Skip to main content
Unix & Linux

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

4
  • 1
    Great answer! Are software authors mostly receptive to patches to make them work in gobolinux or hostile to it? Commented Sep 5, 2015 at 16:24
  • Most of the time upstreamed patches go in fine, but sometimes the maintainers can be a bit belligerent about relying on the FHS. I also remember the KDE maintainers insisting that copying a symlink to an unmodifiable template file instead of dereferencing it to copy the file was by design. A lot of patches are from one hard-coded path to another, rather than a proper fix, so they aren't worth sending upstream anyway. Commented Sep 5, 2015 at 21:06
  • So if you found and fund(in time or money) the creation/forking/patching of all the software you want/need, (eh hem, like Apple/Microsoft does/appears to do), then your golden? That's what it sounds like to me. I'm too interested in norm-breaking innovations that aren't hostile-to-desktop-radical like this. Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 16:23
  • 2
    @ThorSummoner: Most distributions patch all their software heavily; that "funding" is already reality. Those patches are a mix of functional and, yes, path changes to match the distribution's particularities. Of course, as an end user, you don't really notice it, but it's there - there's a lot of labour behind a distribution that it's easy to take for granted. By and large you don't need to patch things - only 13% of GoboLinux recipes involve any sort of patch at all, for example, which is actually lower than, say, Debian - though it's an annoying sort of patching to do when it is required. Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 20:54