3 ms·

This is becoming less and less the case, unless you use a more DIY-oriented distribution such as Void. Most systemd distributions have a lot of technical merit

by rahen 2y ago

This is becoming less and less the case, unless you use a more DIY-oriented distribution such as Void. Most systemd distributions have a lot of technical merit (I like Fedora Silverblue), but they are increasingly becoming monolithic, so hackability isn't one of their strengths. I remember a time when Linux was pure anarchy, with loosely coupled independent subsystems that could easily be experimented with and replaced. Now, most distributions are much closer to macOS: they "just work", but you're not supposed to mess with them. So long for hackability.

worik 2y ago
> Most systemd distributions have a lot of technical ... but they are increasingly becoming monolithic, I am not a fan of Systemd for irrelevant reasons. But the "monolithic" nature of systems has to do with the interdependence of the parts not the glue. > I remember a time when Linux was pure anarchy, with loosely coupled independent subsystems Sounds like my Linux box I have for fun. We are still making systems like that, but for business purposes we were always making solid and staid systems. Very little has changed, only the words we use to say it (and the raw power of the underlying hardware of course!)
fuzztester 2y ago
>I remember a time when Linux was I (literally) remember a time from some years before Linux just was - because i was alive, and working in software, then. source code of packages, including major ones, was available to download ... and source code for programs was available probably much before the technique of downloading was even a thing. people used to ship around programs in source code format via (magnetic) tapes or usenet or sneakernet, later, floppies, etc. see the Jargon File for much more computer lore than you would ever want to know about, including some of this stuff, although plenty of it is interesting, imo. >So long for hackability. pardon me. are Linux distributions not downloadable as source anymore? I guess, to many devs, including me, that's the ultimate meaning of hackability. because then you can hack anything from the top to the bottom of the stack. still editing ...

by rahen 2y ago

worik 2y ago

> Most systemd distributions have a lot of technical ... but they are increasingly becoming monolithic, I am not a fan of Systemd for irrelevant reasons. But the "monolithic" nature of systems has to do with the interdependence of the parts not the glue. > I remember a time when Linux was pure anarchy, with loosely coupled independent subsystems Sounds like my Linux box I have for fun. We are still making systems like that, but for business purposes we were always making solid and staid systems. Very little has changed, only the words we use to say it (and the raw power of the underlying hardware of course!)

fuzztester 2y ago

>I remember a time when Linux was I (literally) remember a time from some years before Linux just was - because i was alive, and working in software, then. source code of packages, including major ones, was available to download ... and source code for programs was available probably much before the technique of downloading was even a thing. people used to ship around programs in source code format via (magnetic) tapes or usenet or sneakernet, later, floppies, etc. see the Jargon File for much more computer lore than you would ever want to know about, including some of this stuff, although plenty of it is interesting, imo. >So long for hackability. pardon me. are Linux distributions not downloadable as source anymore? I guess, to many devs, including me, that's the ultimate meaning of hackability. because then you can hack anything from the top to the bottom of the stack. still editing ...