GlyphI'm mad about linux distros again today and I think I am realizing why this is so hard for me to write about systemically: I have a software engineer brain and so I try to model the various problems as technical problems. And there are numerous technical problems to think about (platform interfaces, ABI boundaries, release management, etc) but the core problem is a social one, which requires a social solution.
In short, all the volunteer-based distributions need to have a gigantic conference where they all come together and *agree to stop working on about 99% of them*, to pool efforts to make a real Linux platform. A lot of people will need to put their egos aside and decide to acquiesce to solutions they believe to be technically inferior, in order to be able to address the diffusion of labor into pointlessly recreating basically the same toolchain a thousand times.
This is a big problem because labor is not fungible and the reason that a lot of these people got involved in distro development *in the first place* is that those sorts of problems and systems are interesting and engaging for them to work on. They all want to have control over a packaging tool, or a build farm, or whatever. The redundancy is a huge problem and a huge waste but it's also the engine that powers the whole thing, to some extent.
Fixing the problem involves driving a truck through that load-bearing "to some extent". Doing a big ugly multi-party negotiation to figure out how we can EOL Qt, to replace it with Gtk everywhere, and get all the Gtk devs on board with being *extremely* nice to the Qt people as we sunset their work. (Did you feel a little thrill because I picked Gtk instead of Qt? Well, I flipped a coin. Imagine I said Qt wins instead of Gtk. You're gonna be that mad about *big* parts of this, no matter what.)
Stephen Rosen@glyph there are problems, but I don't see the redundant efforts of various duplicated components as a core issue.
A lot of Linux is about avoiding monoculture. vim *and* emacs. Snap *and* flatpack.
It's something that emerges naturally from people trying to create a hackable platform.
I think we'd be better off if people shared ideas and infrastructure without denigrating one another's work. We should have both Qt and Gtk so that they can cross pollinate.
@glyph To be clear, I agree with your complaint, as I read it. It's the twofold
- you aren't providing something non-developers can use
- you aren't providing something developers can easily target
Canonical is trying to make Ubuntu the desktop distro. And tons of software ships as .debs, whether or not that's really the best choice.
The wild English garden of Linux can continue to exist, alongside a TiVo-ized, consumer oriented Ubuntu. But if you lose the anarchy, it's not Linux.