4 ms·

Linux has never been about choice. There was choice because no two people could agree on a set of protocols and standards. And slowly we're converging on a smal

Linux has never been about choice. There was choice because no two people could agree on a set of protocols and standards. And slowly we're converging on a small set of decent (not perfect!) ideas volunteers can focus their efforts on. I honestly hope the choice meme dies because it is so toxic. My Linux workstation and servers are not something I want to tinker with, I want solidity and stability and a fragmented user space ecosystem is not the solution.

captainmuon 5y ago
"linux" (as in: Unixoid distributions for desktop systems) has always been about choice. Debian's update-alternatives, the whole FreeDesktop project, ICCCM standards. The theming community, gnome-look.org, kde-look.org, and so on. If I want the stabilty and flexibility of Linux (the kernel) and the GNU command line tools, and the flexibility to choose a UX paradigm that I prefer and visuals that I like, I go to desktop Linux. In that sense, choice is the USP of linux (linux as in: desktop distribution). If I loose the flexibilty, I go back to Windows or Mac. Opinionated ("not fragmented") systems like Gnome only work if you're fully on board with their choices. If not, then there is really no benefit for me over just sticking with windows. Now, on a server the situation is of course different, and stability is paramount. I like for example that services are declarative and not imperative in systemd. But on a desktop, I don't really care.
- kaba0 5y ago
  Fragmentation is not a skippable problem though. And especially when you depend on lower level services, choice without a standard interface will create an exponential explosion of should-be-supported APIs, which is terrible for an already thin community.
- 1_player 5y ago
  > "linux" (as in: Unixoid distributions for desktop systems) has always been about choice. Again, no. You call it choice, I call it chaos, it was anarchy, and that's the default state for any loosely-coupled systems. There is no manifesto, no underlying philosophy that decided that yes, Linux is about choice. Don't conflate lack of organisation with choice. Linux has always been about creating a libre UNIX-like kernel for x86 processors. And converging toward the same set of libre techonologies isn't against the Linux spirit. I still don't understand why people keep harping on about choice. I've used Linux full time since 2001, and the anarchy has just made a libre desktop an utopia because everyone wants every software to support every single option, with no understanding that the number of bugs scales exponentially with the number of choices.
  - badsectoracula 5y ago
    > I still don't understand why people keep harping on about choice. Because they don't want the choices other people made for them.
_2paq 5y ago
> Linux has never been about choice. There was choice because no two people could agree on a set of protocols and standards. And slowly we're converging on a small set of decent (not perfect!) ideas volunteers can focus their efforts on. I honestly hope the choice meme dies because it is so toxic. So everyone who uses or develops alternative init systems like runit and openrc and alternative DEs like KDE and package managers like apk and pacman should just stop and work on and use systemd, GNOME, and flatpak instead because that is the One True Way of using Linux on desktop? Quite a power trip attitude I'd say. I can't imagine why I would use Linux if choices I don't agree with were shoved down my throat.

captainmuon 5y ago

"linux" (as in: Unixoid distributions for desktop systems) has always been about choice. Debian's update-alternatives, the whole FreeDesktop project, ICCCM standards. The theming community, gnome-look.org, kde-look.org, and so on. If I want the stabilty and flexibility of Linux (the kernel) and the GNU command line tools, and the flexibility to choose a UX paradigm that I prefer and visuals that I like, I go to desktop Linux. In that sense, choice is the USP of linux (linux as in: desktop distribution). If I loose the flexibilty, I go back to Windows or Mac. Opinionated ("not fragmented") systems like Gnome only work if you're fully on board with their choices. If not, then there is really no benefit for me over just sticking with windows. Now, on a server the situation is of course different, and stability is paramount. I like for example that services are declarative and not imperative in systemd. But on a desktop, I don't really care.

kaba0 5y ago
Fragmentation is not a skippable problem though. And especially when you depend on lower level services, choice without a standard interface will create an exponential explosion of should-be-supported APIs, which is terrible for an already thin community.
1_player 5y ago
> "linux" (as in: Unixoid distributions for desktop systems) has always been about choice. Again, no. You call it choice, I call it chaos, it was anarchy, and that's the default state for any loosely-coupled systems. There is no manifesto, no underlying philosophy that decided that yes, Linux is about choice. Don't conflate lack of organisation with choice. Linux has always been about creating a libre UNIX-like kernel for x86 processors. And converging toward the same set of libre techonologies isn't against the Linux spirit. I still don't understand why people keep harping on about choice. I've used Linux full time since 2001, and the anarchy has just made a libre desktop an utopia because everyone wants every software to support every single option, with no understanding that the number of bugs scales exponentially with the number of choices.
- badsectoracula 5y ago
  > I still don't understand why people keep harping on about choice. Because they don't want the choices other people made for them.

_2paq 5y ago

> Linux has never been about choice. There was choice because no two people could agree on a set of protocols and standards. And slowly we're converging on a small set of decent (not perfect!) ideas volunteers can focus their efforts on. I honestly hope the choice meme dies because it is so toxic. So everyone who uses or develops alternative init systems like runit and openrc and alternative DEs like KDE and package managers like apk and pacman should just stop and work on and use systemd, GNOME, and flatpak instead because that is the One True Way of using Linux on desktop? Quite a power trip attitude I'd say. I can't imagine why I would use Linux if choices I don't agree with were shoved down my throat.