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
…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. :^)
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.
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.
Because its a “niche” distro (like OpenBSD) that does not have a “real” purpose. As in, its niche is not “mandatory” by any means.
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
…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. :^)
(insert thuglife 12 year old here)
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.
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.
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.
…Windows users (migrating from Windows to Linux or just “posers”) do not count. :^)