Why the fuck are linux distro devs so retarded?

That would be true, but as I said, redundant build infos for the same packages are just increased maintenance for no reason, consider putting that work into something that makes sense, like working on the distro itself, now that's the way to move forward, it will be more profitable in the long run. Another thing is that new distros and PMs will get created, and those new distros will repeat the same mistake of not uniting the repos, even though there is nothing they will have to part ways with, with void linux being an example of this (though it's PM is pretty sophisticated indeed).

Cell, Void can not use existing repos in the first place, as everything is compiled against LibreSSL.

So it's only logical to make a better PM since you have to start from scratch. I just wish more software was compiled with MUSL. I was happily using it (even Texlive has support now) until it turned out that my printer drivers don't work with it.

I remember video games sucking for a while as a kid because devs couldn't decide between OpenGL or Direct3D, guess d3d was easier and eventually won, but fuck that was only two choices... (Kinda like betamax/vhs I guess...)

if they had chosen opengl we would be better off now

No, Richard, it's 'Linux', not 'GNU/Linux'. The most important contributions that the FSF made to Linux were the creation of the GPL and the GCC compiler. Those are fine and inspired products. GCC is a monumental achievement and has earned you, RMS, and the Free Software Foundation countless kudos and much appreciation. Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ. One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you? (An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.

Attached: 1506222838301.png (800x450, 311K)

Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it. You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument. Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD? If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:

Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag. Thanks for listening.

They were paid to use D3D

Plus that shit was easier to port for the konsole kiddies on XBAWKZ.

Because they have vastly different release cycles due to vastly different update philosophies.

But Nix does exactly this. You can install nix on any distro, but it integrates best with NixOS

rpm packages are defacto standard (LSB)

it's not my fault you're a tard ass who uses distros who insist on non standardized package managers and package formats

Here comes our savior.

Attached: appImage.png (720x340, 290K)

>lsb
Fuck off redhat

Different philosophies, different packagers, different views on release timelines, different opinions about how distributions should be structured, different tools for packaging, etc.

Already exists, it's called Bedrock Linux.

This short exchange describes why the linux community is so fractured, in a nutshell.

Everyone should just start using Debian and the standardization would solve itself that way. If someone creates a package for Linux it's always either .deb or do-it-yourself. GDebi installs those with ease by clicking one button that says "install". How could it get any easier than that?

how about no. all of you typed is consequence, the reason is "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard"
repos it's a fucking MITM (developer->maintainer->user)