Fedora Silverblue's Concept

[cruzer001]

These include-the-kitchen-sink packaging solutions will destroy much of the savings achieved the last decade.

Not all is repackaged. Dependencies are shared between flatpak's, I don't know how snap works it.

[Shibblet]

Please don't blame "Linux" for things that are a package management choice, which has NOTHING TO DO WITH LINUX. In the olden days, and still with some distros, software packages are installed into /usr/local/. We'd upgrade versions just by moving a symbolic link. Lots of slackware people still do it that way. Some use a tool called epkg, which should work on any Unix-like OS.

The packaging complaint seems to be about Debian and RHEL and Arch and SuSE. I completely understand, since I disliked how package storage use was split into programs, settings, and data into /usr/, /etc/, and /var/ respectively on those specific systems. It was a distro choice, not "Linux."

If we install using the source, then we can place the installation anywhere we like. By letting the package management tools handle the locations for files, we can install meta-packages that integrate apache, php, mariadb with 1 package install command. That's pretty sweet for many admins. People who want to have 100% control over those integrated parts probably dislike the "magic" of the metapackage. The tasksel tool can really save time for an admin.

Clearly, I'm not a fan of most of these snap/flatpak package solutions, but I care more about RAM use than many people. Most of my "servers" have 384MB - 1GB of RAM, so blowing 800MB to run a single flatpak tool is a total failure to me. I've worked places, before we mandated the move to virtual servers, that had server average utilization of 13%. After mandating the use of virtualization, we would have servers running at 60-80% utilization, a huge win for the business to get the most value from their hardware investments, not to mention the power, cooling, and physical space savings that came with virtualization.

These include-the-kitchen-sink packaging solutions will destroy much of the savings achieved the last decade.

As much as I agree with you, the word "Linux" is known more as a terminology than a kernel. Much like Stallman's attempt to increase awareness for the GNU, by calling it GNU/Linux. Whereas I agree with this ideology, I think it is more for increasing awareness among those who use it. Which is actually what you've done by increasing the awareness on a specific distro's forum. Most people don't even know what a Kernel is, let alone a Desktop Environment, File Structure, or the GNU. To them, it's all just an OS. To most, it's just "computer."

It is easier to call it all "Linux." However, once a person becomes interested in the inner workings of any distro, they quickly realize what "Linux" truly is. As a matter of fact, when you go to software websites that support Linux, the software is usually found under the title of "Linux," and not distro specific.

Examples: Select the driver you need at: https://www.geforce.com/drivers
This one at least has the title Ubuntu, next to the .DEB file (and not Debian.) https://handbrake.fr/downloads.php

Currently, it is used a general idea of all distributions that use the Linux Kernel. It's akin to saying "Kleenex" when you may be reaching for a "Puffs," or "Band-Aid" when all you have is a "Curad." IMHO, I think that name recognition is what has furthered Linux's cause, and allowed it reach to where it is today. Windows and MacOS are the two most dominant PC Operating Systems. However, people have heard of Linux. Not many have heard of BSD, Haiku (BeOS), or Solaris.