4 ms·

Since this is the FOSS world, you are of course free to eschew distributions. But: > it's effectively nothing but the "app store" model, having an activist dis

by gspr 1y ago

Since this is the FOSS world, you are of course free to eschew distributions. But: > it's effectively nothing but the "app store" model, having an activist distributor insert themselves between the user and software. is just factually wrong. Distributions like Debian try to make a coherent operating system from tens of thousands of pieces of independently developed software. It's fine not to like that. It's fine to instead want to use and manage those tens of thousands of pieces of independent software yourself. But a distribution is neither an "app store", nor does it "insert itself" between the user and the software. The latter is impossible in the FOSS world. Many users choose to place distros between them and software. You can choose otherwise.

vbezhenar 1y ago
I'm using Arch and, AFAIK, it tries to use upstream code as much as possible. That's much better model IMO.
- Hackbraten 1y ago
  Why do you assume Debian packagers don’t do the same?
  - vbezhenar 1y ago
    Because it's well known that debian packagers alter software they package with unnecessary patches.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
      Of course it's well known, but is it true?
      - commandersaki 1y ago
        The fact that one piece of software can be split into more than one package, yes.
      - LtWorf 1y ago
        On r/linux it's well known that Qt is not free software. It's that kind of information that gets passed down generation to generation although no longer being relevant.
- guappa 1y ago
  It's a better model until you fix a bug, but upstream is unresponsive.
  - vbezhenar 1y ago
    Don't fix bugs, leave it to developers.
    - skydhash 1y ago
      > Don't fix bugs, leave it to developers Said the developer. Meanwhile the user is stuck with a broken software.
    - sgarland 1y ago
      Do you also leave trash on the ground when you come across it in public? Try to leave things better than you found them.
    - guappa 1y ago
      But developers often don't fix them.
- gspr 1y ago
  I'm not trying to argue which distribution model is best, or whether one should avoid distributions altogether. That's messy, complicated, and full of personal variables for each individual. I'm just trying to correct the notion that somehow a distro is an "app store" that "inserts itself" between the software and its users. A distribution is an attempt to make lots of disparate pieces of software "work together", at varying degrees. Varying degrees of modification may or may not factor into that. On one extreme is perhaps just a collection of entirely disjoint software, without anything attaching those pieces of software together. On the other extreme is perhaps something like the BSDs. Arch and Debian sit somewhere in between, at either side. Thoughtful people can certainly disagree about what the correct degree of "work together" or modification is.
Barrin92 1y ago
>But a distribution is neither an "app store", nor does it "insert itself" between the user and the software. Just scroll up to the second comment in the thread right now by the user rmccue. Given that Debian doesn't give the user any indication of the fact that it even has modified an upstream piece of software it's obviously perfectly possible for them to insert themselves without you even knowing it. And in that case, according to the developer, even introduced subtle bugs. So you can run buggy software as a consequence of some maintainer thinking they know more than a developer, and not even know it because you have no practical info about that process. This is of course not a "choice" in any meaningful sense of the term. Nobody ever actually wants to use a buggy php library maintained by debian over a functioning one maintained a by developer, they very likely just never even were aware that that is what they were served.
- gspr 1y ago
  > Given that Debian doesn't give the user any indication of the fact that it even has modified an upstream piece of software Debian also doesn't give any indication that we haven't modified an upstream piece of software. Modifying software is a central thing to do in the FOSS world. If the user wants to know if anything was was modified, and if so what, then the source is of course freely available. > it's obviously perfectly possible for them to insert themselves without you even knowing it. They didn't "insert themselves" anywhere! You, the user, inserted Debian! > And in that case, according to the developer, even introduced subtle bugs. Of course, any software modification can introduce, alter or fix bugs. Or all three. > So you can run buggy software as a consequence of some maintainer thinking they know more than a developer That can happen. And sometimes you run less buggy software as a consequence of "some maintainer" knowing more about the system as a whole than the software's original developer. Or caring more about safeguarding the user's freedoms or privacy. > and not even know it because you have no practical info about that process. "Practical info"? What exactly would you like, beyond a changelog and the the source? > This is of course not a "choice" in any meaningful sense of the term. Of course! You chose to run Debian. Debian is entirely upfront about this! > Nobody ever actually wants to use a buggy php library maintained by debian over a functioning one maintained a by developer I can't speak for PHP myself, I don't use it at all, but I'm almost always extremely grateful to the maintainers of the packages on my Debian systems for the (often very tiresome!) work they do in adapting upstream software to fit Debian Policy and the Debian Social Contract. (Disclaimer: I am a DD myself.) > they very likely just never even were aware that that is what they were served. Would it help if the Debian install guide hade a note saying "be aware that a Debian package may not be exactly the same was what was shipped by the software's original developers – Debian aims to build a coherent universal operating system centered around our Social Contract and Policy"?

by gspr 1y ago

vbezhenar 1y ago

I'm using Arch and, AFAIK, it tries to use upstream code as much as possible. That's much better model IMO.

Hackbraten 1y ago
Why do you assume Debian packagers don’t do the same?
- vbezhenar 1y ago
  Because it's well known that debian packagers alter software they package with unnecessary patches.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
    Of course it's well known, but is it true?
    - commandersaki 1y ago
      The fact that one piece of software can be split into more than one package, yes.
    - LtWorf 1y ago
      On r/linux it's well known that Qt is not free software. It's that kind of information that gets passed down generation to generation although no longer being relevant.
guappa 1y ago
It's a better model until you fix a bug, but upstream is unresponsive.
- vbezhenar 1y ago
  Don't fix bugs, leave it to developers.
  - skydhash 1y ago
    > Don't fix bugs, leave it to developers Said the developer. Meanwhile the user is stuck with a broken software.
  - sgarland 1y ago
    Do you also leave trash on the ground when you come across it in public? Try to leave things better than you found them.
  - guappa 1y ago
    But developers often don't fix them.
gspr 1y ago
I'm not trying to argue which distribution model is best, or whether one should avoid distributions altogether. That's messy, complicated, and full of personal variables for each individual. I'm just trying to correct the notion that somehow a distro is an "app store" that "inserts itself" between the software and its users. A distribution is an attempt to make lots of disparate pieces of software "work together", at varying degrees. Varying degrees of modification may or may not factor into that. On one extreme is perhaps just a collection of entirely disjoint software, without anything attaching those pieces of software together. On the other extreme is perhaps something like the BSDs. Arch and Debian sit somewhere in between, at either side. Thoughtful people can certainly disagree about what the correct degree of "work together" or modification is.

Barrin92 1y ago

>But a distribution is neither an "app store", nor does it "insert itself" between the user and the software. Just scroll up to the second comment in the thread right now by the user rmccue. Given that Debian doesn't give the user any indication of the fact that it even has modified an upstream piece of software it's obviously perfectly possible for them to insert themselves without you even knowing it. And in that case, according to the developer, even introduced subtle bugs. So you can run buggy software as a consequence of some maintainer thinking they know more than a developer, and not even know it because you have no practical info about that process. This is of course not a "choice" in any meaningful sense of the term. Nobody ever actually wants to use a buggy php library maintained by debian over a functioning one maintained a by developer, they very likely just never even were aware that that is what they were served.

gspr 1y ago
> Given that Debian doesn't give the user any indication of the fact that it even has modified an upstream piece of software Debian also doesn't give any indication that we haven't modified an upstream piece of software. Modifying software is a central thing to do in the FOSS world. If the user wants to know if anything was was modified, and if so what, then the source is of course freely available. > it's obviously perfectly possible for them to insert themselves without you even knowing it. They didn't "insert themselves" anywhere! You, the user, inserted Debian! > And in that case, according to the developer, even introduced subtle bugs. Of course, any software modification can introduce, alter or fix bugs. Or all three. > So you can run buggy software as a consequence of some maintainer thinking they know more than a developer That can happen. And sometimes you run less buggy software as a consequence of "some maintainer" knowing more about the system as a whole than the software's original developer. Or caring more about safeguarding the user's freedoms or privacy. > and not even know it because you have no practical info about that process. "Practical info"? What exactly would you like, beyond a changelog and the the source? > This is of course not a "choice" in any meaningful sense of the term. Of course! You chose to run Debian. Debian is entirely upfront about this! > Nobody ever actually wants to use a buggy php library maintained by debian over a functioning one maintained a by developer I can't speak for PHP myself, I don't use it at all, but I'm almost always extremely grateful to the maintainers of the packages on my Debian systems for the (often very tiresome!) work they do in adapting upstream software to fit Debian Policy and the Debian Social Contract. (Disclaimer: I am a DD myself.) > they very likely just never even were aware that that is what they were served. Would it help if the Debian install guide hade a note saying "be aware that a Debian package may not be exactly the same was what was shipped by the software's original developers – Debian aims to build a coherent universal operating system centered around our Social Contract and Policy"?