@malwareminigun @drewdevault ~80 % of the packages in ubuntu are based on the debian ones which are maintained by unpaid volunteers for the most part. I don't know how the numbers are for fedora, but I imagine it's similar. Imho distro packages are the superior in many ways, and I'd rather compile from source than use a flatpak or curl | sh tbh. Most applications I use are distro packages anyway. I think reinventing package formats isn't gonna improve linux itself
@drewdevault @malwareminigun sure did, as distro maintainer myself I agree.
- replies
- 0
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0
@malwareminigun @drewdevault upstream shouldn't need to ship anything, if it's a good and free software people will distribute it.
@malwareminigun @drewdevault ask distro maintainers to backport the fix (which debian does btw for CVEs and other security fixes; even regyalr backports exist) or use a newer system. There's always gonna be a tradeoff between stability and new features.
@malwareminigun @drewdevault stable exists for a reason; if you want new stuff use debian sid or testing. Simple as that.
@malwareminigun the two big DE, KDE and GNOME have a half-yearly release schedule (iirc) and that usually alignes with Debian releasing ~ every two years. This allows shipping the latest stable release (usually) so users still have a somewhat current system until the next release. Like I said, you have to make a tradeoff somewhere. Reinventing package formats when rpm and dpkg have been battle-tested and around for more than 30 years seems like waste to me