On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That's about it. As you see, I included Arch up there. As far as I can > see, after Debian, Ubuntu, Mint, Fedora and openSuSE (in no particular > order), Arch has been number 6 on the list of "major Linux > distributions" (excluding professional stuff like SLES or RHEL) for > several years. Reminds me of some of the sports in the Olympics (or even the major football leagues in Europe). The gap between the top X (in this case, the threesome of Debian, Ubuntu, and Fedora) and the rest is VERY large. Based on number of users, number of developers, FULL-TIME and paid developers, and brand recognition. > What I am trying to say is: It no longer suffices to say "we follow the > major distributions" when making a decision, as Arch itself is a major > distribution now. Depends on your definition of 'major'. As a 'true' community-driven ie. no consistent funding and volunteer-operated distro Arch will probably never be in the position to define the terms of conversation.
