by Jubbleroot | 2025-06-05 21:22:45+00:00
> This seems to falsely assume that technical users are more aligned with whatever the status quo is, and non-technical users are the ones who are looking to change things. In reality, technical users become technical users because they want to make changes, and 'casual' users just use whatever app/OS/etc is given to them, as-is.

Neither of this is true. There are plenty non-technical users that will be suggesting changes, there are plenty of technical users where they don't want things to change.

> Having bad or no support for your software isn't some good way to keep it 'pure', it's just keeping it less useful/relevant.

You are conflating "bad or no support" with "gate-keeping". Gate-keeping is about keeping riff raff out, but allowing those that are interesting to a path to being involved.

With respect to Linux distros. Linux is like a "kit". Different people offer you different "kits" called distros. Some of these kits may be given to you pre-assembled (Ubuntu/Fedora/Debian), other will require partial assembly (Arch) and some will require full assembly (Gentoo/LFS).

Arch/Void/Gentoo flavours of Linux don't advertise itself a user friendly distro like Ubuntu/Mint/Fedora. *It is expected you read the documentation and understand the command line*.

Thus why people were suggesting they should use the CLI tool. If a user doesn't want this, they should use something else.

Having a "noob" version of installation instructions for something like Arch/Gentoo will have the effect of allowing someone to fumble about and maybe achieve getting something functional, but they won't actually understand what they are actually doing and this will cause them problems in the future as they won't understand how to fix issues when they arise.

> Linux is OSS: fork it if you don't like something new, but don't hurt the ecosystem.

It is extremely difficult for even for large companies to run their own fork of large open source projects. Sure you can fork a smaller piece of software and maintain your own version, but anything significant you are unlikely to be able to do that. So you are forced either to use the changes you may not like, or you use something different, or you are are like the anti-systemd crowd essentially running a protest distro.

Also all the big forks in the software ecosystem is when two important factions have disagreed fundamentally on the direction of the project. We are not talking about individual users or developers, we are talking about the top tier developers/maintainers. A part-time/bedroom coder is unlikely to have any significant effect, even if they did it is often lead to burnout of these developers.

> Deliberately hamstringing software or documentation so that others will stay away and not make changes is literally antithetical to OSS as a philosophy.

Ignoring the fact that you are misstating the issue. It isn't antithetical to the philosophy at all. People decide their own level of involvement in any group activity. If you aren't willing to "pay your dues", then it maybe better for you to not be involved.

You will BTW see this to varying extents in Churches, Cricket Clubs and even your place of employment.

e.g. If you go to Church you have to accept certain tenants about the faith or at least respect them while you are there. I've been invited to Churches in my local area, by very nice people that I would like to get to know, but I can't believe in Christ, so I don't go.