In the era of Flatpak, I kind of agree with you.
The primary drawback is the complete lack of packages. A home user is going to want something not included and then things fall apart. Flatpaks and Distrobox have made that a lot better.
If you could get away with a RHEL core and Flatpak for apps, you would have a pretty solid setup for a “normal” person.
Yes. And historically, what is the right response to a country that is doing that?
I have a lot of sympathy. I feel awful for them. Unfortunately, it is the kind of sympathy I would feel for an enemy soldier that I think is maybe fighting against their will. I feel bad for them but there is no way I am putting my gun down while they are around. They are still the enemy and “they” are still trying to kill me. We are not going to be friends.
The project has said it is a goal to move to a dual language model. So, no, it is not reasonable.
What would be reasonable would be technical arguments or pragmatic logistical concerns with the goal of finding solutions. What would be reasonable would be asking for and accepting help.
None of the reasonable stuff is happening. So, it not reasonable.
I doubt you care but others may want to know that you just hit the nail on the head. Just not the way you think.
All the Rust folks want is for “technically superior” solutions to be accepted on their merits. The exact problem is that some influential Linux folks have decided that “technically superior” is not the benchmark.
Take the exact case that has led to the current debate. The maintainer said explicitly that he will NEVER accept Rust. It was NOT a technical argument. It was a purely political one.
In the Ted Tso debacle. a high profile Rust contributor quite Linux with the explicit explanation that the best technical solutions were being rejected and that the C folks were only interested in political arguments instead of technical ones.
If it was true that “technically superior” solutions were being accepted, the R4L team would be busy building those instead of arguing.
Fair point. I do think burn out is a problem for the process in general. I guess Linux has always benefited from the long line of people looking to contribute. As long as progress is being made, I expect that to continue here.
What code has he not merged? Was his argument technical or political?
I see lots of R4L code being merged in each of the last few releases.
I also do not see the email where Linus supported Christoph. I see the one where he chewed out Hector for “social media brigading”. That is not the same thing as supporting the maintainer. Hector is not even the one submitting the Rust code in question. He just piled on in the LKML later.
Love those two recs
The core packages, including the desktop environment are much more up-to-date than Debian. This addresses one of the core short-comings of Debian while maintaining most of its strengths. LMDE comes with Xapps as well, the core user applications.
It is pretty hard to find software not available in Arch / AUR.
On non-Arch distros, installing an Arch Distrobox is my favourite way to install software not found in the native repos.
If you need a replacement for full fledged Visual Studio, JetBrains has you covered. Clion for C/C++ and Rider for C#.
Visual Studio Code works great on Linux.
The release notes refer to the “few remaining issues”.
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gimp/-/milestones/3#tab-issues
There seem to be 115 issues on there which is more than “a few”. However, only 3 are listed as blockers. But a dozen of them are crashes.
How many of these need to be fixed before the 3.0 release? Does anybody know?