Lately I have been hearing criticism about embedded Linux and how fragmentation, as represented by the many flourishing Linux projects such as Meego, Android and webOS, is bad and dangerous for Linux; these critics suggest that fragmentation will hinder Linux’ ability to compete with companies like Microsoft and Apple. I disagree, which is not surprising.

Fragmentation is often cited as a major challenge for the Linux platform and mobile software ecosystem. The word gets thrown around a lot and tends to be used as a catch-all phrase to describe a wide range of loosely connected issues.

Why the "fragmentation" slur against Free software no longer applies without the messenger being extremely hypocritical

The fragmentation of mobile Linux needs to be addressed, Qualcomm executive Rob Chandhok told developers at LinuxCon

Every now and then you'll come across someone arguing that, instead of having several different desktop environments (Xfce, GNOME, KDE), their respective developers should team up to create The Perfect DE. Apart from the fact that this is just impossible, I'd like to argue that this fragmentation is actually beneficial. Benefits that go beyond "more choice".

Google has defended its decision to allow unfettered Android tweaking, saying that although this may fragment the Googlephone market, it's what's best for developers.

Six releases in 18 months. Is it too much? With six releases in just a year and a half is Android risking extreme fragmentation? Or is this just the way Google does business?

So you have some files that are fragmented. And this obviously is slowing your machine down. Right?

Wrong.

Some people will tell you fragmentation is one of the main things that is holding back Linux from desktop adoption. Not having a unified name, packaging system, or heck even desktop environment often confuses new users and puts them into overload - Too much choice can be a bad thing.