For what it’s worth, here is yet another ranking of popularity of GNU/Linux. I took the survey and noted that my bunch of PCs are undercounted because it’s a “unique IP address” system.

Linux Rankings (Score):

1. Ubuntu (1.000)

2. Mint (0.734)

3. Red Hat Enterprise Linux (0.634)

4. Arch (0.420)

5. Debian (0.377)

6. Fedora (0.288)

7. Gentoo (0.292)

8. PCLinuxOS (0.178)

9. Puppy (0.174)

10. Damn Small Linux(0.101)

via DistroRank – Linux and BSD popularity tracking.

The rankings are reasonable based on my own understanding of the effectiveness of having real salesmen (Ubuntu) or global reach of huge repositories (Debian). Don’t take the numbers too seriously but take it as yet more affirmation that there are a bunch of great distros. Don’t waste too much time choosing one. It’s usually easy to change if you revise your choice later. Just backup /home and/or /var and install another distro.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to DistroRank

  1. Wayne Twine wrote, “We appreciate constructive criticism”

    Good. Also good, from the User Guide: “It is, however, built upon very mature and proven software layers, including the Linux kernel, the GNU tools and the Gnome desktop.
    It also relies on the Ubuntu,Linux Mint and Debian projects and uses their systems as a base.This is called using “upstream” components, and by using these systems as a base it firstly means we can concentrate on design of the end desktop system without having to worry too much about re-inventing the wheel by doing our own OS from the ground up. (Most Linux distributions, even major ones such as Ubuntu which is built on top of Debian Gnu/LINUX, are built the same way.)”

    I like the fact that this organization gives credit where credit is due but wonder why the individuals involved did not just join one of those existing organizations to make them stronger and more diverse rather than starting a new distro. Isn’t this just diluting the talent rather than making GNU/Linux stronger? Also, it takes a lot of work to set up a distro and to promote it. Wouldn’t that energy have been better spent improving existing distros? I know Debian best. There’s nothing in there that couldn’t use some improvement and contributions and criticism are welcome.

    Further, I disagree with this statement under Desktop Linux: “Until recently, the last 5 years or so, despite its strengths as a server system Linux was not really usable by the typical end user in a desktop or SOHO environment because it did not have easy to use Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs) similar to the Macintosh or Windows Explorer shells that users have got accustomed to.
    Also commonly used applications and file-types standard in these systems such as Office suites, graphics design and media tools were not available in a Linux version.”

    I have been using desktop GNU/Linux since 2000 and it has been a superior experience to what was offered by both M$ and Apple at that time and til today. I never lacked from office suites, graphics design and media tools for the work I did as a teacher and system administrator. If anything, I had “too many choices”. e.g. In one community where I worked, the idea was conceived to produce a presentation of pictures of graduates from old photos. Many of these were poorly exposed, poorly composed or damaged. I never once was tempted to beg help from someone who had PS to fix the images nor to create the presentation. Gimp and OpenOffice.org worked beautifully. GNU/Linux certainly was more solid than the other OS of the time. The reason I switched to GNU/Linux initially was that it did not crash and Lose ’95 and Mac OS 8 died hourly. If anything, Apple and M$ played catch-up with GNU/Linux. Apple switched to BSD UNIX inside and M$ dumped DOS and went with “NT” on the desktop. GNU/Linux was way ahead of them and has never looked back.

    So, welcome.

  2. Wayne Twine says:

    Hi check out our RhinoLINUX distro, now in its 7th release, started in 2010. We are still on the waiting list at Distrowatch.com – not holding our breath. By our own internal records we have around 15000 downloads of our various editions (Main,Lite and KDE). Check out RhinoLINUX – We appreciate constructive criticism.

  3. ram says:

    My company uses mostly Knoppix on internet connected machines for browsing. Some of these report back that they are Android through the browser. This stops some sites from trying to send heaps of unwanted multimedia content down our (thin) pipe.

    Of course, no online poll sees our cluster of Linux machines used for our real work: engineering computations and media creation.

  4. dougman says:

    For / I only give 10GB, never needed more then that.

    I have been riding on Mint 9 for a long time, no malware, no viruses with a free Pentium D an office gave me. New drives, new video card, 15 mins later a new OS up and running.

    Just started using Mint 13 and all I need to do is migrate a few hundred GB from the mounted drive to my active ~ partition.

    With 13, I am good till 2017 and can still continue using it into the 20’s if I wanted too.

    I may upgrade to Samsung SSD’s this year, haven’t decided on it yet.

  5. kozmcrae says:

    “Just backup /home and/or /var and install another distro.”

    Assuming /home is a separate partition which it should be. Some installations don’t stress that. One issue that I haven’t seen addressed is how much room you really need for the root directory. I’ve only seen what the minimum is (about 6 gigs). That would leave you with constant disk full errors. With disk sizes today I would want nothing less than 25 gigs for my root directory. I should mention that I include /var in my root directory.

Leave a Reply