‘Bikeshed issue’ refers to the effect of having a discussion where everyone can easily form an opinion on. Such as choosing a paint colour for a bikeshed that needs to be painted.

I do think this standard, if successful, would trickle down to users outside enterprise settings. Similarly to how Red Hat was/is the force behind Gnome, Wayland, (if I recall correctly) pipewire, and many now ‘universal’ parts of modern linux user-space.

It’s very clear this project aims to be that force in enterprise linux. And if successful, they would determine the direction of development.

And simply put: most people prefer stuff actively developed by a full-time team of software engineers. Some of us don’t, but usually those need to adapt to the new standard, or miss out on software developed assuming such ‘standard’ userspace.

This is why I think it truly is a bikeshed issue. Everyones bike will eventually be in the shed, if the shed gets painted.

I personally am carefully optimistic, as long as the community (you and me, not just our bosses) care enough to contribute. And the organisation makes it easy and accessible.

Of course having meaningful community participation is only the first step. The community can make bad decisions or incoherent decisions, that’s part of having meaningful power.

Lastly I think the organisation knows the reputation of the companies founding it is, on average, not great. So I expect them to truly make their best to engage the community meaningfully and in good faith. Without it, I don’t think they will convince even rocky linux to switch, let alone achieve meaningful compatibility standard of any kind.

Cheat.sh has usage examples, with short descriptions. It’s purpose is remembering something you have already done. It’s much more similar to --help flag than full manpage.

Reading the cheat.sh of a command I don’t know at all is rarely useful. I use it when simply listing the flags isn’t enough, or the output unhelpfully long. curl returns so fast that it’s faster to request data from external server than read through three paragraphs.

If you haven’t tried it, give it a go. The whole point is to be very quick to type and give back text that is fast to read.

The ‘tiling’ in tiling window-managers is only half-truth. It distinguishes them from stacking window-mamagers, which would be equal to only looking at one thing at the time.

They all can also do stacking and tabbing, the term means they can do tiling as well. Most users some form of stacking even more than tiling in itself.

Most also can do floating windows, usually on per-app basis. This is achieving what most fully fledged desktop users do: have one fullscreen window per workspace, and have small things like pacucontrol as small floating window.

In no way are you limited to tiling. If you were, tiling window managers wouldn’t be very popular. They’d be like stacking window managers are today.

My most often use half-and-half layout: browser and emacs, emacs and console, emacs and emacs, and so on. If I want to have two consoles and emacs, I instead of tiling, make a stack for the two consoles. This way I always have emacs showing, and switch between the consoles, no matter how many there are. This is kind of like a “sub-workspace”.

The main advantage is ease of configuration, assuming familiarity with config-files. That enables quick, keyboard based navigation, in a very personal and fine-tuned manner. Modern tiling window-managers can also be configured on trackpad or touchscreen gestures, and work intuitively with mouse pointer. So while many users do specifically keyboard centric configuration, the key point in my opinion is that you as a user need, and get to, choose.

So is systemd. It is definitely modular and I think it has multiple interfaces as well. I’m not sure if you have configure systemd modules like GRUB does.