In linear logic, we have that multiplicative conjunction distributes over additive conjunction:
$$(A\ \&\ B) \otimes C ⊸ (A \otimes C)\ \&\ (B \otimes C).$$
But we do not have the other direction:
$$(A \otimes C)\ \&\ (B \otimes C) \not{\!\!⊸\;} (A\ \&\ B) \otimes C.$$
What's a good intuitive explanation of this impossibility?
Remember how the left and right rules for $\&$ can be interpreted (with a formulation related to game semantics, I think this is the most intuitive):
Now let us have a look at the first implication: $$(A\ \&\ B) \otimes C ⊸ (A \otimes C)\ \&\ (B \otimes C)$$ You have to be able to prove $A \otimes C$ as well as $B \otimes C$. Let us treat the former case; the latter is symmetric.
To build your proof, you can use a proof of $(A\ \&\ B) \otimes C$, that is to say a proof of $A\ \&\ B$ and a proof of $C$. Since you're on the left side of the sequent, you can choose that this proof of $A\ \&\ B$ is a proof of $A$; then you combine it with the proof of $C$ to get a proof of $A\ \otimes\ C$.
In a proof tree: $$\cfrac{\cfrac{\cfrac{\cfrac{ \cfrac{}{A \vdash A} \quad \cfrac{}{C \vdash C} }{A,C \vdash A \otimes C} }{A\& B,C \vdash A \otimes C} }{(A\&B)\otimes C \vdash A \otimes C} \quad \cfrac{\vdots}{(A\&B)\otimes C \vdash B \otimes C} }{(A\&B)\otimes C \vdash (A\otimes C)\&(B\otimes C)}$$
You can look at it interactively.
For the implication which doesn't work: $$(A \otimes C)\ \&\ (B \otimes C) \not{\!\!⊸\;} (A\ \&\ B) \otimes C.$$
It is a linearity problem: to prove $(A\ \&\ B) \otimes C$, you have to decide which part of your hypotheses will be used for $A\ \&\ B$ and which part for $C$ (there is no possible duplication*). Clearly, none of these two conclusions can be derived from the empty sequent, so you have to decompose the hypothesis $(A \otimes C)\ \&\ (B \otimes C)$ first; but this forces you to make a choice between $A \otimes C$ and $B \otimes C$, and you will loose either $A$ or $B$!
(*) Of course, if you were allowed to duplicate hypotheses, i.e. if you had $!((A \otimes C)\ \&\ (B \otimes C))$, it would be different...