Linux

48153 readers

793 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

170

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

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.

(page 2) 32 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] xohshoo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well there are/were systems like that, Crunchbang bring the one that pops into my mind most immediately, but there are others. I think they’re the minority though, even something like MX which you might say is just Debian with a nice xfce has the option of not using systemd, pop and mint don’t ship with snaps…so a bit more than just themeing…where to draw the line?

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

where to draw the line?

Just taking whatever is easier. If your changes are easily packageable, then it should be a package. Changing systemd is probably not easily packageable. It's probably possible, but it's something where its not worth the effort.

Removing snaps? I feel like I'd prefer Mint to package its stuff as a package and leave removing snaps up to the user. But I vaguely remember that mint changes some repos too?

[–] AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

As an OpenSuSE user I don't know what you're talking about.

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

I'd love to clarify if you tell me which part of the post you didn't understand.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments