can just configure my Debian that way. Supporting more than 10 official architectures plus some more in the ports section makes Debian the most universal distribution ever and many people profit from it. Yet so few people don’t contribute back to Debian
.
Adrian
Because people only care about graphical crap and design and are fooled by marketing strategies and bling.
Technical prowess alone doesn’t matter. Just look at Apple products.
Ubuntu announced few weeks ago that it won’t use Wayland display server like the rest of the linux world, instead developing its own display server, Mir. Mir won’t be compatible with Wayland and will support Android graphics drivers. It will be used on both mobile devices and desktop.
Using Unity on top of Mir, talks with Nvidia and Amd for graphics drivers, exclusivity for Steam, switch to Qt, we can see where this is heading. They will try to head towards a better integrated system with a stable api but at same time higly differentiate from the rest of linux world and break compatibility with the rest of linux distros. Kind of the Apple of the linux world.
They will probably fail. I don’t think they have the know how and developers to release a quality and stable display server in a year as they say. I don’t think Nvidia and Amd will write graphics drivers for them, unless Canonical puts their money where their mouth is and pays for development.
But if they manage to do this, release in time, have GPU vendors release drivers for Mir instead KMS/Gallium3d, have Valve release some AAA titles on Steam, they may become the only linux derivative with a desktop market share worth mentioning.
Edited 2013-03-29 09:28 UTC
Yes, but what does this have to do with big versus small distributions? Most of the big distributions stick to the standards. There will always be discussion on what the “way of the standards” is.
– Gentoo and Debian are true to things like the original init., the standard file hierarchy and so on.
– Fedora introduced SystemD. Arch adopted this soon. I lack the expertise to judge if this is a good step forward or a breakaway from the unix philosophy.
Like many of us I have used lots of distros. I agree with Howard that a small community small can be fine. On the other hand, in small communities (let’s say Salix, Siduction or Funtoo) it can take quite long before your question gets answered.
Larger communities with knowledgable users (Gentoo, Arch) are fine with me. Large communities with mostly less experienced users (Mint, Ubuntu) are of less value to me.
No, we aren’t. We are going to switch to systemd with Jessie. We’re just currently in freeze, so we can’t make such fundamental changes.
There was a talk by Michael Biebl and Tollef Fog Heen on the systemd integration for Jessie at FOSDEM.
https://fosdem.org/2013/schedule/event/debian_systemd/
Gentoo will probably make the jump sooner or later, they already admitted at FOSDEM that their udev fork is pointless (“a toy project”).
Adrian
No, Ubuntu does not pull an Apple. Pulling an Apple would mean doing actual work and contributing back upstream.
Apple is the largest contributor to WebKit, CUPS, llvm to name a few. They also help maintaining X.Org and open-sourced many other, smaller projects to the public:
http://www.macosforge.org/
while Canonical usually only releases stuff that’s usable on Ubuntu only: Mir, Upstart, Software Center, Unity etc.
Apple is NOT a bad company when it comes to open source. Without Apple, we wouldn’t have Google Chrome and all the mobile browsers derived from WebKit. gcc would still be without competition and maybe fallback. Software rendering for the GNOME3 desktop wouldn’t be possible either (that requires llvm) and CUPS would probably be unmaintained.
So stop making these dumb comparisons.
Adrian
Actually we have to thank University of Illinois for llvm and KDE for Konqueror which was the basis for Webkit. Apple contributes to open source only when they use open source projects. If they start a software from scratch, it is closed source.
But you are right about contributing upstream.
Well, Clang originated at Apple and is open source, so that’s not entirely true.
But overall I agree, Apple is primarily a proprietary leaning company.
‘Exclusivity for Steam’, where did you get this idea from? Steam is already out and it’s not exclusive to Ubuntu, distros have also been given the go-ahead to repackage Steam in their repositories.
As for drivers, from what I’ve read they (Wayland/Mir) use the same base drivers and the same EGL interface, so on there should be no problem there.
Of course getting NVidia and AMD to write proprietary drivers for these new display servers is another story. Their big Linux customers are primarily doing 3D and GPU accelerated computations and likely couldn’t care less if it’s running X or Wayland/Mir and therefore won’t ask for such support.
The Steambox could perhaps cause such a demand if Valve wanted to use Wayland/Mir but as it stands it will also use X (atleast in it’s initial incarnation).
Damn it, why’d I have to read the original comment, it was 10 times cooler when I thought that guy was a cosmonaut… on a crashed satellite. I was thinking ubuntu allows you to use steam in SPACE and update your drivers, that’s frigging amazing.
Ce n’est pas un secret que l’établissement de votre marque dans un marché au cours de sa création, il est plus facile pour vos clients et les consommateurs à vous associer à ce produit de la mise en place lorsque le marché est pleinement développée. Bien qu’il ne fonctionne pas toujours et pas tous les marchés décollage (tout le monde minidisques) les signes sont là que le marché de gros téléphones mobiles ont beaucoup d’endurance, surtout si vous vendez mobiles de gros de la Chine. oakleys sortie radarlock pitch http://www.oakleyspascher.net/oakley-radarlock-pitch-c-40.htm
Browser: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; TencentTraveler ; Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1) ; .NET CLR 2.0.50727 ; .NET CLR 4.0.30319)
Je veux dire que vous mangez de la merde.
Edited 2013-03-30 08:37 UTC