this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
2 points (66.7% liked)

Linux

48329 readers
639 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml
nooter692@lemmy.ml
MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz
2
Opinion: Distributions that only change non-system pre-installed software or desktop environment should instead be packages or scripts (lemmy.ml)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by cyclohexane@lemmy.ml to c/linux@lemmy.ml
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The majority of Linux distributions out there seem to be over-engineering their method of distribution. They are not giving us a new distribution of Linux. They are giving us an existing distribution of Linux, but with a different distribution of non-system software (like a different desktop environment or configuration of it)

In many cases, turning an installation of the base distribution used to the one they're shipping is a matter of installing certain packages and setting some configurations. Why should the user be required to reinstall their whole OS for this?

It would be way more practical if those distributions are available as packages, preferably managed by the package manager itself. This is much easier for both the user and the developer.

Some developers may find it less satisfying to do this, and I don't mean to force my opinion on anyone, but only suggesting that there's an easier way to do this. Distributions should be changing things that aren't easily doable without a system reinstall.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] haroldstork@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Spoken like a true Arch Linux user

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I don't use arch

[–] haroldstork@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I say that very tongue-in-cheek, but it definitely gave a vibe haha

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What would be the relation? From my understanding, the stereotype is about arch users telling everyone that they use arch btw, or telling people to rtfm. Maybe there's another stereotype I am missing, but I haven't done either of those here. 😅

[–] larvyde@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

base arch only installs the "system software" as you call them. all the "non-essentials" are indeed just packages like you seem to want them to be.

[–] cyclohexane@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

I am pretty sure arch installs a decent amount of non-system software, but I suppose that's beyond the point.

What I am suggesting: if you make a new distribution, whose only change from its base distribution is changing non-system software, then I personally think it should be available as a package. This doesn't mean I am saying Ubuntu or Fedora should remove non system software, and follow arch-like model. Absolutely not. These distros change things that aren't easily packageable.

[–] falsem@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

I also assumed you were a fellow Arch user.

I use Arch btw.