Are they so different that it’s justified to have so many different distributions? So far I guess that different package manager are the reason that divides the linux community. One may be on KDE and one on GNOME but they can use each other’s packages but usually you are bound to one manager

  • AProfessional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The package manager is really only a small part of the story.

    A distro at the end of the day is a API/ABI platform. What makes Debian what it is, is that it has a specific set of old unmoving packages. What makes Arch is that it has the latest APIs always. And everything in between like Fedora.

    So even if Fedora used dpkg it wouldn’t change anything, you can’t use its packages on Debian.

    As to why so many exist… well a lot of them suck in their own unique way.

    • Vilian@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      As to why so many exist… well a lot of them suck in their own unique way.

      lmao, true

    • iopq@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Except in NixOS, it’s literally a distro built around a package manager. But it doesn’t force you to choose, you can have both unstable and stable packages

      • AProfessional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yeah modern usage in general involves silo’d ABIs, be it Flatpak, Nix, Docker/Podman. Modern languages even try to move away from any ABI.

        Of course there are upsides and downsides to the traditional approach.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Modern languages even try to move away from any ABI.

          I wouldn’t put it that way. In the case of Rust, it seems everyone wants to have a stable ABI for a number of reasons (e.g. making dynamic linking possible without FFI), but the core developers feel like the ABI is still too unstable to commit to anything.

          • AProfessional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            In my experience a lot of Rust developers love the lack of shared libraries and bundling everything, viewing it as a huge win. Maybe someday it will support it but I feel it will be less commonly relied on.

            • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I’ve seen that sentiment but I think it’s more a matter of people making excuses for Rust and not wanting to admit that it has any shortcomings compared to C++.

              It’s the same mentality that leads C++ developers to defend things like header files.