<div class="header-image"></div> <table class="table-header"> <thead> <tr> <th colspan="2"></th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>2026-02-26</td> <td style="text-align: right;"><a href="About.md" class="internal-link">About</a></td> </tr> </tbody> </table> # Linux Should Strive to be Linux  I recently read [this article](https://www.xda-developers.com/steamos-proved-the-linux-desktop-doesnt-need-to-look-like-windows-to-succeed/) from XDA. Most of what I'm about to write is in reference to that, but if you'd rather skip it, this can be read on its own. My gut reaction to the article is negative, but it *does* get something right, I think, and so I'd like to address that first: >[!quote] >*"'Windows clone' Linux distros are a total disservice [and] are counterproductive for everyone involved."* > >— Samarveer Singh, [January 26, 2026](https://www.xda-developers.com/steamos-proved-the-linux-desktop-doesnt-need-to-look-like-windows-to-succeed/) This, I've come to believe, is very true. Linux needs to stop trying to be the OS that users of other operating systems expect it to be. Linux should rather be unapologetically Linux. But another thing Linux is that the Big Two proprietary OSes are not is *flexible*. Linux doesn't have to be all things for every user all of the time. It offers choice, and this is Linux's biggest strength. So, for example, Samarveer states "...most people don't wake up excited to manage an OS. [They just want their games](https://gamerant.com/best-linux-free-to-play-games-steam/), their library, their settings, and their downloads without feeling like they've enrolled in a computer science elective." I will admit that there are certainly people like this out there, and distros like SteamOS and Bazzite cater to them, but I take umbrage in saying that these are "most people." In fact, I absolutely disagree with this. But again, Linux is flexible. There are writers, graphic artists, audio and video content creators, etc., who actually *don't have any interest in games at all*. And there are better solutions for them than SteamOS or Bazzite. Developers also have their own distros. Omarchy, a relative newcomer based on Arch, is a great choice for developers, as many tools they would want are already installed. [I'm using Omarchy myself](../Blog/2025-08-24%20Omarchy%20and%20the%20Year%20of%20the%20Linux%20Desktop.md), though I 'm more of a writer who loves to tinker with technology. I installed it primarily as a door to Hyprland, and it's been great for that. But the distinctive thing about Hyprland is that it doesn't try to be anything but but a beautiful looking, super-configurble, tiling window manager. And Omarchy takes that experience and puts in tools for both developers and writers by default. One of the things that piqued my interest in Omarchy was that Obsidian was pre-installed. DHH, the creator of Omarchy, has a great quote here that echos what I agreed with in the XDA article:  *DHH speaking about Linux and Omarchy (commentary from Linux Unplugged)* This is what I mean about choice being being Linux's biggest strength. It doesn't have to cater to all people in all scenarios. This is what I think Samarveer Singh, the writer of the XDA article, is missing. For instance I would definitely NOT recommend Omarchy to him. I get that he's a writer, but games seem very important to him, as well as a desktop that keeps out of the way. It's exactly why he liked SteamOS so much: SteamOS caters to gamers like him, and don't require interaction with the desktop at all. There also are definitely users out there, though, who don't care at all about what their OS looks like. They want a general purpose, stable computing experience. They most likely won't even bother with themes or any other personal customisations. They want to get their work done and turn their computers off. I would offer Mint to someone like that. And while Cinnamon, the default Mint desktop, is very Windows-*ish*, I wouldn't call it a clone. It's only similar in that the taskbar is at the bottom, and it uses an icon-centric dock combined with a systray and menu. What it does, is adhere to the old UI paradigm that Windows copied from Unix in the 90s. Another nice general feature of Linux is that it will *easily* run on any hardware that has come out in the last ten to fifteen years, and that includes modern graphical desktops like Gnome or KDE. With lighter desktop environments you can use even older hardware. Computers designed for Windows or MACOS from that era are long since unsupported, if not utterly unusable. So if you're a student looking for a dirt-cheap PC, a very reasonable choice can be a used 50 dollar laptop from Craigslist. Just to highlight the truth of this, there are charities like [the World Computer Exchange](https://worldcomputerexchange.org/) working in 3rd world countries resurrecting 20+ year old laptops for students by running something like Artix, which still produces 32 bit editions, and can run on PCS with 512 MB of ram. It is accurate to claim that, while Microsoft and Apple only contribute to the [growing problem of e-waste](https://ewastemonitor.info/the-global-e-waste-monitor-2024/), Linux actively improves the situation. Linux is also not beholden to any corporation trying to squeeze every last dollar out of its users. If I spend $1000 on a new laptop, there is no way I'm going to put up with advertising in my OS (I look at phones in the same way, but that is for another post). And I'm *certainly* not putting up with any tracking of my interests or buying habits just to effectively persuade me to purchase more shit that I don't need (or rat me out to fascist governments). It's my machine and I don't have to put up with that sort of garbage. If I'm an Ubuntu user and for whatever reason Canonical decides to go the Google/Microsoft route in this regard, I can just switch to a different distro. I can avoid corporations altogether, if I want, and stick to only community distros and never have to worry about that sort of thing. My point in all of this is that Linux has so many benefits it doesn't need to focus on any one particular reason to use it. There's distros out there that focus on one or any combination of these features. If you're the type of person who wants active development with a corporation behind it to ensure stability and general usage, then Ubuntu or Fedora is for you. If you want to avoid corporate leaderships and enjoy tinkering and crafting a specific user experience then Arch is perfect. If you only want to play games and would prefer your OS just get out of the way for this, then SteamOS or Bazzite are great choices. I could go on and on about different use-cases that individual users might have. There's *hundreds* of distros catering to different preferences and opinions of how best to use a computer, depending on your own, specific, sensibilities. The "one size fits all" philosophy is really what gets Windows and Mac into trouble. They become boring at best, and broken as they they attempt to shoehorn in every possible workflow. This is also what leads to the ridiculous minimum requirements to actually run modern Windows. In the end, I think it would be to the benefit of everyone if Linux focused a lot more on what it's actually good at. We need *more* niche distros, not less. Choice is not confusing, in spite of what non-users will tell you. Distros just need to say, up front, what they're trying to be, and who is the target audience.