• GustavoM@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because its a “niche” distro (like OpenBSD) that does not have a “real” purpose. As in, its niche is not “mandatory” by any means.

    • dsemy@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s just a general purpose distro…

      What is the “real” purpose of Debian or Arch?

      And it’s really not that niche - many Docker images are based on it, postmarketOS is based on it.

      Also OpenBSD is not a distro, it’s a completely different OS.

      • GustavoM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        What is the “real” purpose of Debian or Arch?

        I should have been more clear – Debian/Arch “just works” and (both low/mid/high users) do not need of anything beyond that. And both Alpine/OpenBSD do not provide an extra “need” to anything of what both Debian/Arch already does. Unless if Alpine and/or OpenBSD provides a feature that makes Arch/Debian obsolete in any way… then yep, both will become more relevant.

        • dsemy@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Judging by various posts I’ve seen Arch and Debian both don’t “just work” for many users.

          Also I really don’t get your point about providing a feature to make others “obsolete”… what do popular distros like Manjaro or Mint provide that make Arch/Ubuntu obsolete? And at least Manjaro has managed to be in the news quite a few times unfortunately.

          The point of the article is that Alpine works, both on a technical level and as a project, without unnecessary drama.

          I’d (mostly) say the same about OpenBSD too, btw.

          • GustavoM@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            both don’t “just work” for many users.

            …Windows users (migrating from Windows to Linux or just “posers”) do not count. :^)

    • potosi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      OpenBSD is not a linux distro and Alpine linux has plenty of cases where it is very useful, like in docker containers. Also it is pretty good for servers and has a fast package manager. Inform yourself bro

      • GustavoM@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Alpine linux has plenty of cases

        pretty good for servers

        a fast package manager

        …which are easily surpassed by (pretty much any distro). And idk why you highlighted those like its a some sort of “deal breaker” for whoever wants a stable/reliable distro – even a potato (486 and down) can run apt (which is terribly slow compared to any other package manager) incredibly fast nowadays. If those are (still) issues that are considered to be critical by you… then eh, I’m afraid to say that it’s a (You) problem. :^)

        bro

        (insert thuglife 12 year old here)