Over the past few days, I've been working on some Linux-based setups, bringing back some of my old solutions (with a few adaptations) to make them work the way I like. Mostly inspired by some of the ideas of simplicity that come from the BSD world.
I'm using Alpine Linux as a base, and I've been testing these setups on both proper servers and SBCs, for various reasons.
And, all things considered, some distributions (like Alpine, for example) have remained fairly true to the original ideas of simplicity and predictability. I still enjoy using Linux when it’s logical and predictable.
And this got me thinking: some distributions have gone from:
"Hey, we're a solid, simple, and reliable alternative to Windows. Give us a try!"
to:
"Hey, we support practically all your hardware, just like Windows" (which, to be fair, was a real achievement)
to:
"Hey, Windows! I’ve become just like you!"
As if complexity automatically meant "enterprise-grade", and being "enterprise-grade" were something everyone should aspire to - even on a laptop or a small SBC.
There's nothing wrong with solving complex problems. Some complexity is unavoidable, and sometimes even necessary. But complexity should be the price we sometimes have to pay to solve problems, not something we proudly advertise as a feature.
Otherwise, we end up exactly where we started: just like Windows. Or perhaps even worse.
@stefano Per qualcuno che usa Linux poco più per desktop, fino a quando tieni le distribuzioni come sono funziona, ma quando apri il cofano è un casino che ti fa domandare se vale la pena, visto che di solito manca qualcosa e ti serve quella "repository extra".
FreeBSD non è "comodo" (ancora?) perché ti possono mancare alcune utility grafiche comuni sul desktop linux (e la comodità in sè non è male), ma se apri il suddetto cofano fai tutto senza fare salti mortali.