Once the unwashed masses start coming in, the software and its interaction patterns pander to the lowest common denominator and the quality of the medium degrades.
On the other hand, I think it's great when companies or government try to move to Linux (if you're not a US company or the US government, it makes total sense to try not to depend on US software so much).
But I want to believe that there is space for everybody. I wouldn't use Mint myself, but I convinced a couple friends to use it and it works really well! EU governments moving to european distros like Suse and the likes is great. And I will stay closer to "more advanced" distros like Gentoo or Alpine.
The beauty of Linux is that there is not one Linux; it's about freedom of choice. Because many people move from Windows to Mint doesn't have to mean that it's hurting Gentoo, I think? Hopefully.
You mean other than Ubuntu and the likes?
Pandering to the masses would be in the form of specific desktop environment, and maybe specific distribution integrating it well with all kinds of desktop software.
Nothing would change for the existing users of obscure software, hackishly stitched together.
If Linux software starts widely adapting more dark patterns it will probably impact users across all distributions.
Not that I believe it will necessarily be good, but I'm not sure it will necessarily be bad. Could go both ways, IMO.
What is preventing people from just creating a fork?
I may be looking in the wrong place but your comment was one of the few things I came across referencing LF + usb gadget.
not necessarily. There's room to have the mass market make breakthroughs in laymen software for linux if there's sufficient demand.
And having the mass market lowest common denominator doesnt remove the good stuff - they still exist and you could still choose to use them. This is esp. true for linux, where as you'd have fewer choice/customizability for windows as it's close sourced.
But other than that, as long as I can compile the project from source (and if it's done properly I don't need instructions for that), I'm fine.
I would assume that a repo providing instructions for the AUR is already better than one assuming that "Linux == Ubuntu", because the developer knows at least one distro that is not Ubuntu :-).
* just open the terminal and type this magic spell to make x work *
And I agree with that concern, though my hope is that we can make it easier for the peasants without sacrificing control for the nerds (trying to find a word that would work with "peasant" in this context :D).
For example, people in this thread have been mentioning GNOME as software that has been removing features to the detriment of technically inclined people who want those features. But MATE exists, and I don't have to maintain it. Because someone else felt was worth spending to scratch their own itch.
it really isn't, as Google Chrome and Chromium shows there's no clear dividing line in the real world. Linux isn't developed by Bob the free software enthusiast, take a look at the code contributions to the kernel.
Overall I'm also in favour of driving linux adoption because it's still a better world but the idea that this has no spill over effect on anyone else is wrong. It's a fiction to think that Linux, just like a browser is anything but a collective project with most development driven by very few organizations who also have commercial or proprietary interests.
There are lots of Chromium forks. I don't really see how this contradicts my point.
And if there was a drastic mainstream adoption of linux, whatever implications that has for development focus, it would affect everyone because nobody is going to run a sincere kernel fork.
My point being that it's okay for some projects to sacrifice control, as long as others don't. I can't tell Ubuntu how they should make their distro; what I can do is choose Gentoo (or anything in between).
It happened with git a few years ago, when people were up in arms over its use of the word "master". Stupid, pointless changes will be made to appease these people.
Same response: just do your own thing then and ignore the normies, it's not a big deal.
The problem in most any technology sector is that its impossible for one person in reasonable amount of time to put together systems for use. Maybe in the future when LLMs are advanced enough to where I can have it code a full OS for me to my liking this will change, but right now, I have to depend on other people doing work.
Linux happens to be in a sweet spot where the collaborative development is guided by technical decisions instead of market forces, but Linux is just an OS. It needs open hardware to run. It just so happens that laptop manfuacturers who target Windows just don't see Linux as a big enough threat to start locking things down.
But historically, along came Apple, made the iPhone, realized most people want jewelry more than functionality, realized they could monetize this, and now their Macbooks are locked down to MacOS pretty hardcore.
If Linux went the same route, you could very well see a distinct lack of hardware being made that can run open source Linux. Which then limits you to smaller manufacturers that don't have capital or bandwidth to compete with bigger ones.
If you see alot of sheep coming into your glade, the jackels are close behind