3 ms·

What's the difference to just installing a different desktop environment? The author tries to explain this by portraying installing a new desktop environment a

What's the difference to just installing a different desktop environment? The author tries to explain this by portraying installing a new desktop environment as impractical: > First, I tried KDE Plasma but was quickly reminded why I didn't much care for that desktop environment (it's too much like Windows). Then I tried Enlightenment, but that environment didn't much care for Wayland, so it was a no-go. I was going to install standard GNOME, but that would break Pop!_OS. Pantheon? Nope. But it seems unconvincing. Universal Blue is neither going to fix the author's distaste for KDE, nor that Enlightenment doesn't support Wayland. And the fact that GNOME and Pantheon cannot be installed on Pop!_OS doesn't mean we need yet another whole new distro - just choose an existing distro that _can_ install new desktop environments! I know Arch can, and probably its derivatives and many other popular distros too.

ttctciyf 3y ago
Guessing from the article, but I think rather than attempting to install everything on top of everything else, and then deriving the uninstallation or replacement of packages from conflicts arising out of that process piecemeal, as per the usual package management strategy, with all the unpredictable complexity entailed, there is instead a planned tree structure for the dependencies, so that the switch is analogous to git rebase to a different branch of a repository and not to series of increasingly desperate manual invocations of /usr/bin/patch
- ductsurprise 3y ago
  There is no reason they cannot be installed beside each other. GDM, etc have made this easy for years. On installation 'simpler' distros let you choose as many desktop environments as you wanted from the install. (Gnome/KDE/XFCE/Flux/...) And you still had /home/[user] common between desktop environments by default. If someone has been using Linux since 1996 and is surprised by this "rebase"... Benefit of doubt, maybe a poorly chosen analogy? Edit: also, with no malice. that justification sounds like rebuilding the wheel. Package management system == Wheel ...
  - JohnClark1337 3y ago
    [dead]

ttctciyf 3y ago

Guessing from the article, but I think rather than attempting to install everything on top of everything else, and then deriving the uninstallation or replacement of packages from conflicts arising out of that process piecemeal, as per the usual package management strategy, with all the unpredictable complexity entailed, there is instead a planned tree structure for the dependencies, so that the switch is analogous to git rebase to a different branch of a repository and not to series of increasingly desperate manual invocations of /usr/bin/patch

ductsurprise 3y ago
There is no reason they cannot be installed beside each other. GDM, etc have made this easy for years. On installation 'simpler' distros let you choose as many desktop environments as you wanted from the install. (Gnome/KDE/XFCE/Flux/...) And you still had /home/[user] common between desktop environments by default. If someone has been using Linux since 1996 and is surprised by this "rebase"... Benefit of doubt, maybe a poorly chosen analogy? Edit: also, with no malice. that justification sounds like rebuilding the wheel. Package management system == Wheel ...
- JohnClark1337 3y ago
  [dead]