Spoken like a true Arch Linux user
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
92 points (95.1% liked)
Linux
48008 readers
833 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
I don't use arch. Sorry you took offense to my harmless opinion!
I also assumed you were a fellow Arch user.
I use Arch btw.
I say that very tongue-in-cheek, but it definitely gave a vibe haha
What would be the relation? From my understanding, the stereotype is about arch users telling everyone that they use arch btw, or telling people to rtfm. Maybe there's another stereotype I am missing, but I haven't done either of those here. 😅
base arch only installs the "system software" as you call them. all the "non-essentials" are indeed just packages like you seem to want them to be.
I am pretty sure arch installs a decent amount of non-system software, but I suppose that's beyond the point.
What I am suggesting: if you make a new distribution, whose only change from its base distribution is changing non-system software, then I personally think it should be available as a package. This doesn't mean I am saying Ubuntu or Fedora should remove non system software, and follow arch-like model. Absolutely not. These distros change things that aren't easily packageable.
Suppose kubuntu, ubuntu, lubuntu, xubuntu were packages to be installed on top of debian.
How would you do that? Debian would not create and maintain a "core debian" variant just to be installed then receive the extra packages. Would the *ubuntu packages replace, instead of add on top of default debian packages?
Then where would the updates come from? Both debian and *ubuntu repositories?
What about dependencies? Would debian have to coordinate with all *ubuntu maintainers (and they too, between them) for compatibility tests every time debian needed to update one of its packages? Or they'd just update and *ubuntu would have to scramble to release fixes for what had been broken?
Not to mention convenience; would you have to download debian, download *ubuntu, install debian, then your *ubuntu?
Why not then package the "core debian", with the tested component versions that work with the *ubuntu packages you're downloading? Hey, and what about script the installation to install both "core debian" parts and then *ubuntu automatically? That's an innovative idea indeed. No, wait, isn't it sort of what they already do today?
It's not like there's a Linux headquarters with a centralized organization that releases all multiple distros just to feed the hobby of distro hoppers. Distros are maintained and packaged by different people, and it's already a lot of trouble to keep each part in sync.
Debian would not create and maintain a "core debian" variant just to be installed then receive the extra packages
Debian server minimal, is kind of a "core Debian". There are netinst versions that can be even smaller. The Debian base image for Docker is even smaller than all that.
There is also an Ubuntu minimal install that you could call "core Ubuntu".
But more importantly, and I can't stress this enough: YOU CAN SWITCH DISTROS WITHOUT REINSTALLING. Might need to do some cleanup afterwards, but it's perfectly doable, more so between Debian based ones.
Uninstalling the entire kubuntu package, while reverting to “core Debian” and then installing the Ubuntu package would be more complicated and time-consuming than installing a new OS.
Just partition off your /home and a reinstall won’t be that big a deal.
load more comments
(1 replies)
A minimal install like debian base already has a things that may differ from distro to distro. Or are you equating "distro" with window manager and GUI customizations? Even the kernel binaries may differ from distro to distro.
I know what I said. Linux upholds the "don't break userspace" contract pretty well: most kernels, particularly those from generalistic distros built with modules, are compatible with whatever userspace binaries you throw at them. Major version changes in glibc (or equivalent) is where incompatibilities start, but those happen quite rarely, and you can often still force multiple glibc versions to run side by side.
YOU CAN SWITCH DISTROS WITHOUT REINSTALLING
Not really, I'm not new to containers.
This might blow yours though: I once booted up from a Tomsrtbt disk, installed Debian, added some RedHat packages, and topped it up with some pinned downgrades from Ubuntu.
On bare metal, no containers, no rebooting.
load more comments
(3 replies)
How would you do that? Debian would not create and maintain a “core debian” variant just to be installed then receive the extra packages.
To be honest, I do not fully understand your question here. Could you rephrase?
Would the *ubuntu packages replace, instead of add on top of default debian packages?
They must not replace. If they are merely installing KDE on top of Ubuntu, then theres nothing to do here. The work is already done for us. But if it is doing more than taht, then they should be different packages building on top of the default debian packages for KDE et al.
Sort of like how LunarVim is a distribution of NeoVim. It is the same NeoVim, but with pre-configurations and plugins shipped OOTB, and it can be packaged separately.
What about dependencies?
Thats the beauty of this. Package managers are already equipped with dependency management. It is far easier to manage dependencies with a package rather than rolling out your own distribution. It is literally one of the biggest reasons why we use package managers to begin with. We dont want dependency hell!
Would debian have to coordinate with all *ubuntu maintainers (and they too, between them) for compatibility tests every time debian needed to update one of its packages? Or they’d just update and *ubuntu would have to scramble to release fixes for what had been broken?
This is a debian specific question, so I will try to answer more generally. It would just have to be done in the same way any package is maintained on that distribution. And this varies by distro; some distributions have different workflows for their package maintenance. The point is that we make use of these already defined workflows that have worked for decades and been iterated on. It is much easier to package than to create a new distribution.
Not to mention convenience; would you have to download debian, download *ubuntu, install debian, then your *ubuntu?
Instead of installing *ubuntu, you install Debian, then run one command: sudo apt install *ubuntu. I see these as nearly equivalent. Moreover, it could be made to be an option in the distribution's installer, sort of like EndeavourOS and Fedora do it.
Why not then package the “core debian”, with the tested component versions that work with the *ubuntu packages you’re downloading?
That can be what I mean with it being an option in the installer. But if you mean maintaining a whole separate distribution just for this, well ... you are maintaining an entirel separate distribution just for this ... instead of just maintaining a package.
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I think your focus is on ease for distributors rather than ease for users. Unless they had a series of checkboxes to choose your flavour, most won't like it and it won't gain traction.
It's a bit like "why cannot people cook food in a restaurant to their liking rather than a chef doing all these meals and variations?". People just wanna eat.
If you're basing your distro on another distro, you'll need to modify your dependencies to fit the existing packages anyway. It seems like the only difference is which repo the additional packages are being fetched from.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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?
load more comments
(3 replies)
Some distros build their entire system as modules declaratively. NixOS and GUIX.
What has that to do with OPs consideration??
Not GP, but NixOS makes it easy to make new distros from a NixOS configuration, with ISOs and everything. See for example SnowflakeOS. This is IMO healthier than all the Arch clones etc., since all differences from the base OS are easy to spot, there is little duplication of effort, and it possible to revert to a base NixOS from e.g. SnowflakeOS if a user so would desire.
load more comments
(3 replies)
If what you proposed was put into practice, we wouldn't have hundreds of distributions. I think the amount of distributions that exist may actually be overwhelming to a new user. If there were only a few distributions to choose from, you wouldn't have so many people distro hopping, which is a waste of time (in most cases). You don't like the desktop environment? Install something else. You don't like floating windows? Use a tiling window manager.
You and OP probably are confusing "distribution" with "UI customization". Granted, lazy distros may by simply that, but not all of them.
Why do you think I am talking about all distributions? Even the title of the post alone makes it clear I am not.
I don't know any distro that only changes non-system software and UI customizations. They all package all their components and include the packages in their repo.
Again (and again and again), this gives them control over dependencies and compatibility tests.
Even if they just recompile & package the components with no modifications from the upstream sources, they are the ones who test their whole set of packages.
What system software from Ubuntu does Kubuntu change?
What system software from Arch Linux does Garuda change?
If you go on distro watch, you'll find that most distros only change non system software, compared to the base they started with.
Really? Did you diff everyone of them? And will every distro maintainer swear that they will never do it, just to help whiney distro hoppers?
Don't really get your argument here. Why does anyone need to swear? What does this have to do with my post about Linux distributions? The only one whining here is you, my friend.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I just call them "flavours" or theme distros
A "theme" with the ability to replace key packages with compromised versions!
Excellent argument. I'm on board.
I think it's about controlling others. Not in an evil or conniving way, but rather that a lot of devs "don't want other people forcing design decisions on them" when in reality they're just replacing one set of design decisions with another.
There used to be a distribution called Symphony OS. It was a unique desktop paradigm (not my favorite mid '90s buzzword, but I think it fits) that I was interested in trying out. It's long gone by this point, but it would have been nice to be able to just install the DM like Gnome, KDE, or whatever without having to do a full install.
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?
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?
view more: next ›