Linux

48102 readers

662 users here now

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).

Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.

Rules

Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
No misinformation
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

what counts as a distro (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 year ago by joel_feila@lemmy.world to c/linux@lemmy.ml

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] monk@lemmy.unboiled.info 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.info 2 points 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.