[POPOSYS]

This is another good example for what I described in my other comment - they only care for their very special setup but break the underlying distro in many ways.

PopOS devs take the work of Ubuntu, add their 0.1% but break a lot of things that work good in [X|K]Ubuntu - that is not helpful for the OS ecosystem. They distribute a broken distro that only works within a very narrow default configuration. Not OK.

[panick21_]

Very much disagree. They actually do more work then you suggest they do. And they upstream that work quite often, and its open source.

Second, if you want X/K then why would you care about Pop? How is PopOS existing bad for you?

[POPOSYS]

It is bad because of the reasons I explained in my other comment.

They pretend to release a whole distro while in fact they are only caring for a narrow set of packages and break other functionality of the same underlying distro. This is bad.

If you distribute a whole distro it is expected that everything works, like it is the case with Debian or Ubuntu. It might produce a bad image of Linux as perceived by new users when they realize that many things of this distro do not work at all. This is not the quality delivered by other Linux distros, so it is doing a bad job in representing Linux.

At least they should explain that on their website, e.g. "We deliver something we call a distro but this is not the same thing as you get from other people that deliver distros, we are only actively supporting one special desktop environment, but other things might not work as experienced with other distributions. We decided anyway to pretend we are releasing a whole Linux distro because..." (reason should be explained.)

I hope this was better explained. I still totally respect the work they put into it and I am thankful that a company is doing this at all, but they are distributing their software in a bad way.