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.
Spoken like a true Arch Linux user
I don’t use arch
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.
YOU CAN SWITCH DISTROS WITHOUT REINSTALLING. Might need to do some cleanup afterwards, but it’s perfectly doable, more so between Debian based ones.
How do you do that? First time hearing this
Replace Debian apt sources with Ubuntu ones, do system upgrade and install the Ubuntu-Desktop package, now you have Ubuntu.
It’s been a while since I have done this, but it’s totally possible.
We did this transition from Ubuntu to Debian at Work with thousands of workstations.
It requires a bit of time and testing but it’s possible.
What @[email protected] said. Switching .deb based distros is little more than changing sources, maybe some pinning, doing an upgrade, and optionally a cleanup pass to remove any stranglers.
My main Linux box is a Debian-Ubuntu-Debian upgrade, that hasn’t seen a proper reinstall for like 15 years (switched all the hardware several times, still no clean reinstall).
Switching between non-deb distros is also possible, with a chroot. Like, Gentoo to Fedora. As long as the kernel is compatible with the glibc, it’s basically like running containers, just on slightly hard mode.
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.
I want kubuntu?
Step 1: install Ubuntu (the farthest ancestor of kubuntu that does more than change non system packages) Step 2: install kubuntu package: sudo apt install kubuntu
Oh well, I decided I want lubuntu instead
Step 1: uninstall kubuntu: sudo apt remove kubuntu Step 2: install lububtu: sudo apt install lubuntu
That is my proposal. It is WAY simpler than reinstalling.
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.
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. 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.
You fail to realize that each distro is maintained by different people. Your reasoning would make sense if the “core debian” was maintained and packaged by the same people who maintained and packaged *ubuntu.
The end user would download “core debian” from debian, and the *ubuntu “flavor” from *ubuntu. Installing debian then going “apt install kubuntu” wouldn’t work because kubuntu is not in the debian repository.
If debian changed their downloadable “core debian”, it could make it incompatible with what’s in the kubuntu repository. They are not maintained by the same employees of “Linux inc.”
You fail to realize that each distro is maintained by different people.
I very well realize this. Packages are maintained by different people too!
The idea is that installing a *ubuntu would literally be the same as installing one of the many packages already available. It works for all those packages, so why wouldn’t it work here?
Installing debian then going “apt install kubuntu” wouldn’t work because kubuntu is not in the debian repository.
Yes, that is correct. I apologize if you misunderstood what I said. I did not mean to say that this is the current state. This is what I think how things should be.
Though for the case of kubuntu, it apparently is pretty close. You can in fact already do “apt install kubuntu-desktop”, but you have to be on regular Ubuntu instead of debian. Which is fine, since Ubuntu changes a lot more about debian than just pre installed packages, so it works out for my example.
If debian changed their downloadable “core debian”,
I do not suggest they should!
When debian maintainers need to release an update of a debian package, they need to make sure it doesn’t break compatibility with … other debian packages - yes maintained by other people. They don’t need to test it with a dozen *ubuntu and other .deb variants, nor coordinate with those other maintainers and wait for them to release their new, compatible versions.
It’s already hard to do that within the same distro.
I am not sure if you are onto something or you don’t understand the proposition. e.g. how does KDE or any other DE developer maintain their packages on debian? Do they not? And its up to debian developers to decide what version of KDE they use? If thats the case then I see your point, which would make it very hard for the so-called “kubuntu” package maintainer, because they have to rely on what debian maintainers do.
uses their
Yes, that’s what I mean. For example suppose you had this mixed solution (core comes from debian repository, “kubuntu personality” from kubuntu repository).
Then debian maintainers release updates for their packages - which they tested and validated in systems that use only other debian packages.
Next time you update your system, it may happen that the new version of debian components are no longer compatible with the kubuntu components.
Debian won’t wait for or check if every distro who uses their “core” has tested debian changes and released compatible new packages of their own.
Probably most debian based distros simply repackage many base debian components with minimum or no changes, but they know those releases are compatible with their own “customized” packages, and can have control of their dependencies.
Edit: I didn’t address one of your questions directly: No, developers and maintainers of a linux system component (as kde, and even the kernel) not necessarily are the maintainers of a specific distro packages.
For example, kernel decelopers and maintainers release a new kernel release independent of any distro. It’s up to the distro maintainers to test and package this, then make it available in their repo.
I do not suggest they should!
No? do suggest debian kept their install package frozen forever just to make this proposition viable?
Would would they do that? You act as if debian doesn’t already package a massive amount of software, and has no issue adding on to the list.
They test that massive amount of packages to make sure the dependecies and compatibility are kept. They do that between DEBIAN packages. The maintainers of the bash debian package can’t just shove a new release in the repository. It’s tested in DEBIAN systems first.
Who would test this new bash package in every fskcing “addon distro” that installs on top of “core debian” before releasing it to the debian repository? Or would the maintainers of every fscking distro have to scramble to update their packages after debian released this, and users have updated, breaking compatibility with the “addon” packages?
Or the opposite, the “addon” distro package developers want to use a new feature from a library, but can’t, because debian hasn’t updated their packaged version yet.
youre over complicating it. Debian adds new packages to its repository all the time, and this would be just one more package they add. Simple as that.
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.
deleted by creator
If you way of replying is to use caps instead of linking maybe to a specific topic… not sure I really wanna know what this is about. Also in regards to #nixos there is another active topic on lemmy worth reading.
deleted by creator
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.
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?
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.
Well, they do, and even when they don’t, they won’t commit not to forever, just to help distro hoppers.
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!
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 just call them “flavours” or theme distros
A “theme” with the ability to replace key packages with compromised versions!
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.
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.
Compatibility, testing, dependecy trees. You either don’t understand or pretend not to. Either way, I’ve wasted too much time with you already. Bye.
Excellent argument. I’m on board.
I don’t think they’d be so popular if they weren’t useful.
Why should the user be required to reinstall their whole OS? I don’t think they are: it seems relatively straightforward to change DEs on Ubuntu at least.
On the other hand, if someone knows they want Ubuntu with KDE, why should they have to go through a regular Ubuntu install just to do the post configuration themselves? Plus, maintainers of these offshoot distros can potentially more deeply remove dependency on the default DE.
I think focusing on differences in system software is less illustrative than looking at the out-of-the-box user experience and capabilities. A changed DE is a pretty huge practical difference.
This line of thought does really underscore how nebulous the definition of an operating system really is. Pour one out for GNU being totally subsumed culturally by a Kernel that everyone sees as an OS.
They are of course very useful, please do not misunderstand my post. None of what I said downplays the usefulness of these efforts. I am merely suggesting that the method in which they distribute them is not efficient. Maintaining a whole different Linux distribution just to distribute a different DE configuration is overkill. It is much easier to maintain a package instead.
From the user’s perspective, installing Ubuntu and doing “sudo apt install [pre-configured KDE package to your liking]” is effortless and virtually indistinguishable from just installign Kubuntu. You get the full support from Ubuntu, whereas a different distribution may not. You are not needlessly breaking away from Ubuntu.
Honestly, it could even be an install option, like Fedora and EndeavourOS do. Do you miss out on anything doing this vs an entire different distro? I dont think so.
Again, a changed DE is pretty drastic, but it does not warrant a different installation process of the whole OS or system. You should only need to take out the parts you need to, and from a user’s perspective, it should be possible to make it as simple as running a command or making a choice.
Now that you mention Fedora, the Fedora Server ISO does this incredibly well. You pick your spin, (Workstation, Server, KDE, Sway, etc.) and You pick an extra set of packages if you want. It’s the same installer as the desktop (the Anaconda installer), and it works great.
It doesn’t warrant it to your taste, but people like it. I don’t get your point beyond saying that people shouldn’t prefer it because you don’t.
So they’re “very useful”, but shouldn’t exist?
Never said that they shouldn’t exist. I only said that they must be distributed as packages instead.
I think we’re mostly on the same page, but verbiage like “must be distributed as packages instead” is pretty hard to interpret any other way than saying DE-distros shouldn’t exist.
Name a single popular distro that follows op’s description that isn’t a novelty/fad.
Kubuntu
kubuntu is already literally just a package.
if you just install kubuntu-desktop (or something similar) from any buntu flavor you get it.
And that’s exactly my point. You get the same experience by just installing a package rather than having to “distro-hop”
[This comment has been deleted by an automated system]
But if you start with Kubuntu then it’s not exactly hopping, it’s just more convenient.
If people wanted to do it by package installation, they would!
In the end it’s just more user choice, which is good.
Sure, you’re right! But here’s a proposition: it would be easier on both the developer and the user (without sacrificing user choice) if it was a package, or better yet, an option to check on the installer. It is still just the same amount of choice.
If people wanted to do it by package installation, they would!
In the current state, they usually can’t. Maintainers do not provide these as packages, so you’re forced to install a whole distribution just to try out their configuration of KDE
I’m with you that it would be awesome to have more options to explore big changes like that.
I just don’t see maintainers putting the effort into it. I don’t think these DE-only distros are going anywhere anytime soon, and I’m glad they’re filling a gap for the users that want it.
I disagree. On one laptop I had Ubuntu, and then installed
kubuntu-desktop. It became a bit of a mess with the login screen, and it isn’t that easy to uninstall the previous Gnome stuff – had to leave it there. On another laptop I installed Kubuntu directly, and the problems above don’t appear.
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?
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.
As an OpenSuSE user I don’t know what you’re talking about.
I’d love to clarify if you tell me which part of the post you didn’t understand.
They do understand, they’re just saying that OpenSUSE doesn’t have this problem since you can choose your DE in the installer.
