What if the linux community put all their combined manhours into making Debian, RedHat...

What if the linux community put all their combined manhours into making Debian, RedHat, or Slackware the best it could possibly be instead of splitting it all up and poorly and crudely reinventing the wheel 900 times?

Attached: 1537103205772.png (1025x5000, 2.4M)

>manhours

Did you just assume my gender, ciscum?

>choices are bad

I like Linux for the options

>change name and default DE to something different with 2 lines of code
>LOOK GUISE I MAED NEW OS xD
>could've done that within the original OS

What's the issue?

>the free market is bad
fuck off commie

so why didn't they

Attached: standards.png (500x283, 24K)

95% of linux forks are resume padding
>yes, i am the creator of X distro, that's why i'd be great at this job
>sorry guys, due to personal time constraints and work life balance i am abandoning this project

Attached: 1523895210529.png (500x283, 31K)

at least they got the job, right? i'm doing this now

>linux community
> their combined
Does not compute
Everything worked good in linux is a gift from corporations, literally zero features from "community"

Ballmer was right.

the remaining 5% of distros are the ones people actually use though because the distros are either built on solid technology or fulfilling a niche properly(like centos), nobody outside of Jow Forums actually uses snowflake distros that split over ideological reasons or default config changes
it begs the question though, if 95% of all forks are just 2 lines of code removed then why do you care about them, that's not wasted manpower it's people having a hobby

>redhat
>debian
The upstream devs don't accept any patch that doesn't align with their personal politics and change things in a way that makes it impossible for downstream devs to do more than track changes. Not viable.
>slackware
I'd also add
>gentoo
These would be good possibilities as they're very flexible (gentoo has more thorough infrastructures so it would be a slightly better target).
The thing is, you have to realize that most of these distros aren't real distros, but rather a fine-tuned version of upstream (e.g. identical but with a software bundle coming by default that's not like upstream's).

Your selection of distros for unification are absolutely retarded.

For Debian and Redhat we'd basically have a situation where nobody in the GNU/Linux world was running modern software. I'm not going to spout the "debian is just for servers" meme, but I still say that it's not at all the best choice for your average desktop user.
As for Slackware there's really nothing to work on is there? Making Slackware good is akin to just making good software and then telling people to just install it manually.

These are literally the worst possible choices for generic desktop usage if you're talking about making GNU/Linux go mainstream.

>offers nothing better

I'm not obligated to do so.

>he fell for the loonix meme

Most forks are just tuned version of their roots

When one distro figures something out, most can and or do hear about it and can implement it themselves.

it's called evolution, new distros appear to satisfy the modern needs, distros that adopt and survive, no one needs your sponge/bacteria tier linux that is stuck in the past.

Attached: flat,550x550,075,f.u3.jpg (550x550, 56K)

good goy

Why doesn't everyone in North America live in one big house and make it the best it could possibly be, rather than splitting it all up and poorly and crudely redeploying infrastructure and houses all over the place?

Congratulations, you've made the most retarded post on Jow Forums this week.

Just following OP's example, he was first.

Or just have 3 distros from which to choose and alter as you like. Distros apart from big original 3 are a meme.

Congrats, you have just invented commie blocks.
Op, see pic
>hurr muh suburbs

Attached: 2019-02-02-11-41-58.jpg (990x665, 349K)

I don't think the problem is the number of choices out there, but the fact that a lot of these "distro with a new shirt on" forks present themselves as a completely new thing. It's bad for new people who see it as a billion distinct choices, which is daunting.

The distro "family tree" should make more of an effort to detail what the changes are. That explosion at the Ubuntu point isn't nearly so intimidating when you know 99% of them make hardly any changes to the parent distro.

Udindu and its forks only accounts for maybe 10% of all distros.

It was just one example - Ubuntu has a fuckton of spins and the vast majority of them are just 'We took Ubuntu, changed the DE, and maybe added a couple programs within the standard repo."

Doesn't really go against my point anyway, which is just that the tree diagram is way less striking when you realize most forks are just the parent distro with a wardrobe change.

Migrosert Wendys doesn't have this problem.

That's in Hong Kong, so those are actually capitalist blocks.

I literally searched "chinese high-rises" and chose that pic. Why do you think these are Korean?

Sorry, Hong-Kong is China, stupid me

wrong

all of these distros share the same software just packaged differently.
literally not reinventing anything

kys

>consecutive dubs
What's the probability of that? 1%? or am I just a brainlet?