People have difficulty comprehending the amount of #Linux Distributions: they see 1000+1 versions advertising themselves as "xxx OS".
I think that the #Linux naming scheme should be better. A fork of #fedora gets its own name like "Ultramarine OS". This implies that it is a standalone #Linux distribution, from scratch. This is not the case, as it is just #fedora with little, little tweaks and pre-adjustments.
Some forks:
change desktop environment,
remove or include bloat,
add a few preinstalled apps,
use a different theme,
test it,
change wallpaper, calling it a day and almost branding it as their own.
You can litterally automate the abovementioned tasks (downloading apps and desktop environment, theming and remove bloat) and get the same result.
I don't think this "issuance" of brand identities should be that easy (yes, they've scarcity).
It is like the ship of Theseus. How much can you change while being the same?
I think Linux distributions should be classified using these factors:
- upstream or independed presence
(#linux distributions like "GrapheneOS" that really help create solutions)
- extensibilty (download manager etc)
(Biggest usability difference)
- why it stands out
(special features like 'yast' from #opensuse or homebrewed contributions)
- purpose
(servers, users, lightweight, bitcoin, supercomputers, mobile, stability, etc)
- philosophy
(to predict where the project is and will be going.)
I think that the name should always tell if it is using #linux kernel/#bsd.
then, the name of the independend distribution.
then, the other upstreams and its own name.
#Linux>independend distro>upstreams and own name
(could be in a different order.)
So Examples Given:
#Pop_OS! --> #Linux #debian #ubuntu pop
#Fedora --> #Fedora #Linux
#Linux #mint #debian edition --> #Linux #Debian #mint
#Android --> #Android #Linux
#Manjaro --> #Linux #Arch #Manjaro
#ChromeOS --> #Gentoo #Chrome #Linux
#Ubuntu --> #Linux #Debian #Ubuntu
#Void #Linux --> #Linux #Void
As you can see, some distro's will get a really absurd name, implying that it is a fork of a fork, which is in my eyes pointless.
or it could be something like
`Linux Mint.deb`, `Linux Bitkey.deb`
It would make it alot more understandable for new users and also limit the pointless forks so that it is easier to focus code review and audits.
₿itcoin
npub183…wmxya
2024-03-01 14:58:54
Author Public Key
npub183cew3aj00r3lk058huwy8qah5ej7v0u4ygs9xwhl6yl34wvq0jsqwmxyaPublished at
2024-03-01 14:58:54Event JSON
{
"id": "801ade8dd952ec692eda8ed178c237448cd92aede3937c0517c556872d706469",
"pubkey": "3c719747b27bc71fd9f43df8e21c1dbd332f31fca9110299d7fe89f8d5cc03e5",
"created_at": 1709305134,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"t",
"Linux"
],
[
"t",
"linux"
],
[
"t",
"fedora"
],
[
"t",
"fedora"
],
[
"t",
"opensuse"
],
[
"t",
"opensuse"
],
[
"t",
"linux"
],
[
"t",
"linux"
],
[
"t",
"Pop_OS"
],
[
"t",
"pop_os"
],
[
"t",
"debian"
],
[
"t",
"debian"
],
[
"t",
"ubuntu"
],
[
"t",
"ubuntu"
],
[
"t",
"Fedora"
],
[
"t",
"fedora"
],
[
"t",
"mint"
],
[
"t",
"mint"
],
[
"t",
"Debian"
],
[
"t",
"debian"
],
[
"t",
"Android"
],
[
"t",
"android"
],
[
"t",
"Manjaro"
],
[
"t",
"manjaro"
],
[
"t",
"Arch"
],
[
"t",
"arch"
],
[
"t",
"ChromeOS"
],
[
"t",
"chromeos"
],
[
"t",
"Gentoo"
],
[
"t",
"gentoo"
],
[
"t",
"Chrome"
],
[
"t",
"chrome"
],
[
"t",
"Ubuntu"
],
[
"t",
"ubuntu"
],
[
"t",
"Void"
],
[
"t",
"void"
],
[
"r",
"Mint.deb"
],
[
"r",
"Bitkey.deb"
]
],
"content": "People have difficulty comprehending the amount of #Linux Distributions: they see 1000+1 versions advertising themselves as \"xxx OS\".\n\nI think that the #Linux naming scheme should be better. A fork of #fedora gets its own name like \"Ultramarine OS\". This implies that it is a standalone #Linux distribution, from scratch. This is not the case, as it is just #fedora with little, little tweaks and pre-adjustments.\n\nSome forks:\nchange desktop environment, \nremove or include bloat, \nadd a few preinstalled apps, \nuse a different theme, \ntest it,\nchange wallpaper, calling it a day and almost branding it as their own. \n\nYou can litterally automate the abovementioned tasks (downloading apps and desktop environment, theming and remove bloat) and get the same result.\n\nI don't think this \"issuance\" of brand identities should be that easy (yes, they've scarcity).\n\nIt is like the ship of Theseus. How much can you change while being the same?\n\nI think Linux distributions should be classified using these factors:\n\n- upstream or independed presence \n(#linux distributions like \"GrapheneOS\" that really help create solutions)\n\n- extensibilty (download manager etc)\n(Biggest usability difference)\n\n- why it stands out\n(special features like 'yast' from #opensuse or homebrewed contributions)\n\n- purpose \n(servers, users, lightweight, bitcoin, supercomputers, mobile, stability, etc)\n\n- philosophy \n(to predict where the project is and will be going.)\n\nI think that the name should always tell if it is using #linux kernel/#bsd.\n then, the name of the independend distribution.\n then, the other upstreams and its own name. \n\n#Linux\u003eindependend distro\u003eupstreams and own name\n(could be in a different order.)\n\nSo Examples Given:\n#Pop_OS! --\u003e #Linux #debian #ubuntu pop\n#Fedora --\u003e #Fedora #Linux\n#Linux #mint #debian edition --\u003e #Linux #Debian #mint\n#Android --\u003e #Android #Linux\n#Manjaro --\u003e #Linux #Arch #Manjaro\n#ChromeOS --\u003e #Gentoo #Chrome #Linux\n#Ubuntu --\u003e #Linux #Debian #Ubuntu\n#Void #Linux --\u003e #Linux #Void\n\nAs you can see, some distro's will get a really absurd name, implying that it is a fork of a fork, which is in my eyes pointless.\n\nor it could be something like \n`Linux Mint.deb`, `Linux Bitkey.deb`\n\nIt would make it alot more understandable for new users and also limit the pointless forks so that it is easier to focus code review and audits.",
"sig": "3194d0a729ff9773e183d1934053227e113090560a5be8e31cb93e926989dbd1af7b438ddf7f2b9508e14e06072b7b90430f708a62600a193c6f8cd58809f6b7"
}