linux distro differences

Hello,
sometimes I wonder why so many linux distros exist.
some distributions do offer something other distros dont but for the most part they are bascially the same.

debian versis red hat a few examples.
both use network manager
both use package management systems which do the same job just different commands.
both use samba
both allow you to choose from the same desktop environments for example Gnome KDE etc.

plus there is so many distrobutions based on ubuntu offering very little changes there seems no point.

Debian and ubuntu are very similar the advantage of ubuntu is that it is slightly eaiser to setup.

I would hate to be a software developer for linux.
you would need to create a .deb .rpm and a standard file that the user would have to compile on their machine themselves.

now from the technician side of things.
all those different linux distros and differences must be a pain in the ass for support. if a windows user doesnt know what version of windows they have then the same user with linux would be even worse. then you would have to know what desktop environment,which network daemon,which package management system etc. I think you can see that choice maybe nice but also a pain in the ass.

I do like linux distros but I dont see why there are so many different programs doing the same thing.

I dont bother distro hoping anymore since there isnt enough differences between them.
surely if there was less linux distros and more people working on the remaining distros they would be even better?

 

Linux is a truly free world so one is free to create or customize his or her own but a general trend has emerged and one can well see that quality distro is a fully time big team affair so big boys like Canonical, Red Hat and Novell remain on top.