Fragmentation and Linux

Windows users are familiar with fragmentation. When you have fragmentation, it means that it is time to do some drive maintenance. With Linux it takes on another meaning, since Linux drives are not as prone to fragmentation. To get fragmentation in Linux all you need to do is put two users in the same room.

The Linux community is as prone to fragmentation as Windows file systems. Perhaps it is time for the community to work on defragmentation. I understand why fragmentation happens and that to an extent it is even good.

I get it. I am a Linux user. I understand why it happens. We all have our views about the best distro, the preferred desktop and just about everything else in the Linux world. Disagreement is not a bad thing. It means that we have choice. Without choice we would not be arguing about the best distro, package manager or desktop.

However, when things become too fragmented everything begins to bog down and your experience begins to suffer. Such is the case in the Linux community today. Never have we had so much choice. Never have we had such growth. Never have we had so much dissension. These things don’t always go together well. Newbies must surely wonder what they have got themselves into when they see all of the infighting and backbiting going on. It isn’t just that this is taking place, but the venom and enthusiasm for it seems to be increasing.

When we fight then that weakens the community. When we take our eyes off the ball then those that would divide us win. We are not doing ourselves any favours here. Sibling rivalry is good as long as it is civil and directed. Unfettered, it can destroy the family.

I could say that I prefer Ubuntu because it uses Synaptic which I prefer for reasons that I could then elaborate on. Or I could say that I prefer Mandriva because it has an excellent set of tools not found elsewhere. Or I like the support that Novell provides or that Fedora keeps on pushing the envelope. This does not demean any other distro. It shows my preferences and gives others reason to choose or not choose based on what I write.

However, much of what we read goes beyond or falls short of this, depending on how you view such things. I find people reviewing Ubuntu 8.10 only to find that they have used the new release as a thinly veiled attack on Ubuntu or Canonical. Their review is not a review at all. They had no intention of using Ubuntu (substitute the name of another new release; I am using the current new release). They came with their mind made up and in the end are trumpeting the distro that they use, which is their real reason for writing. In their “review”, they will usually compare apples to oranges. They prefer KDE to Gnome. So, why did they install Ubuntu instead of the readily available Kubuntu? Their reason is clear. They want to accentuate the differences to make their real point which is that people should not use Ubuntu, but their distro.

This isn’t a rare occurrence at all. It is common practice. People like this, do their distro a disservice. It reflects badly on them as reviewers, on the community which they claim to support and sadly, on the whole Linux community. We can’t stop it, but we can call attention to it. Most blogs allow us to write comments. People who read the blogs should challenge the assumptions of the bloggers and ask pertinent and tough questions, such as, why did you bother to waste your time and ours?

Since I began to use Linux, 8 years ago, lots has happened. Most of it, I take great pride in. I take pride in the community, with its offbeat wit and intelligence. I take pride in the richness that can be found from top to bottom from the smallest distro to the largest. I like that we are doing something unique and special. I like it that we offer real choice and are an alternative to the status quo. I like that we embrace freedom and oppose restrictions. I like it that Linux users get it. It is your computer and you can control what goes into it and what comes out of it.

Unfortunately the good comes with the bad. We attract people with vested interest. There are people who are actively working to undo all of those good things because they either are employed by someone is does not want us to succeed or they have taken it upon themselves to do the work of those who would like to see us fail. Then there are many ignorant users who fall prey to them and are doing their work without realizing it.

I like Mandriva. I began with Mandrake 7.3. I used Fedora in my early years. I switched to Debian out of preference and now use Ubuntu. Ubuntu is now succeeding while other distros have plateaued or in a few cases dropped. Users see that more people blog in favour of Ubuntu and condemn them as Ubuntu fanboys, forgetting that they serve the largest base and reflect what is happening in the larger community. Users see that their preferred distro has dropped in popularity and blame that on Ubuntu, suggesting and not subtly that it is to blame for the decline of their distro.

Why should the success of any distro be seen as an attack on another distro? The largest growth in Ubuntu users is from people new to Linux. I am active on Ubuntu forums and know this to be the case by direct experience. And if people are deserting a distro for another you have to ask your self, why?

I have even seen some users turn on their own distro after first lashing out at the front runner. Their vision is different from the maintainer who is usually someone working on a labour of love at his own pace. The users have an ambition, but do nothing to make that ambition come true. The maintainer or developer must be saddened by his own users to see them critical of his best efforts. In at least one case, this followed a well publicized protracted illness and in another it was someone who was juggling a busy private life with his love of Linux. In neither case, the developer makes any pretensions of greatness, other than to quietly produce excellence, which, as we all know, takes time.

Using a distro does not make you an expert on all distros. I do not consider myself to be an expert on Linux even after eight years or on Ubuntu after using it for two years. I do think that using Ubuntu gives me a perspective and certain rights and responsibilities. I share my perspective which is unique to me and I exercise my rights and accept my responsibilities as part of the Ubuntu community.

Being an Ubuntu user allows me to comment on it as it is part of my daily experience. I have grown and watched Ubuntu grow during the past two years. Using Ubuntu does not enable me to do the same for other distros. As a casual user of other distros, I can compare it to Ubuntu, but not be authoritative. I realize that my experience is coloured by my Ubuntu and Debian background.

I would not slam Ubuntu because I have an obligation to that community. I would not slam another distro because it would be irresponsible. I don’t have the same obligation to that community, but I am not off the hook. I have a responsibility to the Linux community at large and not being an expert on that distro prohibits me from making certain kinds of statements, often based on wrong assumptions.

I remember reading one review, that criticized Ubuntu because it did install his wireless properly. His whole review was an attack. He was a happy user of another distro. He did not like Gnome. Duh! I thought. Why install an obvious Gnome distro then?. Then it got worse. Finally he came to his stinging rebuke. He could not get his wireless working because he needed Ndiswrapper which was not installed. He then concluded that the Ubuntu developers must be so sloppy and careless as to not realize that you cannot use Synaptic without a working wireless to download Ndiswrapper. This would never happen with his distro. He did not check to see that the program he wanted is included on the disk but was not installed by default.

I found a podcast that told people not to use Ubuntu if they wanted to install grub on an alternate partition. They lauded Mandriva for giving this amount of control and said power users should avoid Ubuntu as it was trying to make it simple for newbies and they were disappointed that the developers had missed such an obvious option. However, I pointed out that you can do this in Ubuntu and I do it all of the time. It is done simply in the final screen before installation where choices are reviewed by clicking on the Advanced button. It must be too obvious for advanced users to actually click on a button labelled as advanced to see what it does.

This is my code of ethics. I don’t expect others to live up to them. I explain them only because there is a general perception that there is no code of ethics and that everything is fair game. I urge others to think about what they stand for and to consider what they write. After the damage is done, it is too late.

When you use a distro, then like it or not you represent that community. When you attack another distro, it reflects back on you and your community. It also says things to outsiders. It says that we don’t care about Linux in general. It says that we are acting out of self-interest, in the same way that those whom we criticize do. In short, we are no better than the opposition and indeed may be worse.

Criticism is an art. It needs to be focused and constructive or it serves no purpose. If your goal is not to be constructive then perhaps you should not be writing what you write. Many times, things that I read are intended to destroy and not to strengthen. It isn’t always what is said but it is also the context and way it is said. If it becomes clear that you have a hidden agenda or things are said with the intent to wound or hurt users and developers, then think twice. A distro is not just an OS, it is a community of people. When you dump on a distro you are dumping on people who have invested time and energy to build up what you are trying to tear down. Apply the golden rule and ask how you would feel if someone wrote those kinds of things about your favourite distro.

That being said, I read lots of good criticism. These criticisms allow developers to work to improve the distro. They provide specific feedback about what is not working and ways to improve it. They also unite users. You might think that you have experienced that, too and realize that you are not alone in your concerns and perhaps those users will find their voice because of what the critic has written. Such criticism is healthy and should be a part of every community.

Fragmentation is not necessarily bad. It is good to have choice, but that creates division and barriers. Too much choice can have as many bad effects as good ones. On some things we need to unify. Defragmentation may be necessary in Linux, too.

Finally, I am a writer and human. I may write things that are inconsistant or not in line with my own values. Please gently remind me of my error and steer me back to where I should be. I don’t want to come across as holier than thou. I just want the community to be strong and for it to make a positive difference in the lives of others. As always, the community starts with individuals. In my case, me. So, I commit to strive to be positive and to build up the community that I care so much about. I also promise to hold others accountable for what they write and to not leave obvious slanders to go unchallenged. I hope that others will join me and that this will have a positive effect on the Linux community.