[failbuffer]

Could someone explain the joke? I've been dabbling with learning robotics and I've been confused by how ROS and ROS2 both appear to be actively developed/used. Is ROS2 a slow-moving successor version (like Python 3 was) or a complete fork?

[causal]

Slow-moving successor, which the community isn't exactly going wild over. It offers modest improvements in exchange for a painful upgrade process, and many of the original issues with ROS1 remaining unsolved.

The other half of the joke is that ROS was never an operating system either.

[moffkalast]

Well there is one thing that ROS 2 does better, you can declare params directly inside nodes and reconfigure them all without building extra config files. And it doesn't stop working if your local IP changes.

But the rest are firmly downgrades all around. It's slower (rclpy is catastrophically bad), more demanding (CPU usage is through the roof to do DDS packet conversions), less reliable (the RMWs are a mess), less compatible (armhf is kill). The QoS might count as an improvement for edge cases where you need UDP for point clouds, but what it mostly does on a day to day basis is create a shit ton of failure cases where there's QoS incompatibility between topics and things just refuse to connect. It's lot more hassle for no real gain.

[ModernMech]

ROS2 has been pushed a the successor to ROS for like a decade, and people still prefer ROS for various reasons. So yeah like Python 2/3 kinda.

[sashank_1509]

No it’s much worse, python3 was all round better, it just took a while to get all your dependencies ported which made the transition hard. Judging by the comments it doesn’t seem like people agree that ROS2 is even all round better from ROS.