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.

  • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlOPM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • theshatterstone54@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • zagaberoo@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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?

      • Cyclohexane@lemmy.mlOPM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Never said that they shouldn’t exist. I only said that they must be distributed as packages instead.

        • zagaberoo@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.