How do we encourage open source devs to work together instead of forking projects for every little additional feature they want in a software?
>>54526226
pay them
>>54526226
That's freedom for you anon, imposing a single distribution would be just like using windows or osx, and neckbeards really need that "muh special snowflake" feeling with their distros.
>>54526226
>yfw fragmentation is opensores' demise and there's nothing you can do about it
>>54526246
>imposing
I said encourage
>>54526238
This. Nothing else will work.
>>54526226
Stop using rebranded/forked cancer and it will die eventually. Each time you download "yet another shitty fork of a fork of a fork" you are encouraging those underage special-snowflake faggots to continue spreading their meaningless and useless cancerous bloat.
can someone explain the redundancy? why there is a need for so many distros based off of yet another distro?
can we just accept that most of these should not be recognized as they are merely just a copy of the original distro with a custom install script?
this would be like making a custom theme for gnome, then repackaging that as another DE.
>>54526380
Hello and welcome to stone age, here's your stone club.
>>54526226
>how can we make antisocial autists not antisocial autists
What's the difference in distros? Couldn't I do exactly the same shit on Arch, Debian and Ubuntu?
Force every program to rely on Systemd.
>>54526394
>freetard logic at its finest
>>54526390
See CrunchBang
>>54526394
Explain what's wrong with his post.
>everyone should cooperate!
>half of the devs quit and go create more forks
Systemd is basically trying to eliminate some of this redundancy. It's trying to build a base system for gnu/linux and standardize certain features between different distros.
>>54526506
Surprise, surprise: when $company hires lots of FOSS developers to work together on a coherent goal it's called a conspiracy theory.
This is an imaginary problem. Every fork is easily ignorable. If you insist on only using the -most popular distro- then wouldn't you just be using Ubuntu with Unity?
Instead of looking at some "Distro" chart with Debian and GeeXbox on the same list, why not just look at the top 10 list of Distrowatch and fuck off with pointless moaning?
The reason they're open source developers to begin with is because they're too autistic and combative to work in a team environment, so no one will pay them to program. Good luck changing that.
>>54526238
this. Donate money to the project you like, abandon others.
Look at Linux Mint for example. They were pretty much Ubuntu with Cinnamon, but now:
>while they import packages from Ubuntu or Debian, they hi-jack package and binary names by re-using existing names. For example, they called their fork of gdm2 "mdm" which supposedly means "Mint Display Manager". However, the problem is that there already is a package "mdm" in Debian which are "Utilities for single-host parallel shell scripting". Thus, on Mint, the original "mdm" package cannot be installed.
>Another example of such a hi-jack are their new "X apps" which are supposed to deliver common apps for all desktops which are available on Linux Mint. Their first app of this collection is an editor which they forked off the Mate editor "pluma". And they called it "xedit", ignoring the fact that there already is an "xedit" making the old "xedit" unusable by hi-jacking its namespace.
https://lwn.net/Articles/676664/
These bunch of amateurs forked a bunch of basic apps to ensure they are "stable" (read: outdated).
Why do I need to work together with some retard's shitty codebase just because more people use it? Fuck that.
Other people's code is bug-ridden garbage. It's there so I can learn from their mistakes. I build only private, unlicensed, fully copyrighted packages on private repositories. And you know what? I'm so much more productive. I can count in one hand the people whose code I trust enough to depend on.
Maybe if kernel developers were contributing to my shit I'd give a fuck. But no, it's literally a starbucks code monkey world out there.
This is a bigger problem than I think people realize. It's good to have several different options with different goals, but having thousands of distros or dozens of firefox forks is just over the top. People want to have their own pet project that they control, when they could help the ecosystem much more of they just contributed to the existing, popular projects.
>>54526776
>unlicensed, fully copyrighted
???
>>54526800
Aren't most of these distros just different pieces of software that already exists? I think you're overestimating the quality of their work.
This might sound like I'm bashing people who manage distributions, but what if the people in question aren't skilled enough to contribute?
Am I wrong in assuming that the majority of these "distros" are people who just want Debian with some OTHER kind of software installed in place of whatever it's default is? It might be obnoxious when you're creating a chart but it's not like this person was going to be a useful contributor anyway.
>>54526889
Pretty much all of ubuntu's sponsored forks are like that
>>54526889
There's no need for that person to make such a small change into a competing product, if someone wants that thing installed, he can install it on Debian, there's no good reason to make a new distribution with slightly different defaults.
>>54526810
Anything published without a license is copyright by default.
>>54526983
I usually take "unlicensed" to mean explicitly put in the public domain
>>54527010
No, it means I didn't choose a license, which is equivalent to not licensing, which means nobody can use my shit.
>>54527010
Think of it like this:
A license is a grant by someone of authority to someone else to utilize something. Being unlicensed means there was not grant given so you cannot legally use that thing.
>>54527010
almost every country has a copyright law which protects the creator by default.
>>54527044
>>54527055
>>54527133
I understand that, which is why I said "explicitly". I was thinking of things like http://unlicense.org/ and CC0
