- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
I know this might be a couple months old, but I didn’t know we already passed 4%.
I know this might be a couple months old, but I didn’t know we already passed 4%.
Yeah. Well, in on Linux in large part because of the diversity, choice, and options. If I wanted a monolithic, incestuous lock-in culture, I’d be on Windows, or a Mac.
Linux may have been simply making an observation, not a judgment, but fuck monocultures.
I’m thinking this comes from the consideration of taking imagery at the root of people’s brains when they hear Linux. Reiterating elements of the Windows or Mac UI over the decades, even if they had small visual changes, enable a significantly large population of the world to imagine the desktop even just while mentioned in a passing. Anyone that doesn’t use either of these OSes at least can have a basic imagery popping up about it due to constant advertising of the desktop via direct ads, support pages, tech websites using generic desktop images, screen shares, etc.
Linux is wild west in this regard. Everyone knows how Windows or MacOS looks like thanks to their abundant copies of descriptive bounty posters, but only other Linux users are familiar with other Linux desktops and that is usually as the names of fellow bounty hunters.
Yeah. When I think of Linux, I think of the terminal. It’s the only constant over the years.
My septagenarian father thinks Linux looks like Linux Mint, because that’s what I first set up for him, and that’s what I walked him through installing on a new computer.
Viva la difference.
To much diversity of options and choices are just as bad and damaging as having none at all.
But how much is too much? Diversity is a great thing for people, makes technology less authoritative and more inclusive.
Authorative drive is what makes software more inclusive. It can focus the resources and attention where its needed, to create a superior product. Linus being a bulldog with the Kernel is proof enough with that.
Design by commitee does not make things more inclusive. It just leads to people not getting their way, having a huff, and screaming “I’M GOING TO FORK THIS AND GO MAKE MY OWN VERSION, WITH BLACKJACK, AND HOOKERS!”, and now you have two teams doing the same thing, and being lesser due to the split dev time and attention. and will probably lead to more forks, and more splits of teams.
Doesnt mean it has to be monolithic/monoculture. but a single product that serves 80% of everyones wants and desires is a better, superior product to one that tries to cater to and serve 100% to each, different individual.
and most people wont even notice the 20% difference in their everyday usage and life. They just get told something, or get a wrong idea, and are hard pressed to give it up cause humans can rarely admit their own wrong.
Where a particular groups think it’s needed.
Let’s take some examples. In the linux world, there are multiple DEs, with different GUIs and approaches on how to interact with a computer. People used to the windows look might feel better and be more productive in KDE, while people who are more used to phones might prefer GNOME. There are DEs that are very lightweight with resources, so that people with older machines aren’t left out, and there are people who don’t even like DEs at all, who might prefer something like i3. In the end, everyone can have something to run on their machines, and which they will feel more comfortable with, instead of a particular group of people deciding how someone should interact with a computer, and people having to use it the way they want, whether they like it or not.
I agree with that, and maybe we’re talking about different things? The kind of diversity I mention is multiple projects aiming at 80% of different people, but coexisting.
I have to disagree. We can’t have too many monocultures.