Sort of a nitpick, but: "Distros" don't really exist. Someone chose standard component A, standard component B, standard component C, and put them all on a CD-R

Sort of a nitpick, but: "Distros" don't really exist. Someone chose standard component A, standard component B, standard component C, and put them all on a CD-ROM and called it "Ubuntu". Someone else took A, B, and D, and called it "Debian". Fedora uses A, D, and Q. Distros that use almost the same components and are hard to tell apart (Kubuntu vs KDE Neon). (So the real question might be "Is the proliferation of standard Linux components harming the Linux ecosystem?") > IMO, it'd be better if these sparse efforts would get focused on _one_ solid, no-frets, no-hassle, Linux OS that ordinary people could trust to be stable and reliable for years to come I don't think it's possible to make one Linux version that appeals to everyone. "no-frets, no-hassle" comes with tradeoffs. So does "solid". But even if you did try to make a beginner-friendly Linux distro, you wouldn't have the support of the majority of the community, because most Linux users are perfectly happy with an existing distro. Even people who try to convert their parents and grandparents to Linux, seem perfectly fine to throw them into Ubuntu and call it a day.