3 ms·

If that means that the massive fragmentation stops and we will have an OS 95% percent of linux users install, It might not be that bad.

bayindirh 8mo ago
I run and develop on various Linux distributions and fail to see that fragmentation for that last couple of decades, sorry.
- tmtvl 8mo ago
  I've only used GNU/Linux since 2012, but I do think we have to face the fact that there is a fair amount of ~~choice~~ fragmentation in the ecosystem. Deb/RPM/Flatpak/Snap/PKGBUILD/Nix, GNOME/KDE/Cosmic/Cinnamon/Xfce/LXQt/MATE/Budgie/Sway/Hyprland, AppArmor/SELinux, GTK/Qt/Electron/Tauri/WxWidgets there's even distributions which use musl libc instead of GNU libc or non-systemd inits. Sure, you can just pick one and focus on it, but if someone else picks something else then they may need to duplicate some effort to get things working on their preferred setup.
  - bayindirh 8mo ago
    When you put down your project in a sound and standards compliant way, packaging doesn't matter much. RPM and DEB automatically builds your code and packages it. DEB also has a lot of tools which allows you to make sure that everything is done correctly. I'm sure RPM has similar tools, but I didn't use them a lot. Desktop environment doesn't matter much, because GTK and Qt works on every Linux Desktop. I'm using KDE, but I don't know which tools I use are GTK, which are Qt, etc. Qt and GTK teams collaborate a ton both in window management and desktop underpinnings side. Also there are tons of standards, and things just work if you follow them. Even the standard libraries of programming languages and Linux userland gives the tools to utilize these standards. C libraries are mostly interoperable. I operate with GNU's C library, but aside from interesting behavioral differences, the API is not different. If you're not writing daemons, you have no business with your init system in 99% of the cases, unless you want to utilize a special feature of any of them. You can just ship the service files. daemon() function is part of libc, not your init system. In total, after your code builds, you can add these layers step by step, one at a time, and have a codebase which works everywhere with minimal effort.
tmtvl 8mo ago
Eroding user's rights is good if it means users have fewer choices because choice is bad? I suppose it would mean that resources could concentrate in a smaller, more focused set of software, but I really can't see how that would justify the harm caused.
- duskdozer 8mo ago
  Just think about how easy it would be though - imagine - one single OS, one single version always immediately up to date, one consistent set of installed software, attestation to ensure no adversaries are attempting to modify or install unsupported software, full accurate and thorough analytics, what a dream...
  - tmtvl 8mo ago
    Isn't that what Apple purports to sell? There's also Haiku, but I don't know to what extend it matches that description.
  - dogleash 8mo ago
    > Just think about how easy it would be though Endlessly painful. Right? The defining characteristic is that everyone is using it, not that it's your personal ideal operating system. We have a few major players trying to create their version of the one single os. They're already nobodies ideal, and they have the luxury of telling people to go elsewhere if the system isn't right for them. Imagine how much worse it would be if they had to support everything.
  - daurentius523 8mo ago
    Yea what a Fall of Rome type dream - just look what happened when people overused a specific measure - we had Crowdstrike with around 8.5 million devices crashed to BSoD. Identical OS, identical apps, identical updates, identical crashes at same time. If you centralise then it is not the question "Will?" but "When?" it will fail.

bayindirh 8mo ago

I run and develop on various Linux distributions and fail to see that fragmentation for that last couple of decades, sorry.

tmtvl 8mo ago
I've only used GNU/Linux since 2012, but I do think we have to face the fact that there is a fair amount of ~~choice~~ fragmentation in the ecosystem. Deb/RPM/Flatpak/Snap/PKGBUILD/Nix, GNOME/KDE/Cosmic/Cinnamon/Xfce/LXQt/MATE/Budgie/Sway/Hyprland, AppArmor/SELinux, GTK/Qt/Electron/Tauri/WxWidgets there's even distributions which use musl libc instead of GNU libc or non-systemd inits. Sure, you can just pick one and focus on it, but if someone else picks something else then they may need to duplicate some effort to get things working on their preferred setup.
- bayindirh 8mo ago
  When you put down your project in a sound and standards compliant way, packaging doesn't matter much. RPM and DEB automatically builds your code and packages it. DEB also has a lot of tools which allows you to make sure that everything is done correctly. I'm sure RPM has similar tools, but I didn't use them a lot. Desktop environment doesn't matter much, because GTK and Qt works on every Linux Desktop. I'm using KDE, but I don't know which tools I use are GTK, which are Qt, etc. Qt and GTK teams collaborate a ton both in window management and desktop underpinnings side. Also there are tons of standards, and things just work if you follow them. Even the standard libraries of programming languages and Linux userland gives the tools to utilize these standards. C libraries are mostly interoperable. I operate with GNU's C library, but aside from interesting behavioral differences, the API is not different. If you're not writing daemons, you have no business with your init system in 99% of the cases, unless you want to utilize a special feature of any of them. You can just ship the service files. daemon() function is part of libc, not your init system. In total, after your code builds, you can add these layers step by step, one at a time, and have a codebase which works everywhere with minimal effort.

tmtvl 8mo ago

Eroding user's rights is good if it means users have fewer choices because choice is bad? I suppose it would mean that resources could concentrate in a smaller, more focused set of software, but I really can't see how that would justify the harm caused.

duskdozer 8mo ago
Just think about how easy it would be though - imagine - one single OS, one single version always immediately up to date, one consistent set of installed software, attestation to ensure no adversaries are attempting to modify or install unsupported software, full accurate and thorough analytics, what a dream...
- tmtvl 8mo ago
  Isn't that what Apple purports to sell? There's also Haiku, but I don't know to what extend it matches that description.
- dogleash 8mo ago
  > Just think about how easy it would be though Endlessly painful. Right? The defining characteristic is that everyone is using it, not that it's your personal ideal operating system. We have a few major players trying to create their version of the one single os. They're already nobodies ideal, and they have the luxury of telling people to go elsewhere if the system isn't right for them. Imagine how much worse it would be if they had to support everything.
- daurentius523 8mo ago
  Yea what a Fall of Rome type dream - just look what happened when people overused a specific measure - we had Crowdstrike with around 8.5 million devices crashed to BSoD. Identical OS, identical apps, identical updates, identical crashes at same time. If you centralise then it is not the question "Will?" but "When?" it will fail.