what distro to use

[pirrone]

John Seth wrote:

><snip>
>
>Slackware is supposedly not going to include Gnome with later releases, so
>it's getting kind of disturbing... seems there is no longer "Linux is
>Linux, with minor differences between distro's" and becoming an all out
>distro war.   In my opinion here, it seems to me Fedora/RedHat are
>definitely coming out on top. Most places I've looked at for potential new
>employment all are RedHat ES/AS shops, with some Sun/Solaris servers.  Few
>seem to run other distro's and even *BSD is seen less and less.  RedHat is
>showing signs if fading out KDE, Slackware's removing Gnome, and little by
>little... users new to Linux won't see much of a variety unless they have
>the time to try installing multiple different distributions to see what
>they like. I remember having a choice between FreeWM, IceWM, Blackbox,
>Enlightenment, Gnome _and_ KDE, (among the others I probably missed) in
>one distro...
>
><snip>
>
>I could go on, but, I think I'll end now before I find something else to
>rant about ;)
>
></soapbox>
>
>  - Tony
>
>  
>
Tony,

I don't follow and therefore am not involved in the politics of 
GNU/Linux distributions, but one spin on what you cite is the evolution 
of differentiation among the distros. 

The benefit of this is choice based upon what the user values.  So, if a 
particular desktop matters, or  a certain packaging system and its 
update application and procedures, or the filesystem type, or the 
filesystem structure and layout or adherence to standards, or the number 
and concentration of applications - scientific, or audio for example, or 
whatever other differentiation can be developed, they can choose the 
best fit for their interests and needs.

I mean, basically, what other justification is there for the growing 
number of distros seen today?  They're all Linux but each has a 
different twist (other than the free version of a commercial distro like 
Centos) that expresses the intent of its developers.  There are 
technical differences as well as political/social differences.  Given 
the kitchen sink nature of these distros, it's far easier to leave 
things out than find something different to include.

The choice is good and is both a consequence of and dependent upon that 
differentiation.  If all distributions used RPM and had a vestigial /opt 
directory and included both Gnome and KDE along with a host of less 
prominent desktops there would be little justification for their 
existence.  Might as well leave it all up to Fedora Core.

One last bit of personal <soapbox> would be my strong advocacy of 
FluxBox window manager over the derivitive candy desktops.  When I left 
Windows years ago, I also left the Start menu perched on a Taskbar 
located at the bottom of the screen and My Computer and the Trash can 
and all the other mouse-to-double-click-once-you've-uncovered icons not 
to mention the system sounds.  My speed and productivity with Flux is 
unmatched by any other experience I've had. 

I posted a while ago how for file management I largely use a 
frameless/titleless/scrollbarless/transparent Midnight Commander with 
extensive settings for my preferred apps that launch simply by pressing 
enter on any file, and that I can shell out of with ctrl-o seeing 
nothing but the command prompt floating against the subtle blue 
background.  I've got an elaborate organized menu system, most of which 
is generated by scripts but which is quickly and easily customized to 
perfection.  I've got a large key file of bindings to launch frequently 
used applications with a single press of two fingers.  In sum, a 
well-balanced mix of graphical and command line applications right at 
hand to accomplish whatever I need to with the least wasted time.</soapbox>

Frank