this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
163 points (95.0% liked)

Linux

48400 readers
703 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
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
163
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 [email protected] to c/[email protected]
80 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
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I don't see how this is more difficult on the user. It is running a simple command, and for a GUI package manager it would be a single button click, just like you'd do it in a graphical installer. It would indeed be almost like a series of check boxes.

As a user, it is much easier to check a box than reinstall my entire OS

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I do agree with you that it's a cool option. It would require a distro to prioritise that and architect that in a way that seamlessly switches. Maybe there is a gap for something like that if the UI is nice.

Actually, on reflection, I think Mint did have an option from login screen to use KDE or Cinnamon.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

It wouldn't require from the distro any more work than they do on their current package repository. A DE and it'd configuration could be debian packages just like any other.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I realize now that you think the only difference between distros is the GUI. Some may be simply that, or close to that (kubuntu x ubuntu for example), but it's not always the case.

So your original post shouldn't be about "distros" but GUI options. Some distros indeed let you choose from different WM, but as I've been repeating, in this case they're packaged and tested by the maintainers of THE SAME DISTRO.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're making a lot of assumptions about me that could be easily answered if you read my original post. No I do not think that that's the only difference between any two distros. My post is specifically talking about distros that only change non-system software (and most of them only change GUI).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And could you identify (and get all such distros and their "core distro" source to agree on) what exactly are the "system software", which the "customizers" must never ever need to change, and that the "core distro" will forever have to coordinate with their "partners" before any new release or update?

Can't you see it would be a lot of extra work and risk for maintainers, just to make your distro hopping (maybe) quicker?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

what exactly are the "system software", which the "customizers" must never ever need to change,

To clarify, I am not saying that maintainers should not modify software. I am saying that if they don't, that making a whole different distribution is overkill and over complicated, and it is much easier for both them and the user to have it as a package instead.

For releases, it would be simply done just like any other package. There's a vast number of packages that already do everything you can imagine, and they have none of the show stopping troubles you speak of.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well, they do, and even when they don't, they won't commit not to forever, just to help distro hoppers.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Well, they do

Again, the ones who do, not talking about them

they won't commit not to forever

Sounds like Over-engineering syndrome. Should every packager just write their own OS just in case they find that they need to? Maybe every application developer should just write an entire kernel just in case too. Take that distro hoppers!