←back to thread

466 points CoolCold | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
akagusu ◴[] No.40212609[source]
Piece by piece, Red Hat is taking over the Linux ecosystem.
replies(5): >>40212643 #>>40212672 #>>40212743 #>>40214110 #>>40215580 #
izacus ◴[] No.40212672[source]
Well, they're the only ones actually funding development of the ecosystem, aren't they?

The rest just do a lot of opinoning and complaining and not that much of developing.

replies(1): >>40212699 #
superkuh ◴[] No.40212699[source]
The implicit premise of this comment is that linux is broken and needs to be changed. It isn't. The changes are not inherently good. Development is not inherently good. Just look at Gtk3 from 2014 to 2024. It was far more functional in 2014 (re: keyboard input) and now that has been removed because "progress".
replies(2): >>40212834 #>>40212902 #
throwaway11460 ◴[] No.40212834[source]
Nobody needs to adopt the changes. Everybody did because it's better than the alternatives. There are still systemd-less distros if you like it.
replies(2): >>40213000 #>>40213696 #
1. thecrash ◴[] No.40213696[source]
Yes, theoretically we could just stick with old software that was perfectly good at the time. The problem is that the ecosystem moves together - there's an emergent consensus about what is "current" (i.e. what's obligatory to support) across many different projects.

So each component is interrelated, and holding one back means sacrificing compatibility with the new features (and security fixes!) of many other components.

In this way we can find ourselves dragged into using software that is actually worse than it used to be. This is important to note because it means our use of a component is not proof that it's good. It just means that the ecosystem is good enough overall that it can force us to accept devolved versions of certain components.

It makes sense to argue about what the consensus of the ecosystem should be even while recognizing that we will probably accept it regardless.