If you use some critical thinking, then it doesn’t take much to realise it doesn’t apply.
The distros make sense for Linux, because Linux users are used to installing software through their package manager, and because getting software outside of this route can sometimes be tricky due to there being multiple distro frameworks
Windows and Mac users are mostly used to installing software from downloads.
It’s a choice. And it’s not a black-or-white choice. As I indicated, I installed two decent synth plugins very easily on my KDE Neon setup, which is pretty much Ubuntu 22.04 out of the box.
But if you do want to go all-in on AV production, these distros provide more than you could ever want. If I was dedicating a workstation for audio production use, I would definitely consider one of these distros.
And it’s often possible to install a lot of the capabilities provided in an audio distro to other distros. As an example, it’s possible, and quite easy, to use the kxstudio repositories on Ubuntu to give you all the additional software.
So, this is a non-argument.
So, you can’t counter the argument or come up with better arguments of your own, so you resort to a lazy ad-hominem.
And I don’t know what this has to do with the subject even. This is not a Linux forum. The software is not elusively (or even primarily) designed to work with Linux (ISTR the Ardour Devs mostly use Macs these days). And the discussion, that you started, is not specifically about Linux.
Why is it any more difficult than, say, Reaper, which comes (like Ardour) with a small handful of basic plugins including a very basic synth plugin that is probably a lot less useful than the General MIDI plugin that ships with Ardour?
I’m not against making Ardour easier and more accessible for new users, but the notion that including a couple of extra plugins is going to have a significant benefit seems misguided (especially when those plugins are a few clicks away anyway).
If Ardour has a an issue with expanding it’s user-base, I think it’s primarily down to marketing/exposure: I rarely see Ardour mentioned on music or audio production forums, blogs/articles, or YouTube videos and, when it is suggested, it’s usually drowned out by a chorus of people recommending Reaper, Cubase, or Ableton.
In most cases, people either seem to say:
“it’s too complicated for my use, I’ll stick with Audacity”,
or
“I’ll go with Reaper because that’s what everyone else seems to be using”.
Occasionally, I will see:
“The MIDI support on it doesn’t work for me”
I have never, ever, seen anyone reject Ardour because it didn’t come with a “decent” synth plugin.
Also, a lot of people using Cubase or Ableton are doing so because a cut-down version was supplied with their audio interface.
IMO, if Ardour is to expand it’s user-base, it needs to have better exposure. @unfa did a great job a few years ago with his tutorials. But Unfa has only around 29k subscribers (many of whom probably were already Ardour users before they subscribed).
But there are no easy answers to this as marketing usually comes with a significant effort and price tag. That is assuming the Ardour Devs want to chase user-base in the first place.
Cheers,
Keith