Shower thought: Linux would be more popular if we could all agree on a distro

First off nobody can agree on anything, ever, so this is some fantasy world that will never exist.

Second, I've seen this complaint for at least 20 years and yet the Linux ecosystem is stronger than ever.

Fragmentation is a strength, not a weakness. There are amazing developers who would never have had the opportunity to contribute if development was monolithic like you are proposing.

Part of the beauty of Linux is the variance, though. There can be strength in diversity.

Yes, but my choice of distro is the correct choice of distro everyone else needs to switch for unification reasons.

No no no no no no

It's not fragmented in that sense.

No, it would not be more popular if there was one distro. That wouldn't solve any problems.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding I see among many people, especially those outside/new to the Linux world. They talk about having too many choices where it's overwhelming to pick from. But it's not like ice cream flavors where "Oh I like chocolate and vanilla and strawberry? How can I choose?" where some people can get choice anxiety; if you think that's comparable you just don't know about how Linux fragmentation works.

Now, that's fine; not everyone will know everything, and this concept is not always obvious to everyone. That said, an argument made from ignorance is not a valid argument.

Let me explain why fragmentation doesn't work this way.

In every piece of software that is fragmented in the Linux world, it's not arbitrary. It's not people making hundreds of different things "just because." There's always a correct choice for each person. Different tools in the same area to suit different needs. No, not all tools are on equal footing lacking unity. They all benefit from the same standards but implement the features that matter to that tool. Unifying them solves nothing. We may not even get a tool out of it as people would fight over the directions of the projects.

For instance, why are there different DEs and WMs? Because not every DE has the workflow a person wants. I can't stand the Windows way of UX; I think it's terrible. If there was only one distro, and it came with KDE, I'd be very frustrated as there's no good tiling options!

The different distros are not ice cream flavors; they exist to fulfill specific needs. You pick your distro, DE, etc to suit the way you want to use your computer. Everyone has a way they want their computer to work whether they realize it or not, even if that way is just how Windows does it.

There's not an overwhelming amount of distros; that's a view stemming from a lack of understanding. Fragmentation is not a problem.

then that distro would probably be better than Windows and more people would move to Linux

So as you can see, this wouldn't be the case. That distro wouldn't serve people's needs, just like Windows doesn't serve people's needs.

The problem with Linux is not its fragmentation - that's it's superpower; there are distros that will meet the needs of everyone already. You just have to figure out what you want from a computer. If it's just how Windows does things then, well, there are DEs and distros out there already made to function like Windows! Give Mint a try, for instance.

The reason Linux isn't more popular has nothing to do with not having a good-enough distro that can beat Windows. What that looks like is different for different people, and I guarantee all of them exist somewhere.

Tbh Linux already is better than Windows (and Mac) on every front except two:

1. Lack of industry-standard software for certain fields as well as a handful of specific games
2. Normies will use whatever their PC comes with and will be too scared to reinstall, and Windows and Mac come on almost all devices by default.

P.S.

similarly to how most of us use the same kernel

This isn't the case. We don't even use the same kernels!

First, many distros use very different versions and second, some come with kernels that have major tweaks and customizations.

Not to mention the various modules and kernel parameters that get enabled and added.

There are plenty of kernel tweaks.

EDIT: I like what another user said - "Linux is modular, not fragmented."

https://xkcd.com/927/

The fact it can be configured so freely is one of the best things about Linux. A generic "one size fits all" solution would just end up being like Windows or MacOS.

To be fair, there's already a general consensus in which are the "beginner friendly" distros, which includes the community support and familiarity with windows. Most people would probably recommend Mint to a new or switching user, for example.

After someone is used to a more basic linux distro, diversity and complexity are pros rather than cons. "Oh you need a distro with super specific specs for a niche use case? There's 5, you can pick or try them all". I could have linux on every machine i own, including a TV or even a thermostat, and I'd have a different setup.

Linux isn't as fragmented as you think.

Linux is modular, not fragmented.

Except Gnome. Fuck Gnome.

I think you're right, but I don't think most people who use Linux care about whether or not it's popular. Popularity is almost entirely irrelevant to the philosophy.

I thought we all agreed on NixOS? ;)

It would stop being linux.

As long as it does not have systemd and I can use either Wayland or X11. Easy, no?

Yeah, we could also end war and hunger and change a lot of other things if we'd all agree to do it but here we are ...

Ha. nope.

It’s kind of happening naturally as it picks up more users and developers. There are really only a few distros that all others are based on. And as many have already said, it’s not fragmented and actually very healthy, and that’s a good thing.

I get what you mean from a development perspective, but I already know your opinion is and will expectedly be unpopular within the Linux community. People here like freedom and choice, in one way or other.

A big benefit is that it keeps threat actors away from most components. If there's a vulnerability in some Qt library, it will be big enough that people will notice eventually and fix it, but too small for someone to write ransomware code if the target is like 15000 random unimportant people.

There are certain things that people are trying to improve upon, to make things uniform/easy like the many ways to install software! Package managers to avoid having to compile from source. Flatpak/Snap/etc. to avoid having to deal with packages and dependencies! AppImages to put everything in one portable binary! However, with increasing simplicity you trade off customizability and other factors. This is why all these ways are available.

Counterpoint: Linux would be more popular if it were the default. Despite all the marketing and walled gardens, even Malus, the trillion dollar company still makes up a measly 25% of the end user market. They are nigh meaningless on the server market.

The majority of people will use whatever is put in front of them first and stick to it due to inertia and sunken cost. Many wouldn't even know the difference until someone explicitly told them.

Anti Commercial-AI license

Linux is already better than Windows, the latest versions are a mess, and is likely going to get worse.

Nah, even if there were one holistic/catholic/apostolic/ecumenical GNU/Linux distribution, it would not follow that it's "better than Windows" for many folks, let alone that "people would move". Folks are very slow to adopt new technologies, very hesitant to step outside of an established market duopoly, and generally not prepared to work with computers as they are.

Also, you'd have to switch to NixOS.