Paul Venezia asks: what if we split Linux into desktop and server versions?

by
in linux on (#2S7T)
story imageWell, can't blame the guy for asking. Over at ITWorld, Paul Venezia wonders, "Is it time to split Linux distros in two?"
You can take a Linux installation of nearly any distribution and turn it into a server, then back into a workstation by installing and uninstalling various packages. The OS core remains the same, and the stability and performance will be roughly the same, assuming you tune they system along the way. Those two workloads are very different, however, and as computing power continues to increase, the workloads are diverging even more.

Maybe it's time Linux is split in two. I suggested this possibility last week when discussing systemd (or that FreeBSD could see higher server adoption), but it's more than systemd coming into play here. It's from the bootloader all the way up. The more we see Linux distributions trying to offer chimera-like operating systems that can be a server or a desktop at a whim, the more we tend to see the dilution of both. You can run stock Debian Jessie on your laptop or on a 64-way server. Does it not make sense to concentrate all efforts on one or the other?
There's quite a bit more to his argument than these two paragraphs so read on before pointing out that Linux distros are already mostly divided into server and desktop focuses.
Reply 8 comments

Here's the good quote (Score: 1)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-09-10 13:06 (#2S7X)

There is enough pushback to systemd to warrant a fork of a major distribution that excises systemd and the GNOME dependencies, while providing a more traditional and stable server platform that has no hint of desktop support. No time need be wasted managing the hundreds upon hundreds of desktop packages present in the distro tree, no need to include massive numbers of desktop peripheral and graphical drivers (RHEL 6.3 ships with 57 xorg drivers, for instance).

There's also the matter of security. The security concerns for a desktop are vastly different than those for a server -- and server security concerns are vastly different among servers, depending on what each server is doing. However, it's safe to say that protecting against malware delivered by clicking through a malicious Web page is not high on the list of possible threats for a Memcached server.

would it be that simple ? (Score: 1)

by seriously@pipedot.org on 2014-09-10 13:30 (#2S7Z)

I don't know the kernel configuration well enough (or at all), but my understanding was that having a Linux kernel with specific custom configurations (compilation flags, modules, scheduling policy, file system, minimum amount of necessary drivers and so on) was exactly the sysadmin's job (i.e. the guy in charge of the server is supposed to know better).

Besides, there are so many different servers out there, I fail to understand how one Linux with minimal packaging could fit them all. I understand the idea of stripping the repositories from all the unnecessary desktop-related packages, but it can't be just about that, is it ?
There's quite a bit more to his argument than these two paragraphs so read on before pointing out that Linux distros are already mostly divided into server and desktop focuses.
That's one of the many reasons I like pipedot. You're supposed to read TFA :-)

Old Argument, Torn Apart (Score: 2, Insightful)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-10 13:47 (#2S82)

I saw this on Slashdot the other day and his position was pretty soundly dismantled in the comments there. We've already been through this plenty of times, and we keep coming back to the astounding realization that while servers require a robust operating system core, desktops require a robust operating system core.

:)

Whether systemd is an atrocity or not has exactly no bearing on a misguided notion of splitting up OS development.

Just do it then (Score: 1)

by skarjak@pipedot.org on 2014-09-10 14:05 (#2S84)

"Just do it then" is pretty much the motto of open source as far as I'm concerned. What's with all these articles reacting to systemd and discussing what should or shouldn't be done with linux, as if it were a monolothic entity? If you want to build a server focused distro without systemd, just do it. I'll keep using arch.

And the "homogenizing all distros by adopting systemd" argument in the article is bull. Weren't distros previously "homogenized" by running on sysvinit?

Re: Just do it then (Score: 1)

by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-09-10 14:21 (#2S87)

OK, so if I want to avoid using systemd in my crappy, personal distro with 3 users, that's one thing. But what I really want is for the big guns to stop packaging systemd so I like their product more. Big distinction.

Anybody who wants to use zafiro17nux as their primary distro might not have to deal with systemd, but they're in for a huge world of pain otherwise.

Re: Just do it then (Score: 1, Interesting)

by Anonymous Coward on 2014-09-10 14:27 (#2S88)

"they're in for a huge world of pain"

There are swaths of the hardcore masochist (Gentoo is too easy) Linux userbase who would choose zafiro17nux solely because of that claim. :)

Re: Just do it then (Score: 1)

by skarjak@pipedot.org on 2014-09-10 21:48 (#2S8T)

I think that at this point, its pretty much a lost cause. All the major distros have accepted it. What would make them go back on their decision? Plenty of people are fine with systemd.

Re: Just do it then (Score: 1)

by genx@pipedot.org on 2014-09-10 16:15 (#2S8D)

And the "homogenizing all distros by adopting systemd" argument in the article is bull. Weren't distros previously "homogenized" by running on sysvinit?
Homogenising thanks to systemd is a major point in systemd proponents arguments!