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
[–] zagaberoo@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't think they'd be so popular if they weren't useful.

Why should the user be required to reinstall their whole OS? I don't think they are: it seems relatively straightforward to change DEs on Ubuntu at least.

On the other hand, if someone knows they want Ubuntu with KDE, why should they have to go through a regular Ubuntu install just to do the post configuration themselves? Plus, maintainers of these offshoot distros can potentially more deeply remove dependency on the default DE.

I think focusing on differences in system software is less illustrative than looking at the out-of-the-box user experience and capabilities. A changed DE is a pretty huge practical difference.

This line of thought does really underscore how nebulous the definition of an operating system really is. Pour one out for GNU being totally subsumed culturally by a Kernel that everyone sees as an OS.

[–] tsz@reddthat.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Name a single popular distro that follows op's description that isn't a novelty/fad.

[–] zagaberoo@beehaw.org 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Kubuntu

[–] phoenix591@lemmy.phoenix591.com 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

kubuntu is already literally just a package.

if you just install kubuntu-desktop (or something similar) from any buntu flavor you get it.

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

And that's exactly my point. You get the same experience by just installing a package rather than having to "distro-hop"

[–] skullgiver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]