I think I better understand you now. Btw, I had changed my previous reply moments before I read your reply. My bad*.
I meant that I support this distro as long as it’s not immutable because I’m an opponent of immutability on the desktop. If they’re also making other kinds of systems, immutability may be beneficial there.
Have you been around since before the introduction of systemd? Systemd's introduction was a lot more invasive and threatening to 'traditional' distros than immutables are today. Distros changed to systemd over night. Only Arch and Debian had communities that succeeded in establishing systemd-less derivatives. By contrast, the interest for immutability in existing distros (almost always) means a parallel distro is created with (at least initially) immutability tacked on.
So, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel as if you're being too aggressive/overreactive considering how nonthreatening immutable desktops are to traditional distros.
Sometimes ~~innovation~~ change is bad or rushed (such as removal of X11 on Fedora).
Fixed that for you 😉.
Often only people with the newest hardware can benefit from it anyways.
Fair, but as unfortunate as it is, that's basically a consequence of consumerism. I don't like it, don't get me wrong.
They don’t care about regular users making the products worse for them which is basically egoism.
I don't think this applies to Linux overall. Fedora (and Red Hat by extension) have a vision that made them default to Wayland by default. So you'd be right to blame their policy. But this is nothing new for Fedora; they're known to push bold changes. You might not like it or disagree with them. Fine. But is it important enough to hate them for it? Isn't life too short for that?
There is a reason for proprietary products having legacy support after all.
Are you implying that doesn't apply to Linux? I don't understand. On an open system like Linux is, this doesn't really seem to hold much weight. You can swap stuff around as you see fit.
I think I better understand you now. Btw, I had changed my previous reply moments before I read your reply. My bad*.
Have you been around since before the introduction of systemd? Systemd's introduction was a lot more invasive and threatening to 'traditional' distros than immutables are today. Distros changed to systemd over night. Only Arch and Debian had communities that succeeded in establishing systemd-less derivatives. By contrast, the interest for immutability in existing distros (almost always) means a parallel distro is created with (at least initially) immutability tacked on.
So, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel as if you're being too aggressive/overreactive considering how nonthreatening immutable desktops are to traditional distros.
Fixed that for you 😉.
Fair, but as unfortunate as it is, that's basically a consequence of consumerism. I don't like it, don't get me wrong.
I don't think this applies to Linux overall. Fedora (and Red Hat by extension) have a vision that made them default to Wayland by default. So you'd be right to blame their policy. But this is nothing new for Fedora; they're known to push bold changes. You might not like it or disagree with them. Fine. But is it important enough to hate them for it? Isn't life too short for that?
Are you implying that doesn't apply to Linux? I don't understand. On an open system like Linux is, this doesn't really seem to hold much weight. You can swap stuff around as you see fit.