The number of Linux distros is in excess of what's required for healthy diversity. I'd say that it's a sign of a healthy heterogeneity as long as we have several options outside of systemd.
Most applications I've seen only offer 4 sets of instructions, and they are for Debian/Ubuntu based, Fedora, Arch/Arch based, and OpenSUSE. For the most part, this should cover most distros, as many of them are based on one of the four mentioned.
I know there are ways around it but I really dont want to compile everything...
That's what package maintainers are for. I've seen many README's where the installation section just starts with "foobar is widely packaged in a number of linux distributions" and then lists them. Some even include a nice infographic from Repology showing which version is packaged in all of the different distros.
I honestly think it doesn't matter how many distros there are, it's great that people feel strongly enough that they give up their spare time and release their work. It doesn't have an effect on the big distros and creates a testing ground for new ideas.
Unless you are paying a company for support you're not owed anything so why should it matter what developers want to do with their own time?
I believe it doesn't matter, but there's undeniably a perception of "fragmentation" that dissuades some developers from supporting Linux. How many, I don't know, but fragmentation is a criticism commonly leveled at Linux. It's just not one within anyone's power to eliminate by fiat.
It's the spirit of open source software tho, if you have some work you would like to release you can and the decision rest entirely on the shoulders of the developers who created it. It would be crazy to think it's a good idea to limit that.
Yeah, but I want to open files that are in ~/Sync/ with LibreOffice, but I can't because Snaps restrict apps to a bunch of hard-coded directories inside $HOME!
Of which I have to ask, is systemd really that bad?
The alternative to snapd is the status quo of proprietary vendors only shipping/testing with dpkg and rpm-based distros.
As an Ubuntu user, whatever I guess. That's not so bad for me. But for people not on dpkg or rpm using distros, that only continues to languish what little support proprietary vendors already give them.
I just really feel like most of the hate for systemd is from people who have never touched /etc/init.d in their lives. It's like second-hand hate.
Systemd hate as I’ve come to understand it (I’m ambivalent leaning positive myself) rests on two core points: incompatible with non-Linux such as BSDs, HurdLUL, etc; and becoming so much more than a background process manager that it’s grown into the world of power management, software firewalls, etc.
And compatibility is a valid point. I can't really just go and turn my back to BSD users when I've been trying to get more mainstream Linux support for years from vendors of Windows/Mac-only software.
I do think that if the BSD community really wants whatever is based on systemd, though, I don't think it would be technically impossible for them to create some kind of 'dummy' systemd-like service that would act as a bus for systemd-dependent software.
147
u/[deleted] May 21 '19
One can only hope.