Visit https://www.squarespace.com/LTT and use offer code LTT for 10% offTry your first eSIM with Airalo at https://lmg.gg/AiraloIt's been a month of Luke and...
They mention a lot of times something like there is not enough standardization between distributions or that between one system to another there are too many differences, making “Linux” unable to be better suited for gaming, I guess. So well, I believe what they mean is that there should be some kind of a single distribution and a single way of doing things under “Linux”. So I suppose that is the “solution” they propose?
Everybody knows, that is basically impossible in this community. They should know that too. And I think there are a lot of good reason for this community to be “fractured”. Maybe the proper solution is just too hard. So that is what I’m thinking about. Which would be a proper solution? Containers maybe? Some days ago I think I saw some kind of post about Zig trying to solve this problem too.
I think the solution would not be to end fragmentation and standardize everything but rather to have one “silver bullet” distribution for those who don’t like to tinker and don’t care too much about what’s going on under the hood while the rest continues to use their preferred distro and tools. I guess Ubuntu is trying to be that, maybe SteamOS 3.0 can be that for gamers but I’m not holding my breath. At that point, I do have to wonder what people hope to get from Linux. If they want something that “just works” Windows or a console will always be better - I’m not saying that because I hate seeing the Linux community grow, I just don’t see Linux ever getting on the same level as Windows for gaming specifically.
I’m far from an elitist, heck I’m very much a Linux amateur, but the reason I love Linux is because I love learning, it makes using my computer fun in a way that Windows just doesn’t for me and so I’m willing to put up with the downsides. If you’re coming at it with the mindset that “I just wanna play games” and aren’t willing to work through some bullshit, as sad as it is to say, I just don’t think Linux will ever get there.
Not necessarily that Linux need a single distribution, but having more standartized tools for the job. Like Flatpak for package management or Pipewire for audio stack, or finally being able to use Wayland as a daily driver, stuff like that.
Like, not having to search around to find out what kind of package your specific distro uses for that particular thing just to begin to search around to troubleshoot your problem.
I mean, there are standardized tools. X has been around since 1984, and alsa has been around since 1998, pulseaudio since 2004.
“but I don’t like those tools, I want to use these other ones instead!” – Exactly. The point of the bazaar is to pick and choose what tools to use, and the may the best one win until it dies or we find something better.
Does that make things more complicated? Well, it can. OTOH, I’ve got a pretty complicated multi-server setup running right now, and a shocking number of problems are solved by going “$Problem on Ubuntu 20.04”, whereupon someone has already laid out the exact commands to run to solve your problem.
It isn’t like windows is standardized. To set the IP address properly, I can’t use the settings app because it’s been broken for years. I instead need to go to the windows 2000 version of the network adapter settings using a constantly changing maze of button clicks.
I think the famous phrase “It’s not a bug, it’s a feature” applies.
I’ve been using linux since the 90s. Over the decades, the distribution people generally use has changed, as well as the specific tools within each distribution.
If open source was a cathedral like closed source, the market dynamic would be gone. Nobody would have moved from redhat to mandrake, from mandrake to ubuntu, from ubuntu to the latest distributions. Nobody would move between different desktop environments or window managers. Nobody would choose between different APIs to select the best ones for them.
The thing is, that cathedral often leads to stagnation. Sure, there’s only one choice so it’s straightforward, but there’s only one choice so if they don’t do the things you want or try new things then you’re stuck with what they gave you. That’s the Internet Explorer 6 problem.
So well, I believe what they mean is that there should be some kind of a single distribution and a single way of doing things under “Linux”. So I suppose that is the “solution” they propose?
Well this already happened, it’s called Ubuntu LTS. Developers have a stable target, and other distros can figure out what they need to do to make themselves compatible.
They mention a lot of times something like there is not enough standardization between distributions or that between one system to another there are too many differences, making “Linux” unable to be better suited for gaming, I guess. So well, I believe what they mean is that there should be some kind of a single distribution and a single way of doing things under “Linux”. So I suppose that is the “solution” they propose?
Everybody knows, that is basically impossible in this community. They should know that too. And I think there are a lot of good reason for this community to be “fractured”. Maybe the proper solution is just too hard. So that is what I’m thinking about. Which would be a proper solution? Containers maybe? Some days ago I think I saw some kind of post about Zig trying to solve this problem too.
I think the solution would not be to end fragmentation and standardize everything but rather to have one “silver bullet” distribution for those who don’t like to tinker and don’t care too much about what’s going on under the hood while the rest continues to use their preferred distro and tools. I guess Ubuntu is trying to be that, maybe SteamOS 3.0 can be that for gamers but I’m not holding my breath. At that point, I do have to wonder what people hope to get from Linux. If they want something that “just works” Windows or a console will always be better - I’m not saying that because I hate seeing the Linux community grow, I just don’t see Linux ever getting on the same level as Windows for gaming specifically.
I’m far from an elitist, heck I’m very much a Linux amateur, but the reason I love Linux is because I love learning, it makes using my computer fun in a way that Windows just doesn’t for me and so I’m willing to put up with the downsides. If you’re coming at it with the mindset that “I just wanna play games” and aren’t willing to work through some bullshit, as sad as it is to say, I just don’t think Linux will ever get there.
deleted by creator
Not necessarily that Linux need a single distribution, but having more standartized tools for the job. Like Flatpak for package management or Pipewire for audio stack, or finally being able to use Wayland as a daily driver, stuff like that.
Like, not having to search around to find out what kind of package your specific distro uses for that particular thing just to begin to search around to troubleshoot your problem.
I mean, there are standardized tools. X has been around since 1984, and alsa has been around since 1998, pulseaudio since 2004.
“but I don’t like those tools, I want to use these other ones instead!” – Exactly. The point of the bazaar is to pick and choose what tools to use, and the may the best one win until it dies or we find something better.
Does that make things more complicated? Well, it can. OTOH, I’ve got a pretty complicated multi-server setup running right now, and a shocking number of problems are solved by going “$Problem on Ubuntu 20.04”, whereupon someone has already laid out the exact commands to run to solve your problem.
It isn’t like windows is standardized. To set the IP address properly, I can’t use the settings app because it’s been broken for years. I instead need to go to the windows 2000 version of the network adapter settings using a constantly changing maze of button clicks.
I think the famous phrase “It’s not a bug, it’s a feature” applies.
I’ve been using linux since the 90s. Over the decades, the distribution people generally use has changed, as well as the specific tools within each distribution.
If open source was a cathedral like closed source, the market dynamic would be gone. Nobody would have moved from redhat to mandrake, from mandrake to ubuntu, from ubuntu to the latest distributions. Nobody would move between different desktop environments or window managers. Nobody would choose between different APIs to select the best ones for them.
The thing is, that cathedral often leads to stagnation. Sure, there’s only one choice so it’s straightforward, but there’s only one choice so if they don’t do the things you want or try new things then you’re stuck with what they gave you. That’s the Internet Explorer 6 problem.
Proton is probably already as good as can be in regards to offering a containerized environment with a stable API.
Well this already happened, it’s called Ubuntu LTS. Developers have a stable target, and other distros can figure out what they need to do to make themselves compatible.