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.
I don’t think they’d be so popular if they weren’t useful.
Why should the user be required to reinstall their whole OS? I don’t think they are: it seems relatively straightforward to change DEs on Ubuntu at least.
On the other hand, if someone knows they want Ubuntu with KDE, why should they have to go through a regular Ubuntu install just to do the post configuration themselves? Plus, maintainers of these offshoot distros can potentially more deeply remove dependency on the default DE.
I think focusing on differences in system software is less illustrative than looking at the out-of-the-box user experience and capabilities. A changed DE is a pretty huge practical difference.
This line of thought does really underscore how nebulous the definition of an operating system really is. Pour one out for GNU being totally subsumed culturally by a Kernel that everyone sees as an OS.
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.
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.
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?
Never said that they shouldn’t exist. I only said that they must be distributed as packages instead.
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.
Name a single popular distro that follows op’s description that isn’t a novelty/fad.
Kubuntu
I disagree. On one laptop I had Ubuntu, and then installed
kubuntu-desktop. It became a bit of a mess with the login screen, and it isn’t that easy to uninstall the previous Gnome stuff – had to leave it there. On another laptop I installed Kubuntu directly, and the problems above don’t appear.kubuntu is already literally just a package.
if you just install kubuntu-desktop (or something similar) from any buntu flavor you get it.
And that’s exactly my point. You get the same experience by just installing a package rather than having to “distro-hop”
Hard disagree. I installed kubuntu on a Gnome Ubuntu to try it out and the duplication of system tools and helper programs was maddening. I had two key managers, two settings screens, three times as many daemons, and there was something weird going on with the theme I had applied.
During online installation it makes sense to pick a DE and install that, but unless you expect installer images to ship with every DE under the sun separate installer disks like Kubuntu make total sense.
But if you start with Kubuntu then it’s not exactly hopping, it’s just more convenient.
If people wanted to do it by package installation, they would!
In the end it’s just more user choice, which is good.
Sure, you’re right! But here’s a proposition: it would be easier on both the developer and the user (without sacrificing user choice) if it was a package, or better yet, an option to check on the installer. It is still just the same amount of choice.
In the current state, they usually can’t. Maintainers do not provide these as packages, so you’re forced to install a whole distribution just to try out their configuration of KDE
I’m with you that it would be awesome to have more options to explore big changes like that.
I just don’t see maintainers putting the effort into it. I don’t think these DE-only distros are going anywhere anytime soon, and I’m glad they’re filling a gap for the users that want it.