4 ms·

Sadly is Linux is no longer what is used to be for my generation that cut their teeth having to patch kernels for basic hardware support. Linux is now effectiv

by sxzygz 9mo ago

Sadly is Linux is no longer what is used to be for my generation that cut their teeth having to patch kernels for basic hardware support. Linux is now effectively systemd/linux, and is attempting to become flatpak/systemd/linux through various corporate sponsored initiatives. The only thing worse, in my eyes, are people who distribute things as docker containers. The Linux distro as such is becoming an anachronism. There’s no real place to innovate without the inertia of choices made by external projects being enforced on you. I think it’s a generational change. My generation had Microsoft to contend with, and so sought certain freedoms, but this generation has walled gardens and AI to contend with, so freedom à la Microsoft seems okay and so Linux is being Windows-ified, while Windows itself becomes its own abomination.

pjmlp 9mo ago
I would have not bothered with Linux if Windows NT had a proper UNIX subsystem. I needed a way to avoid going to campus and fight for a DG/UX terminal. It had nothing to do with FOSS fighting.
- jeroenhd 9mo ago
  > if Windows NT had a proper UNIX subsystem They actually did, but they made the mistake of packaging only the bare basics with it, and hiding it away as much as they could: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX The American government added some obscure law that forced POSIX compatibility on operating systems for certain grants, so Microsoft made their business OS POSIX-compliant. In theory, nothing stopped you from downloading and installing up-to-date versions of common UNIX tools. Had Microsoft had the necessary foresight, they could've killed deverlopers' dependency on tools like Cygwin and Git Bash and Linux entirely for many pieces of software, but they were too busy trying to make Win32 the standard ABI. Funnily enough, Win32 became the standard for proprietary software on Linux (thanks to Wine+Proton) while many Unix/Linux-based tools became the norm for development, even on Windows (git, Qt). How different things could've been!
  - pjmlp 9mo ago
    Not really, Windows Services for UNIX was released in 1999, I am talking about Windows NT 3.51, released in 1995, which only supported POSIX.1, badly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem When Windows Services for UNIX came to be, it was already too late to matter, it wasn't really from Microsoft, and came with its own set of problems. I am speaking from when Linux was still in baby steps, and basic stuff like ELF had just been added with the kernel version 1.0.9, in 1995. Things could be even more different, had Microsoft kept Xenix, which was my introduction to UNIX, and one of Bill Gates darlings, actually. https://www.theregister.com/2002/03/20/bills_vision_for_the_future/ https://www.theregister.com/2002/03/20/bills_vision_for_the_... "The Future of Xenix" https://archive.org/details/Unix_World_Vol02_10.pdf/page/n21/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/Unix_World_Vol02_10.pdf/page/n21...
  - tosti 9mo ago
    > Win32 became the standard for proprietary software on Linux This isn't even possible at all. You have software and standards. There's no single set of software nor a single set of standards. Saying something or somesuch is "the" standard is plain false.
palata 9mo ago
> Linux is now effectively systemd/linux This is my issue with systemd. I wanted Linux because I wanted to have a choice. The philosophy was that users should have a choice. Systemd goes against that: it's taking over everything and more and more projects require systemd. Flatpak as well: if a project only supports flatpak, chances are that it won't be easy to package normally. So if I don't use Flatpak, I'm screwed. People who don't see the problem with systemd "because it works" miss the point, IMO. It's like those devs who proudly ship their project in a docker container, because they are not capable of making it properly available to package maintainers. "It works", but I can't package it for my distro because it's a big mess. Developers don't have to package their project for all distros, they just have to properly provide the sources. But more often than not, they don't know how to do that, and instead see Flatpak/docker as "good alternatives that just work".
- well_ackshually 9mo ago
  [dead]
- ondra 9mo ago
  > Developers don't have to package their project for all distros Essentially nobody uses the sources we provide. Literally nobody packages them. A few people use our rpm and deb packages, but the vast majority uses a (slightly broken and outdated) docker image built by third party. You might not like it, and I certainly do not, but unfortunately containers seem to be the best alternative that just works, compared to everything else.
  - palata 9mo ago
    > but unfortunately containers seem to be the best alternative that just works, compared to everything else. I think it's actually the worst alternative that works. If it didn't work, people wouldn't do it. And the better alternatives require more effort. I think it unfortunately goes with popularity: when programming becomes more accessible, the average quality of code gets worse. When Linux becomes more accessible, the average level of its users gets worse. What made Linux desirable for me risks getting worse the more popular it gets. I went from Debian to Arch, to Gentoo, and eventually I may have to move to a *BSD. Because apparently what I want disappears when a system gets massively popular.

by sxzygz 9mo ago

pjmlp 9mo ago

I would have not bothered with Linux if Windows NT had a proper UNIX subsystem. I needed a way to avoid going to campus and fight for a DG/UX terminal. It had nothing to do with FOSS fighting.

jeroenhd 9mo ago
> if Windows NT had a proper UNIX subsystem They actually did, but they made the mistake of packaging only the bare basics with it, and hiding it away as much as they could: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX The American government added some obscure law that forced POSIX compatibility on operating systems for certain grants, so Microsoft made their business OS POSIX-compliant. In theory, nothing stopped you from downloading and installing up-to-date versions of common UNIX tools. Had Microsoft had the necessary foresight, they could've killed deverlopers' dependency on tools like Cygwin and Git Bash and Linux entirely for many pieces of software, but they were too busy trying to make Win32 the standard ABI. Funnily enough, Win32 became the standard for proprietary software on Linux (thanks to Wine+Proton) while many Unix/Linux-based tools became the norm for development, even on Windows (git, Qt). How different things could've been!
- pjmlp 9mo ago
  Not really, Windows Services for UNIX was released in 1999, I am talking about Windows NT 3.51, released in 1995, which only supported POSIX.1, badly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_POSIX_subsystem When Windows Services for UNIX came to be, it was already too late to matter, it wasn't really from Microsoft, and came with its own set of problems. I am speaking from when Linux was still in baby steps, and basic stuff like ELF had just been added with the kernel version 1.0.9, in 1995. Things could be even more different, had Microsoft kept Xenix, which was my introduction to UNIX, and one of Bill Gates darlings, actually. https://www.theregister.com/2002/03/20/bills_vision_for_the_future/ https://www.theregister.com/2002/03/20/bills_vision_for_the_... "The Future of Xenix" https://archive.org/details/Unix_World_Vol02_10.pdf/page/n21/mode/2up https://archive.org/details/Unix_World_Vol02_10.pdf/page/n21...
- tosti 9mo ago
  > Win32 became the standard for proprietary software on Linux This isn't even possible at all. You have software and standards. There's no single set of software nor a single set of standards. Saying something or somesuch is "the" standard is plain false.

palata 9mo ago

> Linux is now effectively systemd/linux This is my issue with systemd. I wanted Linux because I wanted to have a choice. The philosophy was that users should have a choice. Systemd goes against that: it's taking over everything and more and more projects require systemd. Flatpak as well: if a project only supports flatpak, chances are that it won't be easy to package normally. So if I don't use Flatpak, I'm screwed. People who don't see the problem with systemd "because it works" miss the point, IMO. It's like those devs who proudly ship their project in a docker container, because they are not capable of making it properly available to package maintainers. "It works", but I can't package it for my distro because it's a big mess. Developers don't have to package their project for all distros, they just have to properly provide the sources. But more often than not, they don't know how to do that, and instead see Flatpak/docker as "good alternatives that just work".

well_ackshually 9mo ago
[dead]
ondra 9mo ago
> Developers don't have to package their project for all distros Essentially nobody uses the sources we provide. Literally nobody packages them. A few people use our rpm and deb packages, but the vast majority uses a (slightly broken and outdated) docker image built by third party. You might not like it, and I certainly do not, but unfortunately containers seem to be the best alternative that just works, compared to everything else.
- palata 9mo ago
  > but unfortunately containers seem to be the best alternative that just works, compared to everything else. I think it's actually the worst alternative that works. If it didn't work, people wouldn't do it. And the better alternatives require more effort. I think it unfortunately goes with popularity: when programming becomes more accessible, the average quality of code gets worse. When Linux becomes more accessible, the average level of its users gets worse. What made Linux desirable for me risks getting worse the more popular it gets. I went from Debian to Arch, to Gentoo, and eventually I may have to move to a *BSD. Because apparently what I want disappears when a system gets massively popular.