What who gave you this perspective? Undeniably? No. Arguably? Yes. But really think about this fragmentation is a bad thing with some upsides or vice versa. These are just philosophical perspectives where I align with the former. I want a unified strong set of standards not a bunch of pseudo ideological, pseudo sec, “bloated” perspectives about systemd. It works well, it’s resistant to system breakage from crashing daemons, simplifies building the operating system, etc. So many people got mad about change that they decided to in my view waste their time on building an entire os for literally nothing at all. Instead of spending their time helping maintain packages in an existing distro the community spread itself too thin because they don’t like change. If it makes system builders spend less time building and users spend less time fixing random crashing daemons and system breakage I’m all for it.
I’m not against any alternative, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I doubt over 2 percent of people actually use systemd, most people on use a GUI to do everything and are unaware of systemd. Except for maybe arch users. And it’s just fixating on a part of a system that isn’t broke. Honestly it would be much nicer if that time was being spent to make linux more accessible instead of worrying about the init system.
That is literally what people could’ve said to Linus back in 1990 or the people at osdev or Tanenbaum.
And this is a false equivalency. The political structures at play are why something like linux exists in the first place. It’s to prevent corporate appropriation of computers from ruining the experience of computer users. Copyleft is a political stance. SystemD vs what ever the hip new init system becomes a special interest is largely a waste of time. I want more people using linux. I want linux to not be peaking at 2% marketshare.
As long as we have these petty inconsequential battles we will always ignore the needs of 99% of users. Most people who like the ideas, philosophy, and advocacy around linux cannot use it at work or for work. We still haven’t created a packaging standard. And no snap doesn’t count. We all operate on different library versions (ie no standard LTS model for things to “just work”).
Linux user finally connects to the internet is a meme. And it’s because we have all these petty squabbles over free vs non free drivers. I suggest we stop playing with our food. I like that there’s focus on hardening and that should be implemented into some standard. Or added as a package or script for most distros. As far as I’m concerned people when they hear about linux the sheer number of choices is fucking frustrating.
The reason we cannot have nice things in the linux community is the narcissism of small differences and why each method or way is superior.
I want people using linux. Not just tinkering with it.
Ok I think i get where you’re coming from now (I’m not the one who downvoted you btw).
I think tbh its not impacting the user uptake as much as you worry it might. As you said most mainstream users aren’t even aware of the difference as they’re sitting up in GUI-land and barely notice those kind of changes under the hood.
Those aren’t the kind of people who are really even going to be effected by these kinds of disputes - or even really be aware of them. And i think there’s plenty of workpower available atm that its not really drawing efforts away from other concerns.
There’s always going to be a group of people who obsess over something more than others, and thats what i think is part of the power of these kinds of tools, that they can be tailored to specific needs.
You are right that having a unified system does come with various advantages, and there are also use-cases which don’t suit the one-size-fits-all approach.
I really don’t think the plethora of distros, bootloaders, WMs, shells, and inits are detracting in a meaningful way from anyone’s effort to build a unified system.
Tbh while on the topic of standardisation, i think interoperability is very important too. That is the kind of thing I think could solve alot of these problems simultaneously
no one system is perfect, including systemd. therefore having people working on various diversity of options is undeniably a good thing.
What who gave you this perspective? Undeniably? No. Arguably? Yes. But really think about this fragmentation is a bad thing with some upsides or vice versa. These are just philosophical perspectives where I align with the former. I want a unified strong set of standards not a bunch of pseudo ideological, pseudo sec, “bloated” perspectives about systemd. It works well, it’s resistant to system breakage from crashing daemons, simplifies building the operating system, etc. So many people got mad about change that they decided to in my view waste their time on building an entire os for literally nothing at all. Instead of spending their time helping maintain packages in an existing distro the community spread itself too thin because they don’t like change. If it makes system builders spend less time building and users spend less time fixing random crashing daemons and system breakage I’m all for it.
Being all for it is great, being against any form of alternative is simply illogical.
I definitely disagree on the community being spread too thin, I don’t think we’ve ever seen this level of exciting myriad development before.
That is literally what people could’ve said to Linus back in 1990 or the people at osdev or Tanenbaum.
One thing I will agree on is standardisation is extremely powerful when appropriately applied.
I’m not against any alternative, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. I doubt over 2 percent of people actually use systemd, most people on use a GUI to do everything and are unaware of systemd. Except for maybe arch users. And it’s just fixating on a part of a system that isn’t broke. Honestly it would be much nicer if that time was being spent to make linux more accessible instead of worrying about the init system.
And this is a false equivalency. The political structures at play are why something like linux exists in the first place. It’s to prevent corporate appropriation of computers from ruining the experience of computer users. Copyleft is a political stance. SystemD vs what ever the hip new init system becomes a special interest is largely a waste of time. I want more people using linux. I want linux to not be peaking at 2% marketshare.
As long as we have these petty inconsequential battles we will always ignore the needs of 99% of users. Most people who like the ideas, philosophy, and advocacy around linux cannot use it at work or for work. We still haven’t created a packaging standard. And no snap doesn’t count. We all operate on different library versions (ie no standard LTS model for things to “just work”).
Linux user finally connects to the internet is a meme. And it’s because we have all these petty squabbles over free vs non free drivers. I suggest we stop playing with our food. I like that there’s focus on hardening and that should be implemented into some standard. Or added as a package or script for most distros. As far as I’m concerned people when they hear about linux the sheer number of choices is fucking frustrating.
The reason we cannot have nice things in the linux community is the narcissism of small differences and why each method or way is superior.
I want people using linux. Not just tinkering with it.
Ok I think i get where you’re coming from now (I’m not the one who downvoted you btw).
I think tbh its not impacting the user uptake as much as you worry it might. As you said most mainstream users aren’t even aware of the difference as they’re sitting up in GUI-land and barely notice those kind of changes under the hood.
Those aren’t the kind of people who are really even going to be effected by these kinds of disputes - or even really be aware of them. And i think there’s plenty of workpower available atm that its not really drawing efforts away from other concerns.
There’s always going to be a group of people who obsess over something more than others, and thats what i think is part of the power of these kinds of tools, that they can be tailored to specific needs.
You are right that having a unified system does come with various advantages, and there are also use-cases which don’t suit the one-size-fits-all approach.
I really don’t think the plethora of distros, bootloaders, WMs, shells, and inits are detracting in a meaningful way from anyone’s effort to build a unified system.
Tbh while on the topic of standardisation, i think interoperability is very important too. That is the kind of thing I think could solve alot of these problems simultaneously