> Interesting article. Thanks. For clarity, I wrote it and I submitted it. This is part 2; part 1, the intro and context, is here: https://news.ycombinator.c

> Interesting article. Thanks. For clarity, I wrote it and I submitted it. This is part 2; part 1, the intro and context, is here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34874213 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34874213) > I don't want my OS to be driven by commercial interests That's fair enough, and if you have the skills to just switch to FreeBSD, it's a good choice. I found it hard work, myself, as I described here: https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/20/freebsd_131/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/05/20/freebsd_131/ Canonical does indeed run the only public Snap store, but there are private ones -- all the tools to host one are in the stock repos. The creator of Ubuntu Unity put one called "lol" up as a proof of concept, but it's gone now. Hiding the complexity? Totally agree, yes. Moving away from knowing where everything is? Well, it's not as bad as it sounds. With Nix or Guix you can still use `which` or `locate`, you can do `find -name blah`, etc. It's not hidden or invisible -- it's just all in a big software-managed tree. TBH however much they like to think so, I bet most present-day Linux sysadmins don't know every folder on their machines, what's in them and what should or shouldn't be there. The early part of my career, pre-Linux, was as a Windows sysadmin, and the last version of Windows I knew inside-out like that was Windows 95A. I could ID every file and tell you what it did, and I hand-built an install that fitted into a 16MB mid-1990s SSD. That was about ¼ of the size of a standard install or something. No version since was so amenable, and no version of Windows NT ever has been, IMHO. It's just too complex.