There are two Linux paradigms that I consider stupid. One is the use of centralized software repositories managed by the distro instead of individual developer maintained installers. The other one is file system case sensibility. They already admitted defeat on the first one with the rise of containerised applications. I wonder how much longer they’ll keep the charade on the second one.
Indeed, but I’m sure we can agree that it’s pretty stupid for every distro to maintain its own repo. That’s a lot of duplicate work, which could be spend on more useful things. Luckily flatpak is well on its way to change that
Hm… But different distros have different philosophies (not just) about updates. That’s part of why people choose a specific distro.
Theres still plenty speaking against flatpak (larger sizes, problems with GTK/qt themes, and it’s only meant for GUI applications - you still need a separate system for the kernel and lower-level/cli tools. And frankly, that makes flatpak unusable to me, because the purpose of a centralized package management system is not having duplicate systems).
So in short: y’all are gonna pry pacman from my cold, dead hand.
I’m not against distros as a whole, some extra work will be inevitable because people have different preferences, but it feels like a waste having a Firefox package for arch, ubuntu, fedora and Debian while essentially all being identical. Indeed flatpak isn’t perfect yet, but it works great for me and it’s steadily improving
There are two Linux paradigms that I consider stupid. One is the use of centralized software repositories managed by the distro instead of individual developer maintained installers. The other one is file system case sensibility. They already admitted defeat on the first one with the rise of containerised applications. I wonder how much longer they’ll keep the charade on the second one.
Sorry, but you’re plain wrong on your first issue. Getting all your packages from one source is one of the biggest upsides of Linux.
Pretty hilarious for mac users, of all people, to complain about centralisation. Like, don’t you live in a walled garden?
Indeed, but I’m sure we can agree that it’s pretty stupid for every distro to maintain its own repo. That’s a lot of duplicate work, which could be spend on more useful things. Luckily flatpak is well on its way to change that
Hm… But different distros have different philosophies (not just) about updates. That’s part of why people choose a specific distro.
Theres still plenty speaking against flatpak (larger sizes, problems with GTK/qt themes, and it’s only meant for GUI applications - you still need a separate system for the kernel and lower-level/cli tools. And frankly, that makes flatpak unusable to me, because the purpose of a centralized package management system is not having duplicate systems).
So in short: y’all are gonna pry pacman from my cold, dead hand.
The same goes for me, but with Portage, brother.
I’m not against distros as a whole, some extra work will be inevitable because people have different preferences, but it feels like a waste having a Firefox package for arch, ubuntu, fedora and Debian while essentially all being identical. Indeed flatpak isn’t perfect yet, but it works great for me and it’s steadily improving
I have a third one for you. Not being able to pick where things install. Everything installs to the os disk. Terrible idea.