With that recent post about chrome os not counting as a distro of linux. It does bring a good question, what is a distro of linux?

If Linux is just a kernel then android and chrome os are Linux. Bur no really considers android a distro of linux. So linux is more then a kernel.

KDE say that neon is not a distro but doesn’t really why neon is not but kubuntu is.

  • czech@no.faux.moe
    25·
    1 year ago

    Linux is just a kernel in the same sense that a disto is just a package manager and an init system. Technically that’s the case but colloquially a distro is any set of curated, pre-configured packages with an install script.

  • eric5949@lemmy.cloudaf.site
    15·
    1 year ago

    Idk I know they don’t fit into the usual open source box of Linux but I’d consider Android and ChromeOS as Linux distros, a distro is just a collection of software distributed with the Linux kernel as far as I’m aware. If someone doesn’t consider them “Linux distros” it’s probably due to the proprietary nature of some of the software surrounding the kernel. No idea why kde thinks neon isnt a distro when it literally is.

    Edit: in the case of chrome os it’s not even just built around the kernel, it’s based on a distro.

  • monk@lemmy.unboiled.info
    14·
    1 year ago

    If it distributes Linux, it’s a distro. Thus ChromeOS, Android, Windows are all Linux distros.

    If you have a different definition, best you can do with it is go brighten up some lawyer’s day, I guess.

      • monk@lemmy.unboiled.info
        5·
        1 year ago

        Windows distributes Linux, through its repositories, ergo Windows a Linux distribution.

        What does it do with it then – acts as a hypervisor or sings its source aloud backwards – is an orthogonal question.

        • QuazarOmega@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          What does it do with it then […] is an orthogonal question.

          Hm, ok if we take the word “distribution” for it lexical meaning then maybe, although wouldn’t that be “distributor”?
          In this field “distribution” is the set of things that constitute the software package, by extension, in the case of free software, it is more a synonym of “flavor” since anyone can redistribute with their own changes added on top. You wouldn’t call a supermarket a Cocacola distribution, it’s a distributor, but the drinks themselves are the distributions (tho in my mind “distributed” sounds more fitting at this point).
          If having a system of OS and server, both property of one maker, where the server distributes a form of an OS x (even just the source code) and the client OS can download those files, make the OS a distribution of x, then I can set up a computer with e.g. OpenBSD (with my own modifications to make it mine) that downloads an Ubuntu ISO from my server, then I load up that ISO into a virtual machine and now I magically turned OpenBSD into an Ubuntu distribution??

          Me OMW to argue my pointless argument

          • monk@lemmy.unboiled.infoEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            You wouldn’t call a supermarket a Cocacola distribution

            Only because it’s kinda unconventional to buy oneself some Coca-Cola by purchasing an entire supermarket.

            I would still call a combo meal “a Coca-Cola distribution”, and whoever sells it to me a “Coca-Cola distributor”.

            I can set up a computer with e.g. OpenBSD (with my own modifications to make it mine) that downloads an Ubuntu ISO from my server, then I load up that ISO into a virtual machine and now I magically turned OpenBSD into an Ubuntu distribution??

            my server

            You’re now a distributor of Ubuntu (regardless of the OpenBSD-based thingie), and your version of OpenBSD is an Ubuntu distribution. If, however, your hypothetical OpenBSD-based distro pulled all the Ubuntu bits from ubuntu.com, it would’ve been just an distribution of an Ubuntu installer.

  • Mateo@lemmy.zip
    8·
    1 year ago

    My understanding is that is has to have a certain level of the GNU core utilities in combination with the Kernel but yeah not really, it’s hard to define, maybe the use of a package manager? Definitely nothing to do with GUI, probably a philosophy in mind, not sure at all to be honest.

    • duncesplayed@lemmy.oneEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      It is hard. We had Chimera Linux posted here yesterday, which has no GNU code at all. None of the early Linux distributions had package managers. The best I can tell, “pms” (package management system) written for Bogus Linux in 1993 was the earliest, but package management didn’t hit the mainstream until at least 1995. Slackware didn’t get a package manager until the mid-2000s. But we still all consider them distributions. (Right?)

  • superminerJG@lemmy.world
    6·
    1 year ago

    The way I see it, a Linux distribution:

    • Boots the Linux kernel
    • Has open-source software at its core
    • Provides an “easy bootstrap” system.
    • Does not outright prevent modification of system software. (This excludes ChromeOS/Android)
      • This does not exclude immutable distros, as system software can still be modded as root).
  • BitSound@lemmy.world
    5·
    1 year ago

    To riff on “A language is just a dialect with a navy”, I’d define it as “a distro is just a package manager with a LiveUSB image”.

  • js10@reddthat.com
    4·
    1 year ago

    Does Android really even use the Linux Kernel anymore? I thought they forked it about 15 years ago and at this point it has diverged so much its not even really the Linux kernel anymore.