[gspr]

Since this is the FOSS world, you are of course free to eschew distributions. But:

> it's effectively nothing but the "app store" model, having an activist distributor insert themselves between the user and software.

is just factually wrong. Distributions like Debian try to make a coherent operating system from tens of thousands of pieces of independently developed software. It's fine not to like that. It's fine to instead want to use and manage those tens of thousands of pieces of independent software yourself. But a distribution is neither an "app store", nor does it "insert itself" between the user and the software. The latter is impossible in the FOSS world. Many users choose to place distros between them and software. You can choose otherwise.

[vbezhenar]

I'm using Arch and, AFAIK, it tries to use upstream code as much as possible. That's much better model IMO.

[gspr]

I'm not trying to argue which distribution model is best, or whether one should avoid distributions altogether. That's messy, complicated, and full of personal variables for each individual.

I'm just trying to correct the notion that somehow a distro is an "app store" that "inserts itself" between the software and its users. A distribution is an attempt to make lots of disparate pieces of software "work together", at varying degrees. Varying degrees of modification may or may not factor into that. On one extreme is perhaps just a collection of entirely disjoint software, without anything attaching those pieces of software together. On the other extreme is perhaps something like the BSDs. Arch and Debian sit somewhere in between, at either side.

Thoughtful people can certainly disagree about what the correct degree of "work together" or modification is.

[Hackbraten]

Why do you assume Debian packagers don’t do the same?

[vbezhenar]

Because it's well known that debian packagers alter software they package with unnecessary patches.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

Of course it's well known, but is it true?

[LtWorf]

On r/linux it's well known that Qt is not free software. It's that kind of information that gets passed down generation to generation although no longer being relevant.

[commandersaki]

The fact that one piece of software can be split into more than one package, yes.

[guappa]

It's a better model until you fix a bug, but upstream is unresponsive.

[vbezhenar]

Don't fix bugs, leave it to developers.

[sgarland]

Do you also leave trash on the ground when you come across it in public? Try to leave things better than you found them.

[skydhash]

> Don't fix bugs, leave it to developers

Said the developer.

Meanwhile the user is stuck with a broken software.

[guappa]

But developers often don't fix them.

[Barrin92]

>But a distribution is neither an "app store", nor does it "insert itself" between the user and the software.

Just scroll up to the second comment in the thread right now by the user rmccue. Given that Debian doesn't give the user any indication of the fact that it even has modified an upstream piece of software it's obviously perfectly possible for them to insert themselves without you even knowing it. And in that case, according to the developer, even introduced subtle bugs.

So you can run buggy software as a consequence of some maintainer thinking they know more than a developer, and not even know it because you have no practical info about that process. This is of course not a "choice" in any meaningful sense of the term.

Nobody ever actually wants to use a buggy php library maintained by debian over a functioning one maintained a by developer, they very likely just never even were aware that that is what they were served.

[gspr]

> Given that Debian doesn't give the user any indication of the fact that it even has modified an upstream piece of software

Debian also doesn't give any indication that we haven't modified an upstream piece of software. Modifying software is a central thing to do in the FOSS world. If the user wants to know if anything was was modified, and if so what, then the source is of course freely available.

> it's obviously perfectly possible for them to insert themselves without you even knowing it.

They didn't "insert themselves" anywhere! You, the user, inserted Debian!

> And in that case, according to the developer, even introduced subtle bugs.

Of course, any software modification can introduce, alter or fix bugs. Or all three.

> So you can run buggy software as a consequence of some maintainer thinking they know more than a developer

That can happen. And sometimes you run less buggy software as a consequence of "some maintainer" knowing more about the system as a whole than the software's original developer. Or caring more about safeguarding the user's freedoms or privacy.

> and not even know it because you have no practical info about that process.

"Practical info"? What exactly would you like, beyond a changelog and the the source?

> This is of course not a "choice" in any meaningful sense of the term.

Of course! You chose to run Debian. Debian is entirely upfront about this!

> Nobody ever actually wants to use a buggy php library maintained by debian over a functioning one maintained a by developer

I can't speak for PHP myself, I don't use it at all, but I'm almost always extremely grateful to the maintainers of the packages on my Debian systems for the (often very tiresome!) work they do in adapting upstream software to fit Debian Policy and the Debian Social Contract. (Disclaimer: I am a DD myself.)

> they very likely just never even were aware that that is what they were served.

Would it help if the Debian install guide hade a note saying "be aware that a Debian package may not be exactly the same was what was shipped by the software's original developers – Debian aims to build a coherent universal operating system centered around our Social Contract and Policy"?

[Barrin92]

>Of course! You chose to run Debian. Debian is entirely upfront about this!

Okay, then going back to the beginning of the argument and the comparison you denied is accurate. If merely choosing Debian is sufficient reason enough for the user to assume that Debian as the distributor acts as a middleman in all sorts of ways, how exactly is that different from an app store?

After all you choose to buy an iPhone or use the Google Play store, so if the argument is that consent, given exactly once invalidates any concern, that applies to any platform, nobody's ever been held at gunpoint to install an operating system.

I think what would help is indeed if maintainers make significant changes that the user is informed about that very visible during the installation process.

[gspr]

> If merely choosing Debian is sufficient reason enough for the user to assume that Debian as the distributor acts as a middleman in all sorts of ways, how exactly is that different from an app store?

Because you decide the power of the middleman on your system. And you have full freedom to change whatever the middleman delivers. Neither is typically true of app stores.

> After all you choose to buy an iPhone or use the Google Play store, so if the argument is that consent, given exactly once invalidates any concern, that applies to any platform, nobody's ever been held at gunpoint to install an operating system.

Pray tell, what other choices do I have in the phone market? And how are my choices in the PC market, again?

> I think what would help is indeed if maintainers make significant changes that the user is informed about that very visible during the installation process.

OK. Then I don't think Debian is for you.