Versatility is a good thing

It is amazing when one stops to consider the variety of different types of environments that people use computers in.

There is the "Home" environment" where people expect to do things that are more entertainment and communication oriented.

The "Work" environment" which includes a diverse number of sub environments within it. Workstations, job specific like artwork or financing, etc...

The "School" environment" which is another environment yet again. It will also consist of both workstations and "typical" installs, but the user environment has widely different needs due to age and experience than a business would.

Then there are the "mixed" environments. Combinations of some already listed. For example, some people operate a business from their home, so they expect to do both work and home tasks on the same machine. The spinoff possibilities can go on for a long time.

Depending on the type of environment and "whose" environment it is, will determine not only what OS and software is used, but how it is implemented and accessed as well. Each environment has it's own unique set of needs and requirements for function, access and interaction.

Different "types" of users will be accessing computers and systems in a variety of roles in these complex environments.

For those who choose Linux, the needs and user requirements, as well as who is administrating the computer or network and their experience and capabilities will also determine which distro will be used.

No one distro fits every environment. Most Linux distros have a "target" niche, group of users or environment they build toward.

The wise administrator will do their legwork before just blindly installing a given distro. They will investigate and try out a variety of distros to see in what environment they are best used in. To learn which "user group" they work for best.

There are a huge number of mixed environments in which multiple OS's are installed in various machines, departments and areas not only because of financial decisions, but trying to match the best OS/distro to the environment as much as possible. The better the match, the more productive those machines and users will be. In the long run, this actually improves ROI and perceived user productivity.


One of the factors that comes to the forefront of the discussion when investigating and having to choose a distro or distros is what Desktop Environment is implemented on the distro. There is KDE, Gnome, XFce plus the variety of window managers that are often deployed alternatively as well.

One of the things that makes careful investigation necessary is that not only are the DE's different from each other in general, but various distros implement and 'tweak' the DE's differently as well.

The Gnome you see on Ubuntu is not entirely the same Gnome you see on Fedora, which is not the same way it is implemented on PCLinuxOS, etc...

The same goes for KDE. There is the "stock" install, which is the most default implementation which some distros include, then there are variations and modifications made to the appearance and presentation of it that other distros make they hope will be an improvement in some way for the target audience they are trying to reach.

Herein comes some of the endless, mindless arguments that can be found on forums everywhere on which distro is "best" or which DE is "better" than the others.

If one tries to determine that a given DE is "horrible" based on their experience of just using one or two distros, then that person is woefully ignorant of several other implementations that might address their concerns used in other distros they haven't seen yet.

Some distros and DE's lend themselves particularly well to a certain function or environment. Gnome for example, in my own estimation is often implemented best in business and large rollout workstation environments.

KDE, I find, is particularly more common and accepted in Home environments because the target user group is used to interacting with maybe another OS that KDE "feels" more like than Gnome or Xfce might "feel" in that environment with that user group.

Xfce really lends itself best to laptops and low power machines or environments where the DE is less important or depended on perhaps, like on servers that utilize a GUI. ( spare me the argument on whether a server should use a GUI or not, this is not the article to discuss that.)

Again, not only is the DE itself to be taken into consideration, but how does a specific distro implement it? Does it just toss in the "stock" version? Does the distro modify it in some way to make it more usable or functional in a given environment or by a specific group of users?

Ultimately, what all this boils down to is that there is no single "best" distro or DE in the Linux community that can or is capable of filling all the wide and varied needs of the multitude of environments and users out there.

This is indeed the true strength of Linux and it's ability to be modified and customized. Having 300 plus distros and a variety of DE's isn't a negative thing. It demonstrates that Linux can be tightly integrated and implemented to uniquely if almost any given user base or work environment we come across.

All it requires is for people who consider using Linux to educate themselves for making a commitment. Which is something almost everyone agrees is a good idea before implementing something so involved as what Operating System to use.

People insist on test driving a car before they buy it. They will possibly test drive a large number of cars before deciding on which one to buy. "Try it before you buy it" is a universal concept in the consumer market. it intends to educate the consumer about the nuances and specifics that will help that person decide if the product they are trying out will be the best long term fit for them.

If people will go to so much trouble for other consumer decisions they make, why wouldn't they educate themselves equally in which OS they will use likely every day, in a variety of ways?