Your comment reduces my article to vague claims of ignorance and a basic mention of something you admittedly only glanced on. The article is much richer in depth than your comment suggests, I encourage people here to actually read it so we can have a proper discussion. I promise you that it won’t disappoint even if you don’t agree fully with it.
You’re playing a bit of a fool. I’m talking about this: https://x.com/Plagman2/status/1559683905904463873 and the many examples I’ve personally seen of random “contributors” removing clearly critical infrastructure from glibc.
I think you’ve gotten a really bad read of my article. We know the typical Linux stack has problems with libraries failing to maintain backward compatibility and even when they do, the guarantees are nowhere near as strong or long-lasting as on Windows.
The problem is ultimately cultural. My article is essentially an appeal to anyone willing and capable of building a sane userspace through a single distribution. If that distribution adopts the stack, others can copy it or diverge at their own cost.
As for separating the userspace from regular applications, the point is that the OS shouldn’t treat system packages and user packages as the same thing. That’s separation of concerns, not a contradiction.
Why has there been recent issues with compatibility with the userspace then? from systemd to even not so distant news of glibc failing? The article goes a bit more in depth about what needs to be done, it describes a different packaging and distribution model as well that is simpler and more convenient in design.
There are many problems with existing solutions, I’ve already had a long discussion on this on the subreddit. and I went in more detail in the conversation. check it out if you’re interested.