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.

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.

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".

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

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?

To get fragmentation in Linux all you need to do is put two users in the same room.

Free software programmers are fond of saying that they'd prefer not to reinvent the wheel. Apparently that attitude no longer applies to desktop menus, considering all the new options springing up.

MICROSOFT'S INCURSIONS INTO ODF have made a lot of headlines recently because they cause more harm than good to ODF; they fragment it, as usual.