jamesbunagna

joined 5 months ago
[–] jamesbunagna@discuss.online 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

I think I better understand you now. Btw, I had changed my previous reply moments before I read your reply. My bad*.

I meant that I support this distro as long as it’s not immutable because I’m an opponent of immutability on the desktop. If they’re also making other kinds of systems, immutability may be beneficial there.

Have you been around since before the introduction of systemd? Systemd's introduction was a lot more invasive and threatening to 'traditional' distros than immutables are today. Distros changed to systemd over night. Only Arch and Debian had communities that succeeded in establishing systemd-less derivatives. By contrast, the interest for immutability in existing distros (almost always) means a parallel distro is created with (at least initially) immutability tacked on.

So, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel as if you're being too aggressive/overreactive considering how nonthreatening immutable desktops are to traditional distros.

Sometimes ~~innovation~~ change is bad or rushed (such as removal of X11 on Fedora).

Fixed that for you 😉.

Often only people with the newest hardware can benefit from it anyways.

Fair, but as unfortunate as it is, that's basically a consequence of consumerism. I don't like it, don't get me wrong.

They don’t care about regular users making the products worse for them which is basically egoism.

I don't think this applies to Linux overall. Fedora (and Red Hat by extension) have a vision that made them default to Wayland by default. So you'd be right to blame their policy. But this is nothing new for Fedora; they're known to push bold changes. You might not like it or disagree with them. Fine. But is it important enough to hate them for it? Isn't life too short for that?

There is a reason for proprietary products having legacy support after all.

Are you implying that doesn't apply to Linux? I don't understand. On an open system like Linux is, this doesn't really seem to hold much weight. You can swap stuff around as you see fit.

[–] jamesbunagna@discuss.online 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (4 children)

They claim to have a lot of features.

What features are you referring to?

As I understand it, it's basically trying to answer the following question: What if we could start over and use existing building blocks to make a simple yet complete system using the Linux kernel? All changes have been made in accordance to that basic premise. From replacing GNU in GNU/Linux with BSD, to choosing dinit over systemd as init system.

I hope they succeed (as long as it’s not immutable)

Are you one of those with a raging hateboner towards everything immutable? I ask this as I don't see any reason to bring this up in the first place.

FWIW, I absolutely hope for it to succeed as well. Innovation (of any kind) pushes the industry forward. When people oppose innovation for whatever reason, it always reminds me of Henry Ford's famous quote: "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."

view more: ‹ prev next ›