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.
this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2024
97 points (98.0% liked)
Linux
10653 readers
641 users here now
A community for everything relating to the GNU/Linux operating system (except the memes!)
Also, check out:
Original icon base courtesy of lewing@isc.tamu.edu and The GIMP
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Variety is good to a point. Too many alternatives and all you get is a bunch of under-resourced and unpolished results.
I disagree.
This assumes that progress on one distro doesn't lead to progress on others.
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.
You think there is a dearth of software engineers out there who can't spend time on something cool like a linux distro?
Well, yeah. Its pretty well established that there is fairly limited resources in open source. Loads of software engineers, very few contributors.
Maybe because of projects that aren't interested in the opinions of distro maintainers, let alone individual contributors.
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.
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.
I thought that is what KDE neon is? Didn’t read the article though.
Yes, as is Gnome OS
Isn't Neon just Kubuntu with "updated bleeding-edge" KDE?
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.
It's worked for cinnamon
Oh, good more distro fragmentation that’s exactly what the community needs.
I think immutability gaining steam made this a good time for this, normally i'm against distros for the sake of distros, but the kde one is going to be an immutable arch based distro and i think we really needed a good kde immutable arch based distro, and I think it'll be great for the masses too!
don't know anything about the gnome one, probably will also be good.
As long as the main line kernel remains independent, they can have at it.
Kool, that's Great