Happy 20th birthday, Linux

I thought this quote was interesting: 'helped keep Linux together and defy the trend for forking and fractionalization' when compared with images like this regarding the numerous distributions:

http://files.cyberciti.biz/uploads/tips/2007/06/44218-linuxd...

DISCLAIMER: I've never used Linux, partly because of the above ('which one should I pick?'). Also, I'm not trolling here, but would welcome the opportunity to understand why (to a newcomer at least) there seem to be so many variations to choose from.

There are so many variations because different people have different needs, and people will roll their own distros to suit their needs. If you want to pick one, go with debian or ubuntu. Both are relatively user friendly, widely used, and will give you a good taste of linux.

Different variations for different needs. It's one of the goods points with linux I'd say, you probably wouldn't like the setup I'm using and the same way around. It's really hard to choose, especially for someone new, but the points is there's something that suits everyone or at least you can come much closer than you could ever come with only one to choose.

Some people like a graphic interface while others love the command line and want to do everything there. Some are power users who configure everything to the smallest detail (I've lost count of how many hours I've personally spent on configuring stuff so it's just the way I want) and others simply don't care.

What you must remember is that all distros are just a kernel with various programs, setups and philosophies surrounding it. Some are easy to use but huge and complex, others are bare-bone but simple and there are lot's in the middle, or little of both. You could start with a kernel-only setup or create your own collection of stuff you like, make your own distro.

You can draw similarities to whatever really - Which car should I pick? Why aren't all kitchen tables the same?

Why are there so many linux distros when there's only one windows and mac os you might ask? To begin they are different too, both versions (xp, vista, win 7..) and specialization (professional, home user..) but not all too different. Why? Probably because there's a company promoting, developing and supporting them and it's too hard, expensive and generally unfeasible. Why make two competing products? Let someone else do that, and they have! Unix, Linux, BSD etc.

As someone else said "it's because we can" explains quite a lot. Because someone finds it useful I'd say.

* Sorry it got a bit long winding.

It is not that much of a problem, since 95% of the people probably use one of the top-5 distributions. If we go by Distrowatch's popularity, those are Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora, Debian, and openSUSE. Two those are derived directly or indirectly from Debian (Ubuntu and Mint). So, three of the five are virtually the same, except that Ubuntu and Mint are more focused on user-friendliness.

The more serious problem is the immense amount of resources that are wasted on developing multiple desktops, photo editors, photo managers, music players, chat clients, etc.

Some people will say that competition is good, but if you have that tiny market share, I think it would be better to focus on the overall experience.

Note that this article is mostly about the linux kernel, while your link is about distributions.

Yes, distributions are fractionalized to some degree, but most of them use a pretty standard kernel, and if not, their kernel patches are also open sources, so other distributions can still use them.