4 ms·

Honest question, why does anybody typically need anything other than Debian? Imagine if we took all of the resources used in the different flavors of BSD/Linux

Honest question, why does anybody typically need anything other than Debian? Imagine if we took all of the resources used in the different flavors of BSD/Linux distributions and paired them to more common goals instead of doing the same thing (package management, init) slightly different ways. Seems like a huge amount of waste on a massive scale. edit: Debian or RHEL/CentOS due to the support contracts

bradwood 4y ago
S/Debian/Arch/ :) But yeah, in principle I agree. Sounds like bloatware.
- 3836293648 4y ago
  s/Arch|Debian/NixOS The mutable package management model is broken by design. What we need is a better interface for something that actually works
  - ilc 4y ago
    And you all have proven the point of why we need multiple distros. Different goals,and different audiences.
  - bradwood 4y ago
    I would love to get into NixOS, and have contemplated diving into it for some time, as I agree with you fully about the mutability point. But, I need to find time in my otherwise busy work- and home-life to learn it all -- every blog post I read describes it as a HUGE learning curve, etc, etc. Maybe in a few years when that "interface" you describe is ironed out and made more accessible, then I'm in, but right now the ROI of my time investment doesn't look to be worth it for me.
jacobr1 4y ago
While I use debian for all my personal stuff (and years ago before that - slackware ) most my employers have used RHEL or CentOS due to the support contract (or potential to easy transition to RHEL with support in the centos case). This satisfied both compliance and contractual needs.
rgoulter 4y ago
Different use cases / priorities, & different acceptance of trade-offs. Consider, say: Arch Linux is bleeding edge, but requires a lot of knowledge / elbow grease to get working. NixOS allows for declaring the whole operating system from a consistent entry point; but has a steep learning curve.
- still_grokking 4y ago
  Arch Linux is most of the time not more "bleeding edge" than Debian Testing. But when updates didn't roll into Debian Testing timely this has usually real reasons. Most of the time you don't want those updates on any productive system as there are severe issues. (Except when some more exotic software package doesn't have a proper maintainer team behind; than updates may be delayed even infinitely; but in this cases the quality of the maybe existing AUR packages also often isn't good; exotic stuff is just less supported everywhere.)
bityard 4y ago
Why does anyone need to buy any car that isn't a Toyota Corolla?
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  What has a higher net-negative impact: me having a personal preference on a car or a bunch of projects existing, working towards wasteful goals instead of ceasing to exist, uniting, and working towards more meaningful goals
  - RussianCow 4y ago
    How are these not exactly the same thing? If Toyota only made one car, it would be better and cheaper, so why don't they consolidate their efforts instead of "working towards wasteful goals"?
    - still_grokking 4y ago
      This is actually a good question given the fact that our resources are limited.
    - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
      Me choosing to spend my extra resources (money) on something that I prefer above the base (something other than a Toyota Corolla) only hurts me 100,000 developers across the world working on 1,000 different Linux distributions each with slightly different takes on init + package managers (managing bugs/releases/documentation) hurts the general population because if they used their time (resources) on something better, we'd all (potentially) benefit
      - commoner 4y ago
        Millions of auto company employees across the world have designed and built thousands of vehicle models. Many of these models overlap in terms of form factors, use cases, and target markets. Consolidation might allow some of those auto companies to build better vehicles, but it would also reduce the diversity of vehicles on the market. Both of these factors affect all users and all potential users. Linux distributions are similar. Each user chooses a distribution that best fits their needs and preferences. Consolidation might improve the quality of some of these distributions, but it would also reduce the likelihood that a user finds a distro that is just right for them. As long as a vehicle model or Linux distribution is able to attract a user base that drives its creators to continue developing it, it has earned a place on the market.
htag 4y ago
I think you might be underestimating how different package management is between Debian, Arch, and Fedora. This also ignores the many other differences. Debian stable will have packages that feel very out of date. Debian unstable (sid) makes no guarantees that an update won't introduce breaking changes. Fedora Linux has six month major releases, so the packages feel fresher than Debian stable, but are much more stable than Debian unstable. The six month major release vs a rolling release means twice a year you'll have to watch an update carefully. The barrier of entry for releasing an AUR package is incompatible with my standards of system security, so I refuse to use them. The official repositories feel a little bare in comparison to Fedora and Debian because they have an expectation that AUR will fill in any gaps.
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  > I think you might be underestimating how different package management is between Debian, Arch, and Fedora Doesn't that make all of the efforts spent maintaining separate package managers even worse? It's bikeshedding/hairsplitting at some point, no? I'm talking about developing + maintaining yum/apt/pacman Let alone what it takes to maintain 20,000+ (or however many the real number is) packages shipped slightly differently for each repo
arwineap 4y ago
Personally I don't like debian because of how hard it is to crack to make changes Someone mentioned debian-testing, and I agree it gets updates more quickly which is great, and solves for half the problem However, when you want to make a change to one of those packages, it's probably going to take me a couple days of playing around with the dev tools to repackage it and install Archlinux's abstractions around this are really good. You download the ABS store, cd into your package and view the pkgbuild file. Once you have abs downloaded, you can edit it and install it like any other aur package Yes, I've built my own debs, yes I've built my own rpms; abs and aur are miles ahead in this regard

bradwood 4y ago

S/Debian/Arch/ :) But yeah, in principle I agree. Sounds like bloatware.

3836293648 4y ago
s/Arch|Debian/NixOS The mutable package management model is broken by design. What we need is a better interface for something that actually works
- ilc 4y ago
  And you all have proven the point of why we need multiple distros. Different goals,and different audiences.
- bradwood 4y ago
  I would love to get into NixOS, and have contemplated diving into it for some time, as I agree with you fully about the mutability point. But, I need to find time in my otherwise busy work- and home-life to learn it all -- every blog post I read describes it as a HUGE learning curve, etc, etc. Maybe in a few years when that "interface" you describe is ironed out and made more accessible, then I'm in, but right now the ROI of my time investment doesn't look to be worth it for me.

jacobr1 4y ago

While I use debian for all my personal stuff (and years ago before that - slackware ) most my employers have used RHEL or CentOS due to the support contract (or potential to easy transition to RHEL with support in the centos case). This satisfied both compliance and contractual needs.

rgoulter 4y ago

Different use cases / priorities, & different acceptance of trade-offs. Consider, say: Arch Linux is bleeding edge, but requires a lot of knowledge / elbow grease to get working. NixOS allows for declaring the whole operating system from a consistent entry point; but has a steep learning curve.

still_grokking 4y ago
Arch Linux is most of the time not more "bleeding edge" than Debian Testing. But when updates didn't roll into Debian Testing timely this has usually real reasons. Most of the time you don't want those updates on any productive system as there are severe issues. (Except when some more exotic software package doesn't have a proper maintainer team behind; than updates may be delayed even infinitely; but in this cases the quality of the maybe existing AUR packages also often isn't good; exotic stuff is just less supported everywhere.)

bityard 4y ago

Why does anyone need to buy any car that isn't a Toyota Corolla?

MuffinFlavored 4y ago
What has a higher net-negative impact: me having a personal preference on a car or a bunch of projects existing, working towards wasteful goals instead of ceasing to exist, uniting, and working towards more meaningful goals
- RussianCow 4y ago
  How are these not exactly the same thing? If Toyota only made one car, it would be better and cheaper, so why don't they consolidate their efforts instead of "working towards wasteful goals"?
  - still_grokking 4y ago
    This is actually a good question given the fact that our resources are limited.
  - MuffinFlavored 4y ago
    Me choosing to spend my extra resources (money) on something that I prefer above the base (something other than a Toyota Corolla) only hurts me 100,000 developers across the world working on 1,000 different Linux distributions each with slightly different takes on init + package managers (managing bugs/releases/documentation) hurts the general population because if they used their time (resources) on something better, we'd all (potentially) benefit
    - commoner 4y ago
      Millions of auto company employees across the world have designed and built thousands of vehicle models. Many of these models overlap in terms of form factors, use cases, and target markets. Consolidation might allow some of those auto companies to build better vehicles, but it would also reduce the diversity of vehicles on the market. Both of these factors affect all users and all potential users. Linux distributions are similar. Each user chooses a distribution that best fits their needs and preferences. Consolidation might improve the quality of some of these distributions, but it would also reduce the likelihood that a user finds a distro that is just right for them. As long as a vehicle model or Linux distribution is able to attract a user base that drives its creators to continue developing it, it has earned a place on the market.

htag 4y ago

I think you might be underestimating how different package management is between Debian, Arch, and Fedora. This also ignores the many other differences. Debian stable will have packages that feel very out of date. Debian unstable (sid) makes no guarantees that an update won't introduce breaking changes. Fedora Linux has six month major releases, so the packages feel fresher than Debian stable, but are much more stable than Debian unstable. The six month major release vs a rolling release means twice a year you'll have to watch an update carefully. The barrier of entry for releasing an AUR package is incompatible with my standards of system security, so I refuse to use them. The official repositories feel a little bare in comparison to Fedora and Debian because they have an expectation that AUR will fill in any gaps.

MuffinFlavored 4y ago
> I think you might be underestimating how different package management is between Debian, Arch, and Fedora Doesn't that make all of the efforts spent maintaining separate package managers even worse? It's bikeshedding/hairsplitting at some point, no? I'm talking about developing + maintaining yum/apt/pacman Let alone what it takes to maintain 20,000+ (or however many the real number is) packages shipped slightly differently for each repo

arwineap 4y ago

Personally I don't like debian because of how hard it is to crack to make changes Someone mentioned debian-testing, and I agree it gets updates more quickly which is great, and solves for half the problem However, when you want to make a change to one of those packages, it's probably going to take me a couple days of playing around with the dev tools to repackage it and install Archlinux's abstractions around this are really good. You download the ABS store, cd into your package and view the pkgbuild file. Once you have abs downloaded, you can edit it and install it like any other aur package Yes, I've built my own debs, yes I've built my own rpms; abs and aur are miles ahead in this regard