Software for Linux is a lot more complicated than, say, software for MacOs. Instead of having one simple binary that you update for every version of the operating system, you have hundreds of binaries for many Linux distros, with different package managers, formats, init systems, and even userlands. Many people see this as an issue, and try to use a universal package manager, and then they fight about which universal package manager to use. But, I am here to propose, that not only is the fragmenting of Linux not an issue, universal package managers are unneeded and inefficient.
I wouldn’t go that far as the “guy with a computer”, for example in the case of gnu+linux phones, and gnu+linux non desktop (mobile). There are several apps needing to be adapted to the mobile form factor and touch screen, and plain lack of apps as well, that mos probably flatpak or similar are required on gnu+linux phones.
But I truly dislike the bunch of stuff one gets installed, when installing any flatpak or similar package, both, other flatpak packages, plus what each package itself carries within. It’s way bloated in my humble opinion.
As an Artix/Arch user, I prefer AUR packages, and I even prefer AUR requiring building, over the binary (*-bin) ones, so that I get system libraries being linked, and the right built packages. And only if there’s no option (mainly unavoidable proprietary/closed apps) then I go with AUR binary packages. But if only available through flatpak or similar, then I prefer looking for an alternative SW/app.
Besides the bloated way of that kind of packaging, there’s some sort of centralization. Although there are different flatpak repos, for example, there’s sort of a “central” one, where you find most of the stuff, and then you go to other repos offering some things you don’t get on the “central” one, and if you don’t like their packaging policies, then as usual, go have your own and package yourself, I’d guess… Distros, having their different policies (not just packaging ones):
vanilla vs making many changes
rolling release vs. periodic releases
only free SW vs. free separated from non free vs. not caring at all
single packages when possible vs. splitting everything when possible
having a social sort of contract vs. not caring
focusing on security vs. other focus
focusing on privacy vs. other focus
graphical installation vs. CLI installation
toolset and tooling choices in general
musl vs glibc
guix vs apt vs yum vs pacman vs xbps vs …
enterprise focused vs end users focused
business oriented vs non profit oriented
And the divergent policies adopted by different distros grow beyond those ones. Such variety can’t be compressed into a single solution fits all. And if you’ve heard pretty influential and vocal open source guys challenging that diversity, and particularly the ability to building the SW differently, I suggest double thinking what that really means, and how that would affect different users, having divergent policies affinities. I, for example, would prefer to use gnu+guix, but given the current hw assigned to me at the office, I can’t be as free/libre SW focuses as I’d like, but I still try preferring as much free/libre SW as possible (slack and zoom are necessary evils in the office for example)…
So this reach diversity, in my mind is good and needed, and having several people building stuff is also good, since having just a few, with unique and common policies, might become dangerous…
Just another opinion, not exactly the same as the one from the “guy with a computer”, but my opinion aligns somehow with theirs.
I wouldn’t go that far as the “guy with a computer”, for example in the case of gnu+linux phones, and gnu+linux non desktop (mobile). There are several apps needing to be adapted to the mobile form factor and touch screen, and plain lack of apps as well, that mos probably flatpak or similar are required on gnu+linux phones.
But I truly dislike the bunch of stuff one gets installed, when installing any flatpak or similar package, both, other flatpak packages, plus what each package itself carries within. It’s way bloated in my humble opinion.
As an Artix/Arch user, I prefer AUR packages, and I even prefer AUR requiring building, over the binary (*-bin) ones, so that I get system libraries being linked, and the right built packages. And only if there’s no option (mainly unavoidable proprietary/closed apps) then I go with AUR binary packages. But if only available through flatpak or similar, then I prefer looking for an alternative SW/app.
Besides the bloated way of that kind of packaging, there’s some sort of centralization. Although there are different flatpak repos, for example, there’s sort of a “central” one, where you find most of the stuff, and then you go to other repos offering some things you don’t get on the “central” one, and if you don’t like their packaging policies, then as usual, go have your own and package yourself, I’d guess… Distros, having their different policies (not just packaging ones):
And the divergent policies adopted by different distros grow beyond those ones. Such variety can’t be compressed into a single solution fits all. And if you’ve heard pretty influential and vocal open source guys challenging that diversity, and particularly the ability to building the SW differently, I suggest double thinking what that really means, and how that would affect different users, having divergent policies affinities. I, for example, would prefer to use gnu+guix, but given the current hw assigned to me at the office, I can’t be as free/libre SW focuses as I’d like, but I still try preferring as much free/libre SW as possible (slack and zoom are necessary evils in the office for example)…
So this reach diversity, in my mind is good and needed, and having several people building stuff is also good, since having just a few, with unique and common policies, might become dangerous…
Just another opinion, not exactly the same as the one from the “guy with a computer”, but my opinion aligns somehow with theirs.