path: root/small-linux.txt

If you're new to Linux you'd be forgiven for thinking there are only a half dozen distributions -- names like Ubuntu, Fedora, openSUSE, Red Hat Enterprise Linux tend to get most of the headlines.

These big distros are ones that tend to tackle big, headline grabbing projects like Wayland, systemd, Mir, and other tools that will, for better or worse, change Linux as we know it. The big fish always get the attention, if for no other reason than these are also the only distros with million dollar companies backing them.

The big names are not, however, the end of the story. In fact there are hundreds, if not thousands, of distros out there that barely register on trackers like distrowatch and hardly ever grab headlines. 

Two such distros managed to grab headlines last week when both of them, for separate, but related, reasons, announced they were closing their doors. 

The main developer of Void Linux has <a href="https://www.voidlinux.eu/news/2018/05/serious-issues.html">apparently disappeared</a>. Void Linux is a small, independent distribution (not a fork), but does have more than one person working on it and more than a few users. It's notable for a couple of things, one of which is that it remains systemd-free, another is that it uses LibreSSL instead of OpenSSL.

Other Void Linux developers recently took to the project's website to say they have "had no contact with [the main developer] since the end of January, and no meaningful contact for well over a year." While that's bad, it wouldn't be the end of the world except that the main developer is the only one with the ability to manage much of Void’s infrastructure, including the Void Linux GitHub account, IRC channels and domains. 

The project has reached out to GitHub and Freenode, and says that the latter issue should be fixable, but GitHub has denied them access to the project (which is entirely in keeping with GitHub's ToS and account security practices, for all GitHub knows the project leader may not want Void Linux to continue).

Another troubling tale comes from the <a href="https://kororaproject.org/about/news/time-for-a-break">Korora project</a>, which is taking a break from development. Korora was based on Fedora, but added a bunch of things that haven't always been easy to get with stock Fedora, namely multimedia codecs and proprietary software. Korora also did a good job of setting some more user-friendly defaults than Fedora.

"We are taking a little sabbatical to avoid complete burn out and rejuvenate ourselves and our passion for Korora/Fedora and wider open source efforts," the developers write on the project's blog. 

That's a fairly common fate for small Linux distros run by one or two developers as most are. Most have no revenue to sustain them and they are something that the developers do in their spare time. As most of us know, spare time has a way of disappearing, often quite suddenly. 

All these stories of small distros disappearing might be enough to put you off small distros. 

And I wouldn't blame you, I'm a former Crunchbang user and I too felt burned when it disappeared. Crunchbang happens to have <a href="https://www.bunsenlabs.org/">come back</a>, but by the time it did I had already moved on, to a bigger distro that was less likely to disappear from under me. I picked Arch Linux in large part because, while it's still independent of any parent company, it has a large, dedicated user base and seems likely to be around in five years.

However, if the trend among users is moving against small distros, all Linux users may suffer, even those that never move away from the first distro they try.

Without people willing to take a chance on unknown, but potentially really great distros there would be no Linux Mint, no elementaryOS and no Solus, to name three recent, very popular arrivals in the Linux world. 

All three are big now, but they got that way only because some people took a chance on them long before they were big names. Adventurous Linux users tried them, perhaps even contributed to them, at least told their fellow Linux enthusiasts about them, and helped make them into the bigger distros they are today. In the case of elementaryOS there's also a revenue model in place to help sustain it.

Linux Mint founder Clement Lefebvre, says that while a lot of things changed since 2006, when Linux Mint got its start, it's still possible for small distros to grow. Could a new project replicate what Linux Mint and other have done in the past? "Yes, probably," says Lefebvre, "but this has consistently been getting harder throughout the years, not only because some of these success stories are still here today but also because user expectations have grown considerably and that's a real challenge for anyone starting small." 

Lefebvre remains optimistic about the future of small distros though. "That said I'm a firm believer in passion," he says, "if somebody's good at something and has the necessary skills and confidence to be successful, the only thing he needs is passion. I'm pretty sure we'll continue to see huge success stories in the future, particularly in niche markets, and also because of the changing nature of technology"

Unfortunately, if we all stop using small distros passion might not be quite enough. As more companies, more developers, more desktop enthusiasts come to Linux, which they are, across the board, if not on the desktop, certainly in behind-the-scenes infrastructures, there's going to be less willingness to take a risk on a smaller distro. There's a reason RHEL, Centos and Ubuntu dominate the server market -- they're backed by companies that other companies can understand. Corporate customers are always going to stick with the bigger distros. This will pour more attention, more contributions, and, more importantly, more money into big projects like Ubuntu, RHEL, Centos and openSUSE.

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it may very well create a world of corporate-dominated "big Linux," a world where small distributions have a much harder path to gaining a toehold. There's nothing inherently wrong with corporate-backed Linux, but it's entirely possible that the core developers at, to pick an easy target, Ubuntu, have goals and projects, very different from what you want. Anyone love the Unity desktop? Too bad Ubuntu doesn't. 

Void Linux is good example of the opposite of this. If Void disappears there's one less distro for those looking to avoid systemd (Void uses (used) <a href="http://smarden.org/runit/">runit</a> instead). At this point, if you don't want to use systemd your options are seriously limited (Devuan, Gentoo, FreeBSD and perhaps some other small ones like Void).

Even if you don't care one way or the other about particular tools like systemd there are other reasons that make small distros well worth your time. Perhaps the most difficult to quantify, but personally satisfying, is the personal experiences small distros can lead you through. I'd credit Crunchbang with first getting me into minimalist desktops and more under-the-hood aspects of Linux. Crunchbang used, and still does use, the Openbox window manager with no desktop. At the same time it manages to make that a very usable environment, something I'd never been able to do on my own the Debian Minimal. To this day I use an old Crunchbang theme for GTK apps. 

The question becomes what does it take to sustain a Linux distro?

The answer seems to be one a lot of Linux users aren't going to like -- money. 

While there are always exceptions, the distros that seem to last, large or small, tend to be the ones that have some form of revenue. Whether that revenue is from users, for example elementaryOS, appears to get by on app store revenue and download donations, or Linux Mint, which raises most of its money through donations, or whether that revenue comes from a corporate backer like the big name distros, at the end of the day, in our culture, money matters. 

That doesn't mean you should ignore distros that have no money. It just means that ones that do will likely last longer. It's very likely that elementaryOS, for example, doesn't pull in much revenue compared to Canonical, Ubuntu's backer, but it does have a means in place, which enables it to grow in a sustainable way. And that's the key to a long lasting distro. If there's no way to sustain that initial burst of energy and vision on the part of the person or persons who start a distro, history shows pretty clearly that they will eventually either burn out or life will simply get in the way and then poof, your distro is gone.

Some of the burden of supporting small distros ultimately falls to the users. If you want your favorite distro to last, put your money where your mouth is, pull out your wallet and contribute.

screenshots:
korora.jpg: Korora Linux's last release, based on Fedora 26, KDE flavor.
void.jpg: Void Linux, Cinnamon edition.