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)

Etymologically the word distribution implies something is being distributed. In my opinion the entire "Linux distribution" naming convention is bizarre and makes no sense to begin with, without getting into the GNU/Linux naming controvercy, I will say that my understanding is that the original meaning of the word before people in the "Linux" scene made everything confusing and difficult, was that when something is being distributed it is a distribution. If you read the Manifesto of Debian you will find Ian Murdock specifically differentiating a distribution from a system one builds themselves by finding all the components and such https://sources.debian.org/src/doc-debian/11.3%2Bnmu1/doc/debian-manifesto/

With this interpretation something like "Linux From Scratch" is not a distribution for example since they don't distribute a system, it is a guide for how to build one's own system. ~2026-12746-18 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Adding info about immutable releases

In the Types and trends section I added this line: "* Mutable release (the root file system is read-write capable) or immutable release (the root file system is read-only)". But I feel that this article could benefit form a section that gives a brief intro on what an immutable release, also called an atomic release, is and how they differ from regular mutable releases, possibly with a quick mention of the top 2 or 3 immutable releases. This would be a good task for a Wikipedian with more knowledge in this subject area then I have to take on. Kira Josie Murphy (talk) 03:08, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

This article is redundant?

For reasons that escape me, wikipedia differentiates between 3 different articles for Linux:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_distribution

Would it not make sense to combine this article wiki/Linux_distribution with the article wiki/Linux at least, if not combining all to one single article? There really is only one Linux and it's the kernel Linus Torvalds started, what on earth are you people on about? ~2026-12746-18 (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I would believe this is due to each article being about a different topic, but it does seem like Linux and Linux Kernel are repeating themselves. If the community would prefer, they probably could all be merged to Linux as we may not really need three different articles. SuperJames888 (talk) 15:24, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Winlinux

The first sentence in Linux distribution#Installation via an existing operating system regarding WinLinux is both written strangely and links to a French article. I understand that there is no English article for it but is this really the correct way to do it? I suspect that if it's not important enough for an English article, it's not important enough to be mentioned here. TheMajorSquadron (talk) 08:25, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Linux has an RfC

Linux has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor Matheus Amaral (talk • contribs) 21:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)