The story begins with a man doing the things described in the picture. He is puzzled and becomes interested in finding out more about it. His wife is not very happy about it. It's easy to get lost in a new hobby. Other people have written their opinions on the strange house, and those are included.
I think text based interfaces is a strength of unix-like systems, valuable tools to be used when the situation calls for it. It might be a lot to ask of new users to be familiar with terminals before they have even installed the system though. If Mint can get the same result with a GUI, I see no reason why Debian can't offer that option too, and let users discover bash and TUI when they have a working system.
I don't know. It's difficult for me to answer because I'm so used to the Debian installer. But, for some reason the general opinion is that it's difficult for many compared to some other distros.
I like that Spiral Linux is "plain" Debian, without extra repos. What I'm thinking is more along the lines of "why is Spiral Linux needed to begin with?" Sometimes downstream distros serve a niche function that warrants its own distribution, but sometimes I feel that if upstream improved, the need wouldn't be there to begin with.
Would it detract from Debian if it had an installer which was more intuitive to new users? As long as they don't remove the options to configure, I see no harm, only benefits. To me, the thing about Debian is that it's a community. If a distro wants to be elitistic, sure, that's up to them, but I don't see Debian having that goal.
For me it's mostly that the site sprawls in unintuitive ways. It's possible to have a simple look while being easy to navigate, for example (and this is subjective, but still) https://www.openbsd.org/
If Debian fails in the same predictable way every time, for the same reason, it could be argued that it's very stable, just not functional :) What kind of hardware do you use by the way?
Afaik, no. Worth mentioning is that the fundamental design of the major BSDs is to clearly separate the core OS from third party applications. But as far as just being able to use Flathub or similar, I don't think so. If any BSD has experimented in that direction my bet would be FreeBSD.
This is the reason I keep an OpenBSD system around. Maybe it's a false sense of security, but I feel that they are pickier about the base system at least.
I think the point isn't to sort out all interactions and travels, but rather to convey the feeling that "this has gotten out of hand". I interpret the confusion to be the intended message.
Dany isn't categorically fire-proof in the books. She survived a one time special event, with the help of the ululating chant and some kind of magic. But after that, she could be hurt by fire.
I'm trying to understand the Flatpak model here, so if Flatpak installs sandboxed libraries, does that mean that all programs on Flathub are compiled against the same "base" runtime? Theoretically, if I had 10 flatpaks installed, could they pull in 10 different runtimes? It seems like this could get out of hand. Iirc, Fedora has their own runtime for their own flatpaks, tied to the version. (A runtime for Fedora 39, another for 40, etc?) In that case, is the idea to have one (traditional) set of libraries for the base OS, and another (runtime) set of libraries for user applications? Could it come full circle so that the base OS is relying on the same libraries as provided by the runtime? I am somewhat confused...
It's unusual to see the rounded r (ꝛ) after an a.