I think they just intend to duplicate everything, but I'm not sure. One of the biggest issues with 'improved' systems is that even when they are actually a whol

I think they just intend to duplicate everything, but I'm not sure. One of the biggest issues with 'improved' systems is that even when they are actually a whole lot better, it makes it nearly impossible to reason about the system or the state of the system using filesystem primitives or other first principles. Take journals in systemd for example, they are better than plaintext log files in some cases, but now you are stuck with a format that needs to be interpreted and parsed before it is useful. That doesn't mean improvements shouldn't be done, but every step that is a big change often also makes it impossible to do some basic things that used to be possible for decades. This is similar to analog radio (i.e. only requiring a diode, tunable capacitor and a coil to receive audio! - no power supply needed!) vs. DAB. DAB has a lot of improvements over the base feature, as well as a whole lot of new features. But it is no longer possible to simply receive the radio waves and get audio. In a way you lose simplicity to gain sophistication. Sometimes we get sophisticated simplicity where a complex problem was solved in a very neat and elegant way that can be reasoned about with ease, but most times it isn't the case and that makes me (and a whole lot of other people it seems) wonder how we can get the improvement without losing the simplicity. For the very simple "the filesystem is the database" concept, this might actually be possible, all we really get is a well-known structure and versioning with symlinks, similar to the alternatives system used in Debian. But then we get /Programs which is capitalised which looks nice but mixed capitalisation seems too much of a "they are doing it, thus so are we" thing, while on a filesystem level there isn't any gain. Same with spaces in names or dashes. For visual representation that is nice, but everything else it sucks. I would take out the capitalisation and add some sort of unionfs/aufs/overlayfs hooking (symlink into a bundled filesystem would be one way) so from the system's perspective it's still a single filesystem tree but you add the option to get all those newfangled distribution methods in there as well. The problem we still haven't solved is versioning, but since it is arbitrary at this point /programs (or just call it /apps) could just contain <shortname>/<versionstring> for the application name and then version of the application. If you then dump in a version that comes from a docker image, flatpak, some weird weine-dxvk-steam construction or something else you symlink it in as a <versionstring> and then it's no longer the problem of the distro. There is still the issue of partitioning off parts of the system you don't want to be touched or want to have safe; a RO-snapshot plus user-overrides could work, but you might end up with a huge RO-snapshot that needs to be entirely replaced, and then a billion override mounts on top of that... As simple as Gobolinux presents it, this only seems to be useful for a single distro with a single distribution point, which is no longer where we are. Even FreeBSD is past that and that's not even Linux.