This is brilliant. I also love the testimonials here: https://k1ss.org/testimonials https://k1ss.org/testimonials because they pretty much capture the entire Li

This is brilliant. I also love the testimonials here: https://k1ss.org/testimonials https://k1ss.org/testimonials because they pretty much capture the entire Linux community of developers. But if you contextualize it a bit differently I think you might find it is super valuable. One of the challenges the Linux community has is that there are so many distributions or 'distros' to choose from. What is more, the feature sets of those distros form a non-planar non-directed graph of nodes for which it is very very difficult to reason about their feature content. Consider for the moment if you could reason about distros like you can reason about genomes. In modern genetics we can look at flora, fauna, bacteria, etc and talk about them as a base class "foo" with specific genetic changes that get them to be a "bar", we can talk about speciation where the genetics are different enough such that hybrids are infertile or impossible. This effort tries, and I think largely succeeds, in capturing the "minimum viable Linux system" (all up kernel + user land). It gives you a way to reason about two different distros like Ubuntu is Kiss plus (list of things) and for each item in the list of things, it has dependencies, recursively until you have completely described the genome of Ubuntu as a linear directed graph from Kiss. You could do the same thing for Fedora, or Mint, or any distro. Two such graphs could give you a complete list of differences to get from distro <a> to distro <b> and the simple algorithm of walk back (remove items) from <a>, then walk down the graph (add items) to <b> would always "work" because they all share a common ancestor node, Kiss. As a software developer you could reason about all of the changes to a distro you would need for your software to work, and this would tell you if those changes included removing something that was part of the canonical set of things in a distro, your software would not work on that distro. Today, individual package managers do this in a distro unique way and let you work on one distro. As a software developer you end up with the "Fedora/Redhat" version, the "Ubuntu/Debian" version, maybe the "Arch/Gentoo" version. But if the Linux community settled on a common understanding of the "genetic code" if you will, you could do that for all possible distributions. That would be a powerful thing.