3 ms·
I also strongly disagree with the author. They're probably referring to things like Gnome and Unity and PopOS. The thing is, these are opinionated options in
by colordrops 5y ago
I also strongly disagree with the author. They're probably referring to things like Gnome and Unity and PopOS. The thing is, these are opinionated options in addition to everything else you can do with Linux, rather than replacements that restrict your options. You've also got things like NixOS, which is definitely going in the opposite direction, allowing you basically infinite customization.
- benbenolson 5y agoOh, for some reason I read that bit as "the Linux kernel non-consensually personalizes." You're right, though: it's definitely referring to userspace libraries, not the kernel itself. And yes, you can still easily avoid GNOME, Unity, and anything else you don't want to use: Openbox, i3, dmenu, and countless other window managers and GUI applications exist and work perfectly well (as they did a decade ago). That plethora of choice makes "Linux" nearly immune to the effect that the author's talking about.
- abrambleninja 5y agoIn general I agree with you about the ability to customize Linux, but the author could be referring to systemd, which (from what I've seen) has been the target of many complaints about being too central and hard to replace, especially with how it is required by so many projects in the Linux ecosystem (from distros like Debian and Arch to DEs like GNOME).
- topaz0 5y agoOn the other hand, it is extremely configurable, whatever else you might think about it.
- HWR_14 5y agoThe majority of people using Linux (well, on a desktop/laptop) use things like Gnome and Unity and PopOS. I mean, sure you can run Linux from a command line only. But that's not the common use case, and that's not usually what people even mean when they talk about Linux on a laptop.