Basic Linux Concepts - What Is A 'Distro'?

This video is mainly for newer-to-Linux users who may be confused by the term "distro". Heck, even some long-time Linux users may be a little fuzzy on the concept...

WANT TO SUPPORT THE CHANNEL?

DONATE CRYPTO:
💰 Bitcoin: 1Mp6ebz5bNcjNFW7XWHVht36SkiLoxPKoX
🐶 Dogecoin: D5fpRD1JRoBFPDXSBocRTp8W9uKzfwLFAu
📕 LBC: bMfA2c3zmcLxPCpyPcrykLvMhZ7A5mQuhJ

DT ON THE WEB:

FREE AND OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE THAT I USE:

Your support is very much appreciated. Thanks, guys!

[hoomanmortazavi]

Your last sentence in this video: "And the operating system is a bootloader for Emacs" is both hilarious and true.

[MrGoldfinger]

I really appreciate you because I learn so much from listening to you

[enduzzer]

Traditionally the meaning of a "distribution" is a coherent, ready to install and use collection of software with a kernel and centralized package management, all in binaries and with an installer. Before there were distros, people had to compile or download packages on their own, even install everything in a piecemeal fashion, manually, starting from a boot floppy.

The word distribution has almost nothing to do with the chosen default graphical desktop environment. A GUI is not a requisite to be called a distro.

In contrast to the Linux world, BSDs are never called distros. NetBSD, FreeBSD and OpenBSD are independent operating systems themselves that are developed and maintained together as a complete set of files.

[boyscout]

I think about the package manager and software availability through those repositories more than the gui when i think of distro

[LevKozlodoev]

Ummm no:
The main differentiators between distorts are:
- package manager
- directory structure (like /usr/local for debian based)
- pre-installed software

[Thurgenev]

The most technical concept is: Distribution is a Linux with its own packaging system.
The confusion lies in the fact that people call Spins a Distro, when Spins are just, lets say, "technical flavors". Like when you chose a desktop environment, but related to features and tools.

[collapsingspace]

Suggestions :

Basic Linux concepts - What is a WM, how is it diff from a DE and Distro ?
Basic Linux concepts - Boot loaders and init systems ?
Basic Linux concepts - Package Managers ?
Basic Linux concepts - Customization basics !

[penguin]

actually, my favourite explanation of 'why Linux distributions are called that way' is 'because they distribute the Linux kernel'.

[epicturnip]

This is a great response to the “distros don’t matter” claim. The whole reason any distro exists, even the most basic core distro, is simply a preconfigured set of defaults for people who don’t have the time or willingness to learn how to set up their environment. Most people don’t have time to grab a minimal Debian server iso and install a display server, DE, automations, basic applications, theming, etc.

[christophermarshall]

Always love your videos DT, I really like your authenticity and passion for Linux! It’s really inspiring. You should totally think about creating your own distribution, I think it would be quite popular.

[Nomad-qmzf]

I'd honestly say the package manner and the repositories matter more. I strongly prefer Fedora because I prefer DNF and I like the packages in the Fedora repos. A lot of people who have only used Ubuntu and Fedora don't understand that they're using a different Vim than what's available on Arch. Release cadence also matters.

[wantgoodvibes]

Thank you dude, for the great breakdown of the tech aspect of "distros". Good info!

[gwgux]

Very true. Distributions are just a collection of specific settings and software put together in a particular way with a coat of paint to show off their aesthetic. Everything on a Linux system can be changed if you want to put the time and effort into it.

[SweDennis]

To me, there are the 5-6 base ones, depending on your way of counting. Derivatives are just that, derivatives, different painting and decoration on the same house. Since pretty much any distribution can be made to look and feel like any other, that to me is not what sets them apart enough to call them distributions in their own right. File system structure, package management more so, specific tools created by the maintainers is to me the difference.

[gregcampwriter]

When I committed to moving to Linux, I read about the various families of distros and looked at the types of environments, then chose one that works for me. I've stayed with it for over two years now.

At some point, I might experiment with other distros, but everything works for me too well on my main computer for me to want to change that.

[naranyala_dev]

well thanks DT, you cover a lot of types of content on Linux/Open Source in general

[manodura]

Many thanks, useful to know about those dot files and their location.

[technicalsoumyadip]

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system.

[torsten.breswald]

well like 90% of the distros you can obtain with different Desktop Environments, so what actually differs them from eachother is the release model, package availability and age and, of couse, package management, architecture was a thing in the past with 32 or 64 bit and probably will be in the future with arm support. the theming really is just for those who don't change anything on their system, which are a lot of people, but usually they don't even get what a distro actually is. or they simply don't care at all

[johanb.]

I was more of a desktop hopper. I "hopped" to KDE on KDE Neon😉 My home for almost 3 months now.