It really doesn't. And the desktop Linux community's obsession with bundling a few tweaks and preinstalled applications as separate "distros", splintering the community into a million tiny sub-groups, is part of the reason it's failed to achieve mainstream popularity.
I'd agree that it doesn't matter much within a certain band of distros. Fedora vs. Ubuntu, for a new user without opinions about things like Flatpack or rpm vs. dpkg, doesn't matter much, sure, I agree. Throw in Slackware, Gentoo, Void, and Arch, and now it kinda does matter which you choose. Even Debian, since your software will be farther behind current releases and its preferences about things like non-free software are likely to be something you notice and have to deal with, one way or another.
But, among the small set of relatively user-friendly distros, sure, it doesn't actually matter that much. A generous reading would take that meaning from it, I think.
I've noticed that people tend to think of the surface level of any desktop OS.
They think about the GUI, the command-line programs that ship with it (curl/grep/ls/etc.), the driver support, and the package manager it ships with. These are all trivial abstractions built on deeper facilities.
The farther down you go, the less people understand. Who actually can express the difference between X11 and Wayland that isn't full of weasel words and equivocation? What about mesa, or dbus, or pulseaudio? These are all core components that alter the "flavor" of a desktop Linux system. And yet, all distros basically use the same off-the-shelf components. They only change the higher level GUIs and package managers and stuff.
And people GROSSLY underestimate how much the kernel contributes to the "flavor" of Linux. (I could go on and on about how the GNU GPL directly impacts how drivers are developed for the kernel, or how the small number of core devs are overwhelmed by additions for hardware drivers which move rapidly and break things, and the subsequent vulnerability patches, leaving little time for desktop-focused improvements).
People tend to say things like "the kernel just manages the hardware" or "the kernel is just an interface layer for the hardware" or "MacOS and BSD are the same, only the kernel differs". If only they knew. The kernel is like a seed crystal that defines what can grow outward from there (without massive painful compatibility shims).
Lastly, people OVERestimate the importance of things that are entirely irrelevant to a desktop OS. Just look at how many desktop Linux users are arguing over SystemD vs SysV vs whatever else. Are desktop Linux users really digging into log files, and are annoyed that the log files are now in a binary format? Are desktop Linux users really annoyed that sudo is now part of systemd, instead of a standalone binary that they can swap out? I think the number is low, but the number of desktop Linux users arguing about such things is high.
The splintering is real, but the differences between distros is also real. The pace of updates and the availability of packages is pretty important, as is a large community that you can lean on for support, even if passively by searching for solutions to common problems. Maybe you mean "of the 5 most popular distros it doesn't matter"; then sure.
Some distros are far less buggy then others... IE: I don't have any issues in Arch, but I did with Manjaro (often there was bugs that prevented updates to complete successfully).
I've been using Linux for years, so I've got my opinions about distros. Why should the distribution a new user pick matter that much? They can easily switch if they don't like the first one they pick.
Well, IMO, a new user should pick a distribution that has different DE's available in it's repository. That makes switching and trying different DE's very easy. As opposed to some distros which are specifically tailored to only a specific or supported DE.
dmart|4 years ago
handrous|4 years ago
But, among the small set of relatively user-friendly distros, sure, it doesn't actually matter that much. A generous reading would take that meaning from it, I think.
phendrenad2|4 years ago
They think about the GUI, the command-line programs that ship with it (curl/grep/ls/etc.), the driver support, and the package manager it ships with. These are all trivial abstractions built on deeper facilities.
The farther down you go, the less people understand. Who actually can express the difference between X11 and Wayland that isn't full of weasel words and equivocation? What about mesa, or dbus, or pulseaudio? These are all core components that alter the "flavor" of a desktop Linux system. And yet, all distros basically use the same off-the-shelf components. They only change the higher level GUIs and package managers and stuff.
And people GROSSLY underestimate how much the kernel contributes to the "flavor" of Linux. (I could go on and on about how the GNU GPL directly impacts how drivers are developed for the kernel, or how the small number of core devs are overwhelmed by additions for hardware drivers which move rapidly and break things, and the subsequent vulnerability patches, leaving little time for desktop-focused improvements).
People tend to say things like "the kernel just manages the hardware" or "the kernel is just an interface layer for the hardware" or "MacOS and BSD are the same, only the kernel differs". If only they knew. The kernel is like a seed crystal that defines what can grow outward from there (without massive painful compatibility shims).
Lastly, people OVERestimate the importance of things that are entirely irrelevant to a desktop OS. Just look at how many desktop Linux users are arguing over SystemD vs SysV vs whatever else. Are desktop Linux users really digging into log files, and are annoyed that the log files are now in a binary format? Are desktop Linux users really annoyed that sudo is now part of systemd, instead of a standalone binary that they can swap out? I think the number is low, but the number of desktop Linux users arguing about such things is high.
OtomotO|4 years ago
I totally agree with the "uselessness" of too many distros but not with your conclusion.
There are multiple reasons for linux not being Mainstream on the desktop.
Windows comes preinstalled on 99% of all non self built laptops/desktops.
Installing an OS is not something the average user does.
It's different and people hate change, unless it's popular
prox|4 years ago
cosmotic|4 years ago
fhood|4 years ago
Ubuntu you just use gnome, and I've don't think I've ever actually seen redhat (or any centos) attached to a desktop environment.
rovr138|4 years ago
SevenSigs|4 years ago
jneumann004|4 years ago
read_if_gay_|4 years ago
throw7|4 years ago
zepto|4 years ago
I’d like to know because I am interested in trying different distros but don’t want to have to keep setting up machines.
asciimov|4 years ago
New users probably shouldn't use a rolling release because updates can cause the install to be unbootable, leaving a bad impression of linux.
shreddit|4 years ago