Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)PM
Posts
4
Comments
514
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • The problem would be that graphical UIs can look very different. Each distro with all their supported desktops would require documentation. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of a short introductory documentation for people who have no clue about linux. Debian claims to be the "universal operating system", but new users are usually directed towards Mint/Ubuntu/PopOS, but why? There's a possibility here.

  • One reason is that different distributions of linux do things slightly different. Would it be better if there was only one linux os? For some devs of third party software, probably, but diversity and freedom to fork software has been good to linux, and no one could decide what everyone else should use anyway.
    So, each distribution takes the available software and package it to fit their distro specifics, and those packages go into their repositories. The benefit of using official repositories is that someone has gone through the trouble of making sure it will work on your system safely. There's accountability and hopefully a bug tracker etc. When you download from a random website you have to trust them instead. Then... you have companies working outside of this model, usually they provide a flatpak or their own third-party repositories. Then you get all these extra steps, but it's not how most distros prefer to handle software.

  • I've been doing a lot of translations for Debian into my native language, and the most important factor there is being part of a translation team of people. Many times the english original is ambiguous or just poorly written by a programmer, and with a team you can get help and find the intended meaning and its proper translation. We read each others translations and come up with constructive criticisms.
    To me, what makes or breaks good work is the organisation and cooperation between people: the community. I believe the great challenge of FOSS is the organisation of people and their efforts.

  • Yes. By convention based on old reasons though. When computer screens became common they were low resolution, and a whole genre of serif fonts were made to look good on screens and low-end printers. Good fonts, but adapted to look good in pixel grids. Microsoft made Georgia, Adobe had Utopia to serve the same need. A font like Centaur would just not survive on a screen. Sans serifs worked better, especially the ones with straight lines, Helvetica is easier than Optima on a screen. But now... phone screens and regular screens are good enough to display serifs, but now we are used to sans serifs online. But there's no real reason for them anymore.

  • Of the points, not allowing others to make money from a fork could be difficult. You can ensure that a fork stays free, but iirc it's hard to stop anyone making money. Although I'm hesitant to suggest this, you might want to look at the license for Gnuplot (it's not gnu as in GNU), which is imho the least free license commonly called "free software", it effectively prevents forked projects. In which case another question might be, do you want it to be free software? Is the gratis aspect more important?

  • If people will be people, the interesting difference will be how the platform works. I guess this is the true test of the federated approach. What does it hinder or facilitate in practice and what are the actual effects?