> "linux" (as in: Unixoid distributions for desktop systems) has always been about choice. Again, no. You call it choice, I call it chaos, it was anarchy, and

> "linux" (as in: Unixoid distributions for desktop systems) has always been about choice. Again, no. You call it choice, I call it chaos, it was anarchy, and that's the default state for any loosely-coupled systems. There is no manifesto, no underlying philosophy that decided that yes, Linux is about choice. Don't conflate lack of organisation with choice. Linux has always been about creating a libre UNIX-like kernel for x86 processors. And converging toward the same set of libre techonologies isn't against the Linux spirit. I still don't understand why people keep harping on about choice. I've used Linux full time since 2001, and the anarchy has just made a libre desktop an utopia because everyone wants every software to support every single option, with no understanding that the number of bugs scales exponentially with the number of choices.