
Originally Posted by
johnwash1
Settling on one or two versions would indeed be nice for the new users you're talking about. If you know a helpful person who's already running one of those variants (users call them 'distros') then you have a nice simple 'choice'... use the same one. Fundamentally the differences aren't huge and using the same version as your friend will keep them motivated to help.
But no, the community as a whole won't settle on just a few versions. Even restricting our discussion to desktop versions, there are many different ways of doing things (simple example: perhaps you prefer pointing at things with a mouse, perhaps I prefer keyboard shortcuts) and so you surely have to agree that people differ in their tastes. Look at how many different breakfast cereals sell successfully! With a proprietary operating system the supplier decides what versions to sell. With Linux, ANYONE can decide what they think is a good version and spread it around. Many many people do. Most fail, some become popular. I used to use Ubuntu, but I've switched to Crunchbang Linux. (And on a server I use Debian.) For my needs and prefs I prefer Crunchbang over Ubuntu, but Crunchbang is not a good starting place for most new users.
You'd like to cut down the choices. I understand. But would that actually make Linux more popular? Apple Macs offer just ONE version of operating system. Apple Macs sell in good numbers, but nowhere near Microsoft. So reducing choices doesn't necessarily win you friends, I don't accept your logic.
But I do agree that the way forward for someone thinking about Linux is to narrow their own options down and ignore the many distracting versions.