tldr: For Linux adoption it would be better for devs to focus on 2 (“main”) distros which are very similar to Windows and macOS and then 2-3 further (“big”) distros which give a bit more room to experiment. All the other distros create confusion and analysis-paralysis for the user who wants to switch or wants to help others to do the switch.
Edit because some people got emotional and I was being imprecise: Disclaimer: I dont want to dictate any foss dev, I understand that “Linux” isnt a company. By “Linux” in this post I only ment the desktop OS for personal and work use.
— (sorry for the long paragraph, i ranted and brain dumped the idea)
I see a problem: Even “stable” distros like Debian and big and “fully developed” DEs like KDE or GNOME arent ready for the majority of the users switching from windows. Missing software compatibility and the need to fall back on the commandline are just some of the problems. The biggest one is the confusion for the average user: They google “install Linux” and then need to do research for at least 30minutes, figuring out which of the popular distros is the right one for them. If decided, then (depending on the distro) they then have to choose the DE.
Its a sinilar problem to the adoption of the Fediverse: You are expected to decide what instance you want to be part of. This makes it also very hard for a linux enthusiasts to convince/help install a distro for a family member, as you dont know their preferenced or how they use their Win/Mac machine. So either you as an expert have to observe and then do research on what distro+DE fits the usecase or the enduser themselves need to distro-hop, which is obviously not happening.
Now you are thinking: But just install Linux Mint and they probably do most of the things in their Browser anyways.
But in my experience the switch of potentially the browser, the mail-client and ontop of that the OS is a pretty tall ask for an average end user. So the whole switching thing becomes a multi year operation where they first switch the software they use to FOSS one. Which is a tall order and it makes it even harder to explain and convince someone. Heck, it already takes multiple days to get my grandma up to speed after the change Win10 -> Win11, because some buttons moved and the context menue looks different.
Now my utopian idea: If there were only a handful of popular distros+DEs, one could map them on a 2D-plane or even on a spectrum of “fixed, you have to adapt” to “flexible, you have to adjust the settings”. Mac users could switch to a distro which is quite fixed (comparable to macOS). This fixed distro should out of the box be close to the mac experience. With windows the same.
Very very rough prototype of the spectrum to visualize my idea. I dont know enough about it but tried anyways:
flexible <Arch + Hyprland>
<Debian + KDE Plasma>
Windows 10
<Linux Mint + Cinnamon>
MacOS
<Debian + GNOME> fixed
If then most of Linux Devs (from Kernel to distro to UI to software) mostly focus on the 4-5 main distros, then they would get more stable and they could be made to behave closer to their proprietary counterparts.
This then could make the switch from Mac/Win so much more easy because:
-
The distro is closer to the old proprietary OS. So the enduser just has to learn other “new” software, the OS doesnt demand a learning curve but just replicates the Win/Mac experience.
-
The decision which distro to use is easier, as there are the main ones which are easy to choose because they are distinct from one another.
Disclaimer: No, i am no expert, I probably dont know enough of the technical side, I just wanted to share the enduser experience. Obviously there will always be countless distros by enthusiasts who tinker with their dozends of dev-friends for their personal-perfect distro. There will always be the people who deliberately do some frankensteined distro, and I am not here to forbid any of this. The confusing diversity of all the options is just not helping the wider public.
I’ve seen this opinion voiced quite a few times for the last 28 or so years I’ve been a Linux user.
Guess what? It’s free and open source software. People work on what they feel like when they feel like if they feel like. You can’t mandate “let’s just have a couple of distros, think of the public!”. It doesn’t work like that. Yes, life is not perfect.
Furthermore, Linux (as a whole) is not a for-profit project, or a singular organization.
Desktop Linux is far from it’s only purpose, and many of the devs are far more interested in their own use-cases: servers, embedded systems, supercomputers, phones, special purpose OSs. Wikipedia even has a page for the wide range of use beyond desktops and servers. So we can’t simply treat devs as a unified group with a common goal like we can generally do with Microsoft, Apple, Google, Steam, etc. unless you pick a particular distro!
Exactly. I need Debian, Alpine, Manjaro, OpenWRT, MoOde Audio Player, Lakka and SteamOS.
They all serve different use cases. That’s the beauty of it, the utter flexibility to turn it into whatever you need because you can.
Yes, sorry, that wasnt my intention.
When I talked about “Linux” or “distros” i only ment Desktop OS for personal use. Sorry!
It’s fine.
Every Linux user goes through this, because the freedom means choice, and choice means lots of options.
That’s alright, and I’m also a little bit sorry for nitpicking! I just saw it as an opportunity to illustrate how complex this whole software mess is.
I’m not sure if you’ve come across it yet, but there’s a well-known copypasta posted to satirize the way many Linux users will nitpick terms.
I’ve read that before, didnt realize that this was a joke…
Agree! I dont want to dictate anyone and I understand that my rant wont change anything.
It was more about the hypothetical optimum “if we one wanted to optimize for user-share of the desktop OS market”, then there should be fewer but better distros.
My feeling on this is that or the “general public desktop” use case we have to defer to corporate supported distros (RedHat, Ubuntu, Suse), because they have to work with hardware vendors that are typically averse to the idea of sharing driver code, and you have to make sure your desktop runs smoothly on your average PC.
I don’t see it happening, honestly.
The confusing diversity of all the options is just not helping the wider public.
Agreed that that’s the case, but don’t quite agree that that’s a problem
It is a problem if the goal is to increase the “personal desktop OS marketshare”.
But diversity is a good thing for itself I agree. I have the feeling that it is a bit sad that it seems that there isnt one or two “main” distros, which one could recommend that tech illiterate family member.
which one could recommend that tech illiterate family member.
I’ve given up as their thinking is so fundamentally different, and they refuse to meet even one inch towards the middle :-)
What you say could be boiled down to:
If just everybody concentrated on making quality software for Windows, we could have much more quality software for Windows.Your view is common but irrational.
The concept is described by Linus Torvalds as “Scratch your own itch”. The richness and diversity of Linux distros is a strength not a weakness.If you want to make a Barbie themed distro you can. And if you want to, why should anyone try to prevent you?
If development was concentrated around fewer distros, it is far from a sure thing this development would go in the direction you would personally want. You would just have fewer options.There are two negatives to the “fragmentation” of Linux.
1 - application compatibility
2 - paralysis of choice
For the first, we need to put as much focus as possible on Flatpak and we need ONE independent App Store where app devs can distribute and users can subscribe.
For the second, the Linux community needs to agree on one or two distros that we agree should always be the recommendation for new users. I always recommend Mint. We could maybe have one more specifically for gamers.
But, overall, diversity is the great strength of Linux. Not only can it adapt to every niche but the is competition and innovation between distros. The entire ecosystem drives itself forward in a way that a “unified” platform cannot.
Thanks, you condensed my thoughts very well. The point with flatpak is very important. I used discovery by kde but it seemed not as polished as it should be. Not to say that there are better “stores”. I hope the inclusion of flatpak/flathub into distros/DEs gets improved significantly and gets adapted wider.
My first thought as well :)
No, I dont suggest that there should be another new distro. The existing ones are pretty good at the goal of being userfriendly, at least some of them like Linux Mint
But mint wouldn’t be possible without the work that the Ubuntu community puts into making a stable and polished distribution. And Ubuntu wouldn’t be possible without the Debian community who put in the effort to make the distribution the best for their usage.
Linux Mint is not harder for Grandma than windows 10 was. Granny just is used to use windows. Same with children. With less tech people when talking about Linux or choices, I just talk and choose Mint. If they evolve, they will know better. (btw, This is exactly the path that old-schoolers take to become Mint users .)
When you come from world business models, efficiency, where marketing sacrifices all the values for profit, your ideas look rational. However, ideological point of view, does Linux necessary need those people ( who obviously needs Linux )? This is a free world, you can choose exploitation, abuse and inefficiency if you want - Microsoft or Apple.
I think this is a great unpopular opinion. TL:DR; In a similar sense to Lemmy/Fediverse vs. Reddit, the diversity of setups and software with some common elements is part of the point.
the rest of my long comment
Many of the dev teams have different philosophies and aims, and they aren’t being paid to work together, let alone if they’re receiving any money at all.
Ubuntu kind of was the normie out-of-the-box distro previously, but people always had a bone to pick with Canonical, be it with systemd, their Amazon ad stuff or with snaps.
On the gaming side, Valve helped immensely with the commercial aspect, boosting tireless efforts by community developers of projects like DXVK and Wine to make Linux gaming viable. Valve was trying long before the Steam Deck. In 2013 they released the Linux Steam Client and their port of Portal. Later they released the Steam Machine which wasn’t too successful but along with the Steam Controller was a precursor to the Deck. Now with arch-based HoloOS, Proton, as well as the sandbox system, games built for Windows can easily be made to work on most Linux distros without worrying about library dependencies or other issues that were common from the way various distros are built and managed.
My main point of contention is that having everything around a handful of distros makes it vulnerable to single points of failure and more of a target for malicious exploits. See how the Crowdstrike incident bricked a huge number of servers and stopped many vital buildings from operating for a few days? Linux, even it its current state, is not immune to that, as some important and widely-used libraries have been targeted by malicious actors and nearly succeeded.
From an enduser perspective, as long as you can access the apps you want and do the things you want to with your computer, it’s mostly the look of the desktop environment rather than anything under the hood that matters to most people. The big ones are GNOME, KDE, Cinnamon, XFCE, MATE. Perhaps user guides could be made to better transition people to not feel lost, but there are both legitimate reasons (like accessibility) and others as a matter of taste to select a particular desktop environment.
I’ve personally always been of the opinion that it’s great to have so many different options, and i also never understood why people get so stressed about choosing a distro. You can always switch to something else later if you find something better, but first you need to find out your likes and dislikes about a distribution to begin with. Pewdiepie said in his linux video “just pick one!”, and that’s how i went about it as well. When i saw an LTT video about trying linux instead if windows 11, they recommended PopOS, so that’s what i chose. Ended up trying a bunch of different ones later, and as of right now i’m on Void linux.
I guess its in the nature of open source. However really need to get on top of the search results of “install linux”. I like the End of 10 campaign, however i also have just noticed that in their install guide they don’t specify where to get Linux exactly just
Download the operating system you want to install. Search for Linux distributions for beginners to get some suggestions.
How the Hell do people who think like this function in the supermarket where they have to make choices between many different breads for example?
I assume that under normal circumstances. you are intelligent enough to handle making a choice and have just been brainwashed by Microsoft and Apple into thinking that choice in an operating system is a bad thing.
Sorry if that comes off as aggressive, but the learnt helplessness of it makes me very angry.
Edit: add missing word
I have to interject: It is not like bread, as it is a bigger commitment (as I dont want to distrohop for longer than a week) and also it is more complex to create an OS than to create a bread (so more manpower is needed). Choice is a good thing. But too much choice can be bad. Imagine someone is directing a “linux curious” person to distrowatch. There the newbie will be overwhelmed. Maybe not and he just clicks on a distro and tries it. Probably a bad idea as the change from his previous (corporate) OS is a big change already, now the newbie uses a distro which probably doesnt fit his needs.
My case is that, like with the fediverse, the different options hinder the wider adoption, as potential new users have a problem with it during onboarding. Which is a difficult time as is. Even for someone who is switching from Windows to MacOS, two polished and widely adopted OSes, they are gonna have a hard time. Now add the choice from dozens of distros and the very vocal linux community and the switch is impossible for many potential new linux-users.
I’d like to say that I am not brainwashed, I am currently using Debian+KDE in Dualboot wuth Windows and Linux Mint for the selfhosting server. (Yes I know, this is the wrong distro for a server, it was my first contact with linux so I just picked the most polpular among newbies. Which is kind of the point of the whole thread.)
I’m sorry, but the process is exactly the same. Pick one you’ve been recommended, pick one you like the look of, or pick one at random to try it. With pretty much every distro having a live environment, you don’t need to install it to try it out. Hell, if you use distrosea, you don’t even need to download it to try it. It’s not rocket science, it’s just that people are conditioned to think there shouldn’t be choice in an operating system. I suppose it’s fairer to say it’s more like a car. See which ones you like the look of, try them out and make a decision.
Bee hearing that since 25 years ago
Tldr: Why can’t Linux be more like Windows! With less options and more corporate control!?
No corporate control, not less options.
There need to be a handful of distros with less settings, being more “fixed”.
I personally like to being able to set everything how I like it.
But it just isnt necessary to have THAT many actively developed distros. If devs could drop 1/4 of the distros and redirect their efforts on bigger projects, those would profit massively.
