4 ms·

Desktop Linux will stay in the hobbyist domain forever if so much effort is spent on polishing separate "options" i.e. Distributions, window managers etc. when

Desktop Linux will stay in the hobbyist domain forever if so much effort is spent on polishing separate "options" i.e. Distributions, window managers etc. when fixing the tools used by most users would be more important. Are the differences between package managers and keeping them really so important that it's not possible to do everyone a favour and agree on using just the best one? Sure, it's nice to have "options" but as the decades fly by, people seem to use that mostly as an excuse for still not having a user-friendly desktop Linux.

Nextgrid 6y ago
The Linux world spread its resources thin across a lot of "options" (with the result that none of them get enough attention to bring them to a polished state) instead of doing one option but doing it well.
ac29 6y ago
> fixing the tools used by most users would be more important This supposes that said tools are broken, which doesnt match my experience at all. Sure, there are obscure bugs in all software, but major issues are rare. If by fixing, you mean "I want tool A to be more like tool B", that's just a matter of opinion, and I personally find the relative abundance of opinionated software on Linux to be a benefit, not a hindrance. > do everyone a favour and agree on using just the best one Trying to decide on the "one best tool" and dumping the rest and is like trying to pick the "one best programming language" and dumping the rest.