Linux is super fragmented (and generally has been historically).
If more people in Linux agreed to develop, use, and support the same distro–similarly to how most of us use the same kernel–then that distro would probably be better than Windows and more people would move to Linux.
No no no no no no
It’s not fragmented in that sense.
No, it would not be more popular if there was one distro. That wouldn’t solve any problems.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding I see among many people, especially those outside/new to the Linux world. They talk about having too many choices where it’s overwhelming to pick from. But it’s not like ice cream flavors where “Oh I like chocolate and vanilla and strawberry? How can I choose?” where some people can get choice anxiety; if you think that’s comparable you just don’t know about how Linux fragmentation works.
Now, that’s fine; not everyone will know everything, and this concept is not always obvious to everyone. That said, an argument made from ignorance is not a valid argument.
Let me explain why fragmentation doesn’t work this way.
In every piece of software that is fragmented in the Linux world, it’s not arbitrary. It’s not people making hundreds of different things “just because.” There’s always a correct choice for each person. Different tools in the same area to suit different needs. No, not all tools are on equal footing lacking unity. They all benefit from the same standards but implement the features that matter to that tool. Unifying them solves nothing. We may not even get a tool out of it as people would fight over the directions of the projects.
For instance, why are there different DEs and WMs? Because not every DE has the workflow a person wants. I can’t stand the Windows way of UX; I think it’s terrible. If there was only one distro, and it came with KDE, I’d be very frustrated as there’s no good tiling options!
The different distros are not ice cream flavors; they exist to fulfill specific needs. You pick your distro, DE, etc to suit the way you want to use your computer. Everyone has a way they want their computer to work whether they realize it or not, even if that way is just how Windows does it.
There’s not an overwhelming amount of distros; that’s a view stemming from a lack of understanding. Fragmentation is not a problem.
So as you can see, this wouldn’t be the case. That distro wouldn’t serve people’s needs, just like Windows doesn’t serve people’s needs.
The problem with Linux is not its fragmentation - that’s it’s superpower; there are distros that will meet the needs of everyone already. You just have to figure out what you want from a computer. If it’s just how Windows does things then, well, there are DEs and distros out there already made to function like Windows! Give Mint a try, for instance.
The reason Linux isn’t more popular has nothing to do with not having a good-enough distro that can beat Windows. What that looks like is different for different people, and I guarantee all of them exist somewhere.
Tbh Linux already is better than Windows (and Mac) on every front except two:
P.S.
This isn’t the case. We don’t even use the same kernels!
First, many distros use very different versions and second, some come with kernels that have major tweaks and customizations.
Not to mention the various modules and kernel parameters that get enabled and added.
There are plenty of kernel tweaks.
While I broadly agree, I feel like the focus of these fragments is just scratching their own personal itch, rather than building an improvement. I quickly lose interest in “software that only values X” vs “software that only values Y”. I just want software that’s good.
The problem with that is simply that what counts as good will vary from person to person.
I think there’s a baseline that Linux developers need to take more seriously. The PopOS people are good reference, especially their upcoming DE.
Imagine you had a basic desktop; top bar, dock and desktop widgets.
Each of those is a different app and each app comes in 4 different flavors: “Fast but ugly”, “Pretty”, “Tinkerer’s dream” and “Well designed but under developed”.
Sounds great right? Just pick whichever ones you like best. But along the way, things that would be considered “requirements so basic we don’t even need to state them” are not met.
So you value pretty and get the pretty versions. But each of them was developed by a different team, each with different opinions about what “pretty” is. Your desktop doesn’t have a cohesive look with colours and fonts mismatched in a way that no monolithic project would ever tolerate.
So you grab one pretty app, and two tinkerer’s dream apps. You can make them match yourself! That’s the power of Linux. You put a week of work into bringing your desktop up to this default standard, fighting a mountain of faff along the way. Each app uses a different language for their code and configs. Each app supports different features. You find yourself wishing they followed the “well designed but underdeveloped” app, but it hasn’t had an update for years.
Finally, your desktop is ready for unixporn… as long as you don’t open your file browser.
Well yeah, but that’s what standards are for. Look at Wayland. Outside of GNOME being a bit slow, all the major compositors and DEs like KDE and Hyprland have agreed to implement certain common desktop features that every desktop should have along with the Wayland protocol itself. Then they go their own way.
So it’s not really as you say. There is unity in development beneath the heavy diversity.
Except they are
This is a bad example bc it’s opposite to what you say. You haven’t set a universal theme. Theming is commonly supported across desktops to some degree. You can get all your apps to have the same look unless an application forces its own (which would happen even in a homogenous Linux world). Some desktops will do it for you, but if they don’t it’s still as simple as install a universal theme, apply the Gtk version, and apply the Qt version. My understanding is soon it will be even simpler once a few more Wayland standards get adopted.
We already have the best ecosystem. It literally could not improve functionally