this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
94 points (98.0% liked)

Linux

5414 readers
5 users here now

A community for everything relating to the linux operating system

Also check out [email protected]

Original icon base courtesy of [email protected] and The GIMP

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 17 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

Kool, that's Great

[–] [email protected] 38 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The author of this article seems to think that choice and alternatives are a bad thing.

I'd like to take the opposite position. The more the merrier. Come on in.

Variety drives open source.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Variety is good to a point. Too many alternatives and all you get is a bunch of under-resourced and unpolished results.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I disagree.

This assumes that progress on one distro doesn't lead to progress on others.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago

There is a difference between feature development and distro maintenance/packaging.

Feature development is done upstream and does flow down to others.

Distro maintenance and packaging is downstream, and almost never provides value to other distros. It usually doesn't even provide value to the next release. Distro maintenance is a hard, thankless Sisyphean task.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

You think there is a dearth of software engineers out there who can't spend time on something cool like a linux distro?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Well, yeah. Its pretty well established that there is fairly limited resources in open source. Loads of software engineers, very few contributors.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 days ago

We can try to lower the barrier of entry. But nowadays open source maintainers have to actually limit controbutions due to a significant increase in supply chain attacks and generally untrustworthy code contributions.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Maybe because of projects that aren't interested in the opinions of distro maintainers, let alone individual contributors.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 days ago

I tend to agree. I like being able to install whatever distro I want and add the DE of my choice, and there is a glut of different combos to choose from.

However, are KDE and Gnome going to gradually focus on making their respective DEs work on their own branded OS, rather than any old base system? I know that's a worst case scenario, but putting a lot of added effort into a full OS is a nontrivial investment for a desktop environment. Some mission drift might be expected.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 days ago (2 children)

I thought that is what KDE neon is? Didn’t read the article though.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 days ago

Yes, as is Gnome OS

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

Isn't Neon just Kubuntu with "updated bleeding-edge" KDE?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

Oh, good more distro fragmentation that’s exactly what the community needs.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 4 days ago

Honestly, I'm all for it.

Both the Plasma and Gnome teams have visions for how systems should be when using their DE, but sometimes existing distros don't go along with that.

I think it'll be interesting to see how a Plasma or Gnome distro pans out.

And if I don't like it, there's nothing stopping me from simply continuing to use Fedora, or running something else.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 days ago

It's worked for cinnamon

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago

As long as the main line kernel remains independent, they can have at it.