Let me phrase it this way.
Talking to people from the Linux Com, the definition of a Distro can be veeeery different.
To the point that it is defined the way you need it in that moment.

Different Devteam Maintaining it, responsable for rebuilding it when there are updates to components and so on (as it is with Ubuntu vs Kbuntu) is very far away from somebody building PCs and installing different Software by default.

If you want to come up with this kind of Definition, then the IT of my employer would build an own "Windows Distro" as well as an own "Android Distro" just because automatically certain software is installed and configured to Devices, when they are building it up for a user.

And sorry, that is simply BS.

And if I would follow your Idea, then there is no Ubuntu, there is no Mint, there is no Kbuntu.
There is only Debian.
Please, tell this to the Ubuntu devs.

I mean, I got no problem with saying, that Windows is a shitshow and MS should have received the killing blow decades ago (and Apple alike to be honest).
But it is very funny to see how unwilling Linux people are to even acknowledging just a tiny bit, that Linux is a shitshow aswell.
A different shitshow with its one problems, but still a shitshow.

Can't we all just...get along?

I guess what you call an expletive I call people being free to make what they want. Groups of people decide to package free software for others to use however they wish.

All complex software is imperfect, but distros gives people options. There is not much upside to having no options.

srsly, the perfect q.e.d.

And internet worms shut down the railroad for weeks or months.

But i have to disagree. Microsoft tries to force you to update and use their live-service bloated software, other OSes don't use malware to coax you to update, or pre-download and stealth update your system when you weren't expecting it.

I think you are blind. I said "All complex software is imperfect".

What are you looking to see?

Do you want only one OS and no other option? Do you want the freedom for people to make their own distros to be taken away?

What is your proposed better path?

This is somewhat what I was trying to get at earlier.

Sorry, you are full hard in defense mode without even noticing.

I can only tell you how Linux will stay small and why it stays small.

As I said before, I'm told for basically 25 years now, that Linux will be the next best thing since sliced bread and it will overtake windows soon(tm).
I linked the Linux Distri tree - that is NOT how it will work.
Adding more and more variants because of a changed software pack here and a different GUI there is simply insane.
Yeah, there need to be small low footprint variants. But again, look at that tree.
While some die (not good for that users) it still gets more and more.

But I already wrote about the madness of Debian - Ubuntu - Kubuntu - Mint.
Ubuntu wanted Debian without closed source? Ok - Mint wanted Ubuntu with some added closed source - but it shouldn't be Debian.

Step outside your comfort zone, look at it without your "isn't it great when people have 1000 options to choose from" attitude and think how to explain it to somebody from the outside.

Because the regular guy simply won't choose at all when there are 1000 options to choose from. Regular guy will say fuck it and will go back to what he knows.
End of story.

In no world people will start work through this pile to find out their best option.

And we can go on with the - how many GUIs Linux got now?`
Do you believe, that people will test out GUIs to find out what they like the most?
I mean, People beside those 2% inside the Linux Bubble?

Not to speak about that Linux is still a tinker system. If something doesn't work on Windows, you can always start the secured mode that got the same GUI and options to work with.
Linux - hope you are good with the keyboard and you know the commands.

Freedom of choice, nice to hear. And it is nice to have later on. But to get hit by a wall of "CHOOOSE!!!" doesn't help at all.
People want stuff that simply works and a direct support if it does not.

There is a reason Linux in the server marked is less splintered up. Big companies might got their own server Linux, but smaller ones buy from companies who do development and support.
I mean, Linux on Desktop got 2 to 4% (depending who you ask) while Windows on Servers is at 20% (so 5 to 10 times) for a reason. And that reason is, MS and Windows are better in giving people what they want at server systems, then Linux is giving people what they want for private desktops.

You can talk as much about freedom of choice or freedom of building your own Distri.
If users would care, it would't be Windows - long nothing - Mac - long nothing - first Linux variant.
It is the perfect way to keep Linux small.

Actually, Linux had the chance to gain traction 15 years ago, Linux had the chance with the change of the Windows GUI, Linux had the chance with Steam supporting it.
It failed.

I mean, keep in mind Debian is as old as Windows 95. That was a huge change for MS OS back then.
30 years later...


Enlighten me what on a havoc running third party security and monitoring tool, that is available for Windows AND Linux and shooting down Windows (as other of its kind have done with Windows and Linux alike in the past) is MS fault.

Again, I can see many fuckups of MS, biggest one is loosing their main key for their cloud system but in this case...

And btw, we are talking about managed servers that got killed here. MS is not "stealth update" those, simply because which updates a server gets and which not can be decided by the admins of those windows servers by a centralized control tool.
At the same time, there is not only Malware for Linux and Apple, there are even security fixes you are asked to use basically yesterday and at the same time for both you get security and monitoring software as you get for Windows.
(well, not so much for Apple because MacOS is not a good Server OS and neither can it be managed that well).

That is false. "Kubuntu" is an official part of the Ubuntu project, uses the same repositories, etcetra. The vast majority of the operating system is the same, and indeed you can install the kubuntu desktop on Ubuntu just by installing the kubuntu-desktop package. The Kubuntu team is not maintaining a complete OS, they are just maintaining a small part that gets added on top of the Ubuntu base.

I don't know why Ubuntu decided to make these named flavors that may look like a whole different "branch of Linux" in the eyes of the ignorant. Perhaps a marketing tactic? Perhaps they wanted to make it easy to install one of these alternative desktops without having to first see an oh-so-scary different desktop and find the package that installs the one you want. Perhaps they thought it's nicer not to waste disk space and bandwidth on the default desktop that some people may not want. Perhaps they wanted to avoid scaring people with choices in the installer.. I really don't know why Ubuntu went this way, but whatever the case, in the end it's all just third party software packaged and integrated for Ubuntu. And they are! They were not written by the Ubuntu or the Kubuntu teams. Believe it or not, there are multiple dev teams inside Microsoft too.

But no, Kubuntu team is not maintaining an entire operating system all by themselves. They are just maintaining the KDE desktop relevant parts of the Ubuntu system and ensuring they integrate properly, while everything else is shared with the Ubuntu project. That's why it can be done by such a small team. Maintaining a complete operating system is a gargatuan task. Maintaining and intergrating the third party packages that make up the kubuntu desktop? Yeah, that's not a big challenge.

So again, if I decided to provide my own desktop for Windows and maintained its integration, it would be as much a "branch of Windows" as Kubuntu is a "branch of Linux."

You've bloviated quite a lot without answering any of the simple questions I posed:

Do you want only one OS and no other option? Do you want the freedom for people to make their own distros to be taken away?

What is your proposed better path?

There's nothing defensive about trying to get you to clarifying your position.

Had posted this on another thread, but better put it here since it's one more place where this discussion already exists, so maybe it won't be started in earnest there too...

You can say that, at least in the non-server variants, Linux basically exists because of the users who want something different, to break away from norms and the mainstream, enough to actually work steadily in that direction. I'd call it darn surprising if the results of that mindset wouldn't continue to be visible while they do work on it...

As for the users, come on, how many new users look through all the variants and try to choose. I'm sure that even the vast majority of Linux devs, not to mention users, don't know all, if not even most, of them. Most are made by people who want something specific, for people who want the same specific thing, which requires knowing what you want first, which isn't the case when you start out.
When you start out, what you should be looking for is a popular variant with a large community you can get help from, because you'll need it, and which is highly unlikely to vanish or remain outdated, because if you do like it, you really don't want to be forced to change after a while.
Later, after you learn the general ropes and can express some specific things you want different, if when you ask about them you're told you won't get that on your current distro, you may start looking for a different one. But at that point you're not new anymore.

That's simply true.
Users coming from Windows don't stare at a '500 choices' wall and get confused.
We live in the 'internet era', where people ask everything to search engines.

Anyone starting with Linux would search something in the lines of:
"How to install Linux", learn about Distros, and then:
"Best Linux distro for beginners"
which would probably guide them to Mint, Ubuntu, etc.

Theoretically, we can narrow this down to essentially 1 distro.

Mint.

The distro that's probably most recommended for Windows users.

That's the thing, those of us who can just pick quickly like that are more often the exception rather than the norm.

What do a good number of people more often do when they go to a restaurant? Try something new or order something from a short list of things they've had before at that location? Same with OS.

The problem is that while linux users do offer advice and tips online, quite often it seems to come in the form of forum posts filled with code and terminal commands and less often as something like an illustrated step by step guide. When faced with such things a number of the masses will likely scratch their heads and go back to business as usual with windows.

When the day soon comes that you can no longer run Windows without an online account it will be interesting to see the justification for running Windows DRM but not Steam DRM.

No, I came up with "see, sometimes Windows isn't really any easier to configure than Linux" because people like you like to claim the opposite.

Many times it is actually considerably harder and esoteric. Like in this example, adding a new system variable:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW69MisrsWk#t=200

Why does the new system variable have a name starting with two underscores, __? Because fuck you, I guess. And then you somehow come up with the value "4" for it because it is not explained anywhere.

With Linux a similar example would be editing some config file under the /etc/ directory, the main issue being to know which is the correct file. Its name or subdirectory is usually a good giveaway, like /etc/selinux/config sounds like it is the config file for SELinux behavior, right? And when you go to edit it with a text editor, the config file itself pretty much explains the different options and what you can put there:

# This file controls the state of SELinux on the system.
# SELINUX= can take one of these three values:
# enforcing - SELinux security policy is enforced.
# permissive - SELinux prints warnings instead of enforcing.
# disabled - No SELinux policy is loaded.
SELINUX=permissive
# SELINUXTYPE= can take one of these two values:
# targeted - Targeted processes are protected,
# mls - Multi Level Security protection.
SELINUXTYPE=targeted

Say what you will, but that is far easier than e.g. editing system variables or registry in Windows, adding some new key and a hexadecimal value out of your ass to Windows registry. It would be silly to claim the opposite.

Ps. I am not really a "Linux guy" because I've used Windows much more and longer in my life (ever since the Windows 3.1 times), and even today use much more hours on Windows than Linux. But whatever, maybe to you anyone who has tipped his toe to Linux and didn't hate it is a "Linux guy".

So your point seems to be that Linux would be much better off if it had only one distro made by one single company, just like only Microsoft makes Windows, or Apple makes MacOS and iOS (eeeeek! two different Apple branches!)?`

I disagree, that is exactly Linux' strength and makes it possible for it to adapt to different times, and for end-users not having to cope with whatever whims one company might want to force on them. Like when I didn't like Canonical pushing Unity in Ubuntu and starting collaboration with some data harvesting company, I jumped ship to Linux Mint XFCE and didn't look back. In Windows I wouldn't have a similar option, I have to take whatever MS decides to force to me.

To you that is some "mess" which makes my life as an end-user horrible, to me it is a breath of fresh air for not having to cope with some decisions of a single company (like Microsoft or Apple). Suggesting that using third-party tools to change the Windows UI more to your liking is silly, considering those changes are unsupported by the one who calls the shots (Microsoft) and might break in the future updates. They are more like those esoteric hacks how to install Windows 11 without an Outlook account or disable Windows Defender permanently or other things trying to circumvent Microsoft's forced restrictions, they might and probably will stop working after some new Windows update.

Untrue. If you don't e.g. like the default desktop environment, you can change to another.

Also, I wouldn't call a new distro "something new", when it normally is based on something existing but changes some parts of it. It is merely a variation of something existing, and from the end-user point of view you can use either that you feel better suits your needs. You see that as a negative, I see it as a positive.

Naturally you are lying there, claiming that "every small change" triggers a new branch/distro.

You seem to have this idea that there should be only one company and distro in Linux, before it can become popular. I think you are just wrong, after all the wealth of distros hasn't prevented Linux from becoming number one in e.g. servers and embedded systems, quite the opposite actually.

From the end/home user point of view, the most important question is whether some piece of software is easily usable on different Linux distros, particularly the one they happen to be using. I guess that is what snaps, flatpacks and appimages are solving (potential dependency issues etc.). That may solve the issue particularly for commercial software: how to release a commercial application (even a game) on Linux without having to separately support several distros.

And this poses... what fucking problem exactly, for the end-user? Doesn't e.g. "sudo apt install <your favorite utility>" work on one of them, or something?

You seem all angry about some issue that isn't an issue at all.

I came with the example because you lied that in order for Linux to run some "other" stuff, it would have to release a whole new distro. I gave you an example how your claim is not true.

Windows still allows you to run 32bit applications because there is so much of it, while in Linux this is less of an issue, especially with software and utilities you get from the repositories anyway.

You can expect Windows to stop supporting 32bit applications at some point, just like in the past Microsoft dropped 16bit application support.

Weak argument on your part.

For your argument to work, answer this then:

1. MacOS is made by one company. Why is its market share so much lower than Windows in Steam as well (around 4% if I read right)? Why hasn't it become number one or at least get 50% of the Steam share, if having only one company making the OS is the magic bullet to success?

2. Why hasn't the wealth of distros similarly made it impossible for Linux to gain foothold on servers and embedded systems?

The answer is because unlike you claim, the reasons for Linuxes low share within PC gaming isn't related much at all to the wealth of distros, but mainly other things like, well, most PC gamers simply have no compelling reason to switch from Windows to Linux, anymore than from Windows to MacOS.