• Deckweiss@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 days ago

    Ah yes, the immutable OS, except for all of the various mutable parts.

    We should totally not call it anything less confusing.

    • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s not confusing at all… How is this any more confusing than:

      Flatpak - they’re not literally flat…

      Snap - I’ve never seen or heard any evidence of something snapping by any definition of the word I’m aware of.

      Dolphin - what the fuck is this, no sea life whatsoever!

      Kate - this is a text editor, not a person.

      Distrobox - not in an actual box.

      etc.

      • Deckweiss@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        The main difference to your examples is that an “immutable OS” is in fact mutable, while none of your examples describe themselves with an adjective that is contradicting with their function/inner workings.

        Flatpak is a pretty good name, because it makes software flat in the sense that it avoids having a (tall) dependency tree.