Yes but investors and users seem to react well to it. Opencode for
example gets mentioned more often than Cline even though it’s arguably inferior, openclaw is another example. Just name your stuff openX to win..
This isn't a good dichotomy though. Either "Build it from source" or "Wait for a professional 3rd party to package it for you".
The idea that your OS distro needs to explicitly support and package every software you could ever want to use seems crazy to me.
Both users and authors want the same thing: low-effort, high-quality distribution of software.
Personally I put my support behind flatpak for GUI, mise for CLI/TUI, but it's not a perfect solution and I occasionally bail out to homebrew/linuxbrew.
> The idea that your OS distro needs to explicitly support and package every software you could ever want to use seems crazy to me.
No one is under that impression, not maintainers nor users. The idea is that every software that is common and/or popular and/or useful enough to someone who is willing to maintain it, is managed by the distribution/repository staff itself, as they're the ones who knows the distribution best. Some software requires patches to be fully compatible, some distributions expect certain files in certain places and so on, and no one expects every developers to understand the idiosyncrasies of every distribution they want to potentially ship to.
But that doesn't mean ALL software you use has to come from these official software repositories maintained by the distribution. Most of my packages are from the official Arch repositories, maintained by people who know what they're doing extremely well, and almost gives you certain "guarantees" by the mere existence in that official registry. But then some software I use is installed via the AUR, which is more like npm, where anyone can publish anything, close review of everything is required for this, it's the wild west. And some software I install/run by having local GitHub checkouts I build binaries from. Finally some are just stray binaries in ~/bin/ that I've had for decades and don't even know where they're from anymore. All are "correct" for what purpose they serve, yet the official Arch repositories still remains extremely important and valuable for stability.
Still, the software that almost all of the distribution users use, like wayland or systemd, is maintained by these people and explicitly "supported" by the distribution, as far as that term holds in FOSS.
> This isn't a good dichotomy though. Either "Build it from source" or "Wait for a professional 3rd party to package it for you".
Somebody has to do the work. Apparently you won't accept it for that to be the developer, the user, or a "professional third party" (whatever "professional" means here). What exactly do you want?
> Personally I put my support behind flatpak for GUI, mise for CLI/TUI, but it's not a perfect solution and I occasionally bail out to homebrew/linuxbrew.
So third parties. Things that have reinvented "distributions", arguably badly. Are you saying they're not "professional"?
1. I want it to be easy for developers to publish their own packages.
2. I want it to be easy for users to install these developer-published packages.
> Are you saying they're not "professional"?
I regret using the word professional, I was replying to the claim GP made:
> Packaging it for a distro is someone else's job
Well I (as a developer) want to publish my own software without waiting and hoping someone else will do it for me.
> Somebody has to do the work.
Yes, I (the developer) want to do the work. The whole point of the article is that its painful to do today. I'm interested in how we make the packaging work easier so the developers can do it.
> [...] So third parties
the whole 3rd/1st party question is whether a developer can publish their own package. In most cases they technically can (taps, PRs, flathub, Debian registries, so on) but run into lots of issues along the way.
OLED screens are famous for having great contrast, especially deep blacks. The website is in the style of a 90's geocities website with garish colours and some absolute black #000000 backgrounds.
Most people would have seen those websites on shitty low contrast CRT monitors, so seeing them again today with a modern OLED is a very different experience.
I'm very excited by this idea. I feel like email/chat is ripe for reinvention.
I don't agree with "Domain control as a fallback", as the author said "a domain is not owned, it is rented" and I want to normalise the idea that if you lose your private key, you need to start again. I hate that we keep giving so much authority to domains, it's such a big weakness. The author even left the key rotation chain out of the initial implementation.
I still think root/signer keys or sigchains are decent options.
Looks very good and I'm excited to try it out properly. It's a shame about the name considering a lot of self-hosters will be using BentoPDF. But thats one of two hard things in Computer Science.
reply