4 ms·

Guessing from the article, but I think rather than attempting to install everything on top of everything else, and then deriving the uninstallation or replaceme

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 4y 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 4y ago
  [dead]