I don't like to paint Apple as being completely incompetent (but damn have they been screwing stuff up), but I do think trying to solidify the experiences around a common codebase has become untenable. The idea is great thought - write one app that works on macOS, iPadOS, iPhoneOS, visionOS, etc. What a time saver that is for developers - but the problem is that screen sizes and interactions with those different platforms vary. Yes, resizing a window with your clunky finger needs a bit more wriggle room, while a pixel precise mouse or touchpad is a lot different.
I am a diehard Apple fan. I stuck with Apple through the dreadful 90s and fought for their relevance as a needed computing alternative in education spaces. I extolled their virtues. I hung on until Steve Jobs took over and helped things improve... quite drastically, in fact. I could never have imagined the widespread celebration of the hardware with the m series of chips. Quite an achievement.
But even now, I acknowledge the latest macOS release is dreadful. Just absolutely dreadful.
And the fix is easy - hire new young talent. Hire kids out of college. Bring in fresh faces who are going to speak the truth, who are hungry to make it better. Listen to them and do what they say.
I love the idea of this... but here is what I want - IT SHOULD WORK WITH EVERY HARDWARE PERMUTATION KNOWN TO EXISTENCE. If not... combine your energy with Fedora.
I do not agree with the parent, however the first part of your objection is not really valid. Red Hat were able to ditch Centos because they owned it. You canbase something independent on RH.
What drives me personally nuts about the CentOS saga is all the “community” hand-waving about creating a bit for bit clone of a distro.
There can be no “community just shipping builds of RHEL code as, by definition, you cannot change anything. That means you cannot contribute. In my view, an Open Source “community” cannot just be people that use things for free. It is supposed to be about collaborating to build things.
At least now we have Alma Linux which strives to be ABI compatible with RHEL but builds it themselves from CentOS Stream. They actually build something. They can actually contribute (and they do). They can innovate. For example, they have continued the x86-64v2 builds even though RHEL has abandoned them. On Alma, you can at least claim to be building a community.
I do not use any of these distros by the way, in case you think I am shilling something.
It warms my heart to see someone else recognize this. The bug-for-bug model that classic CentOS Linux followed was fundamentally broken. Sure there were lots of consumers, but without the ability to fix bugs or accept contributions it was dysfunctional. The underlying motivation of the CentOS Stream changes was resolving this conflict, so that bugs can be fixed and contributions can be merged, resulting in a more sustainable distro.
You won't be bringing your own graphics card to RadiantOS. According to one of the pages, they want to design their own hardware and the graphics will be provided by a memory-mapped FPGA.
If your question is about the general intricacies in graphics that usually have bugs, then I'd say they have a much better chance at solving those issues than other projects that try to support 3rd party graphics hardware.
I am fascinated by the art but it seem bizzarely overdefined relative to the software vision laid out in text. That is, the amount of richly imagined imagery dramatically outpaces the overall coherence of the vision in every other respect.
And as with the text, the art feels AI generated. In fact I even think it's quite beautiful for what it is, but it reminds me of "dark fantasy" AI generated art on Tikok.
I have nothing against an aesthetic vision being the kernel of inspiration for a computing paradigm (I actually think the concept art process is a fantastic way to ignite your visionary mojo, and I'm flashing back to amazing soviet computing design art).
But I worry about the capacity and expertise to be able to follow through given the vagueness of the text and the, at least, strongly-suggestive-of-AI text and art, which might reflect the limited capacity and effort even to generate the website let alone build out any technology.
You’re right, it’s so unrealistic to imagine that maybe a hominid telepresence platform in your home with a human operator might get operated by its operator to do some type of weird privacy-violating stuff. Only a crazy person would dream of such a thing.
This is like the online trend of pretending that US Postal Police are superheroes, clowns are scary, fedoras are lame and so on. I get it.
Some people make jokes, and then the rest don't get the joke so they think it's real and go along with the meme out of wanting to fit in. Eventually, the neurotic find everything scary and dangerous. Everyone else just skips over this nonsense while you guys self-reinforce. Social media's worst effect.
I love this idea, and I imagine with years of successful lobbying efforts we could potentially get some laws passed to provide rights and clarity around our own data that could move us into this direction. But until then, while BlueSky is solid, I'll wait and see.
reply