Is it just me or is GNU/Linux a system where every idiot and his wife's boyfriend decide to fork a project or reinvent...

Is it just me or is GNU/Linux a system where every idiot and his wife's boyfriend decide to fork a project or reinvent the wheel instead of actually forming unified communities to create quality software, resulting in an ever-growing number of garbage-tier applications, and no real alternatives to Windows and Mac end-user software.

I mean, it's great to have Gnome, KDE and Slitaz Linux, but you don't need all the other five or so existing desktop environments in-between them.

Same for music players. You could have an iTunes and a foobar2000 alternative. No need for dozens of Clementines, Marmalades and DonationWhorePlayers.

Not to mention all hundreds of distros/spins/flavors that take as much time as a real job to setup and debug but basically just deliver different wallpapers from each other.

Yeah, all people behind all those things are free to do whatever they want and nobody's gonna stop them, but are they so egoistical to the point of not realizing that the time wasted to make their copycat program could have been used to improve the other program that does the same?

How can you make someone who isn't a developer or geek to ever get interested in Linux, if you say that there are 15 video and image editors made by segregated communities but none is as good as what they currently have?

Linux is freedom.
If you don't like it I suggest sticking to Micro$haft or O$x.

What do you expect from edgy teenage sperglords?

Kill yourself clueless tech illiterate retard.

>Kill yourself clueless tech illiterate retard.

>Implying Linux users are not illiterate retards themselves

...

nice dubs

That is correct. And it is both a strength and a weakness. Strength is that everybody is free to do whatever they want and configure/tune things to their liking. Weakness is that it all gets very fragmented.

...

>Is it just me or is GNU/Linux a system where every idiot and his wife's boyfriend decide to fork a project or reinvent the wheel instead of actually forming unified communities to create quality software, resulting in an ever-growing number of garbage-tier applications, and no real alternatives to Windows and Mac end-user software.
It's not just you, that is an accurate assessment.

"Why Linux Sucks" talks on Youtube.

wow nice so many trips in a row

To be honest, for every program like Foobar, theres tons of shitty bloated ones on Windows.

No, because every idiot and his wife's boyfriend are using Windows and Mac.

>everyone makes shitty distros, but no one actually uses them

Kek

you dont get it, some people use mainly cli and therefore need cli programs for things that dont need any graphics (like music players - you have cmus, moc , and some others, ones use a deamon to play music others dont).
There is also a second group that sees no wrong in having a gui but hates bloat, so they do a light "no sparkles" music player - but they use different DEs or WMs or have different vision in how such a player should look - so you have a GTK+ based one , a qt based one , a themed one that allowse you to choose different themes that "copy" another programs, one that have integration for a specific DE, etc etc.
Then you have a 3rd group of people who want to do the absolute best , nicest looking and sparkly player that can do alot of shit out of the box.

You simply cannnot force all of them to use the last ones, because some people hate to use 50% of their shitty pc memory and 1 core for a player. You also cannot make a simple program and add shittones of plugins in order for it to do everything , because then you get hellish configuration and its not working out of the box. Then again you cant make a player that is well integrated with every DE and CLI.

Forking is the only way to make everyone happy, even if it means lower quality for each project overall because of fragmentation.

Not to mention that there is a lot of shitty non-free programs, or a great deal of programs that are great in the begging but as soon as they get recognition they turn either to bloat or adware , and instead of focusing on usability they add features that nobody wants or do reskins. And worse part is you cannot take such a program in its golden time and fork it, providing bugfixes and critical features.

GNU/Linux really does sucks.

Which both use hybrid kernels(NT, and Darwin)

Why isn't Linux also a hybrid kernel? Why keep the same outdated monolithic format? Why isn't their a hybrid open-source kernel yet?

That's what Ubuntu is the best. Its made by a company with a goal not edgy teens in the their moms basement.

Tbh id prefer 4 crusty nerds on Sourceforge to Raja from Copy-Pasteistan

good double

I understand your point, OP: there's quite a few projects that are really shitty and would benefit from a bigger community working in unity.

But that's how the world works. Just fork it, add some stupid shit. What matters to people is to feel like they accomplished something, even if it was shit.

On the surface, you're right. In all actuality, you're misguided.

Multiple projects exist, but one is usually the most widely accepted and gets the most attention. Many of the differences lie in implementation (think of Apache and nginx; same end, very different means) and many of the projects are experimental in nature.

It's apples to oranges.

Did it ever occur to you that people might have less powerful hardware and that lighter DEs are useful for them? And some might prefer to use different DEs anyway.

Probably there are "too many" distros, but you don't have to try them all.

>Hurrr why people are doing open source things durrt

It depends on what project/namespace decides to use and if it's even worth looking at the LICENSE or not.

Some are full cuck and some is just an excuse to sell other's work (MIT license).

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you’re referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called “Linux”, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use.
Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.

Yeah OP it's like that mostly. GNU/Linux seems a bit slower in rate development compared to some software, but things do eventually get standardized. For example it took several years for the myriad of desktop effects projects (compiz etc) to take off, but eventually the proven components were recognized and those who were serious about things eventually reached a certain point of acceptance and now we have pretty awesome features as a result of all this in projects like GNOME, wayland, KDE. The newer things that need to be implemented might start out with different people pulling in different directions, but it always seems like in the end it works out and the hobbyists and such either jump ship or get together in a serious effort. It's a pretty fun process to watch if you are smart enough to realize all this while avoiding all the bullshitters like pajeets and pessimists whining about anything starting out and the inevitable turmoil that comes from a bunch of random people doing things in different ways and trying to figure out the best way to go forward. But the products of all this usually last much longer than the graveyard of proprietary shit we've seen over the past two decades.

Programming languages are horrible, hence the "Not Invented Here" syndrome, of reinventing everything, over and over again.