Linux

48905 readers

1362 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

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

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

Pondering upon (the illusion of) different distros and its consequences - Thoughts? (self.linux)

submitted 7 months ago by yala to c/linux@lemmy.ml

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Pondering upon (the illusion of) different distros and its consequences - Thoughts?

I'm not even limiting it to how derivatives (i.e. Linux Mint, Manjaro, Nobara etc.) can completely (or at least by 99%) be realized by 'Ansibling' their parent distro (i.e. Arch, Debian Fedora etc).

Because, as it stands, there's not even a lot of difference between different independent distros. Simply, through Distrobox and/or Nix, I can get whatever package I want from whichever repository I want.

Most of the independent distros even offer multiple channels or release cycles to begin with; i.e Debian with Stable/Testing/Sid, Fedora with Rawhide/'Fedora'/CentOS Stream/RHEL etc.

So, while traditionally we at least had the package manager and release cycles as clear differentiators, it feels as if the lines have never been as blurry as we find them today.

Thankfully, we still have unique distros; e.g. NixOS, Bedrock etc. But I feel, as a community, we've not quite realized how homogeneous the fast majority of our distros can be defined (i.e. DE, release cycle, packages, script for additional configuration). And therefore miss opportunities in working together towards bigger goals instead of working on issues that have simply been caused by the (almost) imaginary lines that continue to divide different communities under false suppositions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] oo1@kbin.social 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Devils advocate - you might be getting extra layer of testing, by the "derived" distro testing community.
I mean if they do any, it may be more focussed on the combo of setup and software you prefer.
So a small reduction in risk of bugs?

I thnik ubuntu did have a pupose in 2002 or whenever - it was a step foward in ease of install, and out of the box experience, esp. for noobs.
Now most have that, including stock debian. even arch comes with the idspispopd script these days.

[–] yala 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Devils advocate - you might be getting extra layer of testing, by the “derived” distro testing community.

This is a good point. But, one might argue, that the problem itself is artificially created.

I do think that the very popular derivatives, that provide very sane and highly opinionated configs, have for a pretty long time been necessary for onboarding. Like, we can't ignore how important something like Linux Mint has been for this as an example.

And, regardless for how we move forward, we will definitely need distros like Linux Mint. But, I do wonder if it's worth for distros like Arch, Debian and Fedora etc to explore a beginner-friendly flavor/spin/variant.