• dsemy@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s just a general purpose distro…

    What is the “real” purpose of Debian or Arch?

    And it’s really not that niche - many Docker images are based on it, postmarketOS is based on it.

    Also OpenBSD is not a distro, it’s a completely different OS.

    • GustavoM@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      What is the “real” purpose of Debian or Arch?

      I should have been more clear – Debian/Arch “just works” and (both low/mid/high users) do not need of anything beyond that. And both Alpine/OpenBSD do not provide an extra “need” to anything of what both Debian/Arch already does. Unless if Alpine and/or OpenBSD provides a feature that makes Arch/Debian obsolete in any way… then yep, both will become more relevant.

      • dsemy@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Judging by various posts I’ve seen Arch and Debian both don’t “just work” for many users.

        Also I really don’t get your point about providing a feature to make others “obsolete”… what do popular distros like Manjaro or Mint provide that make Arch/Ubuntu obsolete? And at least Manjaro has managed to be in the news quite a few times unfortunately.

        The point of the article is that Alpine works, both on a technical level and as a project, without unnecessary drama.

        I’d (mostly) say the same about OpenBSD too, btw.

        • GustavoM@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          both don’t “just work” for many users.

          …Windows users (migrating from Windows to Linux or just “posers”) do not count. :^)