Why We Don't Need A lot Of Linux Distributions!

This video is for why we don't need more Linux distributions

[amoose]

To me, the single most important part of a distro is the philosophy shared by its maintainers. Some people want the latest and greatest software, some people want a system that does not change for years at a time. It's not accurate to say Arch and Debian are the same thing, even though they share many components. Some people want to be secure in the knowledge that their distribution is backed by a large company, so they can be sure important security updates and maintenance will continue for years to come, and some people will have ethical objections to any for profit entity being involved in their system. Some people just want a system that works, some people want to customize to a build time level.

Different distros handle all these things differently, and to a layman a lot of it just doesn't matter. That's why it's silly to broadly recommend any distribution to wide audience. But these differences can be make or break for a lot of people, disproportionately so in the Linux community who has already chosen to use a more niche operating system for their desktop usage. Nobody leaves the safety of Mac or Windows because they wanted to do what someone else told them was right. The real purpose of the distribution is choice, and even not wanting to make a decision is a choice in itself.

[RenderingUser]

There are a few distros that are outliers in this aspect. Like nixos, or other immutable distros. It might also come in the form of custom kernel patches or custom modifications of desktop environments for some distros.

[masterflitzer]

nobody needs distros, call the kernel yourself

[settlece]

The beauty of Linux distributions lies in the freedom and openness they offer. The fact that so many different distributions exist demonstrates the ability to create and share without restrictions or reprisals from the original creators. This freedom allows for personal expression and innovation. It's not just about technicalities, logic, or economic efficiency—it's about the freedom to express and explore.
You can't just ban it because you want to. The fact you can't, because it is what it is, it's open.
No one entity has complete control and that's where the power lies. We need an operating system like this.
Some people that is their computer fun, experiencing and playing around with different distros.

There is no correct way to play in the sandbox that is Linux.

[Proj_Null]

it does matter actually, and it makes sense that it matters, although the fundamental building blocks are the same they are not exactly the same, one thing that works for me may not work for someone else, since different package managers fetch packages from different repositories, and different package managers have different concepts on what a user might needs(stablity like in debian or recency like in arch, minimalism or completeness), like how arch or debian assumes that you only need what that specific package needs to function, and just function, nothing else, but zypper assumes that you want all the softwares that makes the specific software function properly. for me runit takes 2 minutes to boot cause of my nvidia gpu(i have to blacklist nvidia for it to boot properly, and even with that, it fails to shut down), older packages bring their own problems, when one tries to backport new stuff. i could go on and on. although the DEs are changeable and all, what changes things are package managers, init system, and package repositories.
for all this i am assuming that one who is using a distro does not have all the time in their hands to build a system by themselves, or do not want the complexity.

[denniscleaver]

Your name really fits.
Because all you did was look, and not think.

All major distros are different in which packages they provide, how they configure, compile them, and even place them in the system.
These differences are why Snaps, Appimages, and Flatpaks were created.

Even Debian and Ubuntu vary so damn much that using NVIDIA is cursed on one, and blessed on the other.

[markov_komarov]

actually ChrisTitusTech video agrees with the fact that most of the current distros are just forks with some customization on top. So yeah :p Nice video bro

[tomodchi]

totally unrelated as I'm a linux beginner but when watching youtube videos I like to guess where people are from based on their accent and for some reason I thought you were eastern european. what was my surprise when i saw that you were a fellow dziri lol

[Tritibellum]

linux distros do vary significantly compared to just GNU/linux

infact, there are distros which don't even use GNU! which is chimera linux
there is another one which is even more weirder, bedrock linux, which makes you combine distros (gentoo, debian, alpine, void, etc) into only one.

the only thing which does not change is the linux kernel, which even then can still be very different from each distro, one of them being cachyOS linux, which is the most performant linux kernel ever, it has alot of tweaks and patches which makes it really optimized.

in reality is, each distro has it's own goals, and it is really fragmented for each person, which is why we have an insane amount of distros out there.

[heinzowski]

The Distro experience itself can be very different from others, in Fedora for example, i've got so much more stability than Arch. NixOS is completely different from any other i've tried before and helped me a lot in coding, but i'm also using Nobara in my gaming pc because fits very well... Same can be said with package managers. Snaps are terrible, pacman has the AUR and flatpaks are very heavy.

At the surface they can look the same thing but at the daily you see the difference very clear.

[Belacthemighty]

I kind of follow the K.I.S.S. (Keep it simple stupid) idea with linux distros. I'd say for people who just want to avoid windows but aren't super tech savvy go for Kubuntu or mint. Also people coming from mac should just go with Ubuntu or elementaryOS. More tech savvy people should just go with Arch because of the extreme customization and the AUR. If i should think of any other blindside let me know. The idea is that Ubuntu and it's derivatives are well made and debian is widely supported as a whole so it would give good compatibility and ease of use for people coming from other platforms. And Arch can essentially be trurned into literally anything you want it to be so it gives the best potential overall for people willing to go through the shit and are willing to lose all of their friends when they learn their running Arch btw. 😂

[ashwin]

yes, its wasted time for package managers and others

[Indra]

Disagree, arch and fedora is not the same at all. They have different target audience and ideas.

[rizalm.s.]

We don't need more Linux Distributions? Agree
We don't need Linux Distributions? Hard Disagree

[Giorno]

Elo Mate, Nice Accent you got there. Can i have et

[nothingtoseeherelolkek]

Nah, for x86, then yeah. But further you go, the more quirks there are. Arm? Not every distro is good for that. Trying to run Linux on boring ass phone? You’ll be grateful if even one person cares enough to port foken Droidian to it. And no, you can’t change DE on Droidian not without extensive patching it.