Developer-driven software distribution is a bad idea, which is why I dislike things like Flatpak.
Having distro maintainers involved in the process and installing your software from a free software distribution like Debian or FreeBSD is a much better distribution of power. The packages can be tuned to suit their environment without the developer having to repackage it for every distro, and the distro maintainers can keep out anti-features like telemetry and advertising.
The middleman may seem annoying to developers, but embrace the model and it'll work for you. Landing packages in your favorite distro isn't actually that hard, and the rest of the distros will follow. If you're an end-user who wants to see some software available for your distro, look into packaging and volunteer - it's easy.
@sir One of the major features of Flatpak is using container technology to make sure no matter the distro, the package is running in the same environment as the developer's machine, so there is no need to "tune for the environment."
For the anti-feature point, if you have problems with the source, you should fork it, not pretend you are distributing the app while in reality you are distributing something else.
> I'll take 90% the stability for 10% the complexity any day of the week.
Yeah, me too if it's reducing complexity by 90% in return for reducing stability by 10%.
Out of curiosity, how much increased complexity (if any) would you accept for 10% more stability?
(Not that I have any idea how to measure either in practice…)
@codesections @grainloom @cagatayy once a system reaches a practical threshold of stability, I will not take anything but slight increases in complexity to push the number further up. In the bootloader case, it's hardly difficult to boot up from your recovery disk and fix it the once in a blue moon it happens
Fosstodon is an English speaking Mastodon instance that is open to anyone who is interested in technology; particularly free & open source software.