>>109826310
This is the only important part, the rest is just OS implementation details:
As a lot of you already know, backward compatibility has never really been the strong suit of Linux or the BSDs. Part of this is cultural: there's a mismatch in expectations around dependency and package management, and userspace developers don't always appreciate that “old” code is often still doing real work. People break it without realizing how much depends on it, and compatibility suffers as a result.
So here's the problem, stated plainly:
Dependency management and compatibility haven't been solved elegantly yet. There have been interesting attempts: Canonical's Snaps, Red Hat's Flatpaks, and Simon Peter's AppImage all come to mind, but it feels like app distribution and compatibility are actually two separate problems that keep getting bundled together. The attempts above end up overreaching outside their actual problem domain. App distribution shouldn't be on the hook for handling userspace components or compatibility with userspace, and it shouldn't be on the hook for security either. Those are genuinely separate concerns and should be treated as such.
The plan, then, is to rethink this from the ground up. Instead of meeting the fragmentation halfway, which is essentially what Flatpak does, the focus should be on building a stable, backwards-compatible userspace first, as the actual foundation everything else builds on. Package management or app distribution and security would be split off as two separate concerns, each handled by its own subsystem, rather than crammed into the same tool. Naturally, this raises immediate concerns, particularly regarding the risk of centralization. These concerns are addressed in the Implementation Detail section of this page.
Basically: bring the Windows NT compatibility promise to Linux.
Not sure where their supposed distro is, but it's an interesting read. it claims to use AppImage as its official package format
