4 ms·

Linux does not need more package managers. It creates nothing but support burdens and busywork for developers (yes, user repositories too). I don't understand

Linux does not need more package managers. It creates nothing but support burdens and busywork for developers (yes, user repositories too). I don't understand what people expect to achieve by further fragmenting a minority OS that makes up only 3% of Desktop users.

brainless 5y ago
- Market share is not the most important metric, resilience matters and Linux distributions have only gained in acceptance over years - People have a fear or even aversion toward experiments since it needs effort, but some folks are simply geeks - they will keep trying and more power to them - Some of these experiments, historically, have brought some of the best open innovations in the industry and moved even closed-source rooted companies to change mindset - Fragmentation is a marketing problem IMHO and I would like to see some ground between that and a consolidated Linux distro but it will not happen easily and that is OK - The enthusiasts like us do not need every other mainstream user on Linux but I am sure we would love that (I am a Linux user for 18 years) - This community is happy learning and trying new things, it is joyful So, more power to experimentors. The value of this community is in choice in a market that is dominated by the Apples and Microsofts who do not care about choice.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  I do get where you're coming from; this project just highlighted some personal frustrations I have with Desktop Linux is. I really wish we could have an open-source OS that was reliable and user-friendly for consumers (especially given how user-hostile Windows has become in the last 5 years), while similarly being non-burdensome for devs to deploy software to (which, to be fair, has improved a lot recently thanks to AppImageKit et al).
TheFreim 5y ago
Linux does need more package managers. Why? Because I like trying out new package managers and they don't harm people since they're not required to try or use them.
- AussieWog93 5y ago
  >they don't harm people since they're not required to try or use them For users, no. For devs, there absolutely is pressure to support and maintain multiple distribution methods for Linux users.
  - TheFreim 5y ago
    That's a good point.
  - seba_dos1 5y ago
    I don't think that's true. Usually upstream devs and distro maintainers are different people. If I ever see packaging maintained by upstream, it's more often than not just for a single distro (most commonly Flatpak, then Ubuntu).
pxc 5y ago
This doesn't introduce a new package manager to the world

brainless 5y ago

- Market share is not the most important metric, resilience matters and Linux distributions have only gained in acceptance over years - People have a fear or even aversion toward experiments since it needs effort, but some folks are simply geeks - they will keep trying and more power to them - Some of these experiments, historically, have brought some of the best open innovations in the industry and moved even closed-source rooted companies to change mindset - Fragmentation is a marketing problem IMHO and I would like to see some ground between that and a consolidated Linux distro but it will not happen easily and that is OK - The enthusiasts like us do not need every other mainstream user on Linux but I am sure we would love that (I am a Linux user for 18 years) - This community is happy learning and trying new things, it is joyful So, more power to experimentors. The value of this community is in choice in a market that is dominated by the Apples and Microsofts who do not care about choice.

AussieWog93 5y ago
I do get where you're coming from; this project just highlighted some personal frustrations I have with Desktop Linux is. I really wish we could have an open-source OS that was reliable and user-friendly for consumers (especially given how user-hostile Windows has become in the last 5 years), while similarly being non-burdensome for devs to deploy software to (which, to be fair, has improved a lot recently thanks to AppImageKit et al).

TheFreim 5y ago

Linux does need more package managers. Why? Because I like trying out new package managers and they don't harm people since they're not required to try or use them.

AussieWog93 5y ago
>they don't harm people since they're not required to try or use them For users, no. For devs, there absolutely is pressure to support and maintain multiple distribution methods for Linux users.
- TheFreim 5y ago
  That's a good point.
- seba_dos1 5y ago
  I don't think that's true. Usually upstream devs and distro maintainers are different people. If I ever see packaging maintained by upstream, it's more often than not just for a single distro (most commonly Flatpak, then Ubuntu).

pxc 5y ago

This doesn't introduce a new package manager to the world