I was on Telegram talking with Alan Pope and other people in the Ubuntu Podcast Chatter Telegram when we started the argument of "Stop Making Distributions". As some of you might know I am a huge fan of Linux and BSD. I work on my own distributions. However, I hear one thing FAR too often when debating Linux distributions.
"We already have enough Linux distributions, we don't need more!", which is just ignorant and idiotic. About as idiotic as the other person who kept saying "We don't need more apps". So I will be making the comparison on those, then we will prove why it is wrong, what's REALLY the issue in Linux, and how to fix it.
Distributions VS Apps (Which do we need less of?)
Well neither. Make as you wish. I am extraordinarily surprised that the argument happened, and the two sides make basically the same remarks, actually, the same arguments any of these debates have. Let's list them.
- We already have too many of them
- Who wants/needs that specific setup?
- Developers walk away when people might depend on it
- Too many options hurt people and makes adoption harder
- No one will ever use half of them, so why make more?
All of these arguments are used by the two sides in any "Too many apps/distros" discussion when in reality they all are stupid and ignorant. Let's take it one at a time.
"We already have too many of them" - What do you mean too many? They are not the same product. They are all different solutions to different problems.
"Who wants/needs that specific setup?" - Who wants/needs Ubuntu? Or how about Fedora? Linux Mint? Pop!_OS? Manjaro? Arch? Gentoo? Windows 10? Always at least someone. I mean heck even openmamba has a user base, ever heard of that?
"Developers walk away when people might depend on it" - Yes, that happens. To apps, Linux distros, Firmware maintainers, Carmakers, Hardware makers, Online applications, Healthcare workers, CEOs, Chefs, Charity workers... I mean all this affects people. Yes, Developers leave, but many other people do. Whether they are important with a team or by themselves, sometimes people quit. So why should a normal happenstance be used as evidence against making more distributions or applications?
"Too many options hurt people and makes adoption harder" - This pure fallacy angers me every time I am forced to deal with it. We have billions of smartphones, trillions of PC parts, over a billion websites (NOT INCLUDING THE DARK/DEEP webs). Here are a couple of industries that will kill this argument by being mentioned: YouTube Videos, Television, Cars, Office Supplies, Computers, Video Games, Mobile apps, Mobile games, Mobile Hardware, Professional Printing, Printing Hardware, Printing Ink, Household Appliances, Televisions, Social Media, Advertising Platforms. What do all of these have in common? There are at least several billion of their kind. Yet we still see TV's being popular, Computers, Social Media, and Mobile anything still being well respected. No no, Linux has a much bigger issue. After one more point, it will be clear.
"No one will ever use half of them, so why make more?" - More of WHAT? More of my thing?
Why Linux is Failing on the Desktop
Let's be honest here. Linux fails on the desktop for one reason, and it isn't because too many choices or anything like that people argue in the Linux-Sphere. Not that there's not enough software, that not everyone understands Linux, not even because Microsoft is an inescapable monopoly. No, the issue with Linux... is the misunderstanding of how the world actually works. Let me explain.
Linux fails because there are too many distributions, Linux fails because we redefined "distributions" to fit Linux. Ubuntu is Ubuntu, not Ubuntu Linux. Yes, it uses Linux because that's what it uses, but if it switched to a FreeBSD base in 20.10, it is still 100% pure Ubuntu. Linux fails because we hold the definition of "distribution" the wrong way. Don't get me wrong, distributions are important. Calling them distributions is a good thing, but the way we define it is NOT.
How to fix the issue
Simple. Redefine and rethink the word "distribution". Don't hold it up as "just another x", but as "a re-imagination of x".
The Linux community needs to stop thinking that Distributions are just more things to count because they aren't. Linux is a tool people use to make products. A Linux distribution is an improvement or implementation of that. You might say "but that's what a Linux distro is", and you're right unless you take in the community. Overall the idea in the community is that a distribution is "another Linux implementation", but not as in "improvement" but rather an unnecessary thing we don't need because the community thinks that Linux is one singular product. That's wrong.
Linux is a tool. It's only just a tool. Like GNU compilers and utilities are tools. Linux is a hammer, a saw. Linux is not "Ultrahammur 123rd Edition Premium Steel 1983". We need to stop, as a community, thinking Linux is a product. It's not. The operating systems we build using Linux are the product. Linux is a tool that makes it easier.
Stop thinking the tool is part of the product, no one cares if the tool is used. People only care if the product is good.
Top comments (2)
I agree.
The answer of why Windows wins in the desktops is simple, but many don't want to accept it, is because people don't care!, 90% of the people don't give a crap of their OS, I've been using Linux/BSD for 10+ years and other users often talks like if everyone where suffering Windows but poor them can't escape.
But no, most people are not suffering because of Windows, the OS they are using is not a concern to them, as simple as that, they are not deeply concern about their OS, most of them don't even know what an OS is and don't care, that is fine. Most of us are not deeply concerned about what kind of tire car uses, not caring much about our diet, some even exercise or health unless is in jeopardy, we all have our interest and our priorities; the OS is not one of them. As simple as that, is easier to move from 1 Windows version to the next than to move to Linux, and Linux can't don anything to solve that, only becoming a clone of Windows would, and nobody wants that, in fact when moving from one version of Windows to the next has been "harder" like with Win8, we saw extra people moving to Linux in an amount probably related to the extra difficulty of Win8.
People use FB and Instagram and the little loss of adoption has been only because they are not "fashionable" enough, not because of privacy concerns, people, don't care. Windows tracks you, of course, just like FB, Twitter, Instagram, and most of the sites even users of Dev make, adding trackers and unnecessary cookies. People still use them because.. (drum rolls) people don't care.
Why open formats are not widely used? is because the icons are not pretty enough?, is because the name of the extensions are not similar to closed formats enough? people blaming low adoption on the desktop to "fragmentation", to "too many choices", and the like, like people debating if ogg lost to mp3 because the extension looked too much like "egg" or the lack of "m's" because people like the letter "m" right? what if we change it to mgg? while others discuss about why is because ogg doesn't have any numbers and debating if we should change it to m4g or m5g (although maybe the g's are the problem)...
maybe because editing propietary formats in linux is hell. (pdf, tiff, (anything adobe))
Lot's of UX issues with GUI programs such as Libre/Openoffice, inkscape, Gimp.
Uncompatible drivers for your hardware.
And it's not the fault of anyone, these things are simply ridiculously hard to implement for the common programmer. These open source projects just play catch-up if they don't become abandoned first.
Also where is the money going to come from for the people who would like to work on this?
Why linux fails to be adopted is the investment of the user is increased in order to do anything. I can't decide if that's by design, or just because lack of care.