5 ms·

Just what the world needs... Another Linux distribution. Seriously though, you need a lot more to sell me on a new distribution than "Ubuntu, but with AppImage

Just what the world needs... Another Linux distribution. Seriously though, you need a lot more to sell me on a new distribution than "Ubuntu, but with AppImages". That's actually a large part of the problem of FOSS in general: We focus on the technical underpinnings rather than on the problems that we intend to solve. If the creators of this distribution want to address specific issues of the Linux desktop experience, they should do a better job communicating that, not least to attract contributors.

nine_k 8y ago
So, what is the problem we intend to solve here? Can anyone ELI5? (Or at least ELIPhD?)
- de_watcher 8y ago
  The actual Ubuntu has already tried to move to the AppImage-like package management: it's when you put all dependencies of the program into the package. These "Click" packages were used for the UbuntuPhone applications. There were also "Snap" packages for more server-oriented use cases. The whole deal is about the software developers who are having hard time managing the dependencies. Because they've got to update the code all the time. Especially bad for the proprietary ship-once-and-forget software. Ubuntu has not changed the package format. To be used, it has to be tested. To be tested, it has to be used.
  - colechristensen 8y ago
    It's time for new package management. One that isn't snapshot images (docker, bundled java/ruby/libraries) One that takes testing and integration seriously One that takes security seriously One that uses c-groups like they were intended One that allows multiple versions There are a lot of things that could come together for a new style and generation of package manager, but to do it right you would have to manage a whole lot of things
    - ravloony 8y ago
      It seems to me like nix fits all of those criteria.
    - nine_k 8y ago
      Let's take a look at Nix and Guix. Which checkboxes of the above list they fail to check? Cannot reasonably check?
    - weberc2 8y ago
      Honestly not sure why this is downvoted. Would really like to hear from the contrarians since none of this strikes me as controversial. I am curious why "snapshot images" are bad though. What's the fundamental difference between this and shipping a static binary (they're just a different image format, right?).
      - tomc1985 8y ago
        hardly.... the whole point of dynamic linking (and shipping or not shipping dynamically-linked binaries) is to reduce the amount of redundant code on a system. (it also helps keep update sizes down.) If you're shipping application images then youre shipping copies of all your library code -- you might as well have made a static binary; it certainly would be easier to work with.
        weberc2 8y ago
        > you might as well have made a static binary; it certainly would be easier to work with Not all programming languages can produce static binaries. That's the point of an image format to begin with. Reducing redundant code is a nice idea, but there aren't any systems^1 that solve for dependency hell and disk efficiency, and I'd rather trade a few hundred MBs of disk than fight with dependency hell. ^1: This isn't entirely true; Nix (and friends) do solve for this, but it's a relatively niche system and it's got its own usability issues that are (in my opinion) well worth sacrificing some disk to avoid. If these systems cross that threshold, then I'm happy to jump on that bandwagon.
  - GordonS 8y ago
    Does this new package management system mean that each package is deployed with it's own version of dependencies? Or are dependencies only installed once, in a central location, like they are with 'traditional' Linux package management systems?
swsieber 8y ago
The technical underpinnings arent unimportant though, because most abstractions are leaky. So, something built on something approachable is more approachable when something breaks. So its not strange the underpinnigs are mentioned. I do agree that it's overemphasized though.
rataerix 8y ago
I think the main selling point would be that it uses a new Desktop Enviroment, Nomad. I don't think Nomad comes default on any other Linux distro.
- devxpy 8y ago
  Isn't nomad just a skin over KDE plasma?
mathw 8y ago
I was just thinking about focussing on technical underpinnings like you said, while reading their copy. Do I care that Nomad Firewall uses Qt? That's almost the first thing they say about it, and then later about how it's written in C++ with a QML user interface. That's what I'd expect for a Qt application these days, and it's also almost entirely irrelevant. I do tend to look askance at things written in JavaScript that aren't destined to run in a web browser, but ultimately what I care about is whether it works, and I suspect users who aren't developers (that would be most of them) really only do care if it works for what they need it to do. We keep promoting stuff as "ooh look this is written in Rust!" or "it's in JavaScript!" but the important thing should be the effects of those things - i.e. you might choose to write something in Rust for performance and reliability reasons, and to write something in JavaScript for portability.
- mikewhy 8y ago
  OT but this is the first time I've seen the word "askance" and it's a great one.
- traverseda 8y ago
  I don't know, "ooh look this is written in python" would totally work on me.
- tomc1985 8y ago
  It would be really cool if all this tool fetishism-slash-cargo-culting turned into performance fetishism. "Look at how awesome our rich desktop UI is at only 2% CPU usage on an average quad-core!" versus all this "made with love" garbage
devxpy 8y ago
https://getsol.us/home/ https://getsol.us/home/ After 6 months of using this, I can say that this definitely delivers on its promises.
tomc1985 8y ago
We seem to have a cultural inclination to fork first and ask questions later; I would love to see FOSS push more people to contribute rather than coming up with yet another new product. The amount of personhours spent writing the same code, over and over again, is staggering.
teekert 8y ago
I see it as evolution, they all explore the feature-scape and find interesting and new ways to interact with your computer. Or they find new development models or new ways to make money. Some distros are short lived but their ideas may live on as things that stick and increase in frequency in the next generation of distros. I doubt KDE would look as it does without Gnome and vice versa. Ubuntu was also at some point yet-another-distro. Etc.
moron4hire 8y ago
They are doing a thing that they care about. Perhaps others might care about it, too. You clearly do not. Therefore, you're not the target market. Why complain about people doing a thing?
- majewsky 8y ago
  I still care about Linux winning on the desktop. But this doesn't look like the right way.

nine_k 8y ago

So, what is the problem we intend to solve here? Can anyone ELI5? (Or at least ELIPhD?)

de_watcher 8y ago
The actual Ubuntu has already tried to move to the AppImage-like package management: it's when you put all dependencies of the program into the package. These "Click" packages were used for the UbuntuPhone applications. There were also "Snap" packages for more server-oriented use cases. The whole deal is about the software developers who are having hard time managing the dependencies. Because they've got to update the code all the time. Especially bad for the proprietary ship-once-and-forget software. Ubuntu has not changed the package format. To be used, it has to be tested. To be tested, it has to be used.
- colechristensen 8y ago
  It's time for new package management. One that isn't snapshot images (docker, bundled java/ruby/libraries) One that takes testing and integration seriously One that takes security seriously One that uses c-groups like they were intended One that allows multiple versions There are a lot of things that could come together for a new style and generation of package manager, but to do it right you would have to manage a whole lot of things
  - ravloony 8y ago
    It seems to me like nix fits all of those criteria.
  - nine_k 8y ago
    Let's take a look at Nix and Guix. Which checkboxes of the above list they fail to check? Cannot reasonably check?
  - weberc2 8y ago
    Honestly not sure why this is downvoted. Would really like to hear from the contrarians since none of this strikes me as controversial. I am curious why "snapshot images" are bad though. What's the fundamental difference between this and shipping a static binary (they're just a different image format, right?).
    - tomc1985 8y ago
      hardly.... the whole point of dynamic linking (and shipping or not shipping dynamically-linked binaries) is to reduce the amount of redundant code on a system. (it also helps keep update sizes down.) If you're shipping application images then youre shipping copies of all your library code -- you might as well have made a static binary; it certainly would be easier to work with.
      - weberc2 8y ago
        > you might as well have made a static binary; it certainly would be easier to work with Not all programming languages can produce static binaries. That's the point of an image format to begin with. Reducing redundant code is a nice idea, but there aren't any systems^1 that solve for dependency hell and disk efficiency, and I'd rather trade a few hundred MBs of disk than fight with dependency hell. ^1: This isn't entirely true; Nix (and friends) do solve for this, but it's a relatively niche system and it's got its own usability issues that are (in my opinion) well worth sacrificing some disk to avoid. If these systems cross that threshold, then I'm happy to jump on that bandwagon.
- GordonS 8y ago
  Does this new package management system mean that each package is deployed with it's own version of dependencies? Or are dependencies only installed once, in a central location, like they are with 'traditional' Linux package management systems?

swsieber 8y ago

The technical underpinnings arent unimportant though, because most abstractions are leaky. So, something built on something approachable is more approachable when something breaks. So its not strange the underpinnigs are mentioned. I do agree that it's overemphasized though.

rataerix 8y ago

I think the main selling point would be that it uses a new Desktop Enviroment, Nomad. I don't think Nomad comes default on any other Linux distro.

devxpy 8y ago
Isn't nomad just a skin over KDE plasma?

mathw 8y ago

I was just thinking about focussing on technical underpinnings like you said, while reading their copy. Do I care that Nomad Firewall uses Qt? That's almost the first thing they say about it, and then later about how it's written in C++ with a QML user interface. That's what I'd expect for a Qt application these days, and it's also almost entirely irrelevant. I do tend to look askance at things written in JavaScript that aren't destined to run in a web browser, but ultimately what I care about is whether it works, and I suspect users who aren't developers (that would be most of them) really only do care if it works for what they need it to do. We keep promoting stuff as "ooh look this is written in Rust!" or "it's in JavaScript!" but the important thing should be the effects of those things - i.e. you might choose to write something in Rust for performance and reliability reasons, and to write something in JavaScript for portability.

mikewhy 8y ago
OT but this is the first time I've seen the word "askance" and it's a great one.
traverseda 8y ago
I don't know, "ooh look this is written in python" would totally work on me.
tomc1985 8y ago
It would be really cool if all this tool fetishism-slash-cargo-culting turned into performance fetishism. "Look at how awesome our rich desktop UI is at only 2% CPU usage on an average quad-core!" versus all this "made with love" garbage

devxpy 8y ago

https://getsol.us/home/ https://getsol.us/home/ After 6 months of using this, I can say that this definitely delivers on its promises.

tomc1985 8y ago

We seem to have a cultural inclination to fork first and ask questions later; I would love to see FOSS push more people to contribute rather than coming up with yet another new product. The amount of personhours spent writing the same code, over and over again, is staggering.

teekert 8y ago

I see it as evolution, they all explore the feature-scape and find interesting and new ways to interact with your computer. Or they find new development models or new ways to make money. Some distros are short lived but their ideas may live on as things that stick and increase in frequency in the next generation of distros. I doubt KDE would look as it does without Gnome and vice versa. Ubuntu was also at some point yet-another-distro. Etc.

moron4hire 8y ago

They are doing a thing that they care about. Perhaps others might care about it, too. You clearly do not. Therefore, you're not the target market. Why complain about people doing a thing?

majewsky 8y ago
I still care about Linux winning on the desktop. But this doesn't look like the right way.