The first 1000 people who click the link will get 2 free months of Skillshare Premium: https://skl.sh/thelinuxexperiment4 People have really divided opinions on distros. Some think there should only be one, some are all for diversity and choice. Distributions have been the main word to define the Linux landscape for ages, and new ones seem to pop up every day. Most distros look and feel different to use, but are the differences really meaningful, or are they skin deep? Support the channel on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thelinuxexperiment Follow me on Twitter : http://twitter.com/thelinuxEXP My Gaming on Linux Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaw_Lz7oifDb-PZCAcZ07kw Follow me on LBRY: https://lbry.tv/@TheLinuxExperiment:e The Linux Experiment merch: get your goodies there! null Ok, so most distros pride themselves on their branding. logos, themes, icons, colors, everything is often customized and tweaked to make the distro look like something unique out of the box. They are recognizable and distinct, but these differences can be replicated anywhere else, so these don’t really matter. The desktop environment isn’t a defining feature either, since most distros can install all major DEs easily to replace the one they ship with, and most distros also provide their own spin-offs with these major desktops. The customizations and tweaks the distros bring to their DEs are also generally very easy to replicate on other systems and are not a specifically defining feature. While the looks of a distro might be their most prominent difference, its the one that matters the less, since you can duplicate that anywhere else. In terms of packaging systems, we’re starting to see some interesting differences. The package managers and the way the distro ships its software definitely makes it unique. First, users get used to a specific packaging system. I almost exclusively used deb based distros, and anything using rpms makes my skin crawl with unfamiliarity and differences. Second is the repositories. These contain all available software for your system, and there are some big differences there. Feodra only includes free software by default. Ubuntu has more, but it might not be as up to date. Manjaro has very up to date software, and access to the Arch User Repository, where virtually all Linux software is available. Some distros offer easy ways to extend these available repos, like Ubuntu with ppas. But, for experienced users, these differences don’t really matter. You can learn quickly to use another package manager, and you can add ppas or other repositories on your distribution to extend the range of what you can install. There is also Flatpak and Snap. As more and more apps will be available there, and the various issues are fixed, I imagine most distros will move to support these distribution methods exclusively, and progressively phase out their repos, at least for applications. This will make using package managers less useful, and will smooth out any difference there is in terms of software versions, and up to date-ness. Hardware support is virtually identical these days, grab any recent distro, and if something works there, there is a very good chance it will work on another distro released at the same period. Online help is vastly different though. If you use Ubuntu, chances are you’ll find a very complete documentation online, tons of user forums to get you up and running, and any question you can ask will probably be answered. If you use a more obscure distro, you might not get the same amount of help and support. Now, in terms of values and vision, there are big differences as well. Fedora focuses on a vanilla GNOME desktop with only free software being available by default. Manjaro focuses on shipping all software any user would need, and a very up to date system, with checks to make sure it’s still stable. Linux From Scratch makes a point of letting you compile and do everything yourself. elementary OS focuses on being the best desktop it can be, with its own vision and workflow, and a stable base. These differences are really what matters. Not everyone wants to use their computer in the same fashion, and not everyone has the same philosophy, and distributions do answer these various needs and wants. Sure, some distributions are not much more than a reskin of Ubuntu with a few tweaks here and there, and don’t bring a new vision to the table, or a specific set of values, but some do, and I feel this alone warrants the existence of multiple distributions. In the end, I feel distros still do matter. Differences are skin deep most of the time, but online help, communities, stability and available software, as well as up to date-ness are still vastly different from a distro to another. BUT I feel that this is coming to a close.