Which Linux Distributions Are Dying?

Those who would use Google as a metric for determining which distributions are on the decline are short-sighted in my opinion.

There are other factors that the metrics do not take into account and, therefore, the actual reality of the situation is skewed.

Kind of like using wikipedia as a definitive research source.

azerthoth

Excellent point!

You guys pegged the problem we face in doing these gauges. While it's readily accepted and understood that Distrowatch rankings mean next to nothing, it's extremely difficult to find a way to measure it that is next to something. We've all realized as well that any advertisement of Linux would be difficult to successfully measure but on a much larger scale. Since there are no sales receipts or tallies of purchase, I don't think we'll ever know how successful any community-driven advertisement is....not in number-specific anyway.

That doesn't discount the importance of advertising Linux or using Google for this type of tool. It's the best we have until something better comes along.

h

Quoting:Kind of like using wikipedia as a definitive research source.

Huh? What's wrong with that? I do it all the time when making comments and writing thruthfull articles! Common, WP doesn't lie, does it?

Randy Pausch commented in his Last Lecture that, having written an article for the World Book Encyclopedia, and seen the editorial process that goes into it, he now considers Wikipedia to be on par with just about anything else.

Quoting:Those who would use Google as a metric for determining which distributions are on the decline are short-sighted in my opinion.

Somewhat agreed. Probably better to write "Those who would [solely rely upon] Google as a metric for determining which distributions are on the decline are short-sighted....." The DistroWatch site is probably just as much a decent site for evaluating distros as is Google, DistroWatch at http://www.distrowatch.com

Quoting:Kind of like using wikipedia as a definitive research source.

Agreed based upon similar reasons as for the sole use of Google. Most likely best to use multiple research sources including other online material, printed material and other offline sources if available. Unfortunately, such research sources are not always readily accessible or kept up-to-date.

Stats on Distrowatch and Google tell us something. We don't know what exactly, but they're not totally irrelevant.

Forum traffic is another good indicator, as is number of downloads.

Another good indicator is shipping totals for systems with preinstalled Linux, if those were to be made public.

Well, the problem is this: the DistroWatch website lists the top 100 websites. It indicates that it measures site hits, which never tells the full story.

Hey, don't bash Wikipedia. I was once looking up Tenzing Norgay, and someone had written in his bio "Tenzing is gay". I clicked "edit" and ended up on the edit page only to notice that between me noticing it and me clicking edit, someone had already corrected it.

Yay for many eyes.

And always check the cited references! Critical thought ftw.

Quoting:And always check the cited references! Critical thought ftw.

Quoted for truth. Wikipedia may not be an authoritative and definitive source of information itself, but the many links leading away from it make it an excellent starting point for research about virtually all topics.