• adam_y@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    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.

    • haverholm@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      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.

    • CameronDev@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 days ago

      Variety is good to a point. Too many alternatives and all you get is a bunch of under-resourced and unpolished results.

      • adam_y@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 days ago

        I disagree.

        This assumes that progress on one distro doesn’t lead to progress on others.

        • CameronDev@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 days ago

          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.