I've been happy enough with my Ubuntu phone. Music works, I can send SMS messages and use the phone, timers and alarms work, and it takes pictures well enough. There's even a LibreWolf clone so I can see when my bus/train arrives.

Better link to Itch (<https://maddymakesgamesinc.itch.io/celeste>) than Steam, Itch by default only takes a 10% cut instead of 30%.

> (C is of course orders of magnitude more influential, the only language more influential is probably COBOL?)

Lisp. Which coincidentally solved memory management over a decade before C was created.

I also think ALGOL was more influential than COBOL, but measuring influence can be tricky.

Apart from NixOS and GuixSD there's also Arkane Linux (<https://www.arkanelinux.org/>), which seems kind of interesting, but I don't like various decisions it makes.

> absolute lightweight

> eMacs

I love Emacs, but I don't see how a Lisp platform with a web browser, a Tetris implementation, and 4 terminal emulators (shell, term, ansi-term, eshell) can be considered 'lightweight'.

As the old saying goes, "emacs is an operating system lacking only a decent text editor".

Not so. Evil mode is a great text editor.

Ha, fair. Lightweight in this context is relative to Notepad or any modern Windows application.

Notepad.exe used to be <200kB. Emacs is tens of megabytes

Notepad was just a wrapper around some default win32 controls. Judging alone by exe size is not right, although probably a “statically linked” notepad would still be smaller than emacs

It is right by definition. Link emacs to those controls, shed some statically linked weight, and it will also become lighter!

To be fair you can say that of anything with a scripting engine, you could have all that in vim or stripped down emacs

Anything with a scripting engine isn't lightweight compared to (classic) Notepad!

(Also, a lot of that stuff comes bundled with Emacs out-of-the-box, further disqualifying it. Having a scripting engine is one thing, but having a scripting engine along with the whole rest of the jet is something else entirely!)

Well, GNU Kawa is named after the Polish word for coffee (going with a play on Java rather than a play on Scheme like Guile and Larceny EDIT: and Gambit went with).

It's awesome and the lucky 10,000 deserve to be introduced to it?

A well known quantum computing company's entire stack runs on SBCL, with Emacs in production... works really well, don't knock it until you've tried it. Phenomenal REPL.

I love SBCL because it's awesome, and I hate it because it's ruined programming for me. Going back to dead languages like Java is so painful now.

Would this be the same place that Coalton came out of? (just curious)

At least two "quantum" computing places built on SBCL.

Three (in part or full; presently or recently historically): DWave, Rigetti, HRL

Don't think so, no, hadn't heard of that.

If you're referring to HRL then I think so.

More than 10,000 people already knowledgeable about SBCL and its awesomeness could simply splat the URL to HN, but I think readers here deserve more.

Um, yes, I know ... read the thread.

I think you misunderstand what the XKCD comic implies.

I'm well aware of what the comic implies (and explicitly says--note that both the comic and the tooltip are about demonstrating and explaining, not just going "diet coke and mentos" and then dinging people for not understanding what that implies), but I can't mind read the intent of the person who posted it and what they intend to tell me by doing so. My original complaint here was about just posting a link without commentary, and the same applies to the XKCD comic link ... and even to your own comment, which is pure ad hominem.

I suspect, but can't know, that people misunderstood my use of "10,000"--the XKCD meaning was used above by tmtvl, which is why I said to read the thread because it's not clear that people were aware of that oblique reference to the XKCD panel--my use of it was a riff, using the same number in a different, even opposite, way ... it's a rhetorical device (derived from a musical one).

I won't comment further.

'It is the great north wind that made the Vikings' as Will Antonio Zeppeli told Jonathan Joestar.

I've only used GNU/Linux since 2012, but I do think we have to face the fact that there is a fair amount of ~~choice~~ fragmentation in the ecosystem. Deb/RPM/Flatpak/Snap/PKGBUILD/Nix, GNOME/KDE/Cosmic/Cinnamon/Xfce/LXQt/MATE/Budgie/Sway/Hyprland, AppArmor/SELinux, GTK/Qt/Electron/Tauri/WxWidgets there's even distributions which use musl libc instead of GNU libc or non-systemd inits. Sure, you can just pick one and focus on it, but if someone else picks something else then they may need to duplicate some effort to get things working on their preferred setup.

When you put down your project in a sound and standards compliant way, packaging doesn't matter much. RPM and DEB automatically builds your code and packages it. DEB also has a lot of tools which allows you to make sure that everything is done correctly. I'm sure RPM has similar tools, but I didn't use them a lot.

Desktop environment doesn't matter much, because GTK and Qt works on every Linux Desktop. I'm using KDE, but I don't know which tools I use are GTK, which are Qt, etc. Qt and GTK teams collaborate a ton both in window management and desktop underpinnings side. Also there are tons of standards, and things just work if you follow them. Even the standard libraries of programming languages and Linux userland gives the tools to utilize these standards.

C libraries are mostly interoperable. I operate with GNU's C library, but aside from interesting behavioral differences, the API is not different.

If you're not writing daemons, you have no business with your init system in 99% of the cases, unless you want to utilize a special feature of any of them. You can just ship the service files. daemon() function is part of libc, not your init system.

In total, after your code builds, you can add these layers step by step, one at a time, and have a codebase which works everywhere with minimal effort.

Eroding user's rights is good if it means users have fewer choices because choice is bad? I suppose it would mean that resources could concentrate in a smaller, more focused set of software, but I really can't see how that would justify the harm caused.

Just think about how easy it would be though - imagine - one single OS, one single version always immediately up to date, one consistent set of installed software, attestation to ensure no adversaries are attempting to modify or install unsupported software, full accurate and thorough analytics, what a dream...

Yea what a Fall of Rome type dream - just look what happened when people overused a specific measure - we had Crowdstrike with around 8.5 million devices crashed to BSoD. Identical OS, identical apps, identical updates, identical crashes at same time.

If you centralise then it is not the question "Will?" but "When?" it will fail.

> Just think about how easy it would be though

Endlessly painful. Right?

The defining characteristic is that everyone is using it, not that it's your personal ideal operating system. We have a few major players trying to create their version of the one single os. They're already nobodies ideal, and they have the luxury of telling people to go elsewhere if the system isn't right for them. Imagine how much worse it would be if they had to support everything.

Isn't that what Apple purports to sell? There's also Haiku, but I don't know to what extend it matches that description.