that would mean to flip open source development into protocol standardization ??

like in "protocols, no platforms" ???

First OS I ever used I wrote in two days using machine language. I next wrote a simple ed like editor, and then an assembler. That was back in the mid 1970s.

I've watched systems get more and more complex and layered over the decades. I expect Evolving Intelligent systems will take over coding and user interface. It will take a couple decades to get them right. At that point, it won't be coding, but the knowledge of how to specify that will matter.

> To me, that really highlights the failure of the Free Software movement.

I missed anything that would lead me to agree with the idea FOSS has "failed", as read your claims on the FOSS mastodon, and write this reply on a 100% FOSS system on wayland + systemd. It all appears to be doing great?

Even the complaint this stuff others spend their time on the planet on for you to use for free is "hard" may start to buckle since you can ask your AI buddy to do the change for you.

That just sounds like "Not Invented Here". The thing is easy to fix as long as it is somebody else that does the fixing for us.

It is also minimizing the hard work of some of the most brilliant minds of our time.

These components are large monolithic entities. Even systemd, which is made of a bunch of coopretating daemons, has so much tight coupling between them that you can’t replace one of them...

Unfortunately, making things small, discrete and easily composable into different configurations, was never part of the free software or open source definitions.

That was part of the UNIX philosophy which OFTEN was hitched the the FLOSS train, but was always technically distinct.

AND I suspect what we're seeing now is that the rest of the FLOSS train is finally unhitching itself from that train car.

EDIT: There are some major projects which will probably NEVER forget their UNIX roots such as the BSDs or some very traditional or unique linux distros. BUT big linux infrastructure projects have been signaling for a while that one better move over to them; or learn to like the direction linux is going.

Here, I fixed it for you: distrowatch.com/search-mobile.…

Now seriously, I get where you're headed and agree that some software is aggregating too much, but those maybe are not the best examples for 2, as alternatives exist.
And this definitely doesn't say much about FOSS, it says about Linux demographics changes. FOSS is independent of the UNIX philosophy, although they are perfect together.

"These components are large monolithic entities.
[..]
And each of these projects is too complex for a single person to create a replacement for unless they treat it as a full-time job."

By Design: Those seeking to reduce
the explosion of diversity protection against least cost unwarranted penetration.

In that sense, it is a winner. The Organisations hosting the project get to call the shots for security "best practice" too. win-win.

I feel that there is a tension between integration and coupling. On one hand, tightly integrated systems tend to work really well together. Yeah, I know, big surprise there. But on the other hand, loosely coupled systems tend to be really easy to take apart and modify.

I am not sure whether we can get both.

@llogiq

I believe you can if you are very careful about the core abstractions that you build. Unfortunately, that’s probably the most undervalued bit in most F/OSS projects.

@llogiq I’m thinking about a lot of F/OSS things: Linux (and the BSDs), KDE / GNOME and their app suites, modern browsers, Open/LibreOffice, and so on. None of these are designed to make it easy for end users (even end users who are moderately competent programmers).

Of all of the F/OSS that you run, how many things have you modified? How many things do not quite fit your ideal requirements? The goal for Free Software should be that anything that doesn’t do quite what the user wants should be easy for the end user to modify until it does.

@llogiq All end users are fully capable to use these applications and tools without any modification (maybe some need some training - like with any other software) - in fact this is even proven by many users worldwide. There are also different distributions targeting different users. Thus

Your comment seems to address all operating systems and tools in general. I guess there are always users that are not happy with anything offered (not Linux, not MacOS, not Windows etc.).

@jornfranke @llogiq

All end users are fully capable to use these applications and tools without any modification

And a lot more users are able to use Windows and MS Office without modification. That doesn’t mean that it meets their requirements, it means that they don’t have an easy path to modifying them.

Free Software comes with four freedoms, one of which is the freedom to make changes and another is to distribute your modifications. If most users have no way of doing this, why should they prefer F/OSS over proprietary software? The fact that it doesn’t cost anything? But ad-supported proprietary software doesn’t appear to cost them anything.

@llogiq I do not agree. I think the same users that uses Windows and MS Office without modification are able to use Linux without modification. I interacted with many users in different enterprises and they have a lot of complains about Windows and Office. The continuous change of user interfaces. The useless additions that make them find their functionality difficult, the enterprises that are constantly spied on with Ads etc.

Open Source is not free. It also requires support.