• Realitätsverlust@lemmy.zipEnglish
    37·
    6 days ago

    Idk, it’s a hobby. There’s no problem with new distros. If they’re good, they take off, if not, it’s going to be a niche project. No issue at all.

  • Zacryon@feddit.org
    39·
    7 days ago

    Nah. Push them out like rabbits do with their babies. Let them fight and see which ones prevail!

  • jj4211@lemmy.world
    21·
    6 days ago

    I’d say actually a bit of the opposite. Generally speaking we don’t need a new package manager or init system, and better hardware support is almost entirely a kernel concern (one might make an argument that the loose bits of key management and tpm2 tools and authentication agents could be better integrated for “Windows Hello” type function I suppose, but I doubt that’s what the meme had in mind.

    Not really needing to reinvent the wheel on those, we got a variety of wheels, sometimes serving different sensibilities, sometimes any difference in capability went away long ago (rpm/dnf v. deb/apt).

    The best motivation I can think of at this point is to make specialty distribution that is ‘canned’ toward a specific use case. Even then it’s probably best to be an existing distribution under the covers. I think Proxmox is a good example, it’s just Debian but installer made to just do Proxmox. You want to do automated installation? Just use Debian and then add Proxmox (the official recommendation), because they have no particular insight on automated deployment, so why not just defer to an existing facility?

    The biggest conceptual change in packaging has been “waste as much disk as you like duplicating dependencies to avoid conflicting dependencies”, maybe with “use namespace and cgroup isolation to better control app interactions” and we have snap, flatpak, appimage, and nix very well covering the gamut for that concept.

    For init, we have the easy to modify sysv init, or the more capable but more inscrutable systemd. I don’t see a whole lot of opportunity between those two sorts of options already.

    • gamer@lemm.ee
      2·
      6 days ago

      It’s usually easier to criticize something than to go through the effort of understanding it. Posts like the OP are an example of that.

      … And ironically, your post is doing the same thing here with software packaging:

      The biggest conceptual change in packaging has been “waste as much disk as you like duplicating dependencies to avoid conflicting dependencies”,

      Nobody is perfect, so it’s important to keep an open mind about things, especially when one don’t understand them, and especially² when one thinks they understand them as it’s always possible to be wrong (unless they don’t care about going through life as an ignorant asshole. Plenty of people thrive like that.)

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        1·
        6 days ago

        I understand it fine, and it’s not just a packaging phenomonon, all sorts of software developers have stopped trying to have consensus on platform and instead ‘just ship the box’. 99% of the time a python application will demand at least virtualenv. Golang, well, you are just going to staticly build (at least LTO means less unrelated stuff comes along for the ride). Of course docker style packaging is bring the whole distro. I’ll give credit to snap and flatpak that at least allow packaging to have external dependency packages to mitigate it somewhat.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
      1·
      6 days ago

      i like novel implementations of these things, it’s the reason why linux as it is today is so good, people were willing to try novel methods of package management, and the repo worked great.

  • bluewing@lemm.ee
    12·
    6 days ago

    All the different distros are all about the vibe and not a lot else. The Linux kernel remains pretty much the same and we just choose different window dressings.

    I suppose we could role it all back to Debian Stable and Slackware I guess. Do we need a “Distro Thanos?” Besides, without all those different distros, how you gonna surf?

    So don’t harsh the vibes man.

      • bluewing@lemm.ee
        1·
        6 days ago

        No I haven’t bothered to surf that one up yet. But, if it’s vastly different, then it’s not Linux and not germane to this meme.

        • admin@sh.itjust.works
          1·
          6 days ago

          Is Linux, called linux-zen on some package managers.

          But is different than the LTS Kernel, which is also different than the pre-release kernels, which are also different than the stable kernels.

          So idk, “what is” Linux and what’s not, according to you.

          Maybe you thinking of GNU Hurd? Or the Darwin kernel?

          • bluewing@lemm.ee
            2·
            6 days ago

            After doing a quick search, I don’t see enough differences for the Zen kernel to claim it’s so special. The main line kernel has to be a “one size fits all” from servers to gaming and anything in between. Zen is just a recompiled mainline kernel with some chosen optimizations for better specific use cases-- mostly desktop/gaming. Which is nothing I can’t do if I recompile my bog standard Fedora kernel for those optimizations.

  • cley_faye@lemmy.world
    91·
    7 days ago

    Hardware support is not really the province of distro, to me. Which makes them even more ridiculous.

  • Matt@lemmy.ml
    31·
    7 days ago

    Does my distro qualify for this? I already implemented my own package manager and init system in Rust, and the only thing to do is to port build scripts from Arch to my format and make an ISO.

  • MetalMachine@feddit.nlEnglish
    31·
    7 days ago

    Yep, your talent can be used elsewhere. Whether it’s a new program or contributions to open spurce