4 ms·

Linux in general... Think of the efforts wasted in duplicate/overlapping functionality between maintenance + development of distributions, package managers, sh

Linux in general... Think of the efforts wasted in duplicate/overlapping functionality between maintenance + development of distributions, package managers, shells, compilers, C libraries, desktop environments, etc.

idle_zealot 3y ago
Unfortunately that's not avoidable. The duplication exists because of disagreement regarding how things should be done. The alternative is not "my preferred project gets all the resources" but "my preferred project doesn't exist and all the resources go to some fundamentally flawed project that I don't want to use". See Windows or macOS for how that turns out.
- MuffinFlavored 3y ago
  > The duplication exists because of disagreement regarding how things should be done. Is there too high a level of this disagreement in open-source software? Should it be called out from the perspective of "please try to use your time more effectively instead of contributing to fragmentation because it's harmful to the ecosystem from a macro perspective"?
  - lupusreal 3y ago
    [dead]
- jxdxbx 3y ago
  Windows and macOS are both more popular and usable than desktop Linux so I think it turns out fine.
  - Ferret7446 3y ago
    "More popular" is wrong, in a deliciously ironic way. Android by far eclipses everything else in terms of consumer computing.
  - idle_zealot 3y ago
    More popular, yes. Usability is subjective. The lack of tiling window management or decent package management on either of the most popular two desktop operating systems renders them unusable to me, so I'm quite thankful that the ecosystem is fragmented enough to cater to my apparently niche tastes.
    - askonomm 3y ago
      I would say that the popularity indicates the higher usability. People find Windows and MacOS easier to use, with less random problems. I also don't understand what you mean by lack of package management? Homebrew on MacOS is very decent, on Windows you have Scoop/WinGet which work very well. Either way both are much less fragmented than the Linux flatpak/snap/.deb/AppImage/.tar.gz nightmare which a regular user will never be able to figure out. I swear it's like Linux advocates have never even talked to a normal person, and are somehow under the illusion that Linux is a easy-to-use, user-friendly OS, which .. it's not. Any OS that requires you to know CLI basics to install regular apps is not a user-friendly OS (Chrome gives a .deb, but on some recent distros it cannot be installed by clicking on it! IntelliJ gives .tar.gz, which, well, good luck figuring that out, and others give AppImage, which needs chmod+x!).
- askonomm 3y ago
  Unfortunately the fragmentation can be felt quite strong. A thousand different Linux "flavours", none of them work even remotely as well as MacOS or Windows does. Most Linux distros have never heard of decent user experience design, or consistency in design, and with everybody and their mom making a new linux distro every week it just seems more like a toy than something to use professionally (other than as a server, I guess).
imiric 3y ago
That's both a blessing and a curse. Yes, you can see it as wasted effort, but this is a key component of open source. Projects are built on the ideas and code of other projects. Sometimes this is a joint effort of a community, and sometimes it's done by a single developer who wants to try something different. And this is great. There's growth in experimentation and failure, and trying new ideas. Not everything is going to succeed, and not every project will seem like it was worth the effort. Ultimately, the user benefits by the overwhelming amount of choice of software, but it can also degrade the experience as projects might not be well maintained, unstable, and sometimes even abandoned. This gives the opportunity for companies to step in and focus on supporting only a subset of software, which can lead to a better user experience, with the tradeoff of users having less choice, and being forced to use their computers in a specific way. These are two different approaches, and one is not inherently better than the other.

idle_zealot 3y ago

Unfortunately that's not avoidable. The duplication exists because of disagreement regarding how things should be done. The alternative is not "my preferred project gets all the resources" but "my preferred project doesn't exist and all the resources go to some fundamentally flawed project that I don't want to use". See Windows or macOS for how that turns out.

MuffinFlavored 3y ago
> The duplication exists because of disagreement regarding how things should be done. Is there too high a level of this disagreement in open-source software? Should it be called out from the perspective of "please try to use your time more effectively instead of contributing to fragmentation because it's harmful to the ecosystem from a macro perspective"?
- lupusreal 3y ago
  [dead]
jxdxbx 3y ago
Windows and macOS are both more popular and usable than desktop Linux so I think it turns out fine.
- Ferret7446 3y ago
  "More popular" is wrong, in a deliciously ironic way. Android by far eclipses everything else in terms of consumer computing.
- idle_zealot 3y ago
  More popular, yes. Usability is subjective. The lack of tiling window management or decent package management on either of the most popular two desktop operating systems renders them unusable to me, so I'm quite thankful that the ecosystem is fragmented enough to cater to my apparently niche tastes.
  - askonomm 3y ago
    I would say that the popularity indicates the higher usability. People find Windows and MacOS easier to use, with less random problems. I also don't understand what you mean by lack of package management? Homebrew on MacOS is very decent, on Windows you have Scoop/WinGet which work very well. Either way both are much less fragmented than the Linux flatpak/snap/.deb/AppImage/.tar.gz nightmare which a regular user will never be able to figure out. I swear it's like Linux advocates have never even talked to a normal person, and are somehow under the illusion that Linux is a easy-to-use, user-friendly OS, which .. it's not. Any OS that requires you to know CLI basics to install regular apps is not a user-friendly OS (Chrome gives a .deb, but on some recent distros it cannot be installed by clicking on it! IntelliJ gives .tar.gz, which, well, good luck figuring that out, and others give AppImage, which needs chmod+x!).
askonomm 3y ago
Unfortunately the fragmentation can be felt quite strong. A thousand different Linux "flavours", none of them work even remotely as well as MacOS or Windows does. Most Linux distros have never heard of decent user experience design, or consistency in design, and with everybody and their mom making a new linux distro every week it just seems more like a toy than something to use professionally (other than as a server, I guess).

imiric 3y ago

That's both a blessing and a curse. Yes, you can see it as wasted effort, but this is a key component of open source. Projects are built on the ideas and code of other projects. Sometimes this is a joint effort of a community, and sometimes it's done by a single developer who wants to try something different. And this is great. There's growth in experimentation and failure, and trying new ideas. Not everything is going to succeed, and not every project will seem like it was worth the effort. Ultimately, the user benefits by the overwhelming amount of choice of software, but it can also degrade the experience as projects might not be well maintained, unstable, and sometimes even abandoned. This gives the opportunity for companies to step in and focus on supporting only a subset of software, which can lead to a better user experience, with the tradeoff of users having less choice, and being forced to use their computers in a specific way. These are two different approaches, and one is not inherently better than the other.