The Fragmentation Dilemma: Is Linux Its Own Worst Enemy?

Introduction

Linux's openness has led to a rich variety of distributions ("distros") – different variants of the operating system tailored to diverse preferences. This fragmentation of desktop Linux is often seen as a double-edged sword. On one hand, it provides users and developers with choice and fosters innovation; on the other, it can pose challenges for software compatibility, user adoption, and developer effort. In this report, we delve into the current state of Linux fragmentation with recent statistics, developer insights, commentary from Linux leaders, and a look at efforts to standardize the ecosystem. Clear evidence and quotes are provided to illuminate the ongoing debate on whether fragmentation is beneficial or harmful for Linux's future.

Fragmentation by the Numbers: Distribution Popularity and Market Share

Linux is not a single OS but an umbrella of hundreds of distributions. As of recent counts, there are hundreds of active Linux distros – DistroWatch listed about 250 actively maintained ones in 2023, while broader surveys count over 600 active distributions (with another ~500 in development). This means the Linux user base is spread across many projects rather than one unified platform.

In terms of usage share, no single Linux distro commands a majority of users. Ubuntu (a user-friendly, Debian-based distro) is often cited as the most popular. One analysis found Ubuntu accounts for roughly 33.9% of Linux installations (especially on web servers), making it the largest single distro share. For comparison, Debian (Ubuntu's upstream) was about 16%, and CentOS (a now-discontinued RHEL-based server distro) around 9.3%. All other individual distributions each constituted well under 5% of usage in that dataset (with Red Hat, Gentoo, Fedora, openSUSE each below 1%). Even allowing for different methodologies, Ubuntu clearly leads, but it still represents only a minority fraction of Linux desktops/servers overall – the remaining usage is split among dozens of others.

To illustrate, consider the distribution of Linux usage among a specific community (PC gamers using ProtonDB/Steam in late 2024). Distribution of Linux usage among gamers (ProtonDB sample, Sept 2024). Only one distribution surpassed 20% share, and roughly 10 different distros were needed to collectively cover 80% of users. Back in 2019, the top 4 distros could cover 80%, but by 2024 the landscape had become far more fragmented. This "hyper-fragmentation" trend means that the Linux desktop user base has spread out across more distributions over time, rather than consolidating. For instance, Linux Mint (an Ubuntu derivative) recently overtook Ubuntu in that gaming sample with about 11% share, while Ubuntu fell to ~10%. Other distros like Arch, Fedora, Pop!_OS, Manjaro, etc., each claim single-digit percentages, adding up to the whole.

Even in broader surveys, we see a long tail of distros. The 2024 Stack Overflow developer survey showed that among developers who use Linux, Ubuntu was the primary OS for ~27.7%⁸ of respondents (for both personal and work use), followed by Debian (~9–10%) and then other Linux-based OS choices (Arch, Fedora, etc.) each under 8%. This underscores that while Ubuntu is a common choice, a majority of Linux users are on "other" distros collectively. In summary, Linux desktop usage is highly fragmented across many distributions, with a few leaders but no single dominant version. This fragmentation is a defining characteristic of the Linux ecosystem's popularity distribution.

(Note: Overall desktop Linux itself holds only a small share of the total desktop OS market – on the order of 3–4% worldwide as of 2024 – but our focus here is the breakdown within that Linux share.)

Developer Perspectives: The Impact of Fragmentation on Software Development

From a software developer's perspective, Linux fragmentation presents significant practical challenges. Because each distribution can have its own packaging format, system libraries, and release cycle, developers often must build, test, and package their applications multiple times to reach all users. As one Linux developer and project lead explained, the vast number of distros "means developers must create multiple versions of their applications to be able to provide their software to all Linux users or [else] just address a fraction of the market". This entails maintaining different build environments and toolchains for each target. For example, Fedora uses the RPM package format, while Debian/Ubuntu use .deb packages – software built for one won't natively work on the other, so developers often need to repackage (or even recompile) for each major distro family. Moreover, packages built for one version of a distro may not be compatible with other versions of the same distro, due to changing library versions, etc., forcing developers to support each LTS or release separately. All of this creates a resource overhead that is burdensome, especially for small developers.

Linux application developers have long voiced that inconsistent system configurations across distributions complicate their work. A GNOME software engineer noted that "Every downstream change adds yet another variable app developers need to test for. The more distributions do it, the worse it gets." In other words, each distro might tweak how software is installed or configured (different library versions, file system paths, init systems, etc.), and these variations accumulate, making it hard to ensure an application runs smoothly everywhere. Without a single "Linux" platform, third-party software vendors must either limit support to a few major distros or invest significant effort in broad compatibility. This fragmentation has been frequently cited as a deterrent for commercial software vendors porting their apps to Linux – by one account, "the fragmentation of Linux distributions… makes it hard for third-party software vendors to support Linux", since they would have to support multiple installation formats and environments.

Additionally, lack of a unified app store or standard distribution channel on Linux is a pain point. Each major distro traditionally has had its own repositories and packaging rules. A developer on one forum lamented that "every distro has [its] own store and repositories" and different foundational components (from init systems to display servers), meaning there's no single route to reach all users. This contrasts with Windows or macOS, where a software maker can target a single platform. As a result, Linux developers (especially proprietary or cross-platform software makers) face a tough question: Which distros do we officially support? Supporting only one (say Ubuntu) misses a chunk of potential users, but supporting many can be prohibitively costly.

In short, from the developer's viewpoint, fragmentation leads to duplicated effort and complexity in software deployment. "Desktop application distribution is complex across all operating systems; in Linux, this is further compounded by such fragmentation and inter-dependencies in packaging and distribution of software," as one DevOps writer summarized. All these varied requirements must be satisfied to successfully deliver software to Linux users, which is "difficult [especially] with limited resources". This has real consequences: some apps arrive on Linux slowly or not at all, and developers may prioritize other platforms first. The frustration is encapsulated by a comment that "when developing for Linux you need to package your application in a few different formats… If the Linux world standardized around snap/flatpak [universal packages] … then we stand a chance". We will discuss such standardization efforts in a later section. First, let's hear what prominent Linux figures have said about the fragmentation issue.

Voices from Linux Leaders on Fragmentation

Linux fragmentation has been a topic of discussion at the highest levels of the community. Even Linus Torvalds – the creator of the Linux kernel – has expressed annoyance at the state of the desktop ecosystem. In a 2023 interview, Torvalds lamented that: "I still wish we were better at having a standardized desktop that goes across all the distributions… It's not a kernel issue. It's more of a personal annoyance [that] the fragmentation of the different vendors have, I think, held the desktop back a bit." Torvalds points out that while Linux has excelled in servers, the lack of a unified desktop experience across distributions has impeded its success on personal computers. (He did acknowledge some recent progress, citing technologies like Flatpak as a hopeful sign, but emphasized that it's an ongoing challenge even after "25 years" of Linux on desktops.)

Other influential voices echo similar concerns. Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Canonical (Ubuntu's parent company), has frequently discussed fragmentation. "Linux fragmentation has always been an issue," Shuttleworth noted in a press call, explaining that Ubuntu's large user base often led software vendors to target Ubuntu only, at the expense of other distros. In his view, this was a problem both for users of less-popular distros (who get left out) and for the broader adoption of Linux (since no single distro's market share is compelling on its own). Shuttleworth's solution was Ubuntu's Snap package format, which aims to be a distribution-agnostic way to publish software. "Snaps bring […] apps to every Linux desktop, server, device or cloud machine, giving users freedom to choose any Linux distribution while retaining access to the best apps," he said, touting it as a way to ease fragmentation in the application space. With characteristic candor, he quipped that he's happy to help reduce fragmentation "even though it gives [software vendors] a reason to not use Ubuntu!" – an acknowledgment that a truly universal Linux app format could level the playing field among distros.

Leaders of desktop environment projects have also taken steps to address fragmentation. In 2019, the developers of GNOME and KDE (the two major Linux desktop GUI projects) came together for a joint conference – the Linux App Summit – explicitly to improve cross-distro collaboration. A news report on this noted: "Linux dominates the world, except for the desktop. One of the problems associated with the Linux desktop is fragmentation." It then highlighted that "the two major Linux desktop communities are working on joining hands to eliminate this fragmentation. The GNOME Foundation and KDE e.V. have announced [the] Linux App Summit… [which] with the joint influence of the two desktop projects, will shepherd the growth of the FOSS desktop by encouraging the creation of quality applications… and fostering a vibrant market for the Linux operating system". This is a significant development: historically GNOME and KDE had distinct ecosystems, but now they recognize that collaboration and setting common goals (especially for app developers) is necessary to make the Linux desktop more coherent for both users and devs.

Other community figures have weighed in as well. For example, GNOME designer Tobias Bernard wrote a blog series dissecting why "there is no single 'Linux' platform" for app developers. He observed that distributions still operate like they did in the 90s – integrating components independently – even though modern desktop projects (GNOME, etc.) have become more cohesive platforms in themselves. This mismatch leads to "tensions in many areas, which affect both the quality of the user experience, and the health of the app ecosystem", essentially calling out fragmentation between distros and desktop environments as detrimental. Eric S. Raymond (ESR), a famous open-source advocate, wrote as far back as 2004 about Linux usability issues, and while his focus was broader, he implied that a fragmented focus on developer needs over users was hurting desktop adoption. More bluntly, a 2008 InformationWeek piece by Alexander Wolfe, often cited by critics, stated: "Remember the 1980s worries about how the 'forking' of Unix could hurt that OS's chances for adoption? That was nothing compared to the mess we've got today with Linux, where upwards of 300 distributions vie for [users]". This quote, frequently referenced in debates, underscores the sentiment that fragmentation is seen by some as chaos that prevents Linux from presenting a united front against Windows or macOS.

In summary, prominent figures – from Torvalds to distribution founders to desktop project leaders – generally acknowledge that fragmentation exists and has played a role in limiting the desktop Linux experience. Most of these leaders advocate for some form of standardization or collaboration to mitigate the downsides (whether through technical solutions like universal packages or through communities working together more). However, it's worth noting that not everyone sees fragmentation as purely negative, as we'll explore in the debate section – some community voices celebrate the diversity as a strength.

Mitigating Fragmentation: Universal Packages and Standardization Efforts

Given the challenges fragmentation poses, the Linux community has introduced various initiatives to standardize or unify aspects of the ecosystem. These efforts aim to make developing, distributing, and using software on Linux more consistent across different distros, without eliminating the diversity of choice. Here we highlight some key standardization efforts:

• Freedesktop.org Standards: One long-running initiative is Freedesktop.org, an umbrella project that develops cross-desktop standards and technologies. Freedesktop (formerly the X Desktop Group, XDG) works on "interoperability and shared base technology for free-software desktop environments like GNOME, KDE, Xfce, etc. Thanks to Freedesktop, many core components are now common across distros – for example, the XDG Base Directory specification defines standard config and data file locations, so applications can find user files regardless of distro. Other examples include the .desktop application shortcut format, D-Bus (a message system for apps/desktop to communicate), and shared MIME types. Freedesktop's work has been crucial in reducing fragmentation between desktop environments, ensuring that an app written for one desktop can integrate (menus, icons, settings) on another. It provides a de-facto set of standards that most major distros adopt, thus smoothing over some differences in the Linux user experience.
• Linux Standard Base (LSB): An earlier effort to standardize Linux at the system level was the Linux Standard Base, a project started in the early 2000s. LSB aimed to define a common set of system libraries, filesystem layout, and other components that every major distro would adhere to. The idea was to allow software compiled for an "LSB-compliant" system to run on any LSB-certified distribution. While LSB had some success (many distros formally complied with parts of it), it ultimately did not keep up with the fast pace of Linux development and has faded in significance. One reason cited is that requiring a single package format (RPM) was a sticking point – Debian/Ubuntu did not want to abandon .deb, for example. The LSB initiative has largely stalled, but it was a noteworthy attempt to unify the base system across Linux variants.
• Universal App Formats (Flatpak, Snap, AppImage): In recent years, a major push to solve fragmentation has come via universal packaging formats for applications. These are new package systems that run on any distro, containerizing the app and its dependencies. The three prominent ones are:
  • Flatpak: Backed by the community (including GNOME) and Freedesktop.org, Flatpak allows developers to package their application once and have it run on any Linux distribution that supports Flatpak. Apps are sandboxed and use runtime libraries that can be shared. Flathub, the main Flatpak app repository, has grown rapidly. As of early 2024, Flathub has served over 1.6 billion downloads of Flatpak apps and surpassed 1 million active users – a testament to its growing adoption. It averages about 700,000 app downloads per day in 2023. Many popular desktop apps (Spotify, Steam, LibreOffice, etc.) are now available as Flatpaks, ensuring users on any distro can easily install the same up-to-date software. This greatly alleviates the burden on developers to make distro-specific packages.
  • Snap: Created by Canonical for Ubuntu but designed to work across distros, Snap packages also bundle an app with its necessary libraries in a secure, sandboxed format. Snap has a central Snap Store and gained support from some other OSes (like Debian, Fedora, Arch can all install snapd). Mark Shuttleworth specifically positioned Snaps as a solution to fragmentation, as noted earlier: "a single binary package that will work on any Linux desktop, server, cloud or device, regardless of flavor". Snaps are used for big applications like Spotify, Skype, and even system components in Ubuntu. However, Snap has faced some community resistance (for example, Linux Mint disables Snap by default, preferring Flatpak), which shows that even solutions to fragmentation can spark new debates about centralized control. Nonetheless, Snap has made it easier for third-party software makers (e.g. Microsoft publishes a Snap for VS Code) to target "Linux" as a whole.
  • AppImage: A somewhat different approach, AppImage is a format where an application and all its libraries are packaged into a single executable file (which doesn't require root installation or a package manager). The user can run the AppImage on any distro by just making it executable. This appeals to software developers who want a zero-dependency binary distribution. AppImage doesn't have a centralized store by default (though there are third-party catalogs), but it's used by many projects for simple "download and run" Linux releases. It's another piece of the puzzle allowing software to be distro-agnostic.

These universal formats significantly mitigate fragmentation in software availability. Instead of waiting for each distribution's maintainers to package a new app (which might only happen for a few popular distros), developers can ship one Flatpak/Snap/AppImage for all. As a result, the Linux desktop is becoming more of a single market for application developers, despite the still-split base OS. For instance, the project lead of the Krita graphics program noted that maintaining .deb packages for each distro was "complex and time consuming," whereas publishing a Snap was "much easier to maintain, package and distribute… the most streamlined app store I have published software in." This kind of feedback suggests that these formats lower the entry barrier for software on Linux.

• Cross-Distro Projects and Portability: Apart from packaging, other efforts aim to unify Linux environments. Containerization (Docker, etc.) and virtualization allow software to run in isolated environments that abstract away host differences – useful for development and deployment consistency. Freedesktop's XDG Desktop Portals provide a standardized interface for applications (especially Flatpak/Snap apps) to access system services like file dialogs and camera, working uniformly across GNOME, KDE, etc., again reducing fragmentation in how apps interact with the OS. Additionally, projects like Wine/Proton tackle fragmentation in another sense: they let Windows applications run on Linux, alleviating the problem of software availability (though not directly unifying Linux distros, it addresses the symptom of lacking native apps due to fragmentation).

In summary, the Linux community is actively addressing fragmentation through technical standardization. Tools like Flatpak and Snap are creating a more unified application layer on top of diverse distros, and Freedesktop standards unify many desktop behaviors and system interfaces. While these don't eliminate the existence of many parallel Linux versions, they smooth over the differences so that from an app developer's or user's perspective, Linux can feel more coherent. There are still multiple competing solutions (indeed having both Flatpak and Snap could be seen as fragmentation of the fragmentation solutions), but the overall trend is that collaboration is increasing. The widespread backing of Flatpak/Flathub by multiple major distros and the partnership of GNOME and KDE are promising signs that the ecosystem is trying to strike a balance between diversity and compatibility.

Fragmentation: Benefit or Drawback to Linux Adoption?

The topic of fragmentation in Linux inspires lively debate. Some argue that fragmentation is an obstacle to broader Linux adoption, while others believe it is a natural outcome of freedom that ultimately strengthens the ecosystem. Here we summarize both sides of the controversy:

Harmful Effects of Fragmentation (Arguments Against)

• User Confusion and Inconsistent Experience: With hundreds of distributions, new users can be overwhelmed by choice. The lack of a single "Linux" experience means documentation and support are spread thin. Critics point out that an ordinary consumer faced with dozens of Linux variants may feel lost. As one commentary noted, "upwards of 300 distributions vie for the attention of computer users seeking an alternative to Windows", creating a confusing landscape. This fragmentation is said to deter mainstream users, who might otherwise try Linux if there was a clear, unified offering.
• Duplication of Effort: Fragmentation can lead to many projects reinventing the wheel instead of pooling resources. For example, multiple distro teams maintaining separate but similar system tools or patches. Detractors claim this divides development efforts and wastes time on integrating components for each distro rather than improving the software itself. Some see the plethora of package managers, init systems, desktop environments, etc., as redundant labor that could be avoided with more unity.
• Software Compatibility and Availability Issues: As discussed earlier, the differences among distros make life harder for application developers. Lack of standardization in libraries and package formats means an app might work out-of-the-box on one distro but not on another without modifications. Proprietary software vendors cite this as a reason Linux desktop is less attractive – supporting "Linux" actually means supporting many platforms. Thus, fragmentation has historically led to slower adoption of popular software on Linux (for instance, Adobe never ported the Creative Suite to Linux, and games took long to arrive) and a smaller selection of software for users, reinforcing the cycle that keeps some users away.
• No Unified Branding or Marketing: Unlike Windows or macOS, Linux isn't a single product. This means there's no single entity to market it or strike deals with hardware vendors for pre-installation. Some argue that if there were just one or two dominant Linux distros, they could achieve critical mass and vendor support (e.g., more OEM PCs shipping with Linux). Instead, the fragmented community has many voices and no single "Linux Inc." to push desktop Linux adoption in the consumer space. This is seen as a factor in why desktop Linux remains around 2–4% market share globally.

In summary, the "fragmentation is harmful" camp believes that the sheer variety in Linux has held it back from being a polished, user-friendly, and widely-supported desktop OS. Even Linus Torvalds hinted that fragmentation has "held the desktop back". By confusing users and making work harder for developers, fragmentation is viewed as a key reason Linux has not "succeeded" on desktops to the extent its technical merits might otherwise allow.

Benefits of Fragmentation (Arguments in Favor)

• Diversity Drives Innovation: Proponents of fragmentation argue that having many independent distros fosters a "laboratory of innovation." Different groups can experiment with new ideas in parallel – be it new package systems, desktop interfaces, filesystems, etc. This competition and experimentation leads to faster evolution and prevents stagnation. As one analysis put it, markets usually tend toward a few big players, but "in the Linux world, things are going in reverse… I take this as a healthy cycle. Fragmentation occurs when the big players become complacent and lose sight of their priorities." In other words, when a dominant distro isn't meeting some users' needs, a new distro can emerge to fill the gap (for example, the rise of user-friendly Ubuntu itself in 2004, or lightweight distros for older hardware). This keeps the ecosystem responsive and dynamic.
• Choice and User Freedom: Linux users benefit from a rich choice of environments. Rather than a one-size-fits-all OS, you can choose a distro that fits your preferences (different UI philosophies, release models, software philosophies). Advocates often say this is "freedom" in action – the user isn't locked into decisions made by a single vendor. An open-source enthusiast on a developer forum wrote, "Open-source is the freedom to remake… ." This highlights how fragmentation ensures user empowerment: if you don't like how one distro does things, there's likely another that aligns with your ideals, or you can even create a new one. Forking and diversification are seen as a feature, not a bug, of the open-source model.
• Resilience and Independence: Having multiple distros means the ecosystem is not beholden to the fate of any single project or company. If one distribution fails or makes a bad decision, users can move to another. This decentralization is healthy for FOSS (Free and Open Source Software). For example, when Canonical introduced the controversial Unity desktop, some users flocked to Linux Mint or other alternatives, eventually leading Canonical to revert to GNOME – a case of the community correcting course via choice. As another blogger noted, "No matter what happens or who breaks what, someone will fork and continue it… Saying that 'we need to unify Linux' is a pipe dream… Linux isn't one app, one kernel." Fragmentation ensures that no single entity can impose changes unilaterally if the community disagrees; there will always be other options. This fosters a kind of natural checks-and-balances and protects the ecosystem from monopolistic control.
• Niche Optimization: Different distros target different use-cases, which can be seen as an advantage. For instance, there are security-focused distros (like Qubes OS), pentesting distros (Kali), ultra-lightweight ones for old PCs (Puppy Linux), etc. This specialization is only possible because of fragmentation – a monolithic Linux might not serve all these niches well. Thus, fragmentation enables tailor-made solutions and communities around specific needs, which in turn attracts diverse user groups to Linux.

Those who defend fragmentation often acknowledge some downsides but argue that the benefits outweigh the costs, or that the costs can be mitigated without abandoning diversity. As one commentator put it, "Yes, fragmentation hurts Linux in many ways still, but this isn't to say we should unify… Rather, work together while fighting. If you love Linux Mint, get more people to use it… Make a distribution? Advertise it… give people reason to use it."⁴² The philosophy here is that competing visions can coexist and even collaborate on common standards (as we see with Freedesktop and Linux App Summit) without all merging into one. They would argue that the vibrancy of the Linux community comes from its decentralization and that trying to enforce a single "one true Linux" would go against the spirit of open-source.

Conclusion

Fragmentation in desktop Linux is a complex phenomenon with both positive and negative impacts. On the one hand, the abundance of distributions and lack of a unified platform have arguably limited Linux's mainstream desktop adoption – causing confusion for newcomers, extra work for software developers, and hesitancy from hardware/software vendors. Even Linus Torvalds believes a more standardized desktop across distros would help Linux "get over the hump" on the desktop. On the other hand, the very same fragmentation reflects the freedom, creativity, and resilience of the open-source community. It has allowed Linux to grow in many directions at once, catering to different needs and preventing stagnation under a single authority.

The Linux world appears to be moving toward a middle ground: preserving diversity while reducing incompatibility. Efforts like Flatpak, Snap, and Freedesktop standards show that collaboration can happen without eliminating choice. Different distributions are finding common cause in shared technologies even as they maintain their unique identities. In effect, the community is saying: "We don't need one Linux distro for success; we need Linux distros to work together where it matters." Time will tell if this approach yields the elusive "Year of the Linux Desktop," but it is clear that fragmentation will remain a defining characteristic of Linux – to be managed and harnessed, rather than simply solved. As the debates rage on, Linux's diversity continues to be both a challenge and a strength, powering a ecosystem unlike any other in computing.

Sources:

1. Criticism of desktop Linux - Wikipedia
   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_desktop_Linux
2. Linux Statistics 2025 - TrueList
   https://truelist.co/blog/linux-statistics/
3. Linux Distros in September 2024: Welcome to Hyper-Fragmentation
   https://boilingsteam.com/linux-distros-sep-2024-hyperfragmentation/
4. Desktop Linux Market Share: April 2025
   https://itsfoss.com/linux-market-share/
5. How App Stores Are Addressing Fragmentation in the Linux Ecosystem - DevOps.com
   https://devops.com/how-app-stores-are-addressing-fragmentation-in-the-linux-ecosystem/
6. There is no "Linux" Platform (Part 1) – Space and Meaning
   https://blogs.gnome.org/tbernard/2019/12/04/there-is-no-linux-platform-1/
7. Fragmentation Is Why Desktop Linux Failed [video] | Hacker News
   https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18677200
8. Fragmentation is Why Linux Hasn't Succeeded on Desktop: Linus Torvalds
   https://itsfoss.com/desktop-linux-torvalds/
9. Ubuntu Snap Apps Can Run On (Pretty Much) ANY Linux Distro - OMG! Ubuntu
   http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/06/snap-to-be-universal-linux-package-format
10. Gnome and KDE Coming Together » Linux Magazine
    http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/News/Gnome-and-KDE-Coming-Together
11. Freedesktop.org Specifications
    https://specifications.freedesktop.org/
12. XDG Base Directories specification version 0.8
    https://specifications.freedesktop.org/basedir-spec/0.8
13. Should we have a new Linux Standard Base (LSB) spec? - Reddit
    https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1ffaxzf/should_we_have_a_new_linux_standard_base_lsb_spec/
14. Linux App Store Flathub Now Has Over One Million Active Flatpak App Users - Slashdot
    https://linux.slashdot.org/story/24/01/26/1657210/linux-app-store-flathub-now-has-over-one-million-active-flatpak-app-users
15. Flathub in 2023 - Announcements
    https://discourse.flathub.org/t/flathub-in-2023/3808
16. Why Fragmentation Should EMPOWER Linux - DEV Community
    https://dev.to/kailyons/why-fragmentation-should-empower-linux-24gi