> "The sideloading restriction is easily solved by installing GrapheneOS"
> "Unless they block ADB, I wouldn't say it's accurate to claim they're "blocking sideloading"".
Not to pick on these folks but it's like we on HN have forgotten that ordinary people use phones too. For some of us, it's not a limitation as long as we can solder a JTAG debugger to some test pads on the PCB and flash our own firmware, but for most users that's just about as possible as replacing the OS.
I, someone extremely new to Linux (hell, new to computers), was bewildered. Then a commenter replied with something that helped me and exactly what I needed. He added a note directed towards others which went something like - the battle for Linux as THE desktop OS was sabotaged by its most ardent practitioners.
> the battle for Linux as THE desktop OS was sabotaged by its most ardent practitioners.
You can't have wizards without first having noobs.
Why gatekeep people from enjoying the same thing you enjoy?
Well, I guess all that gave us EndeavourOS and Manjaro. But still, we need more places for people to learn that nitty gritty stuff.
Hell, I'd love to learn more about the hardware hacking the OP is talking about. Love to learn about those GPU hardware modifications people do. I know it's hacker news, but I'd actually love to learn about that hacker stuff. If these companies are going to continue to fight this hard to prevent us from owning the things we buy, it sounds like an important thing to learn. Or else we're soon going to have robot butlers that are just sending lidar maps and high resolution photos of our homes back to these companies. We don't need elitest pricks, we need wizards teaching noobs
That's an easy one to answer: they will eventually demand that Foo changes and remove things they do not like. It has happened to all media, it has happened to all software, you can be damn sure it will happen to something as modular as a Linux distribution.
Having bad or no support for your software isn't some good way to keep it 'pure', it's just keeping it less useful/relevant. Linux is OSS: fork it if you don't like something new, but don't hurt the ecosystem.
Deliberately hamstringing software or documentation so that others will stay away and not make changes is literally antithetical to OSS as a philosophy.
Neither of this is true. There are plenty non-technical users that will be suggesting changes, there are plenty of technical users where they don't want things to change.
> Having bad or no support for your software isn't some good way to keep it 'pure', it's just keeping it less useful/relevant.
You are conflating "bad or no support" with "gate-keeping". Gate-keeping is about keeping riff raff out, but allowing those that are interesting to a path to being involved.
With respect to Linux distros. Linux is like a "kit". Different people offer you different "kits" called distros. Some of these kits may be given to you pre-assembled (Ubuntu/Fedora/Debian), other will require partial assembly (Arch) and some will require full assembly (Gentoo/LFS).
Arch/Void/Gentoo flavours of Linux don't advertise itself a user friendly distro like Ubuntu/Mint/Fedora. *It is expected you read the documentation and understand the command line*.
Thus why people were suggesting they should use the CLI tool. If a user doesn't want this, they should use something else.
Having a "noob" version of installation instructions for something like Arch/Gentoo will have the effect of allowing someone to fumble about and maybe achieve getting something functional, but they won't actually understand what they are actually doing and this will cause them problems in the future as they won't understand how to fix issues when they arise.
> Linux is OSS: fork it if you don't like something new, but don't hurt the ecosystem.
It is extremely difficult for even for large companies to run their own fork of large open source projects. Sure you can fork a smaller piece of software and maintain your own version, but anything significant you are unlikely to be able to do that. So you are forced either to use the changes you may not like, or you use something different, or you are are like the anti-systemd crowd essentially running a protest distro.
Also all the big forks in the software ecosystem is when two important factions have disagreed fundamentally on the direction of the project. We are not talking about individual users or developers, we are talking about the top tier developers/maintainers. A part-time/bedroom coder is unlikely to have any significant effect, even if they did it is often lead to burnout of these developers.
> Deliberately hamstringing software or documentation so that others will stay away and not make changes is literally antithetical to OSS as a philosophy.
Ignoring the fact that you are misstating the issue. It isn't antithetical to the philosophy at all. People decide their own level of involvement in any group activity. If you aren't willing to "pay your dues", then it maybe better for you to not be involved.
You will BTW see this to varying extents in Churches, Cricket Clubs and even your place of employment.
e.g. If you go to Church you have to accept certain tenants about the faith or at least respect them while you are there. I've been invited to Churches in my local area, by very nice people that I would like to get to know, but I can't believe in Christ, so I don't go.
Suggesting is not making. Non-technical users will not be making changes.
> You are conflating "bad or no support" with "gate-keeping".
If the support is intentionally removed with the goal of keeping out people, then it's both. That was the premise accepted by both of the comments above mine, hence my comment working from that premise.
> Having a "noob" version of installation instructions for something like Arch/Gentoo will have the effect of allowing someone to fumble about and maybe achieve getting something functional, but they won't actually understand what they are actually doing and this will cause them problems in the future as they won't understand how to fix issues when they arise.
Everyone is a noob at some point, so getting rid of documentation is only a means to prevent someone from learning. There is no cost to anyone if someone installs Arch without being an expert in the CLI.
> It is extremely difficult for even for large companies to run their own fork of large open source projects.
Agreed. And if there aren't enough people who are willing to support a fork to manage one, there aren't enough people to justify preventing a change that keeps the current version as it is (which is what in this case, that fork would be).
I.e. if there aren't enough people who support the current version, to maintain an unchanged version as a fork, there aren't enough people who support the current version to justify not changing it in the first place.
> If you aren't willing to "pay your dues", then it maybe better for you to not be involved.
Where are you getting this from? The whole conversation was newcomers making changes. Code contributions (i.e. changes) are explicitly the "dues" that OSS devs 'pay'.
> If you go to Church you have to accept certain tenants about the faith or at least respect them while you are there.
If enough of the congregation feels it needs to change, it will (or it will die out). Modern versions of religions look nothing like they did hundreds of years ago, and not all the changes happened due to schisms/ forks. Everything changes, or it dies.
No it isn't. Stating it is doesn't make it so.
If I expect you to follow a particular procedure and not support another (which is deemed initially friendly) that is perfectly valid. If it keeps people out that wouldn't otherwise be able to follow it, that is a positive, not negative.
It can gatekeep and be authoritative.
> That was the premise accepted by both of the comments above mine, hence my comment working from that premise.
And the premise is incorrect. Thus my comment.
There are also other reasons. Like having two version of the documentation causes confusion in itself.
> Everyone is a noob at some point, so getting rid of documentation is only a means to prevent someone from learning.
Not if the "noob" documentation obscures knowledge by letting people skip important parts of understanding the process.
> There is no cost to anyone if someone installs Arch without being an expert in the CLI.
Yes there is. That person will quiz people in discord, forums, voice chats, reddit etc when they will invariably be presented with an issue that they cannot resolve. Similarly that why people distro-hop.
RTFM response actually trains people to solve their own problems and is the correct way, by first following the process and then only asking when the process doesn't work.
> Where are you getting this from? The whole conversation was newcomers making changes. Code contributions (i.e. changes) are explicitly the "dues" that OSS devs 'pay'.
I was talking about the benefits of gate-keeping in general. I never said anything about specific about code contributions.
BTW, these people will affect code contributions. Much of the Linux desktop is a clone of other systems (typically Windows) to appease users that expect that UI. This actually dominated the conversation for about 15 years in linux.
If we are talking about the newbies. They have to prove they can follow the documentation provided i.e. RTFM.
> If enough of the congregation feels it needs to change, it will (or it will die out). Modern versions of religions look nothing like they did hundreds of years ago, and not all the changes happened due to schisms/ forks. Everything changes, or it dies.
Every group is lead by a minority. The minority in every group, set the agenda, not the majority. That is fact of life, if you think otherwise you are mistaken. Even revolts are usually led by people who are part of disgruntled minority. Every one of those changes would have been made either by someone important in the Church or the state (as the state and the church was typically tied).
Every single one of those changes were made by elites or governments at the time. Not the majority of the congregation. BTW many of the Churches in England and Europe didn't change that much, that why loads of these people migrated in the first place to the US.
BTW many young converts are going to the Orthodox Church because they see it as the most "OG" version of the Church, because some people crave what they believe to be the authentic experience.