"Linux Lite", a name of hubris?

[MS]

I want you to think Coke Lite first.

Now I want you to think Linux Lite.

Sometimes I am wondering, why is Linux Lite so underappreciated in the verbal advertisement going around in the Linux world, such as, why is Linux Lite not even included in many pools for favourite distro?

Then it hit me. Because this distro, is what the Linux world is afraid of. It pronounces the fate of Linux as sedimenting to a crystal, possibly closed source structure, where Linux becomes a product, eventually rolling out with a Lite version of own self.

Paranoia? Too much abstract thinking? What did I take to pop up with something like that?

No, I say, metacognition. Just try to connect the dots which do not seem so obvious.

But I think Linux Lite is a perfect distro. That is why, the worse for it.

[Artim]

There are "Lite" versions of all the distros in the whole universe!  Ubuntu has Lubuntu and Xubuntu ("lite" versions of Canonical's flagship distro), there are "Lite" mixtures of Mint, PCLinuxOS, lots of Debian mixtures (MX-Linux is "mid-weight" and antiX is "lite," for example).  Noe of them are "the worse" for being Lite.  They are all just great and have a long life ahead of them.

LinuxLite is unique among the Lite distros because it is made for those transitioning from proprietary OSes, and because Linux Lite disproves the old axiom that speed is always sacrificed to achieve ease-of-use.

I don't know of any other distro that has achieved that (MX comes closest in my experience so far).  The others are just the base plus LXDE or Xfce tied on, or no desktop environment at all, like Crunchbang (now Bunsen Labs), Puppy Linux, and antiX. 

[TheDead]

Maybe Lite is an acronym L.I.T.E., like Wine.
L.ite I.s T.he E.pic Distro !

[MS]

No[n]e of them are "the worse" for being Lite.

I believe you got that one a bit opaque way.

What I mean by what I mean, is that no other Linux distro actually is called simply Linux, if to take out what is considered a universal addon signifying certain changes to the mainstream, which in that case would be "Lite".

Now, since Linux - speaking of a product - does not exist, as we only have meta-Linux around or certain various interpretations of Linux, without any core pattern given from a place of authority, all my claims are abstract, notwithstanding, already said, it is about the name and what could trigger some people. The notion of "THE Linux", instead of "various Linuxes".