Linux

8159 readers

110 users here now

Welcome to c/linux!

Welcome to our thriving Linux community! Whether you're a seasoned Linux enthusiast or just starting your journey, we're excited to have you here. Explore, learn, and collaborate with like-minded individuals who share a passion for open-source software and the endless possibilities it offers. Together, let's dive into the world of Linux and embrace the power of freedom, customization, and innovation. Enjoy your stay and feel free to join the vibrant discussions that await you!

Rules:

Stay on topic: Posts and discussions should be related to Linux, open source software, and related technologies.
Be respectful: Treat fellow community members with respect and courtesy.
Quality over quantity: Share informative and thought-provoking content.
No spam or self-promotion: Avoid excessive self-promotion or spamming.
No NSFW adult content
Follow general lemmy guidelines.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.world

Btrfs should've been Wayland (lemmy.zip)

submitted 1 day ago by possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip to c/linux@lemmy.world

76 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I think the problem with btrfs is that it entered the spotlight way to early. With Wayland there was time to work on a lot of the kinks before everyone started seriously switching.

On btrfs a bunch of people switched blindly and then lost data. This caused many to have a bad impression of btrfs. These days it is significantly better but because there was so much fear there is less attention paid to it and it is less widely used.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] lancalot@discuss.online 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I suppose that's a fair assessment. Thanks for the clarification!

However, I do give precedence over their current situations.

So, if e.g. Arch would continue to exist, but ultimately became the downstream/derivative of another distro, then I would stop regarding it as 'main'. Which one may argue happened between RHEL and Fedora.
Similarly, if a derivative starts building their own repos and becomes entirely independent from the distro they were originally derived from, then I'd stop regarding them as a derivative. Instead I'd acknowledge them as an independent distro. Like how openSUSE ultimately is derived from Slackware, but they're hardly comparable today.

Regarding NixOS, it and other independent distros are absent in the link you provided. NixOS is literally its own thing and also old; older than Ubuntu and Android for example. So, if anything, it did deserve a mention. Though, I suppose the maker of that website didn't think it was relevant enough to be included over three years ago. NixOS' popularity has thankfully exploded in the mean time, though.

[–] bargo@mastodon.tn 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

@lancalot I understand the list I provided is not necessarily complete, because Void & Solus are also independent, however, for them to be "main", they should have "derivatives", I don't claim that I have a big Linux experience, but I tried & documented myself about the distros on the list, & can confirm that they are "main", I also tried Nix OS, the use of 1 config file is refreshing, however that ease comes at the cost of some flexibility, installing Steam there is too complicated for me

[–] lancalot@discuss.online 1 points 14 hours ago

however, for them to be “main”, they should have “derivatives”,

Got you. Aight. I suppose that does disqualify NixOS. Though, to be fair, Guix System is heavily inspired from NixOS.

I also tried Nix OS, the use of 1 config file is refreshing, however that ease comes at the cost of some flexibility, installing Steam there is too complicated for me

Hehe 😜. Yeah, the paradigm shift associated with NixOS isn't one that's overcome in one sitting. But it's cool to hear that you've tested it for yourself.

Anyhow, this was a cool interaction. Thank you for offering your insights! Wish you, my akhi in (at least) humanity, a lovely day!