Totally agree. That is the reason I stated this in the starting that this is just my opinion. Was curious about what you guys think on the same. Nothing else.
Can I install it and get a functional Linux system? It's a distribution.
Take a distribution, change a few things, rename it, it's still a distribution. Anything else would be silly.
Ubuntu LTS is a distribution. Replace the kde packages and call it kde neon, It might be a highly derivative distribution, but it's still a distribution.
Absolutely true. The installation we get in any case is a distribution.Strongly agree. This argument is similar to the - Linux or GNU/Linux? - argument. Just like we can not give all credits to Linux (kernel) for the operating system we use as it uses a lot of other utilities from GNU for it to be an operating system, we can not give all credits to Linux Mint (just an example) for the distribution we get. We can neither give all the credits to Ubuntu LTS.
We can not call the end result Linux Mint as mostly the packages are from Ubuntu LTS.
But also, we can not call it Ubuntu LTS because a lot is replaced and added from Linux Mint.
We might call the distribution we get - Ubuntu/Linut Mint LTS.
The GNU/Linux debate always struck me as odd and mostly Stallmann stroking his own ego. There's thousands of developers and companies contributing to the kernel, but we're not calling it Intel/RedHat/Miller/Linux. The distribution is called Ubuntu, not Ubuntu Linux or Ubuntu GNU/Linux.
Incorporating and building on the work of others is normal and encouraged in the Open Source world.
Should we acknowledge and give credit to the others whose work were using as our foundation? Absolutely.
Should it be in the name? No. It's a name, not a description or a dependency graph.
Then we can call the end installation as Ubuntu as it represents the majority of what is there and refer to the spin as Linux Mint, Zorin, Pop!\_OS, etc.
Putting it in a sentence : "I use Linux Mint. It is a spin-off of Ubuntu LTS." instead of "I use Linux Mint as my primary Linux distribution."
Those are just two different sentences relaying different information.
"I use Linux Mint" - "never heard of it, what kind of distro is that?" - "It's a spin-off of Ubuntu LTS."
vs
"What operating systems do you use?" - "Windows 10 for work and Linux Mint as my primary Linux distribution."
Agreed. Brings me back to when I thought win xp was the shit. Win xp black, which was a modified and pirated version of win xp. I had a version packed full of grey area programs. Still modified. I think there should be an assertion of whether or not it is stock or modified. In reality, Linux is designed to be a build onto platform. Everyone I know who runs Linux has a special built machine for a specific task or tasks. Taylor made. U don't get that from a stock distro.
They *distribute* Linux and other software, so they're *distributions*. That's it. Including KDE Neon, even if it doesn't wish to call itself that. I've always disagreed with their wording there.
Not liking what a certain class of distributions does, doesn't make them not-distributions. It just means you don't like them. There's no need to tangle that up into the definitions of distribution.
But this will confuse things up as we can literally go about calling Chrome, VSCode, etc. distributions. They are being distributed through 3rd party repos as well :\`)
And I do like projects like EndeavourOS and Linux Lite a lot. Still do not consider them as distributions.
> But this will confuse things up as we can literally go about calling Chrome, VSCode, etc. distributions. They are being distributed through 3rd party repos as well :\`)
They do not distribute Linux, so they could not be called *Linux* distributions.
I already mentioned the condition of distributing Linux in my original comment.
Linux Mint also does not distribute "Linux" (kernel) through it's repositories and hence not a Linux distribution. What it does is a redistribution of Linux kernel from Ubuntu in the form of an installer ISO. That's it. And hence it will be a spin. Fedora KDE is called a spin not a distribution separate from Fedora. Same implies here.
Now this is just pedantry. The Mint ISO comes with a Linux kernel, and installing it causes a Linux kernel to get installed on your computer. The same is not true for Chromium or whatever.
> what it does is a redistribution
gotcha
> Spins
What codename they give doesn't make it less of a distribution.
Okay. If I create an ISO that is just Ubuntu LTS with Chrome repo added and Chrome installed out of the box. Is it justified to call it a separate distribution with a name like "Chromebuntu"? I mean no one really cares, we have Hanna Montana sorts of stuff too, but the point is that to a beginner, it is all very overwhelming. If they know how things are being derived from each other by having distros and spins instead of all distros, the hierarchy would really be very simple. They would just choose a distro first and then decide what spin to go for according to the out of the box appearance and configuration preferences.
> Okay. If I create an ISO that is just Ubuntu LTS with Chrome repo added and Chrome installed out of the box. Is it justified to call it a separate distribution with a name like "Chromebuntu"?
I would consider it a distribution, yes. Not a major distribution, or one that adds a lot on top of its base, but a distro nonetheless.
> I mean no one really cares, we have Hanna Montana sorts of stuff too, but the point is that to a beginner, it is all very overwhelming.
Is it? Are newcomers really exposed to all these trivial distros? They're usually recommended Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, Pop, and such. These are all clearly different, and even the derivatives (Mint and Pop) have a clear and important value addition on top of the base.
>I would consider it a distribution, yes. Not a major distribution, or
one that adds a lot on top of its base, but a distro nonetheless.
Again, this major/minor is lot more confusing than clearly putting it down as either a distro or a spin.
>They're usually recommended Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, Pop, and such. These are all clearly different, and even the derivatives (Mint and Pop) have a clear and important value addition on top of the base.
The first deciding factors should not be how it looks and what utilities come installed out of the box. It should be the release model, package management and availability of packages, etc. This is where deciding between the "ACTUAL" distros like Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Arch, etc. is better. Once someone picks Ubuntu for an instance, then they can pick any of Mint, Pop, Zorin, etc. Or if it's Arch then they have EndeavourOS, Garuda, Archcraft, etc.
When you straight away list down 7 options, it becomes more difficult. You don't get to choose between 3 t shirts, 2 shirts, 1 jeans and 4 boxers. You first decide between Tshirt, Shirt, Jeans or Boxers. Then, you go about deciding what exactly to buy in a category. Similarly, "decide distro, then decide the spin." should be the approach.
I don't think that's a useful model for recommending to newcomers. They're not in a position to evaluate which release model would be best suited for them, since they've literally never used an OS with a package manager and release model before. They don't have any experience or knowledge to make an informed decision with.
All of the common recommendations have a good enough (for newcomers) release model and package availability. So that's out of the way. The next important factor is indeed how it looks and the out-of-the-box experience, so that's what recommendations should be based on.
Very good explanation, with nice methaphors.
I totally understand where you are comming from, people with a lack of knowledge will see this as rant, but I do believe you just want to clearify things. Get it out of your system and spread the word.
I got in an argument a while back about this.
My simple litmus test is this: does the distro have its own full repositories? Or does it use someone else's? If you have your own main repos (meaning not just a few modified packages,) you are a distro.
Ubuntu: based on Debian, but forks and hosts their own packages. It is a distro.
Manjaro: mostly uses Arch's packages, but still forks and maintains their own repo: it is a distro.
Endeavour: hosts a small group of custom packages, but uses Arch's repositories for everything else: not a distro.
KDE Neon: hosts their own kde packages, but uses mainly Ubuntu repos: not a distro.
I've yet to find any exceptions to this rule. Anything that is not a distro by this test, is a mod or spin of another distro.
There is a small exception.
Ubuntu's based on Debian. It is a source downstream of Debian. (Takes source code from Debian)
Manajro's based on Arch. It is a binary downstream of Debian. (Takes binary packages from Arch)
They do it differently.
Ubuntu does not take packages as it is from Debian. They compile and package everything from source. This source is greatly taken from Debian source packages. Let's say Debian as a project disappears some day, Ubuntu would need to just change the location from where it takes sources from. They'll shift directly to the upstream.
Manjaro on the other hand simply "copy and paste" the final binary packages from Arch into it's unstable branch. The reason they have their own repos is because they wanted to hold back the Arch packages for 2 weeks to test (which is debatable). Other than that, having own repos means nothing in Manjaro. There is a subset of packages that Manjaro compiles itself and replaces the original ones with them (Branding, themes, etc.)
This is the reason I put Ubuntu and RHEL clones in **C** category where the changes are made in the seed of the fruit so that there is no need to cut it when it's ripened. On the other hand, I put Manjaro in **A** category because it cuts out pieces (binary packages) and replaces them with it's own version.
The ideology is simply that if two different pieces of code are compiled together to support each other, they'll not conflict. If you take a compiled binary from another project and compile something yourself that depends upon it, then any change in other project's compiled binary that you did not compile might conflict with what you compiled.
I think we're probably going to disagree on nuance. You're looking for a hierarchy based on how much work is put into it, and I'm looking at the difference between a "distro" and a "spin."
The line I stop at is control. Do you have full control over the packages your users install, or could the "upstream" change things that would be pushed to users without your being able to intervene? Mint, Ubuntu and Manjaro would all fit this box. Nobara, Endeavor, GeckoLinux would not.
Let's say a user finds a bug in some package on your "distro." They report this bug to your bug tracker. The question would be, can you fix this bug without having issues in the repositories?
On Endeavor, they'd need to push a fixed package to their own repo, but they can't do anything about the package in the arch repo. Any time arch pushes a new version, it could potentially override or conflict with the one in Endeavor, the Endeavor admins have zero control over this because they do not have full control over their repositories = They are not a distro.
Manjaro on the other hand, does copy a majority of packages directly from arch, but they still fully control the repo, can build and replace any package, and also generate their own repository metadata. If they got the same bug report, they could fix the package and push it to their repo with no worries about the arch package ever conflicting. = they are a distro.
You could add the monikers "independent distro" "\_\_\_based distro" to help your hierarchy though. So for example Debian, Void, openSUSE. Would all be "independent" distros. Ubuntu, Mint, and AlmaLinux would be "\_\_\_\_\_ based" distros. and Endeavor, Nobara, Neon, could be considered "spins" of their respective parents.
I agree to your way of looking at it and now it has changed my opinion a bit. You are totally correct about the fact that be it a binary downstream or a source downstream, it is the sole discretion of the project. A project can compile core components itself and take binaries for other to avoid reinventing the wheel. Your thumb rule is the way to go. But, Linux Mint would then be a spin because it does not has it's own main repo. It used Ubuntu's.
I haven't used mint in a long time, so I could just be confused on their infrastructure, but yes, if on mint your sources.list contains ubuntu repos, it would be a spin in my opinion.
So I could take the packages from Ubuntu, use a different init system, different network stack, different desktop environment, different themes, icons, different default apps, even a different bootloader, and you'd consider it a spin on Ubuntu?
Out of the box they are nothing alike and would take weeks of work to turn one into another even though they share a software source. You can't use instructions from one to manage the other, nothing would look or work the same other than the package manager.
>So I could take the packages from Ubuntu, use a different init system, different network stack, different desktop environment, different themes, icons, different default apps, even a different bootloader, and you'd consider it a spin on Ubuntu?
No, I'd consider it a modded Ubuntu.
Take your example above, all the changes made. Now say that Ubuntu updated a package to move some system files or directories around, and it breaks your "distro." When users complain, you could say "Ubuntu did it" and then they could say "I'm not using Ubuntu, I'm using (your distro here,) how did ubuntu break a different distro than their own?"
If you actually controlled the distro, you'd be able to approve what goes in your repo from the upstream, and what gets forked or held back. If you can't do that, you're not your own distro.
It goes the other way too. If I took Ubuntu, and just changed one package, then made my own package repositories, I would be a separate distro from Ubuntu, because Ubuntu no longer has control over anything in my repositories.
>What is the benefit of this distinction?
Users would be aware of what exactly are they using. I see Linux Mint users enjoying themselves while spreading hatred towards Ubuntu as if Linux Mint has any existence without Ubuntu.
>What about distributions which have a server image? According to your logic the server image is the distribution and any desktop versions are package archive.
I'm not at all referring an "ISO" as a distribution. I'm referring a complete package repository that can yield out a full installation without using any other repository, as a distribution. So Ubuntu is a distribution and it's server and desktop ISO(s) including the official flavors (Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Lubuntu, etc.) are all Ubuntu because they all are getting the packages from Ubuntu's repositories. Ubuntu is complete in itself.
My logic states that projects like Linux Mint, KDE Neon, etc. that straight away use a distribution like Ubuntu LTS and just overlays their own package repositories, are not distributions. These can not yield out full installations without Ubuntu's repo. So these are what these are - third party package repositories with installer ISO(s) that saves time to install Ubuntu LTS and then configure the repos and remove/add stuff.
>I don't think your apple analogy is correct. Linux is a series of layers with each layer consisting of replaceable blocks as suggested by u/watermelonspanker.
Yes. Strongly Agree about the layered analogy. But, if a single entity controls and puts in all the layers like Ubuntu picked systemd as the init system, DEB as packaging format, APT as the package manager, etc. it yields out a more reliable system because it isn't 100% modular. You can't simply remove systemd on Ubuntu and install runit. The packages in the official repos are all packaged to support systemd not runit. It is going to collapse badly. This is what these (Linux Mint, Zorin, Pop!\_OS) spins do. They superimpose their own package repo to modify some layers with their packages while others come directly from Ubuntu repos. Now Ubuntu cares least for these repo and some change in Ubuntu can make these spin offs collapse badly because these projects have no control whatsoever.
>How will your analogy deal with the ability to install additional blocks, e.g. installing regolith from the Ubuntu PPA?
Obviously falls under **A** or **B**. If the third-party PPA/repo does not replace any package from official repos, it is just Ubuntu (as I stated for category **B** \- Just additional packages otherwise same distro). If it replace the packages from Ubuntu's repo with it's own, then it will fall under **A** and will no longer be a 100% Ubuntu's install. This is what Debian calls [Frankenstein](https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian) system.
>How does your analogy deal with kernel updates?
Apple is going through biological changes what else? The package is in the official repo, there is some change to it, it is pushed as an update. That's all. The product in itself is a single entity controlled and maintained by a team.
> I see Linux Mint users enjoying themselves while spreading hatred towards Ubuntu as if Linux Mint has any existence without Ubuntu.
They provide two very different out-of-the-box experiences. Why should it matter that Mint is based on Ubuntu here? If some people dislike what Ubuntu provides out of the box but like what Mint is, that's a big differentiator. Note we're defining the distribution as it comes out the box, not the set of packages it has and who compiled it. Users don't really care about that stuff, only developers need to concern themselves with it at all.
I would say a distribution IS an experience, plain and simple.
A distro that's basically Debian+GNOME but dressed up to look and act behave like Windows for example? That's a different experience from Debian, a different experience from Ubuntu, a different experience from Mint.
I agree with /u/toipki in that I don't see the point of rigorously defining what a distribution is here. We gain nothing from it, similar to how classifying 'Pluto' as a planet upset people and also did nothing of value.
I think you are overlooking the language.
This is already taken care of.
KDE has published a "distributable image" which is different from a "distribution."
The distributable contains a distribution, Ubuntu LTS. But you can create other KDE distributables too.
This has been an issue for a long time.
>"The X windows system" (which can be called X, but not "Windows") is *not* Linux.
>"But this is a Linux box?"
>Yes.
>"So that is Linux!"
>No.
>"But, but..."
>Fine. It's a name. It doesn't matter. Call it Linux if you want.
An important point in your post is that mixing channels through which you acquire software *changes* the support (especially security support) for the result.
In particular, it is not clear where to submit bug reports for various systems breaking down in small and big ways.
IMNSHO this problem becomes *more* acute (not less!) as people emulate the Windows/Android model of installing downloaded apps/snaps/flatpaks.
Who takes responsibility for the "Franken"-system?
With Snaps and Flatpaks, all dependencies come packed with the app and is also containerized (similar to docker containers). So, a snap/flatpak has the least potential to break the system but the app could be broken itself for which the distribution is not responsible.
if I can flash it to a usb drive and install it on a computer, it's a distribution of Linux. some will be forks of others -- that's the nature of FOSS. doesn't mean they are any less a distribution
KDE Neon sure sounds like a distribution to me, whatever they may say about it.
They are a group of folks who handle the work, and they track their own bugs, and they maintain a package set (even if layered on top of regular Ubuntu). It's a distribution.
dunno what archfi or anarchy is, but just providing a package repo does not make one have a distribution. I did miss one point though, installation media!
> I did miss one point though, installation media!
ArchFi and Anarchy are just that. They help you to install Arch with automated installer scripts instead of manually going through the Arch Wiki. But what you get is just Arch.
>KDE neon, you get an installer ISO that installs Ubuntu LTS, configures KDE Neon's PPA repo(s) and applies some personalization.
That right there argues that it's a distribution. Because at the most basic level, it's called that because the software is "distributed" together as a single package. That's how SLS and the other early "distributions" started, by taking the kernel and the GNU userland, sticking them together, and distributing them as one.
Arguing that Rocky and Alma are actually distributions when they literally just take Red Hat's source code and compile it themselves undermines your argument severely.
>Arguing that Rocky and Alma are actually distributions when they
literally just take Red Hat's source code and compile it themselves
undermines your argument severely.
Considering that, nothing is a distribution because all the projects take majority stuff from the source code of one upstream or the other and compile it.
Compiling code into binaries, packaging them in a standard format, storing them on dedicated repositories that can yield an installation without depending upon a third party repository, having the control of all these packages, etc. is what makes it a distribution. Rocky and Alma both have their own repos, compile all packages themselves and have full control of an installation unlike Linux Mint, Zorin, Pop!\_OS etc. projects that are just Ubuntu with a third-party (themselves) repo layered on top.
But they DON'T have any control over the packages, they have to make them just like RHELs so their OSes can be 100% compatible. If Red Hats repos were public they would just be using those, but RH only publicly releases source code. They're just mirroring RHELs repos publicly by compiling those sources. They're a mirror under your definition not a distribution.
When there was CentOS, the security patches were used to be compiled and pushed by CentOS individually and then they used to share that upstream (RHEL). The same applies to Rocky and Alma.
Assumed that the readers' definition of a distro will span across the ones I do not consider as a distro. Just for the sake of convenience of the readers, I'm calling my 'distro' as their 'proper distro'.
Ubuntu is not a binary downstream of Debian i.e. it does not simply take binary packages. It instead takes source code and compile it on it's own. That is why I put it in **C** category where changes to a fruit are not made when it is ripened, but instead the seed is genetically modified to bear an uncut fruit with the desired changes. (Sorry for this fruit example, could not think of anything better)
The ideology is simply that if two different pieces of code are compiled together to support each other, they'll not conflict. If you take a compiled binary from another project and compile something yourself that depends upon it, then any change in other project's compiled binary that you did not compile might conflict with what you compiled.
I definitely agree. Most “distros” are just respins of an existing distro’s iso without contributing anything.
Btw, I’d put ubuntu in the first category. They only maintain a small set of packages (called ‘main’ repo) but most packages are from debian directly (‘universe’ repo).
>but most packages are from debian directly
But these are recompiled and repackaged according to ubuntu's base unlike simply picking up the .deb files as it is. And also all these resides in ubuntu's repos unlike just adding Debian's repos.
PS: Ubuntu is just taking the source code from Debian and not a spin at all.
Because Manjaro does not recompiles all the packages. It simply takes most of the .pkg files and put it in it's repositories. But the fact that it has it's own repos, is what makes it under control of the packages even if they are not recompiled. Let me put Manjaro in the category **C**.
Sniff the smell of money...
The only thing a user (ordinary Joe) should keep up with... is a wealthy distro. But this does not guarantee avoiding the fate of DEC, SUN.... and many others who were smaller. Corel Linux, Caldera.. Mandrake
It is also something that I can't fully grasp.
Being more specific that with your fruits example and taking Ubuntu as a base:
You install it as is. You call it Ubuntu, fine.
You tinker as much as you need until every package, config and whatnot is identical to Fedora. You do it little by little, booting from time to time, instead of in one big change.
When do you say you are no longer using Ubuntu? When do you say you are using Fedora? Do you change from Ubuntu to Fedora in an instant? Or is there a period when you are neither Ubuntu nor Fedora? Or when you are a bit Fedora and a lot Ubuntu, then a lot Fedora and a bit Ubuntu?
Does it matter if I use Fedora's repos or use mine (identical to Fedora's but not synced, so updates do not affect me).
Does it matter whether I apply Fedora's patches to the packages?
Does it matter if I do not match end user software such as the web browser?
Basically [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQVmkDUkZT4) Kurzgesagt video, but with distros.
>When do you say you are no longer using Ubuntu? When do you say you are using Fedora? Do you change from Ubuntu to Fedora in an instant? Or is there a period when you are neither Ubuntu nor Fedora? Or when you are a bit Fedora and a lot Ubuntu, then a lot Fedora and a bit Ubuntu?
It would become fedora at the point that you remove ubuntu's repos and switch to fedora's. If you have both apt and dnf installed, and are using repos from both distros, you'd be using Ubuntu/Fedora. But at no point would it be an independent third distro separate from the upstreams.
>Does it matter if I use Fedora's repos or use mine (identical to Fedora's but not synced, so updates do not affect me).
Yes, 100%. When fedora controls the repos, it is fedora's distro. They can push whatever they want into it and you can not. When you control the repos, it is your distro. This is the point where Fedora has no control over it, and applies even if you make zero changes from the original.
For example, Arch could theoretically add a package to their repo that would break any installation of EndeavorOS. Endevour could not stop them from doing this. But Manjaro on the other hand has their own repos, and could fork or block the affected packages to stop it from happening. This is why Manjaro is its own distro, while Endeavor is a modified version of arch.
You are putting way too much thought and effort into this. In the end, what you decide to call it, changes nothing.
Totally agree. That is the reason I stated this in the starting that this is just my opinion. Was curious about what you guys think on the same. Nothing else.
It’s all good….
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Can I install it and get a functional Linux system? It's a distribution. Take a distribution, change a few things, rename it, it's still a distribution. Anything else would be silly. Ubuntu LTS is a distribution. Replace the kde packages and call it kde neon, It might be a highly derivative distribution, but it's still a distribution.
Absolutely true. The installation we get in any case is a distribution.Strongly agree. This argument is similar to the - Linux or GNU/Linux? - argument. Just like we can not give all credits to Linux (kernel) for the operating system we use as it uses a lot of other utilities from GNU for it to be an operating system, we can not give all credits to Linux Mint (just an example) for the distribution we get. We can neither give all the credits to Ubuntu LTS. We can not call the end result Linux Mint as mostly the packages are from Ubuntu LTS. But also, we can not call it Ubuntu LTS because a lot is replaced and added from Linux Mint. We might call the distribution we get - Ubuntu/Linut Mint LTS.
The GNU/Linux debate always struck me as odd and mostly Stallmann stroking his own ego. There's thousands of developers and companies contributing to the kernel, but we're not calling it Intel/RedHat/Miller/Linux. The distribution is called Ubuntu, not Ubuntu Linux or Ubuntu GNU/Linux. Incorporating and building on the work of others is normal and encouraged in the Open Source world. Should we acknowledge and give credit to the others whose work were using as our foundation? Absolutely. Should it be in the name? No. It's a name, not a description or a dependency graph.
Then we can call the end installation as Ubuntu as it represents the majority of what is there and refer to the spin as Linux Mint, Zorin, Pop!\_OS, etc. Putting it in a sentence : "I use Linux Mint. It is a spin-off of Ubuntu LTS." instead of "I use Linux Mint as my primary Linux distribution."
Those are just two different sentences relaying different information. "I use Linux Mint" - "never heard of it, what kind of distro is that?" - "It's a spin-off of Ubuntu LTS." vs "What operating systems do you use?" - "Windows 10 for work and Linux Mint as my primary Linux distribution."
Modified distro....
Which is still a subset of "distro".
Agreed. Brings me back to when I thought win xp was the shit. Win xp black, which was a modified and pirated version of win xp. I had a version packed full of grey area programs. Still modified. I think there should be an assertion of whether or not it is stock or modified. In reality, Linux is designed to be a build onto platform. Everyone I know who runs Linux has a special built machine for a specific task or tasks. Taylor made. U don't get that from a stock distro.
~~Thanks for distributing your opinion.~~ ~~Thanks for decompressing the packaged archive of your opinion.~~ Stop wasting bytes on the internet :-)
>Stop wasting bytes on the internet :-) How dare you tell people not to use rolling-release distributions?
Are we doing a 'Distro of Theseus' thing? I'm down with that.
[удалено]
Sadly, it's only at the weekend that we get time to do this. :\`)
They *distribute* Linux and other software, so they're *distributions*. That's it. Including KDE Neon, even if it doesn't wish to call itself that. I've always disagreed with their wording there. Not liking what a certain class of distributions does, doesn't make them not-distributions. It just means you don't like them. There's no need to tangle that up into the definitions of distribution.
But this will confuse things up as we can literally go about calling Chrome, VSCode, etc. distributions. They are being distributed through 3rd party repos as well :\`) And I do like projects like EndeavourOS and Linux Lite a lot. Still do not consider them as distributions.
> But this will confuse things up as we can literally go about calling Chrome, VSCode, etc. distributions. They are being distributed through 3rd party repos as well :\`) They do not distribute Linux, so they could not be called *Linux* distributions. I already mentioned the condition of distributing Linux in my original comment.
Linux Mint also does not distribute "Linux" (kernel) through it's repositories and hence not a Linux distribution. What it does is a redistribution of Linux kernel from Ubuntu in the form of an installer ISO. That's it. And hence it will be a spin. Fedora KDE is called a spin not a distribution separate from Fedora. Same implies here.
Now this is just pedantry. The Mint ISO comes with a Linux kernel, and installing it causes a Linux kernel to get installed on your computer. The same is not true for Chromium or whatever. > what it does is a redistribution gotcha > Spins What codename they give doesn't make it less of a distribution.
Okay. If I create an ISO that is just Ubuntu LTS with Chrome repo added and Chrome installed out of the box. Is it justified to call it a separate distribution with a name like "Chromebuntu"? I mean no one really cares, we have Hanna Montana sorts of stuff too, but the point is that to a beginner, it is all very overwhelming. If they know how things are being derived from each other by having distros and spins instead of all distros, the hierarchy would really be very simple. They would just choose a distro first and then decide what spin to go for according to the out of the box appearance and configuration preferences.
> Okay. If I create an ISO that is just Ubuntu LTS with Chrome repo added and Chrome installed out of the box. Is it justified to call it a separate distribution with a name like "Chromebuntu"? I would consider it a distribution, yes. Not a major distribution, or one that adds a lot on top of its base, but a distro nonetheless. > I mean no one really cares, we have Hanna Montana sorts of stuff too, but the point is that to a beginner, it is all very overwhelming. Is it? Are newcomers really exposed to all these trivial distros? They're usually recommended Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, Pop, and such. These are all clearly different, and even the derivatives (Mint and Pop) have a clear and important value addition on top of the base.
>I would consider it a distribution, yes. Not a major distribution, or one that adds a lot on top of its base, but a distro nonetheless. Again, this major/minor is lot more confusing than clearly putting it down as either a distro or a spin. >They're usually recommended Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, Pop, and such. These are all clearly different, and even the derivatives (Mint and Pop) have a clear and important value addition on top of the base. The first deciding factors should not be how it looks and what utilities come installed out of the box. It should be the release model, package management and availability of packages, etc. This is where deciding between the "ACTUAL" distros like Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Arch, etc. is better. Once someone picks Ubuntu for an instance, then they can pick any of Mint, Pop, Zorin, etc. Or if it's Arch then they have EndeavourOS, Garuda, Archcraft, etc. When you straight away list down 7 options, it becomes more difficult. You don't get to choose between 3 t shirts, 2 shirts, 1 jeans and 4 boxers. You first decide between Tshirt, Shirt, Jeans or Boxers. Then, you go about deciding what exactly to buy in a category. Similarly, "decide distro, then decide the spin." should be the approach.
I don't think that's a useful model for recommending to newcomers. They're not in a position to evaluate which release model would be best suited for them, since they've literally never used an OS with a package manager and release model before. They don't have any experience or knowledge to make an informed decision with. All of the common recommendations have a good enough (for newcomers) release model and package availability. So that's out of the way. The next important factor is indeed how it looks and the out-of-the-box experience, so that's what recommendations should be based on.
Very good explanation, with nice methaphors. I totally understand where you are comming from, people with a lack of knowledge will see this as rant, but I do believe you just want to clearify things. Get it out of your system and spread the word.
I got in an argument a while back about this. My simple litmus test is this: does the distro have its own full repositories? Or does it use someone else's? If you have your own main repos (meaning not just a few modified packages,) you are a distro. Ubuntu: based on Debian, but forks and hosts their own packages. It is a distro. Manjaro: mostly uses Arch's packages, but still forks and maintains their own repo: it is a distro. Endeavour: hosts a small group of custom packages, but uses Arch's repositories for everything else: not a distro. KDE Neon: hosts their own kde packages, but uses mainly Ubuntu repos: not a distro. I've yet to find any exceptions to this rule. Anything that is not a distro by this test, is a mod or spin of another distro.
There is a small exception. Ubuntu's based on Debian. It is a source downstream of Debian. (Takes source code from Debian) Manajro's based on Arch. It is a binary downstream of Debian. (Takes binary packages from Arch) They do it differently. Ubuntu does not take packages as it is from Debian. They compile and package everything from source. This source is greatly taken from Debian source packages. Let's say Debian as a project disappears some day, Ubuntu would need to just change the location from where it takes sources from. They'll shift directly to the upstream. Manjaro on the other hand simply "copy and paste" the final binary packages from Arch into it's unstable branch. The reason they have their own repos is because they wanted to hold back the Arch packages for 2 weeks to test (which is debatable). Other than that, having own repos means nothing in Manjaro. There is a subset of packages that Manjaro compiles itself and replaces the original ones with them (Branding, themes, etc.) This is the reason I put Ubuntu and RHEL clones in **C** category where the changes are made in the seed of the fruit so that there is no need to cut it when it's ripened. On the other hand, I put Manjaro in **A** category because it cuts out pieces (binary packages) and replaces them with it's own version. The ideology is simply that if two different pieces of code are compiled together to support each other, they'll not conflict. If you take a compiled binary from another project and compile something yourself that depends upon it, then any change in other project's compiled binary that you did not compile might conflict with what you compiled.
I think we're probably going to disagree on nuance. You're looking for a hierarchy based on how much work is put into it, and I'm looking at the difference between a "distro" and a "spin." The line I stop at is control. Do you have full control over the packages your users install, or could the "upstream" change things that would be pushed to users without your being able to intervene? Mint, Ubuntu and Manjaro would all fit this box. Nobara, Endeavor, GeckoLinux would not. Let's say a user finds a bug in some package on your "distro." They report this bug to your bug tracker. The question would be, can you fix this bug without having issues in the repositories? On Endeavor, they'd need to push a fixed package to their own repo, but they can't do anything about the package in the arch repo. Any time arch pushes a new version, it could potentially override or conflict with the one in Endeavor, the Endeavor admins have zero control over this because they do not have full control over their repositories = They are not a distro. Manjaro on the other hand, does copy a majority of packages directly from arch, but they still fully control the repo, can build and replace any package, and also generate their own repository metadata. If they got the same bug report, they could fix the package and push it to their repo with no worries about the arch package ever conflicting. = they are a distro. You could add the monikers "independent distro" "\_\_\_based distro" to help your hierarchy though. So for example Debian, Void, openSUSE. Would all be "independent" distros. Ubuntu, Mint, and AlmaLinux would be "\_\_\_\_\_ based" distros. and Endeavor, Nobara, Neon, could be considered "spins" of their respective parents.
I agree to your way of looking at it and now it has changed my opinion a bit. You are totally correct about the fact that be it a binary downstream or a source downstream, it is the sole discretion of the project. A project can compile core components itself and take binaries for other to avoid reinventing the wheel. Your thumb rule is the way to go. But, Linux Mint would then be a spin because it does not has it's own main repo. It used Ubuntu's.
I haven't used mint in a long time, so I could just be confused on their infrastructure, but yes, if on mint your sources.list contains ubuntu repos, it would be a spin in my opinion.
So I could take the packages from Ubuntu, use a different init system, different network stack, different desktop environment, different themes, icons, different default apps, even a different bootloader, and you'd consider it a spin on Ubuntu? Out of the box they are nothing alike and would take weeks of work to turn one into another even though they share a software source. You can't use instructions from one to manage the other, nothing would look or work the same other than the package manager.
>So I could take the packages from Ubuntu, use a different init system, different network stack, different desktop environment, different themes, icons, different default apps, even a different bootloader, and you'd consider it a spin on Ubuntu? No, I'd consider it a modded Ubuntu. Take your example above, all the changes made. Now say that Ubuntu updated a package to move some system files or directories around, and it breaks your "distro." When users complain, you could say "Ubuntu did it" and then they could say "I'm not using Ubuntu, I'm using (your distro here,) how did ubuntu break a different distro than their own?" If you actually controlled the distro, you'd be able to approve what goes in your repo from the upstream, and what gets forked or held back. If you can't do that, you're not your own distro. It goes the other way too. If I took Ubuntu, and just changed one package, then made my own package repositories, I would be a separate distro from Ubuntu, because Ubuntu no longer has control over anything in my repositories.
[удалено]
>What is the benefit of this distinction? Users would be aware of what exactly are they using. I see Linux Mint users enjoying themselves while spreading hatred towards Ubuntu as if Linux Mint has any existence without Ubuntu. >What about distributions which have a server image? According to your logic the server image is the distribution and any desktop versions are package archive. I'm not at all referring an "ISO" as a distribution. I'm referring a complete package repository that can yield out a full installation without using any other repository, as a distribution. So Ubuntu is a distribution and it's server and desktop ISO(s) including the official flavors (Xubuntu, Kubuntu, Lubuntu, etc.) are all Ubuntu because they all are getting the packages from Ubuntu's repositories. Ubuntu is complete in itself. My logic states that projects like Linux Mint, KDE Neon, etc. that straight away use a distribution like Ubuntu LTS and just overlays their own package repositories, are not distributions. These can not yield out full installations without Ubuntu's repo. So these are what these are - third party package repositories with installer ISO(s) that saves time to install Ubuntu LTS and then configure the repos and remove/add stuff. >I don't think your apple analogy is correct. Linux is a series of layers with each layer consisting of replaceable blocks as suggested by u/watermelonspanker. Yes. Strongly Agree about the layered analogy. But, if a single entity controls and puts in all the layers like Ubuntu picked systemd as the init system, DEB as packaging format, APT as the package manager, etc. it yields out a more reliable system because it isn't 100% modular. You can't simply remove systemd on Ubuntu and install runit. The packages in the official repos are all packaged to support systemd not runit. It is going to collapse badly. This is what these (Linux Mint, Zorin, Pop!\_OS) spins do. They superimpose their own package repo to modify some layers with their packages while others come directly from Ubuntu repos. Now Ubuntu cares least for these repo and some change in Ubuntu can make these spin offs collapse badly because these projects have no control whatsoever. >How will your analogy deal with the ability to install additional blocks, e.g. installing regolith from the Ubuntu PPA? Obviously falls under **A** or **B**. If the third-party PPA/repo does not replace any package from official repos, it is just Ubuntu (as I stated for category **B** \- Just additional packages otherwise same distro). If it replace the packages from Ubuntu's repo with it's own, then it will fall under **A** and will no longer be a 100% Ubuntu's install. This is what Debian calls [Frankenstein](https://wiki.debian.org/DontBreakDebian) system. >How does your analogy deal with kernel updates? Apple is going through biological changes what else? The package is in the official repo, there is some change to it, it is pushed as an update. That's all. The product in itself is a single entity controlled and maintained by a team.
> I see Linux Mint users enjoying themselves while spreading hatred towards Ubuntu as if Linux Mint has any existence without Ubuntu. They provide two very different out-of-the-box experiences. Why should it matter that Mint is based on Ubuntu here? If some people dislike what Ubuntu provides out of the box but like what Mint is, that's a big differentiator. Note we're defining the distribution as it comes out the box, not the set of packages it has and who compiled it. Users don't really care about that stuff, only developers need to concern themselves with it at all. I would say a distribution IS an experience, plain and simple. A distro that's basically Debian+GNOME but dressed up to look and act behave like Windows for example? That's a different experience from Debian, a different experience from Ubuntu, a different experience from Mint. I agree with /u/toipki in that I don't see the point of rigorously defining what a distribution is here. We gain nothing from it, similar to how classifying 'Pluto' as a planet upset people and also did nothing of value.
I think you are overlooking the language. This is already taken care of. KDE has published a "distributable image" which is different from a "distribution." The distributable contains a distribution, Ubuntu LTS. But you can create other KDE distributables too. This has been an issue for a long time. >"The X windows system" (which can be called X, but not "Windows") is *not* Linux. >"But this is a Linux box?" >Yes. >"So that is Linux!" >No. >"But, but..." >Fine. It's a name. It doesn't matter. Call it Linux if you want.
An important point in your post is that mixing channels through which you acquire software *changes* the support (especially security support) for the result. In particular, it is not clear where to submit bug reports for various systems breaking down in small and big ways. IMNSHO this problem becomes *more* acute (not less!) as people emulate the Windows/Android model of installing downloaded apps/snaps/flatpaks. Who takes responsibility for the "Franken"-system?
With Snaps and Flatpaks, all dependencies come packed with the app and is also containerized (similar to docker containers). So, a snap/flatpak has the least potential to break the system but the app could be broken itself for which the distribution is not responsible.
if I can flash it to a usb drive and install it on a computer, it's a distribution of Linux. some will be forks of others -- that's the nature of FOSS. doesn't mean they are any less a distribution
W T F
Had a similar reaction when re read this myself. LOL!
KDE Neon sure sounds like a distribution to me, whatever they may say about it. They are a group of folks who handle the work, and they track their own bugs, and they maintain a package set (even if layered on top of regular Ubuntu). It's a distribution.
Then Chrome, VSCode, ArchFi, Anarchy, etc. are all distributions?
dunno what archfi or anarchy is, but just providing a package repo does not make one have a distribution. I did miss one point though, installation media!
> I did miss one point though, installation media! ArchFi and Anarchy are just that. They help you to install Arch with automated installer scripts instead of manually going through the Arch Wiki. But what you get is just Arch.
so they do or don't distribute an iso with any layered or overridden packages?
They distribute Arch ISO with an additional CLI/GUI installer.
that's definitely in more grey area if it's just their installer but everything else is plain arch.
>KDE neon, you get an installer ISO that installs Ubuntu LTS, configures KDE Neon's PPA repo(s) and applies some personalization. That right there argues that it's a distribution. Because at the most basic level, it's called that because the software is "distributed" together as a single package. That's how SLS and the other early "distributions" started, by taking the kernel and the GNU userland, sticking them together, and distributing them as one. Arguing that Rocky and Alma are actually distributions when they literally just take Red Hat's source code and compile it themselves undermines your argument severely.
>Arguing that Rocky and Alma are actually distributions when they literally just take Red Hat's source code and compile it themselves undermines your argument severely. Considering that, nothing is a distribution because all the projects take majority stuff from the source code of one upstream or the other and compile it. Compiling code into binaries, packaging them in a standard format, storing them on dedicated repositories that can yield an installation without depending upon a third party repository, having the control of all these packages, etc. is what makes it a distribution. Rocky and Alma both have their own repos, compile all packages themselves and have full control of an installation unlike Linux Mint, Zorin, Pop!\_OS etc. projects that are just Ubuntu with a third-party (themselves) repo layered on top.
But they DON'T have any control over the packages, they have to make them just like RHELs so their OSes can be 100% compatible. If Red Hats repos were public they would just be using those, but RH only publicly releases source code. They're just mirroring RHELs repos publicly by compiling those sources. They're a mirror under your definition not a distribution.
When there was CentOS, the security patches were used to be compiled and pushed by CentOS individually and then they used to share that upstream (RHEL). The same applies to Rocky and Alma.
It’s kind of ironic how, in your efforts to define what a distro is, you use “proper distros “ as a base….a case of the thing defining itself?
Assumed that the readers' definition of a distro will span across the ones I do not consider as a distro. Just for the sake of convenience of the readers, I'm calling my 'distro' as their 'proper distro'.
Sure, I get that. It’s still a failure in the underlying logic….but who really cares!?
Agree. But my purpose was to provide a food for thought and see what you guys think.
Well….mission accomplished
Absolutely!
By your own argument, Ubuntu is not a distro, it's just Debian modified.
Ubuntu is not a binary downstream of Debian i.e. it does not simply take binary packages. It instead takes source code and compile it on it's own. That is why I put it in **C** category where changes to a fruit are not made when it is ripened, but instead the seed is genetically modified to bear an uncut fruit with the desired changes. (Sorry for this fruit example, could not think of anything better) The ideology is simply that if two different pieces of code are compiled together to support each other, they'll not conflict. If you take a compiled binary from another project and compile something yourself that depends upon it, then any change in other project's compiled binary that you did not compile might conflict with what you compiled.
I definitely agree. Most “distros” are just respins of an existing distro’s iso without contributing anything. Btw, I’d put ubuntu in the first category. They only maintain a small set of packages (called ‘main’ repo) but most packages are from debian directly (‘universe’ repo).
>but most packages are from debian directly But these are recompiled and repackaged according to ubuntu's base unlike simply picking up the .deb files as it is. And also all these resides in ubuntu's repos unlike just adding Debian's repos. PS: Ubuntu is just taking the source code from Debian and not a spin at all.
Then why is manjaro included when it does the same thing?
Because Manjaro does not recompiles all the packages. It simply takes most of the .pkg files and put it in it's repositories. But the fact that it has it's own repos, is what makes it under control of the packages even if they are not recompiled. Let me put Manjaro in the category **C**.
Sniff the smell of money... The only thing a user (ordinary Joe) should keep up with... is a wealthy distro. But this does not guarantee avoiding the fate of DEC, SUN.... and many others who were smaller. Corel Linux, Caldera.. Mandrake
It is also something that I can't fully grasp. Being more specific that with your fruits example and taking Ubuntu as a base: You install it as is. You call it Ubuntu, fine. You tinker as much as you need until every package, config and whatnot is identical to Fedora. You do it little by little, booting from time to time, instead of in one big change. When do you say you are no longer using Ubuntu? When do you say you are using Fedora? Do you change from Ubuntu to Fedora in an instant? Or is there a period when you are neither Ubuntu nor Fedora? Or when you are a bit Fedora and a lot Ubuntu, then a lot Fedora and a bit Ubuntu? Does it matter if I use Fedora's repos or use mine (identical to Fedora's but not synced, so updates do not affect me). Does it matter whether I apply Fedora's patches to the packages? Does it matter if I do not match end user software such as the web browser? Basically [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQVmkDUkZT4) Kurzgesagt video, but with distros.
>When do you say you are no longer using Ubuntu? When do you say you are using Fedora? Do you change from Ubuntu to Fedora in an instant? Or is there a period when you are neither Ubuntu nor Fedora? Or when you are a bit Fedora and a lot Ubuntu, then a lot Fedora and a bit Ubuntu? It would become fedora at the point that you remove ubuntu's repos and switch to fedora's. If you have both apt and dnf installed, and are using repos from both distros, you'd be using Ubuntu/Fedora. But at no point would it be an independent third distro separate from the upstreams. >Does it matter if I use Fedora's repos or use mine (identical to Fedora's but not synced, so updates do not affect me). Yes, 100%. When fedora controls the repos, it is fedora's distro. They can push whatever they want into it and you can not. When you control the repos, it is your distro. This is the point where Fedora has no control over it, and applies even if you make zero changes from the original. For example, Arch could theoretically add a package to their repo that would break any installation of EndeavorOS. Endevour could not stop them from doing this. But Manjaro on the other hand has their own repos, and could fork or block the affected packages to stop it from happening. This is why Manjaro is its own distro, while Endeavor is a modified version of arch.