The Five Distros That Changed Linux

Linux's history can be measured in both releases 2.0, 2.6, and so on, and in its major distributions, which brought these releases to the masses at large. Here's my list of the top five major Linux distributions that had the most impact in the operating system's brief history.

You can measure Linux’s history in many ways. We usually think of it in terms of releases. The Linux kernel got its start in September 1991 with version 0.01. The kernel turned 18 this fall with the release of 2.6.something-or-other. But, another way of looking at Linux is in terms of its important distributions.

For users, these distributions have been the mountain tops. Each of the truly significant distributions changed how Linux was seen, and brought the operating system new and different groups of users. You can argue about which distro is more important than another, but, all the distributions in my list changed how we saw and used Linux.

I made this list by both looking at Linux’s history, and from my own experiences at the time with Linux. While I wasn’t a Linux user in its very early years — I was working with the commercial Unix and the BSD operating systems — I did come on-board quickly.

Slackware (1993) The first truly popular Linux distribution.

The distribution which brought me, and many others, to Linux in Linux’s early 90s days was the oddly named Slackware. Patrick Volkerding, its founder, picked the name from the Church of the SubGenius, a parody church that was popular in hacker circles in the 90s. Volkerding still thinks “it’s a pretty good name. I’ve been trying to put an ease-of-use spin on it, but it doesn’t quite work. I think I’ll just start telling people all the good names were taken to get them off the subject.”

A first, Slackware was just meant as a side project, which is also why it has its name. Quickly, though, Slackware became more than just the little Linux distribution with the funny name. Many people had wanted to try Linux, but they weren’t expert enough with the build/make/compile cycle of early source-code only Linux to do much with it. Slackware, although not thought of today as an easy Linux distribution, was the first Linux to make it easy for non-programmers to give Linux a try.

That wasn’t the plan though. As Volkerding explained in a 1994 interview, “never really did decide to do a distribution. What happened was that my AI professor wanted me to show him how to install Linux so that he could use it on his machine at home, and share it with some graduate students who were also doing a lot of work in LISP. So, we went into the PC lab and installed the SLS (Soft Landing Systems) version of Linux.

Having dealt with Linux for a few weeks, I’d put together a pile of notes describing all the little things that needed to be fixed after the main installation was complete. After spending nearly as much time going through the list and reconfiguring whatever needed it as we had putting the software on the machine in the first place, my professor looked at me and said, ‘Is there some way we can fix the install disks so that new machines will have these fixes right away?’ That was the start of the project. ”

There were other early Linux distributions. The aforementioned SLS and before that there was Yggdrasil, which you can argue was the first commercial Linux distro, predated Slackware. Slackware, however, simply worked better than the other early Linuxes and soon supplanted them in the hearts and minds of early Linux users.

Later commercial and community-based Linuxes would soon push Slackware to the side, but it remains today, a strong contender for Linux users who want a solid, Unix-like operating system.

Debian (1994) Welcome to the community.

While Slackware was bringing new users to Linux by the thousands, Ian Murdock, then an undergraduate at Purdue University and now Sun’s VP vice president of emerging platforms, had started work on the first, significant community Linux distribution: Debian.

Some early distributions, including Slackware, were primarily the product of a few inspired developers, while others like Caldera, Red Hat and Yggdrasil were commercial distributions being built by staffers. Murdock had another idea. As he explained in The Debian Manifesto “Debian Linux is a brand-new kind of Linux distribution. Rather than being developed by one isolated individual or group, as other distributions of Linux have been developed in the past, Debian is being developed openly in the spirit of Linux and GNU.”

He was right. Debian was a brand new kind of Linux distribution. Now, with openSUSE, Fedora, and Ubuntu, we’re used to thinking of even commercial Linux distributions having their roots deep in the community. At the time, though, it was a radical idea.

Yes, Linux, the kernel, was certainly being developed by a large community bound together only by file repositories, e-mail lists, and Usenet groups, but the idea that all the bits and pieces of programs needed for a distribution could be glued together by a community was a novel idea. And, as even a casual glance at the world of Linux shows, a wildly successful idea.

It’s not always been an easy journey. Over the years the Debian community has fought with its founder (http://practical-tech.com/operating-system/when-is-debian-not-debian/), other open-source groups, such as Mozilla over the Firefox logo (http://practical-tech.com/operating-system/linux/fox-wars-debian-vs-mozilla), and, endlessly it seems, within itself over how the distribution should be created (http://practical-tech.com/operating-system/disgruntled-delay-etch). Despite all the infighting, Debian somehow manages to continue to create a top-flight Linux distribution.

All the community Linuxes owe Debian thanks for pioneering the way. Today, Debian remains extremely popular. Many other distributions, including Ubuntu, MEPIS, Knoppix, and Xandros are based on the Debian code base.

Without Debian, quite frankly, today’s Linux world wouldn’t be recognizable.

Next: Caldera

Comments on "The Five Distros That Changed Linux"

evulture

What about Knoppix ???
Caldera was more important?

Knoppix was the first famous Live-CD (and non-commercial!!) and for me and I really think not only for me it was the first Distro on a PC I bought without any OS and I -as a absolutely non-tech managed to install it (due to a outstanding tutorial in German written by Fabian Franz) and get productive with Linux.
Even though I see myself still as a non-techie, I am a GNU/Linux-only user at home.

Reply
ricegf

Excellent article, SJVN!

Mandriva (originally Mandrake) makes my personal top 5 list, as it was Ubuntu before Ubuntu was cool – a remix of (in their case) Red Hat intended for the desktop newbie.

I had tried Red Hat first and given up, because I couldn\’t get it to do anything. A friend recommended Mandrake, and suddenly the advantages of Linux were obvious to me. I\’ve never gone back, though I did eventually migrate to Ubuntu.

(Mandrake lost a trademark lawsuit from a magician-centered comic strip of the same name – their prominent use of a magical top hat and shooting star probably didn\’t help – leading to the name change to Mandriva a few years back.)

I recently tried Kubuntu, and was very disappointed with KDE 4. A friend recommended Mandriva (deja vu!), and sure enough, it\’s an excellent and quite polished KDE 4 distro. Should I decide to switch to KDE 4, life with Linux will have come full circle.

Reply
chavoux

For me SuSE was the first Linux distro I actually got running on my (old) desktop. Knoppix was also revolutionary and formed the basis of my second Linux installation that I used for most of my PhD GIS work.

Currently, Mepis is my favorite Debian derivative.

I also think the Knoppix should get a mention… I think it is mostly because of Knoppix that most Desktop Linux distros have a live CD/DVD today.

Reply
pogson

I object to the use of the word \”brief\” to describe the duration of GNU/Linux. GNU was around since the 1980s and Linux since 1991. That is an eternity in tech terms. GNU/Linux is mature mainstream technology. The rapid development and hundreds of thousands of developers involved rather reflects the size and diversity of GNU/Linux rather than the stage of its development.

The distros that developed the common package managers have really allowed GNU/Linux to thrive, particularly Debian and RedHat. These packaging systems made GNU/Linux much easier to deploy by amateurs and professionals alike, a very broad spectrum of computer users. They also made it much easier for new distros to develop and to fill every possible niche.

I believe 2009 was the Year of GNU/Linux on the Desktop as most OEMs shipped it and the number of people in the world who have not heard/seen/used GNU/Linux dropped quickly with the netbook. 2009 was the year that GNU/Linux became mainstream on the desktop as it has been for years on the server. M$ took a hit to the bottom line over GNU/Linux in 2009. About half the people I offer to install GNU/Linux accept these days. People see it and want it.

Reply
mercibe

Great article. The next milestone on the Linux road might be Linux Mint (2008), a variant of Ubuntu. This is the first Linux distribution I would confidently let my mother in law install by herself. I have been using Linux as my main operating system since 15 years: Slackware(3 years), Debian(8 years) and Xubuntu(4 years) were on my road. Mint is on my 2010 New Year\’s resolutions list…

Reply
dragonwisard

@SJVN: Thanks! It\’s a good article.

@mercibe: What about Moblin or ChromeOS? I think the next major (as in historically significant) distro won\’t be a desktop distro but a Netbook/Cloud distro.

If we can\’t win in the Netbook market with Moblin, which is clearly superior to Windows for that hardware, then we\’ll never win. If Moblin fails to displace Windows in Netbooks this year I will really feel that the distro community has dropped the ball.

And to be clear, I want it to be installed at the factory. I don\’t care how easy to install it is, if the user has to do it that\’s an extra step that won\’t get done.

Reply
jkgruet

Very nice article. I do tend to agree with evulture that the Knoppix Live-CD should make the list. Perhaps instead of a \”top five\” list, it should be \”top six\”? Of course, then there\’d be pressure for a \”top seven\”, \”top eight\” . . . \”top 200\” . . . .

Reply
ruel24

My 5:

Slackware – duh!

Red Hat Linux – First commercially viable distro and first to capture public\’s attention in any large numbers. You can practically attribute the widespread use of Linux to Red Hat.

Debian – duh!

Mandrake – First truly desktop oriented distro for the masses complete with easy installer and GUI tools.

Knoppix – First? LiveCD and definitely the first widely distributed LiveCD, if not. It opened the doors foor all the Debian spinoff distros like Ubuntu.

Reply
dantrevino

Mandrake was initially just warmed over RedHat, and didnt do a particularly better job of being desktop oriented. They just changed colors and icons.

Caldera was mediocre at best. Their only claim to fame being the first real Linux to try to get on commercial desktops. Unfortunately they probably turned more people away from Linux than to it.

That being said….
1. Slackware
2. Redhat
3. Debian
4. Knoppix
5. Ubuntu

Reply
gerlos

My personal top five:
1. Debian: for the community-centered behaviour
2. Red Hat: for the first time people knew of something called gnu/linux, and they could try it
3. Mandriva: my first fully functional distro (tried red hat before, but no luck with it at that time), I think it\’s important because it was one of the first distros newbie-orientered
4. Knoppix: because it made us see what incredible things you can do with gnu/linux and a CD…
5. Ubuntu: because they succeed in reaching an enormous user-base

regards

Reply
bfx81

IMHO Gentoo missed:
Probably gentoo don\’t have the widest user base, but without that distribution surely linux wouldn\’t be the same.
I\’m talking about all those not so evident aspect of linux, all those non functional features that thanks a full user-distributed source-based distribution, linux can now assure: stability, reliability, portability (that bring more freedom for all users) and efficiency.
Every developer write source-code. Without people that try to build that code in quite every architecture available, with different compilers, libraries, and all other things that make free-software customizable, the work needed for all others distribution would be really hardest than now.

from http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/articles/making-the-distro-p2.xml
—–
When you put together a Linux distribution it\’s really important that any bug fixes you create are sent upstream to the original developers. As I see it, this is one of the many ways that distribution creators contribute to Linux. We\’re the guys who actually get all these different programs working as a unified whole. We should send our fixes upstream as we unify so that other users and distributions can benefit from our discoveries. If you decide to keep bug fixes to yourself, you\’re not helping anyone; you\’re just ensuring that a lot of people will waste time fixing the same problem over and over again. This kind of policy goes against the whole open source ethic and stunts the growth of Linux development. Maybe I should say that it \”bugs\” us all.
—-

Reply
ruel24

With that thought, Ubuntu was just warmed over Debian, offered as either an installable or LiveCD. Are you kidding?

Mandrake 7.0 changed desktop Linux for good. It had long left its position of Red Hat + KDE and became a seasoned product with it\’s own solutions like the control center/drake tools and URPMI. It was a game changer, and many older Linux users point to Mandrake 7.0 being the first distro they could actually use and understand.

Ubuntu, IMO, is still little more than warmed over Debian. It doesn\’t even stand on it\’s own two feet, like Mandriva does. It has to rely on Debian to do the heavy lifting. That, in my mind, doesn\’t put it in the same league as the other distros given, except Knoppix. Knoppix gets cred for being the first, though, and changing the game.

Reply
jshanab

For me early Red Hat was what got me started tinkering but Gentoo was what brought it home for me. It gave me a better understanding and confidence such that I was able to convert all machines to linux. Distro just doesn\’t matter as much once you install a source distro. I am less dependent on any one package manager,wizard, or distro specific tool. The biggest problem is the \”what did they call that command on this distro??, was it rc-update update-rc or checkcfg\” syndrom, Nowadays I work with multiple distro\’s daily while my windows machine at home has remained un-powered for years.

Reply
uris

Before Knoppix, it was SuSe (pre-Novell). They had the first live CD. I remember the first time I tried SuSe it was from a live CD that came in a linux magazine (Maximum Linux).

Reply
jceb

My favorite Linux distro for enterprises is UCS (Univention Corporate Server). It integrates the latest technologies like Samba, OpenLDAP, Kerberos several groupware solutions aso. and offers them fully preconfigured. With an easy to use web interface everything is customizable. – I haven\’t seen anything comparable on the server side.

Reply
zakhurlifesbane

I\’ll go along with Slack. Their system had some hidden treasure that is being used today by SourceMage. In fact the choices are sort of OK if you have to pick 5 but the reasoning behind Caldera is all wrong.

Caldera gave us the per-seat license, the buying of dead item like DR-DOS and aggressive litigation, the buying of licenses from unpopular failed distros and the adoption of different names for more and more litigations. Caldera showed us that you don\’t have to be Microsoft to be predatory. Remember that Caldera became the tail wagging the dog behind SCO and its infamous lawsuit.

And on top of that, Caldera was the first to outsource lousy support for its \”product\”. Believe me,I ran an office system on linux in 1997-2000 from router to servers to desktops, and I bought Caldera and shortly abandoned it after experience with their \”support\” which dismally failed to return three phone messages and sent an apology only after I sent in an email complaining.

Of course, WordPerfect was sold many times, but one company that had it actually issued it for linux. There was another face-changer. THat outfit proved that you could develop dynamite extensions for a desktop and then paint yourself into a corner by refusing to share tham back into the community. Any other readers remember the company? I still have one of their disks. Corel, the mental midgets of the trade, did a beautiful extension of KDE 1.4 and then would not share.

Actually, there was a time when it appeared Linux was forever destined for servers only. Then a distro took the public portion of RedHat and combined it with KDE version 1. It is not to be measured in terms of its own very modest success but in terms of its support for open-source and forever changing the fate of desktop linux. No one would have done much with the desktop had it not been for the very outstanding initial success of Mandrake Linux in 1998-99. Moreover, the email help lists it initiated were the most friendly around. Red Hat help lists required flame-retardant underwear at the time.

Reply
fbsduser

DemoLinux: The first LiveCD system, this one predates even knoppix.
WinLinux: First OS-in-a-file linux system (predates wubi by more than a decade).
SuSE: First distro to have entirelly graphical configuration tools, and a graphical package manager.

Reply
jaybus

Hmmm. I don\’t know off hand what the first \”live CD\” distro was, but I do know that there were \”live floppy\” versions being spread around much earlier. Marc Ewing\’s \”Halloween\” release was one of the first comprehensive releases that had everything in one place and just required downloading an image from a BBS and writing it to floppy using an old DOS utility called rawrite. That release later became Red Hat Linux, but when first released in 1994 helped a lot of people get interested in Linux.

Reply
pechter@gmail.com

1. SLS — Soft Landing System the thing that begat Slackware when it\’s slightly buggy nature and lack of support made Patrick Volkerding consider his own alternative.
2. Caldera — the first \”Linux for Business.\” This began with the first GUI installer on a Linux. RedHat and Ubuntu followed the traditions started here. Caldera also created the RPM package management system. (And included a game in the installer.
3. Debian — for the desire for a long-life stable environment.
4. Knoppix — for the live CD/DVD that\’s actually usable.
5. Mandriva — for the improved version of RedHat that supported both KDE and GNOME when RedHat drank the Gnome Kool-Aid. Mandriva\’s NFS saved my office when the RH7.3 kernels kept choking the NFS under load. Loaded up the Mandrake kernel and fired it up and it ran for months when RH7.3 would barely get through a day. Now I\’ve got Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Xubuntu desktops to chose from — each with it\’s own features and best apps. Hey… disk is cheap.

Reply
klemmerj

Technically the first \”live\” CD was Yggdrasil. It was also the first distro that came on CD.

However, if you define live as booting from something other than the HD, HJ Lu\’s boot/root floppies were the first. In fact, they were the first everything. They were the first way to boot and run Linux in any usable sense. It was there long before SLS and Slackware. Even before the first actual distro, MCC Interim.

I remember the first time people tried to get Linux to boot off of the HD. A buddy of mine, Erik \”The\” Ratcliffe, wrote the first of what became known as HOWTO\’s on the subject. Back then you have to use a hex editor and edit the boot sector of the HD to get it to boot. Then followed Shoelace, LILO, GRUB, etc.

Every once and a while I miss those early days. But I do prefer having complete, solid distros to use. I\’m to old to be hex editing the boot sector.

And to make this more topical (and in no particular order);

  • Slackware
  • Redhat
  • Debian
  • Caldera
  • Redhat Enterprise Linux

This is from the perspective of outside influence. That is, these distros had great significance on the outside, non-Linux world.

Reply
arifk

Good article but could have used another edit session.

For me:
Yggdrasil
RedHat
SuSE
Mandriva/Mandrake
Ubuntu

While I put some time into Caldera, I never quite got into it. SuSE on the other hand had the first mostly automated installation process. All in all my favorite has been SuSE/openSuSE and RedHat as a close second.

Reply

Great web site. Lots of useful info here. I am sending it to several friends ans additionally sharing in delicious. And certainly, thanks to your sweat!

Reply

Here goes my list:

1) SuSE
2) Knoppix
3) Red Hat
4) Ubuntu
5) Slackware

Reply

Excellent article. Keep posting such kind of information on your site.
Im really impressed by it.
Hello there, You’ve performed a great job. I’ll definitely digg it and individually recommend to my friends.
I am confident they’ll be benefited from this web site.

Reply

Leave a Reply to zakhurlifesbane Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>