Talk:Linux distribution

Is a linux OS a distribution if it's not intended for distrubution?

First sentence says Linux distro is an operating system made from a software collection that includes the Linux kernel and often a package management system. I build Linux for closed embedded systems. There is no distribution aspect/feature/support. It fits the description of the first sentence since it includes the linux kernel. Even though there is no package management system it still fits the first sentence since that says that aspect is only often included. But, it seems to me that a linux OS for a closed system is not a distribution. Therefore, I think the definition (first sentence) should include that it must be intended for distribution to a wide audience.

Later says A Linux distribution may also be described as a particular assortment of application and utility software (various GNU tools and libraries, for example), packaged with the Linux kernel in such a way that its capabilities meet many users' needs. That does imply that a linux OS for a closed system is not a distro. Maybe that's a better first sentence. Stevebroshar (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Do reliable sources reflect this proposed definition? Looking online it doesn't seem that an intent to distribute is an essential aspect of a Linux distribution or that public distribution is what determines if something is a Linux distribution (see for example gLinux). - Aoidh (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Rules hounds don't like what I bring to the table. I try not to let that stop me from providing value. ... There is more to an article than sources, right? If sources was all that mattered, WP would be nothing but hyperlinks. ... One thing WP can and should do is explain what is not clear. If an embedded linux build is considered a distribution, then that is confusing ... since it's not distributed ... in the way that the non-embedded ones (i.e. Ubuntu, Fedora, gLinux) are. IMO, the terminology is confusing and the article should clarify; say that an embedded build is considered a distribution even though it is not distributed like the non-embedded variants ... or something like that. ... You say online info doesn't indicate "that an intent to distribute is an essential aspect of a Linux distribution...", but no finding does not support the validity of a statement. I do find folks talking about embedded linux as a distro. But... some folks call yocto a distro even though some say it is not. Either the folks that call it a distro are wrong or there's controversy on the definition. Even this article calls OpenWrt a distro even though it's a project (even according to its page). Since there is no defining source for Linux terminology, what should WP say? Stevebroshar (talk) 11:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

After further thought and considering input from Aoidh, I think some existing content is misleading if not wrong. ... From the intro "[distros] are often obtained from the website of each distribution, which are available for a wide variety of systems ranging from embedded devices (for example, OpenWrt)..." Two issues here. First OpenWrt is a project (see its article) which is different than a distro, right? A project is source code from which you can build linux; to build a distro. (This is a notable point of confusion. For example, Yocto is a project; not a distribution as it's often called.) Second, this section is clearly talking about non-embedded distros since a custom-built, embedded linux is almost surely never downloadable ... like the workstation/server variants. ... Also: "Almost one thousand Linux distributions exist. ...distributions have taken a wide variety of forms, including those suitable for use on desktops ... as well as ... embedded systems." Although it's not possible to count the number of custom-built, embedded linux that are out there for embedded systems, I'm sure it's _way_ more than 1000. The 1000 surely refers to the non-embedded options. Stevebroshar (talk) 11:56, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Fumo no ar

@Rich g29gt 105.172.243.140 (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

YouTube (YouTube channel) 105.172.243.140 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Intro rework

First sentence mentions package manager ("made from a software collection that includes the Linux kernel and often a package management system") as if package manager is more important or definitional that other components. But it's not that special. In particular, since distro includes embedded systems, everything here must include that idea. And an embedded distro often has no package manager.

Also, first sentence is less than clear that the linux kernel is used as the kernel. I guess that's obvious to some, but IMO should be clearer. Changed first sentence to "is an operating system that includes the Linux kernel for its kernel functionality"

WRT "are available for a wide variety of systems ranging from ...". Most embedded distros are not 'available'. They are private IP. Changed to "have been designed for ..."

WRT "A Linux distribution may also be described as a particular assortment of application and utility software (various GNU tools and libraries, for example), packaged with the Linux kernel in such a way that its capabilities meet many users' needs" That does not seem to match the source nor what I think. The source contains this which I think is what the article is referring to:

Popular desktop Linux distributions offer a wide range of software to the end users. This allows the distribution to become widely accepted as it fits the needs of many users. However, more advanced distributions exist that focus on a particular market (like set-top boxes for multimedia presentations, firewalls and network management, home automation appliances, ...) and of course, these distributions offer different software titles to the users.

To me that means that a popular distro fits the needs of many users. But other distros are more specialized. So, as a small but important change, I changed "many users' needs" to "users' needs". Stevebroshar (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)