I used a very similar setup with distrobox. The difference there is that when using distrobox, the integration happens in the home directory, not on the OS level. Blend OS is smoother. While this works well (both Blend & Distrobox), there are some problems. A program like htop (or any process manager) has the container view, so it wouldn't show processes outside its own container. When you install a mail client and click on a link, it requires a browser in the mail container. Likewise you can't compose work environments easily. F.e. if you want to have an IDE in one box/container, you also need to install all the seondary tools there. You eventually end up with fat containers each being their own distro. Then you have to keep all of them up to date. You might need a VPN set up in one container elsewhere or a tool running in another container in the network connected to that VPN. For me this resulted in mostly giving up on that strategy. Seeing the file managers side by side in this video shows where the actual problem is that blendOS tries to be a solution for. What really is the purpose of all these different Distros? To allow us to use any of a huge number of file managers that look the same and differ only in minor styling and features? To have three different package managers with three different repositories that each have a bash that hopefully is mostly the same but has three different sizes? To have three different logos in neofetch that's no longer maintained? Hey I'm using Linux! And my Linux allows me to make that mean that I'm using debian, arch and fedora at the same time, next to 9 other distros. And in most cases, it's as if it was one operating system running. Some things only work on arch (or debian),. I have 7 different ways to top my processes, I need all of them running side by side to see all processes though. I think it's time to think about what the actual problem is and find a solution for that instead of looking for solutions to then find problems to solve. BlendOS is cool, but it's really just a layer of chrome on top of a certain kind of madness.
16 дней назад
Really well pointed out, not sure why would anyone like this approach over more minimalist immutable OSes that you can do the same thing and are more stable? What's the benefit of having those containers loaded up with a bunch of dependencies that could be already installed in the host OS. The project seems cool and all bur for daily driving it's a no-go.
Thanks for your tutorial, please can make more tips of BlendOS , It is very interesting
3 месяца назад+2
I have lenovo yoga 11e with touchscreen and i tryed blendOS becaues it supports andorid apps, unfortunatly, it was bad experience so i installed fydeOS (chrome os based) and it works great with pen and touch but i realy want linux with andorid support, not andorid with linux support. Waydroid need more marketing and help.
Thanks for the vid! That seems like quite a bit of work instead of MAKE INSTALL or if under Arch, leveraging AUR's from users to handle installs with dependencies for not official repository programs. Isn't chosing a distro about deciding which distro will have all of the packages that I likely ever need? Blend OS seems like a nice parlor trick only to get a rare package from another distro. What is the overhead of it? How dependable? Doesn't appimage, snap or flatpak solve "edge case" needs?
I guess you are right, but if you want to quickly try things out on different distros, then I don't know a better/quicker way. The seamless integration into the base system is something I can really appreciate, because working with custom containers was never "a few clicks" story for me
@@agiledevart Sure, I can see from your view. At day's end though, a distro is "too lazy to build" or "too lazy to tweak" a system. So what you're saying is this: "BlendOS let's the too lazies try out SOME distros without the need to partition a drive or copy an .iso to stick." Honestly, Linux in 1995 was much harder than Linux today. There were few distros and nothing like LiveCDs until Knoppix came along. Most major distros have various WM / DE from which one can try. So what does it matter if one is running Debian with Gnome or Arch with Gnome or Pop OS with customized Gnome? The real decisions come down to these: 1 ) NO SYSTEM D vs SystemD 2) Number of packages in a repository if one is not doing LFS or KISS 3) Supplemental recipes for "make your own package" from source or not. 4) Point Release vs Rolling Release The only other things involved which might jump the list to 2) is this: For a General Computing Box vs For a Task Specific Box. Tied into that is for what CPU architecture as one goes to task boxes. Perhaps the only other thing is this: "I want free replacement MS Windows but keep the experience" or the same for OS X / macOS and that is so because most people have enough intelligence to point, click, swipe right. You made a good video. That is why I have subbed with notifications.
I used a very similar setup with distrobox. The difference there is that when using distrobox, the integration happens in the home directory, not on the OS level. Blend OS is smoother.
While this works well (both Blend & Distrobox), there are some problems. A program like htop (or any process manager) has the container view, so it wouldn't show processes outside its own container. When you install a mail client and click on a link, it requires a browser in the mail container. Likewise you can't compose work environments easily. F.e. if you want to have an IDE in one box/container, you also need to install all the seondary tools there. You eventually end up with fat containers each being their own distro. Then you have to keep all of them up to date. You might need a VPN set up in one container elsewhere or a tool running in another container in the network connected to that VPN.
For me this resulted in mostly giving up on that strategy.
Seeing the file managers side by side in this video shows where the actual problem is that blendOS tries to be a solution for. What really is the purpose of all these different Distros? To allow us to use any of a huge number of file managers that look the same and differ only in minor styling and features? To have three different package managers with three different repositories that each have a bash that hopefully is mostly the same but has three different sizes? To have three different logos in neofetch that's no longer maintained?
Hey I'm using Linux! And my Linux allows me to make that mean that I'm using debian, arch and fedora at the same time, next to 9 other distros. And in most cases, it's as if it was one operating system running. Some things only work on arch (or debian),. I have 7 different ways to top my processes, I need all of them running side by side to see all processes though.
I think it's time to think about what the actual problem is and find a solution for that instead of looking for solutions to then find problems to solve.
BlendOS is cool, but it's really just a layer of chrome on top of a certain kind of madness.
Really well pointed out, not sure why would anyone like this approach over more minimalist immutable OSes that you can do the same thing and are more stable? What's the benefit of having those containers loaded up with a bunch of dependencies that could be already installed in the host OS. The project seems cool and all bur for daily driving it's a no-go.
Blend OS is Gonna Get Yours
This is crazy
Thanks for your tutorial, please can make more tips of BlendOS , It is very interesting
I have lenovo yoga 11e with touchscreen and i tryed blendOS becaues it supports andorid apps, unfortunatly, it was bad experience so i installed fydeOS (chrome os based) and it works great with pen and touch but i realy want linux with andorid support, not andorid with linux support. Waydroid need more marketing and help.
Thanks for the vid!
That seems like quite a bit of work instead of MAKE INSTALL or if under Arch, leveraging AUR's from users to handle installs with dependencies for not official repository programs.
Isn't chosing a distro about deciding which distro will have all of the packages that I likely ever need?
Blend OS seems like a nice parlor trick only to get a rare package from another distro. What is the overhead of it? How dependable?
Doesn't appimage, snap or flatpak solve "edge case" needs?
I guess you are right, but if you want to quickly try things out on different distros, then I don't know a better/quicker way. The seamless integration into the base system is something I can really appreciate, because working with custom containers was never "a few clicks" story for me
@@agiledevart Sure, I can see from your view.
At day's end though, a distro is "too lazy to build" or "too lazy to tweak" a system.
So what you're saying is this:
"BlendOS let's the too lazies try out SOME distros without the need to partition a drive or copy an .iso to stick."
Honestly, Linux in 1995 was much harder than Linux today. There were few distros and nothing like LiveCDs until Knoppix came along.
Most major distros have various WM / DE from which one can try. So what does it matter if one is running Debian with Gnome or Arch with Gnome or Pop OS with customized Gnome?
The real decisions come down to these:
1 ) NO SYSTEM D vs SystemD
2) Number of packages in a repository if one is not doing LFS or KISS
3) Supplemental recipes for "make your own package" from source or not.
4) Point Release vs Rolling Release
The only other things involved which might jump the list to 2) is this:
For a General Computing Box vs For a Task Specific Box. Tied into that is for what CPU architecture as one goes to task boxes.
Perhaps the only other thing is this:
"I want free replacement MS Windows but keep the experience" or the same for OS X / macOS and that is so because most people have enough intelligence to point, click, swipe right.
You made a good video. That is why I have subbed with notifications.
no portage?
not yet. I hope they will add gentoo