GNU/Linux Will Thrive as Long as It's Modular, Not Monolithic
Some companies try to make a "universal Linux" with a "universal package manager" and some kind of "universal system" like systemd and "universal" list (maintained by Microsoft) of what systems you're allowed to boot. They're not helping. They claim to be helping, but their aim is to kill all other projects or options, just like they do to Xorg/11/libre.
In the past we saw many systems with a "universal vision" simply perishing, with nothing created to replace them. It was infeasible to branch off in another direction, either because of the licensing or the dead-end nature of bloated systems that nobody understood anymore (or wanted to understand).
When companies like IBM push Flathub or Wayland, whose advantage is prioritised? The users'? Or IBM's?
To IBM, it's all about money. Nothing else matters. █