Comments on: The Three Giants of Linux http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/ Open Source, Open Standards Sat, 05 Oct 2013 13:48:18 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Download Free PSD FILE http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-1036805 Download Free PSD FILE Mon, 08 Jul 2013 00:16:11 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-1036805 I loved as much as you will receive carried out right here. The caricature is attractive, your authored material stylish. nonetheless, you command get bought an edginess over that you wish be delivering the following. unwell without a doubt come more earlier once more as precisely the similar nearly a lot often within case you shield this increase. I loved as much as you will receive carried out right here. The caricature is attractive, your authored material stylish. nonetheless, you command get bought an edginess over that you wish be delivering the following. unwell without a doubt come more earlier once more as precisely the similar nearly a lot often within case you shield this increase.

]]> By: dragonwisard http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7934 dragonwisard Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7934 <p>You forgot about Slackware\'s S/390 port. </p> You forgot about Slackware\’s S/390 port.

]]> By: tbuskey http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7935 tbuskey Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7935 <p>MCC was basically just enough to start building what you wanted.</p> <p>SLS was complete. Slakware basically took SLS 1.04 (03?) and its packaging system. It fixed the problems (file/directory permissions) and added package sets. There was controversy at the time because of this.</p> <p>SLS wasn\'t responding to fix requests and Slakware forked. If SLS fixed the issues, I\'m not sure Slakware would have started.</p> <p>When SLS 1.05 came out, but it was like taking Slakware and breaking it again. It never had another release.</p> <p>When Debian 1st came out, it wasn\'t really ready. Red Hat was usable for a desktop right away. Debian took a few iterations before it was as stable as Slak or Red Hat.</p> <p>Red Hat hit the spot with easy to install/admin and stability between Slak and Debian back in \'93.</p> <p>There was also the Yggdrasill release. It was the 1st on CD-ROM. Most of us didn\'t have one of the $300 devices and went the floppy route. Slakware was 20-30 1.2MB floppies if you installed everything. I had a dual boot 340 MB drive at the time. DOS was still the main OS on PCs then. </p> MCC was basically just enough to start building what you wanted.

SLS was complete. Slakware basically took SLS 1.04 (03?) and its packaging system. It fixed the problems (file/directory permissions) and added package sets. There was controversy at the time because of this.

SLS wasn\’t responding to fix requests and Slakware forked. If SLS fixed the issues, I\’m not sure Slakware would have started.

When SLS 1.05 came out, but it was like taking Slakware and breaking it again. It never had another release.

When Debian 1st came out, it wasn\’t really ready. Red Hat was usable for a desktop right away. Debian took a few iterations before it was as stable as Slak or Red Hat.

Red Hat hit the spot with easy to install/admin and stability between Slak and Debian back in \’93.

There was also the Yggdrasill release. It was the 1st on CD-ROM. Most of us didn\’t have one of the $300 devices and went the floppy route. Slakware was 20-30 1.2MB floppies if you installed everything. I had a dual boot 340 MB drive at the time. DOS was still the main OS on PCs then.

]]> By: corkymoo http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7936 corkymoo Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7936 <p>Thanks for the great article and chart. Cleared up some of the parentage of Linux for me. corkymoo.com </p> Thanks for the great article and chart. Cleared up some of the parentage of Linux for me. corkymoo.com

]]> By: mjtobler http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7937 mjtobler Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7937 <p>@tbuskey ... it\'s \"Slackware\", *not* \"Slakware\".</p> <p>I think Christopher missed it on another important distro: SuSE.</p> <p>They were first established at the end of 1992, with their<br /> first distro release in the first quarter of 1994, 6 months<br /> before the first release of Red Hat.</p> <p>To not include SuSE(/Novell) as a \"giant\" of Linux distros shows<br /> an obvious bias, or possibly lack of research. </p> <p>Regards, mjt, author, \"Inside Linux\" </p> @tbuskey … it\’s \”Slackware\”, *not* \”Slakware\”.

I think Christopher missed it on another important distro: SuSE.

They were first established at the end of 1992, with their
first distro release in the first quarter of 1994, 6 months
before the first release of Red Hat.

To not include SuSE(/Novell) as a \”giant\” of Linux distros shows
an obvious bias, or possibly lack of research.

Regards, mjt, author, \”Inside Linux\”

]]> By: sandholm http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7938 sandholm Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7938 <p>I have to agree with mjtobler. To leave SuSE out of the list shows bias or ignorance by the author. I have give this article a big fat D+. And the \"+\" was for the respectable information on Debian. </p> I have to agree with mjtobler. To leave SuSE out of the list shows bias or ignorance by the author. I have give this article a big fat D+. And the \”+\” was for the respectable information on Debian.

]]> By: nadineleenders http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7939 nadineleenders Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7939 <p>Great, easy to read, article. re: SuSE, I would have liked to know how it fit in.</p> <p> - Nadine </p> Great, easy to read, article. re: SuSE, I would have liked to know how it fit in.

– Nadine

]]> By: gcarlisle http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7940 gcarlisle Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7940 <p>mjtobler and sandholm, did you not look at the the Slackware tree<br /> SuSE was the first spawn off of Slackware. </p> mjtobler and sandholm, did you not look at the the Slackware tree
SuSE was the first spawn off of Slackware.

]]> By: stosss http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7941 stosss Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7941 <p>Do I hear a lot of babies crying?!</p> <p>For all you babies that got a dirty diaper because your SuSE wasn\'t mentioned... Look at the chart under Slackware.</p> <p>SuSE is yet just another fork of one of the big three.</p> <p>Babies </p> Do I hear a lot of babies crying?!

For all you babies that got a dirty diaper because your SuSE wasn\’t mentioned… Look at the chart under Slackware.

SuSE is yet just another fork of one of the big three.

Babies

]]> By: stosss http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7942 stosss Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7942 <p>@mjtobler Your quote \"To not include SuSE(/Novell) as a \"giant\" of Linux distros shows<br /> an obvious bias, or possibly lack of research.</p> <p>Regards, mjt, author, \"Inside Linux\" \"</p> <p>How stupid do you feel now? </p> @mjtobler Your quote \”To not include SuSE(/Novell) as a \”giant\” of Linux distros shows
an obvious bias, or possibly lack of research.

Regards, mjt, author, \”Inside Linux\” \”

How stupid do you feel now?

]]> By: stosss http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7943 stosss Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7943 <p>There are a lot of charts all over the Internet and so far the chart in this article appears to be the most up-to-date. </p> There are a lot of charts all over the Internet and so far the chart in this article appears to be the most up-to-date.

]]> By: stosss http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7944 stosss Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7944 <p>@sandholm you get an F- for not reading everything. </p> @sandholm you get an F- for not reading everything.

]]> By: stosss http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7945 stosss Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7945 <p>@dragonwisard He didn\'t forget anything. He provided information based on available information found in several places on the Internet. The chart was provided by him but was created by some one else. </p> @dragonwisard He didn\’t forget anything. He provided information based on available information found in several places on the Internet. The chart was provided by him but was created by some one else.

]]> By: severian37 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7946 severian37 Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7946 <p>I thought this was a great article. Slackware was the one that initiated me into the Linux world. </p> I thought this was a great article. Slackware was the one that initiated me into the Linux world.

]]> By: sgsax http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7947 sgsax Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7947 <p>Fascinating article, love the timeline, too. I had no idea SuSE was originally based on Slackware. I\'ve been trying to find when they jumped to RPM, but haven\'t been able to yet. My first ever linux install was RedHat in 1998. Switched to Debian a year or so later, Suse around 2002, Ubuntu and Gentoo in 2006. The little niche distros come and go, but the great granddaddies are still strong. </p> Fascinating article, love the timeline, too. I had no idea SuSE was originally based on Slackware. I\’ve been trying to find when they jumped to RPM, but haven\’t been able to yet. My first ever linux install was RedHat in 1998. Switched to Debian a year or so later, Suse around 2002, Ubuntu and Gentoo in 2006. The little niche distros come and go, but the great granddaddies are still strong.

]]> By: dragonwisard http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7948 dragonwisard Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7948 <p>@stosss Great trolling! Five separate posts that add NOTHING to the discussion.</p> <p>The S/390 port was the first official port of Slackware to a non-x86 platform. It\'s an active port that is mention both on Wikipedia AND Slackware.com.</p> <p>That was some AWESOME research he did if he missed it on both. </p> @stosss Great trolling! Five separate posts that add NOTHING to the discussion.

The S/390 port was the first official port of Slackware to a non-x86 platform. It\’s an active port that is mention both on Wikipedia AND Slackware.com.

That was some AWESOME research he did if he missed it on both.

]]> By: river http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7949 river Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7949 <p>Show us the numbers: how many computers are running SuSE and how many are running Slackware? You present a misleading picture of where the Linux influence in the world today comes from. If you want to do it your way, there\'s only one big player, Mr. Torvalds.</p> <p>For you to ignore SuSE and praise Slackware as a \"Big Three\" is just bizarre. I don\'t know what you are selling but I am disappointed in Linux Magazine for wasting out time. </p> <p>Control Data Corporation made some great computers, the design of which influenced later computers including the PC I\'m typing on. Does that mean we should say CDC is the big branch of computers, and PCs are not? Of course not. If Joe Blow helped start X Corp., and he used to work at Y Corp. earlier, and X Corp. has 10 times the market share of Y Corp., Y corp is the big player? No, of course not.</p> <p>Slackware has faded into irrelevance compared to the position SuSE occupies in the Linux universe. Feel free to prove me wrong. Show me the numbers.</p> <p>Your article might have made more sense had it been titled \"The three earliest Linux releases whose progeny are still active\" or some such. But your praise of Red Hat goes beyond just noting who\'s first and who begot who to emphasize it\'s dominance in the current Linux world, and in this regard, SuSE is beyond Slackware by miles. SuSE is not a subset of Slackware, in terms of code, package, support, company policies, etc. etc. etc., it is new and different from Slackware. You should clarify that you are not really saying who is big in the Linux world, but are rather constructing a genealogy. Or define \"big,\" or something. </p> Show us the numbers: how many computers are running SuSE and how many are running Slackware? You present a misleading picture of where the Linux influence in the world today comes from. If you want to do it your way, there\’s only one big player, Mr. Torvalds.

For you to ignore SuSE and praise Slackware as a \”Big Three\” is just bizarre. I don\’t know what you are selling but I am disappointed in Linux Magazine for wasting out time.

Control Data Corporation made some great computers, the design of which influenced later computers including the PC I\’m typing on. Does that mean we should say CDC is the big branch of computers, and PCs are not? Of course not. If Joe Blow helped start X Corp., and he used to work at Y Corp. earlier, and X Corp. has 10 times the market share of Y Corp., Y corp is the big player? No, of course not.

Slackware has faded into irrelevance compared to the position SuSE occupies in the Linux universe. Feel free to prove me wrong. Show me the numbers.

Your article might have made more sense had it been titled \”The three earliest Linux releases whose progeny are still active\” or some such. But your praise of Red Hat goes beyond just noting who\’s first and who begot who to emphasize it\’s dominance in the current Linux world, and in this regard, SuSE is beyond Slackware by miles. SuSE is not a subset of Slackware, in terms of code, package, support, company policies, etc. etc. etc., it is new and different from Slackware. You should clarify that you are not really saying who is big in the Linux world, but are rather constructing a genealogy. Or define \”big,\” or something.

]]> By: psychomike http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7950 psychomike Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7950 <p>@river: I thought the way he presented everything made perfect sense. Even if you don\'t think the title is accurate enough (and it doesn\'t seem any better or worse than most headlines to me) the first paragraph or two of the \"Begetting\" section spells it out pretty explicitly.</p> <p>You complaining that he didn\'t give enough credit to SuSE is no different than an Ubuntu user getting upset that he spent all his time on Debian. Current popularity isn\'t the point at all. SuSE, quite simply, descends from another distribution that is also still active. Everything based on SuSE is ultimately based on Slackware, and there are about 3 times as many Slackware-based distros that have nothing to do with SuSE. SuSE (and Ubuntu, and Knoppix, and ...) are all just branches, albeit influential ones. Slackware is one of the trunks.</p> <p>Disclaimer: I personally use Gentoo, which is but a small isolated node on the chart. (Although it still has more descendants listed than SuSE.) So I feel I can be objective. </p> @river: I thought the way he presented everything made perfect sense. Even if you don\’t think the title is accurate enough (and it doesn\’t seem any better or worse than most headlines to me) the first paragraph or two of the \”Begetting\” section spells it out pretty explicitly.

You complaining that he didn\’t give enough credit to SuSE is no different than an Ubuntu user getting upset that he spent all his time on Debian. Current popularity isn\’t the point at all. SuSE, quite simply, descends from another distribution that is also still active. Everything based on SuSE is ultimately based on Slackware, and there are about 3 times as many Slackware-based distros that have nothing to do with SuSE. SuSE (and Ubuntu, and Knoppix, and …) are all just branches, albeit influential ones. Slackware is one of the trunks.

Disclaimer: I personally use Gentoo, which is but a small isolated node on the chart. (Although it still has more descendants listed than SuSE.) So I feel I can be objective.

]]> By: dragonwisard http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7951 dragonwisard Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7951 <p>@river I\'ve been using Slackware for nearly a decade now and I\'m still using it today. Your assertion that Slackware has \"faded into irrelevance\" is uninformed (to say the least). There is a strong and active Slackware community. </p> <p>SuSE began as a German translation of Slackware. Slackware is still an active distro. Therefore it\'s entirely reasonable to point to Slackware rather than SuSE. Not to mention many of the descendant distributions forked directly from Slackware, not from SuSE. Notably: SLAX (which let to WHAX, which became BackTrack), VectorLinux, and Zenwalk.</p> <p>My company has many more customers using RedHat or Ubuntu than SuSE, even in Germany which is our largest market. </p> @river I\’ve been using Slackware for nearly a decade now and I\’m still using it today. Your assertion that Slackware has \”faded into irrelevance\” is uninformed (to say the least). There is a strong and active Slackware community.

SuSE began as a German translation of Slackware. Slackware is still an active distro. Therefore it\’s entirely reasonable to point to Slackware rather than SuSE. Not to mention many of the descendant distributions forked directly from Slackware, not from SuSE. Notably: SLAX (which let to WHAX, which became BackTrack), VectorLinux, and Zenwalk.

My company has many more customers using RedHat or Ubuntu than SuSE, even in Germany which is our largest market.

]]> By: csmart http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7952 csmart Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7721/#comment-7952 <p>@dragonwisard, you\'re right I didn\'t mention the 390 port (although I did say that prior to the AMD64 port Slack was focused on 32bit only, which isn\'t <em>in</em>correct).</p> <p>390 isn\'t 64bit yet, right? :-)</p> <p>-c </p> @dragonwisard, you\’re right I didn\’t mention the 390 port (although I did say that prior to the AMD64 port Slack was focused on 32bit only, which isn\’t incorrect).

390 isn\’t 64bit yet, right? :-)

-c

]]>