distros have nothing to do with software stagnation. If anything they promote it because they fragmentate the wider linux community which promotes reinventing the wheel for their ecosystem instead of everyone developing towards one project and directly improving it.
Could've just had something more akin to BSD rather than having 800 distros with 95% of them being dead or dog shit
the only innovation to come out has been with guix and nix, otherwise it's just been forks of distros like ubuntu/debian, arch, etc. that slightly change a DE environment or offer different init systems. Not sure what you mean by innovation when you can almost essentially get the same system as someone else sans their package manager (at least not without an extreme amount of pointless difficulty) and perhaps package availability in their repos like with certain drivers. It's all the same shit and new things that emerge have nothing to do with the fact that there are a variety of distros or a competition between distro vendors and users, only the fact that linux in itself has a large enough following to allow people to pursue large scale collaborative projects.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>the only innovation to come out has been with guix and nix
and Fedora Silverblue, openSUSE MicroOS
snapd, Flatpak
Wayland, systemd, pipewire
the list goes on
2 years ago
Anonymous
The fact that Fedora and openSUSE can offer these as alternatives to their distros to me shows that there is no reason why we cannot have these innovations exist as a "singular distribution". We could've just been centralized and offered innovative designs on a consistent base platform. >snapd, Flatpak
these literally only exist because of the fact that linux distros exist as they do, they are to try to generalize package management across all distros and wouldn't even have to exist if linux was centralized. >Wayland, systemd, pipewire
again, none of these pieces of software have to be used on an entirely different distro. I could swap out xorg for wayland right now on my void install if I wanted to. I am not arguing that there is software stagnation on linux, but rather that the set of innovation attributable to its fragmented distro setup is extremely small (again, probably nix/guix are the only two distros we can point to as innovating strictly BECAUSE they are a new distro), and is not reflected in your list of general software innovations by the wider linux community.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>again, none of these pieces of software have to be used on an entirely different distro. I could swap out xorg for wayland right now on my void install if I wanted to.
yes, that's the result of Linux being free software
competition benefits everyone, leading to innovation across the board
in competing they also help each other, one of the greatest strengths of free software
2 years ago
Anonymous
all of those are literally regressions, not innovations
nix and guix aren't "innovations" either - they are also not regressions, but rather side stories
2 years ago
Anonymous
>new solutions solving old problems more efficiently are actually regression
alright
There’s probably less than 10 that are relevant. And maybe 3-4 that truly matter. It’s not too different from BSD in this way. It’s just weirdos with too much free time tend to focus exclusively on Linux for creating endless spinoffs and derivatives.
This is true, there are only 4 distros:
Debian, Fedora, Arch, Gentoo >muh uboontoo
Ubuntu is downstream from Debian >muh openSUS
OpenSUSE is downstream from Red Hat
2 years ago
Anonymous
>OpenSUSE is downstream from Red Hat
no its not. SUSE is it's own thing
RHEL is downstream fedora
this is exemplified by any open source project hosted on any git website >how to: >windows (like 2 billion users): just download .exe bro >macos (millions of users) : just download .dmg bro >linux (also millions of users): just compile and take care of dependencies bro
>linux (also millions of users): just compile and take care of dependencies bro
You don't have to compile anything. In fact you can literally just use an app store.
>just compile and take care of dependencies bro
um >open software center >click install on the program i want
????
alternatively >download .appimage >run .appimage
????
there is no difference between linux and any other mainstream OS in this regard. if you want software that isnt available in either of those formats, there is a 100% chance any equivilant sofrware on windows/macOS also requires compiling.
and by the way, the steps for compiling just about any piece of software out there is >[pacman -S] requirements.txt >make >make install
which is about as complicated as its ever going to get
2 years ago
Anonymous
you will also probably need to download and install the whole compiler toolchain for the application you want to compile
There’s probably less than 10 that are relevant. And maybe 3-4 that truly matter. It’s not too different from BSD in this way. It’s just weirdos with too much free time tend to focus exclusively on Linux for creating endless spinoffs and derivatives.
>if you have heckin hobbies and like to IQfy you're a autist weirdo!
When did Reddit crab mentality start appearing on IQfy, and how do we get rid of the tourists?
you can't. it's not a complete system. it will never be. come to freebsd, it was made at least a decade before linus shitvauls wrote a single line of te kernel
freebsd is a complete system with it's kerbel userspace and documentation in a single place. there are no freebsd distros there is a single freebsd. it will bever bow down to companies or popular shit like basedstemd and wayland
freebsd has the most hardware support. it is really good for desktop. openbsd is made for server. netbsd again, limited desktop support. both of those 2 are fine, they just have different, specialized purpouses. freebsd is an all arounder. you can use it for embedded, servers, desktops.
On the fly distro assembly. Website where you >Select drivers and kernel modules >Compile the stripped down and customized kernel >Select bootloader >Select init script >Select select low level packages like network managers, filesystem managers, etc.. >Select DE components, file browser, window manager, render server >Select high level components, terminal emulator, web browser, productivity software, etc...
That's it. Distros are fundamentally just shitty bundles of software. What started as a convenience measure has ended up gerrymandering the entire linux space and forces everyone to compromise on shit they don't really need to compromise on. That is unless you know linux in and out and can retroactively strip down a distro into your taste, but that's essentially just making your own distro in the first place and requires a big investment in terms of time to learn what each package does and so on.
I'll be the first to admit I don't know as much about linux as I wish I did so I could be wrong though. Distros MAY be more than just bundled software. If so, I'd love for someone to tell me why.
>84
just starting out but still soulful >99
peak soul design. >01
start of gloss cancer but at least not flat and still usable. >17
dawn of flatshit, death of soul.
Better cataloguing would be a start. and by cataloguing, i mean take this same image and annotate each branch with a short bio on what this branch is, what its creators sought to do differently to other branches and why, and shit like that.
Lots of distros is a good thing insofar as it gives you much more freedom to choose, at the cost of creating information overload for people especially noobs who dont know what to choose or how to decide. If you give the people the resources to micromanage these choices as precisely as they want then the only downside of the lots of distros problem goes away
>NOOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T FREELY MODIFY AND DISTRIBUTE FOSS SOFTWARE
>how do we stop distrocancer?
>gas the fmorons
ok jay
distributions are actually good, they push innovation so the software doesn't stagnate and rot eternally (like Windows is right now)
distros have nothing to do with software stagnation. If anything they promote it because they fragmentate the wider linux community which promotes reinventing the wheel for their ecosystem instead of everyone developing towards one project and directly improving it.
Could've just had something more akin to BSD rather than having 800 distros with 95% of them being dead or dog shit
not at all, distro vendors actually have to compete for users, which leads to innovation
BSD is pretty much dead in the water
the only innovation to come out has been with guix and nix, otherwise it's just been forks of distros like ubuntu/debian, arch, etc. that slightly change a DE environment or offer different init systems. Not sure what you mean by innovation when you can almost essentially get the same system as someone else sans their package manager (at least not without an extreme amount of pointless difficulty) and perhaps package availability in their repos like with certain drivers. It's all the same shit and new things that emerge have nothing to do with the fact that there are a variety of distros or a competition between distro vendors and users, only the fact that linux in itself has a large enough following to allow people to pursue large scale collaborative projects.
>the only innovation to come out has been with guix and nix
and Fedora Silverblue, openSUSE MicroOS
snapd, Flatpak
Wayland, systemd, pipewire
the list goes on
The fact that Fedora and openSUSE can offer these as alternatives to their distros to me shows that there is no reason why we cannot have these innovations exist as a "singular distribution". We could've just been centralized and offered innovative designs on a consistent base platform.
>snapd, Flatpak
these literally only exist because of the fact that linux distros exist as they do, they are to try to generalize package management across all distros and wouldn't even have to exist if linux was centralized.
>Wayland, systemd, pipewire
again, none of these pieces of software have to be used on an entirely different distro. I could swap out xorg for wayland right now on my void install if I wanted to. I am not arguing that there is software stagnation on linux, but rather that the set of innovation attributable to its fragmented distro setup is extremely small (again, probably nix/guix are the only two distros we can point to as innovating strictly BECAUSE they are a new distro), and is not reflected in your list of general software innovations by the wider linux community.
>again, none of these pieces of software have to be used on an entirely different distro. I could swap out xorg for wayland right now on my void install if I wanted to.
yes, that's the result of Linux being free software
competition benefits everyone, leading to innovation across the board
in competing they also help each other, one of the greatest strengths of free software
all of those are literally regressions, not innovations
nix and guix aren't "innovations" either - they are also not regressions, but rather side stories
>new solutions solving old problems more efficiently are actually regression
alright
There’s probably less than 10 that are relevant. And maybe 3-4 that truly matter. It’s not too different from BSD in this way. It’s just weirdos with too much free time tend to focus exclusively on Linux for creating endless spinoffs and derivatives.
This is true, there are only 4 distros:
Debian, Fedora, Arch, Gentoo
>muh uboontoo
Ubuntu is downstream from Debian
>muh openSUS
OpenSUSE is downstream from Red Hat
>OpenSUSE is downstream from Red Hat
no its not. SUSE is it's own thing
RHEL is downstream fedora
>promotes reinventing the wheel
That is called refinement. Isn't that what your McMacintosh claims to have done?
The real world is not your fantasy land where everyone has the same needs and agrees on literally everything.
Most people need a functioning operating system that is compatible with popular software.
this is exemplified by any open source project hosted on any git website
>how to:
>windows (like 2 billion users): just download .exe bro
>macos (millions of users) : just download .dmg bro
>linux (also millions of users): just compile and take care of dependencies bro
>linux (also millions of users): just compile and take care of dependencies bro
You don't have to compile anything. In fact you can literally just use an app store.
>just compile and take care of dependencies bro
um
>open software center
>click install on the program i want
????
alternatively
>download .appimage
>run .appimage
????
there is no difference between linux and any other mainstream OS in this regard. if you want software that isnt available in either of those formats, there is a 100% chance any equivilant sofrware on windows/macOS also requires compiling.
and by the way, the steps for compiling just about any piece of software out there is
>[pacman -S] requirements.txt
>make
>make install
which is about as complicated as its ever going to get
you will also probably need to download and install the whole compiler toolchain for the application you want to compile
Dumb thread for dumb "people"
>have 10 standards
>create the new standard that will replace all of them
>have 11 standards
>repeat ad infinitum
ok, now go back to r*ddit
thanks xkcd
why aren’t code auditors more common? seems like BSD has some problems with the skill level of their contributing members and pointers eg X11
How do we stop mactoddlers and windowstroons?
As a Debian Stable user I can't really relate
Make a new distro and declare it as the standard.
Linux will never be popular until all distros come together to make one final distribution.
This is not true at all. Even if this did happen, it would fail because of completely different ideas and philosophies.
just ignore it. there will always be autists who want to use or create obscure shit just to validate themselves.
>if you have heckin hobbies and like to IQfy you're a autist weirdo!
When did Reddit crab mentality start appearing on IQfy, and how do we get rid of the tourists?
>When did Reddit crab mentality start appearing on IQfy, and how do we get rid of the tourists?
Shortly after Digg died, and you can't.
you can't. it's not a complete system. it will never be. come to freebsd, it was made at least a decade before linus shitvauls wrote a single line of te kernel
freebsd is a complete system with it's kerbel userspace and documentation in a single place. there are no freebsd distros there is a single freebsd. it will bever bow down to companies or popular shit like basedstemd and wayland
NetBSD came before FreeBSD, why should I use FreeBSD instead of NetBSD?
i don't know. i don't care about other bsds. thiss is an all purpose one and the one with the most mature kernel
what makes its kernel the most mature?
compare the kernel siizes of the 3 bsds
freebsd has the most hardware support. it is really good for desktop. openbsd is made for server. netbsd again, limited desktop support. both of those 2 are fine, they just have different, specialized purpouses. freebsd is an all arounder. you can use it for embedded, servers, desktops.
>complete system
bloat, I prefer to piece together my system for best performance, and FreeBSD doesn't provide good performance
>kerbel userspace
kys troon
install guix
unironically (inb4 not a real world)
arch in the very current state
>cli install script to filter t00tal n00bi3s
>just werks
>aur
Black person
>STOP THINKING DIFFERENTLY AND AGREE WITH *MY* OPINION WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT
Do proprietards really...?
I have four words for you:
Should
Have
Fricking
Listened
Diversity is good.
>Diversity is good.
109 countries and counting
By installing Ubuntu and deleting everything else.
I think I have seen a similar image but for protestant denominations.
take out the ones that have under 1k users and your shitty visualization will look a lot cleaner
LFS for everyone
I thought you free market homos like choice
>OP is about to discover entropy
you're already there anon, don't come back now that you've almost got it
I only see 5 distros and a lot of desktop environments. What's the issue?
> stop using and redistributing different software
no
The cancer is more application packaging standards than distros imo
why contain it
with more distros
On the fly distro assembly. Website where you
>Select drivers and kernel modules
>Compile the stripped down and customized kernel
>Select bootloader
>Select init script
>Select select low level packages like network managers, filesystem managers, etc..
>Select DE components, file browser, window manager, render server
>Select high level components, terminal emulator, web browser, productivity software, etc...
That's it. Distros are fundamentally just shitty bundles of software. What started as a convenience measure has ended up gerrymandering the entire linux space and forces everyone to compromise on shit they don't really need to compromise on. That is unless you know linux in and out and can retroactively strip down a distro into your taste, but that's essentially just making your own distro in the first place and requires a big investment in terms of time to learn what each package does and so on.
I'll be the first to admit I don't know as much about linux as I wish I did so I could be wrong though. Distros MAY be more than just bundled software. If so, I'd love for someone to tell me why.
For what purpose?
>84
just starting out but still soulful
>99
peak soul design.
>01
start of gloss cancer but at least not flat and still usable.
>17
dawn of flatshit, death of soul.
Better cataloguing would be a start. and by cataloguing, i mean take this same image and annotate each branch with a short bio on what this branch is, what its creators sought to do differently to other branches and why, and shit like that.
Lots of distros is a good thing insofar as it gives you much more freedom to choose, at the cost of creating information overload for people especially noobs who dont know what to choose or how to decide. If you give the people the resources to micromanage these choices as precisely as they want then the only downside of the lots of distros problem goes away