Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Linux
What is a distro?
By Joe Barr
on
May 19, 2007 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
I sat through an interesting debate recently on the Austin Linux Group mailing list over the meaning of the term "distro." Some LUG members felt "distro" implies Linux, while others took a wider view, claiming it could be any one of several possible platforms, including OpenSolaris.
The question of "what is a distro?" arose after a heated discussion -- do we ever get into other kinds? -- over Dell's selection of Ubuntu for desktop and laptop preloads. Someone claimed that Ubuntu was based on Debian, and therefore not really a distro. List participant Donald Davis got the thread started by citing the Wikipedia definition of distro, which states that a Linux distro is "a member of the Linux family of Unix-like operating systems comprised of the Linux kernel, the non-kernel parts of the GNU operating system, and assorted other software."
Most on the list agreed that "distro" was a Linux term referring to a specific flavor of Linux: a Red Hat, or Slackware, or Debian, or openSUSE, or even an Ubuntu, but always a Linux. But Shane Geiger, IT director for the National Council on Economic Education, saw things differently:
I disagree. I feel FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and now Solaris (now that it is "free software") are all distros. Often the word distro is prepended with a qualifier, as in "Linux distro." Distro/distribution had to mean originally "free software that was collected, packaged and distributed as a usable system," and that's the usage I feel it still has, though some people are not so specific while talking about Linux distros and simply refer to them as distros. I think the Linux community might have coined the word "distro," however. The number of hits for "Linux distro" is much greater than for "FreeBSD distro" or even "Solaris distro." However, in the latter case, Solaris might only recently have been considered a distro because it was only recently made free software. You also have to factor in the size of the user bases when comparing hits for these terms.
The BSDs? A stretch, perhaps, but maybe. But Solaris? Sacrilege! How dare these lingua-terroristas try to purloin our language!
But Geiger and a couple of others on the list would not cave in, insisting that distro had meaning beyond Linux. They pointed out that BSD stands for Berkley Software Distribution, and that abbreviation has been used since the 1970s -- prior art and all that. Even I had to admit that the term was never owned by the Linux community, especially since Linux wouldn't even exist for almost another 20 years. I had to change my point of view and side with the other faction.
The whole discussion proved two things, if nothing else. First, we in the community will argue about almost anything. Second, I can still learn enough to change my views on something, even if that nugget of knowledge is gleaned from a flame fest.
What's your take? Which definition of "distro" is correct? Is it Linux only or any free software platform?
Comments
on What is a distro?Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
"Distro" is simply a term for "operating system".
Actually I wouldn't even say that. An <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system" title="wikipedia.org">OS</a wikipedia.org> manages the hardware and software resources of a computer. Applications are above all that, and the collective OS and applications is a "distro" aka distribution.
Actually I wouldn't even say that. An <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating_system" title="wikipedia.org">OS</a wikipedia.org> manages the hardware and software resources of a computer. Applications are above all that, and the collective OS and applications is a "distro" aka distribution.
Linux = operating system
RHE Linux = productized operating system
So a distro is an operating system bundled with the higher-level layers, components, utilities, and applications needed to make it useful and appealing to end users and administrators.
The "Linux is just a kernel, GNU/Linux is the OS" line was a clever line by Stallman that has established currency with lazy journalists. What is RHE Linux then?
RHE Linux = productized operating system
So a distro is an operating system bundled with the higher-level layers, components, utilities, and applications needed to make it useful and appealing to end users and administrators.
The "Linux is just a kernel, GNU/Linux is the OS" line was a clever line by Stallman that has established currency with lazy journalists. What is RHE Linux then?
The "Linux is just a kernel, GNU/Linux is the OS" line was a clever line by Stallman that has established currency with lazy journalists.
Wait a minute, here. You mean there is another kind of journalist?
Actually the "Linux is just a kernel, GNU/Linux is the OS" line was invented as a response to a joke, popular in the early 1990's.
Q: What's the difference between GNU and Linux?
A: Linux has a kernel that boots.
Q: What's the difference between GNU and Linux?
A: Linux has a kernel that boots.
Okay, so if I remove the Linux kernel from Gentoo and use the FreeBSD kernel, is it still a "distro"? Is it still Linux? If it doesn't use glibc, is it still Linux? People due use the term in a lazy manner, but its a manner that fits because the versions of the operating systems that make use of the Linux kernel usually have somewhat of the same binary compatibility, but it's just the utilities for managing the operating system work differently. I'm certainly not going to spend hours arguing this topic because people recreate terms everyday without thinking them through, epsecially non-technical managers in the enterprise. You can call it what you will, but if you contrast it with other systems that use different kernels it isn't any different. So Windows 98 and Windows NT are both distros? Or are they different operating systems? Why? Do they both have minesweeper? Do they function the same? Do they have the same kernel? What about Windows 2000 and Windows XP?
Haz
Haz
You're confused. We're going by functionality. Not what something's named. From the standpoint of "what's a distro", changing kernels, and libraries only changes the name. e.g. FreeBSD distro, Linux distro, etc. It doesn't change it's overall composition, or it's purpose.
"distro" is short for "distribution of software", not necessarily an OS etc., just some collection of software. Of course it is very handy to have everything that works together in one collection including OS, utilities, services and apps. UNIX was shared about on magnetic tapes as a distribution of software. BSD is Berkley Software Distribution. The term lately is associated with GNU/Linux because Linux is hot, not because distros are distributions of Linux and software that goes with Linux. Then there is the distinction between source code and binary. A binary distribution is useful when someone has bothered to compile everything in the environment that is to run on the target. Source could work on any hardware by building from source or doing some porting.
"What is a distro?"
This seems a silly question,... and a relative waste of time.
Get into some REAL linux. Checkout these articles at:
<a href="http://linuxhelp.150m.com/" title="150m.com">http://linuxhelp.150m.com/</a 150m.com> (<a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/" title="domaindlx.com">mirror</a domaindlx.com>) and NEW mirror <a href="http://linux.50webs.org/" title="50webs.org">http://linux.50webs.org/</a 50webs.org>
0) A guide to compiling your own kernel,
1) cloning your windows XP/2000 installations using Linux (back-ups),
2) installing windows XP/2000 on a spare partition with Linux,
3) accessing and writing to Windows XP (formatted with the NTFS) from Linux,
4) a script to walk you through a Gentoo Linux installation,
5) remix those 14 Debian installation CDs as 2 DVDs,
6) the entire book "Linux Device Drivers 3" as a single web-page (ie in HTML format),
7) 3D acceleration for ATI cards (simple procedure, works for SuSE and Mandriva and Debian),
8) some discussion on the GPL and non-free third party kernel modules,
9) compiling the worlds best DVD/Movie/Video/MP3 Player and Encoder (MPlayer and MEncoder),
10) some politics, eg: Israel Fakes a Provocation for War (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Shalit),
11) an article suggesting many world leaders are Jews,
12) and an AMAZING comparison of filesystems,
13) an article on the Linux Kernel SABOTEURS.
This seems a silly question,... and a relative waste of time.
Get into some REAL linux. Checkout these articles at:
<a href="http://linuxhelp.150m.com/" title="150m.com">http://linuxhelp.150m.com/</a 150m.com> (<a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/" title="domaindlx.com">mirror</a domaindlx.com>) and NEW mirror <a href="http://linux.50webs.org/" title="50webs.org">http://linux.50webs.org/</a 50webs.org>
0) A guide to compiling your own kernel,
1) cloning your windows XP/2000 installations using Linux (back-ups),
2) installing windows XP/2000 on a spare partition with Linux,
3) accessing and writing to Windows XP (formatted with the NTFS) from Linux,
4) a script to walk you through a Gentoo Linux installation,
5) remix those 14 Debian installation CDs as 2 DVDs,
6) the entire book "Linux Device Drivers 3" as a single web-page (ie in HTML format),
7) 3D acceleration for ATI cards (simple procedure, works for SuSE and Mandriva and Debian),
8) some discussion on the GPL and non-free third party kernel modules,
9) compiling the worlds best DVD/Movie/Video/MP3 Player and Encoder (MPlayer and MEncoder),
10) some politics, eg: Israel Fakes a Provocation for War (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Shalit),
11) an article suggesting many world leaders are Jews,
12) and an AMAZING comparison of filesystems,
13) an article on the Linux Kernel SABOTEURS.
>I feel FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, and now Solaris (now that it is "free software") are all distros.
You have got a feeling, some people have got knowledge. *BSD are forks of BSD and Solaris (former SunOS) too.
Linux is only the kernel, a kernel isn't an operating system. So it has got a GNU-userland. How this looks like in reality depends on the distro. This isn't true with BSD Forks. They are open-source derivatives of BSD, the original patchset to Unix and later BSD operating system.
"A Linux distribution, often simply distribution or distro, is a member of the Linux family of Unix-like operating systems comprised of the Linux kernel, the non-kernel parts of the GNU operating system, and assorted other software. Linux distributions take a variety of forms, from fully-featured desktop and server operating systems to minimal environments (typically for use in embedded systems, or for booting from a floppy)."
Wikipedia.org
Of course you can teach us some lessons in lexicology, but we're talking of computers and open-source, so the context defines the meaning of the word.
You have a windows in your house, some people have Windows at their desktop. Think about it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
Greg Lehey explains FreeBSD:
<a href="http://www.lemis.com/bsdpaper.html" title="lemis.com">http://www.lemis.com/bsdpaper.html</a lemis.com>
"The BSD operating systems are not clones, but open source derivatives of AT&T's Research UNIX operating system, which is also the ancestor of the modern UNIX System V. This may surprise you. How could that happen when AT&T has never released its code as open source?
It's true that AT&T UNIX is not open source, and in a copyright sense BSD is very definitely not UNIX, but on the other hand, AT&T has imported sources from other projects, noticeably the Computer Sciences Research Group of the University of California in Berkeley, CA. Starting in 1976, the CSRG started releasing tapes of their software, calling them Berkeley Software Distribution or BSD."
So some people call this a fork. Linux can only distribute, so to speak take some software, put it together and give it away. How to put it together? Don't know, nobody cares about it.
You have got a feeling, some people have got knowledge. *BSD are forks of BSD and Solaris (former SunOS) too.
Linux is only the kernel, a kernel isn't an operating system. So it has got a GNU-userland. How this looks like in reality depends on the distro. This isn't true with BSD Forks. They are open-source derivatives of BSD, the original patchset to Unix and later BSD operating system.
"A Linux distribution, often simply distribution or distro, is a member of the Linux family of Unix-like operating systems comprised of the Linux kernel, the non-kernel parts of the GNU operating system, and assorted other software. Linux distributions take a variety of forms, from fully-featured desktop and server operating systems to minimal environments (typically for use in embedded systems, or for booting from a floppy)."
Wikipedia.org
Of course you can teach us some lessons in lexicology, but we're talking of computers and open-source, so the context defines the meaning of the word.
You have a windows in your house, some people have Windows at their desktop. Think about it<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...
Greg Lehey explains FreeBSD:
<a href="http://www.lemis.com/bsdpaper.html" title="lemis.com">http://www.lemis.com/bsdpaper.html</a lemis.com>
"The BSD operating systems are not clones, but open source derivatives of AT&T's Research UNIX operating system, which is also the ancestor of the modern UNIX System V. This may surprise you. How could that happen when AT&T has never released its code as open source?
It's true that AT&T UNIX is not open source, and in a copyright sense BSD is very definitely not UNIX, but on the other hand, AT&T has imported sources from other projects, noticeably the Computer Sciences Research Group of the University of California in Berkeley, CA. Starting in 1976, the CSRG started releasing tapes of their software, calling them Berkeley Software Distribution or BSD."
So some people call this a fork. Linux can only distribute, so to speak take some software, put it together and give it away. How to put it together? Don't know, nobody cares about it.
> Starting in 1976, the CSRG started releasing tapes
> of their software, calling them
> Berkeley Software Distribution or BSD.
>
>So some people call this a fork.[/blockquote]
Didn't you just quote someone calling BSD a distribution?!
> of their software, calling them
> Berkeley Software Distribution or BSD.
>
>So some people call this a fork.[/blockquote]
Didn't you just quote someone calling BSD a distribution?!
A distro is a collection of software including a kernel and comprising a free operating system. You can distribute a free OS; you can't distribute OS X or Windows -- those you sell.
I never saw a prohibition in the Microsoft EULA against giving away Windows. You just can't make copies of the copies for which you've purchased a license and distribute them (either gratis or for a fee)
Now, regarding distros. A Linux distro includes a Linux kernel, a BSD distro includes a BSD kernel, so a Windows distro would include a Windows kernel. So far, so good. But what about the userland? Most, if not all Linux and BSD distros include, to various degrees, GNU components. Does that make them GNU/Linux and GNU/BSD distros? Furthermore, it seems to me that Win3.1, Win95, Win98, etc... properly qualify as Windows distros.
Now, regarding distros. A Linux distro includes a Linux kernel, a BSD distro includes a BSD kernel, so a Windows distro would include a Windows kernel. So far, so good. But what about the userland? Most, if not all Linux and BSD distros include, to various degrees, GNU components. Does that make them GNU/Linux and GNU/BSD distros? Furthermore, it seems to me that Win3.1, Win95, Win98, etc... properly qualify as Windows distros.
But one may also sell a distro, so your argument is shot to hell right there.
Any of these are " distros " by my definition.
These are all distributions of tool boxes, AKA Operating Systems, and tools, AKA applications/programs.
The selection of the tools contained, and the box that contains the tools are made by individuals, ex. Slackware / Patrick Volkerding , or corporations with other inputs ex. Red Hat and Mandriva, or by groups of individuals with corporate inputs, ex. Debian.
What is included is guided by the specific values held by those creating the specific distribution of tools and toolboxes for the what they see as the needs that they or thier customers have.
By this definition even Microsoft produces a distribution with its various Windows products.
(Even though most in the Linux / Open Source community would consider the Microsoft toolboxes and tool sets to be poorly designed and crafted, and lacking many fundamental tools, and very unsafe to use.)
These are all distributions of tool boxes, AKA Operating Systems, and tools, AKA applications/programs.
The selection of the tools contained, and the box that contains the tools are made by individuals, ex. Slackware / Patrick Volkerding , or corporations with other inputs ex. Red Hat and Mandriva, or by groups of individuals with corporate inputs, ex. Debian.
What is included is guided by the specific values held by those creating the specific distribution of tools and toolboxes for the what they see as the needs that they or thier customers have.
By this definition even Microsoft produces a distribution with its various Windows products.
(Even though most in the Linux / Open Source community would consider the Microsoft toolboxes and tool sets to be poorly designed and crafted, and lacking many fundamental tools, and very unsafe to use.)
> You have got a feeling, some people have got knowledge
[...]
> How to put it together? Don't know, nobody cares about it.
So why do you bother reading linux.com, 1337 bsd weenie? Get yourself MIT X11 code, forget about software developed by linux folks and rest in peace with your pride in elm.
--
Michael Shigorin
[...]
> How to put it together? Don't know, nobody cares about it.
So why do you bother reading linux.com, 1337 bsd weenie? Get yourself MIT X11 code, forget about software developed by linux folks and rest in peace with your pride in elm.
--
Michael Shigorin
Of course somebody cares about it, the good folk of LSB.
>1337 bsd weenie?
Get yourself some brain first, before talking to adults!
>1337 bsd weenie?
Get yourself some brain first, before talking to adults!
Childish behaviour of a wanna-be Unix. Looking for an identity in this distro babel or maybe distro mess? Then try it with quality instead of mere words!
Really. Consider NexentaOS (<a href="http://www.gnusolaris.org/" title="gnusolaris.org">http://www.gnusolaris.org/</a gnusolaris.org> for example. Is it a distro? Well, it is indistinguishable for the end user from Debian/Ubuntu. Because it integrates the OpenSolaris kernel with the tools used by these distributions. Inclusive dpkg/apt, Gnome, whatever. An obvious example for a distro without the linux kernel.
Or Debian/kBSD? Debian is a distro without any doubt. But it is up to you to use it with the Linux, HURD or BSD kernel.
Or Debian/kBSD? Debian is a distro without any doubt. But it is up to you to use it with the Linux, HURD or BSD kernel.
Debian/kBSD, NexentaOS, Belenix are distros in common speech. OpenSolaris, without any changes, is a fork, but kernel plus gnu is a distro.
Correction: Kernel (OS) + Userland (Apps) = Distribution
GNU is not the only userland free software in existance.
GNU is not the only userland free software in existance.
distro = distribution = any software distribution, even windows*.
Unnecessarily large numbers of brain cells are being diverted from more constructive use, by means of this discussion.
Unnecessarily large numbers of brain cells are being diverted from more constructive use, by means of this discussion.
"a member of the Linux family of Unix-like operating systems comprised of the Linux kernel, the non-kernel parts of the GNU operating system, and assorted other software."
Well, theoretically you can put Linux to work with the BSD userland as well. What would rms call that then, BSD/Linux?
There is/was an experiment by Debian to use the FreeBSD kernel with the GNU userland and the rest of the Debian collage of software. I guess you could call it GNU/FreeBSD.
Distributor, Distribution, Distribution-Management
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on May 20, 2007 02:50 AM
There is a nice german report, where these terms are defined in a very broad sense (1).
My personal translation is as follows:
Distributor - A Community undertaking activities to distribute software to software-users.
Distribution-Managment - The system, used by the distributor to reach its goals.
Distribution - All software that is provided to users by the distributor via the distribution-management.
cu,
Jan
(1)
<a href="http://kechel.de/downloads/distributionsmanagement_kechel_klink.pdf" title="kechel.de">http://kechel.de/downloads/distributionsmanagemen<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> _kechel_klink.pdf</a kechel.de> (PDF, 226KB)
<a href="http://kechel.de/downloads/distributionsmanagement_kechel_klink.ps" title="kechel.de">http://kechel.de/downloads/distributionsmanagemen<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> _kechel_klink.ps</a kechel.de> (PS, 669KB)
My personal translation is as follows:
Distributor - A Community undertaking activities to distribute software to software-users.
Distribution-Managment - The system, used by the distributor to reach its goals.
Distribution - All software that is provided to users by the distributor via the distribution-management.
cu,
Jan
(1)
<a href="http://kechel.de/downloads/distributionsmanagement_kechel_klink.pdf" title="kechel.de">http://kechel.de/downloads/distributionsmanagemen<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> _kechel_klink.pdf</a kechel.de> (PDF, 226KB)
<a href="http://kechel.de/downloads/distributionsmanagement_kechel_klink.ps" title="kechel.de">http://kechel.de/downloads/distributionsmanagemen<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> _kechel_klink.ps</a kechel.de> (PS, 669KB)
seriously, wtf happened to the quality of the articles here? there was a point in time when the articles didn't suck. maybe it's just everything that joe barr writes that sucks. i'll make a mental note to parse those articles out.
"What is a distro?"
This seems a silly question,... and a relative waste of time.
Get into some REAL linux. Checkout these articles at:
<a href="http://linuxhelp.150m.com/" title="150m.com">http://linuxhelp.150m.com/</a 150m.com> (<a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/" title="domaindlx.com">mirror</a domaindlx.com>) and NEW mirror <a href="http://linux.50webs.org/" title="50webs.org">http://linux.50webs.org/</a 50webs.org>
0) A guide to compiling your own kernel,
1) cloning your windows XP/2000 installations using Linux (back-ups),
2) installing windows XP/2000 on a spare partition with Linux,
3) accessing and writing to Windows XP (formatted with the NTFS) from Linux,
4) a script to walk you through a Gentoo Linux installation,
5) remix those 14 Debian installation CDs as 2 DVDs,
6) the entire book "Linux Device Drivers 3" as a single web-page (ie in HTML format),
7) 3D acceleration for ATI cards (simple procedure, works for SuSE and Mandriva and Debian),
8) some discussion on the GPL and non-free third party kernel modules,
9) compiling the worlds best DVD/Movie/Video/MP3 Player and Encoder (MPlayer and MEncoder),
10) some politics, eg: Israel Fakes a Provocation for War (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Shalit),
11) an article suggesting many world leaders are Jews,
12) and an AMAZING comparison of filesystems,
13) an article on the Linux Kernel SABOTEURS.
This seems a silly question,... and a relative waste of time.
Get into some REAL linux. Checkout these articles at:
<a href="http://linuxhelp.150m.com/" title="150m.com">http://linuxhelp.150m.com/</a 150m.com> (<a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/" title="domaindlx.com">mirror</a domaindlx.com>) and NEW mirror <a href="http://linux.50webs.org/" title="50webs.org">http://linux.50webs.org/</a 50webs.org>
0) A guide to compiling your own kernel,
1) cloning your windows XP/2000 installations using Linux (back-ups),
2) installing windows XP/2000 on a spare partition with Linux,
3) accessing and writing to Windows XP (formatted with the NTFS) from Linux,
4) a script to walk you through a Gentoo Linux installation,
5) remix those 14 Debian installation CDs as 2 DVDs,
6) the entire book "Linux Device Drivers 3" as a single web-page (ie in HTML format),
7) 3D acceleration for ATI cards (simple procedure, works for SuSE and Mandriva and Debian),
8) some discussion on the GPL and non-free third party kernel modules,
9) compiling the worlds best DVD/Movie/Video/MP3 Player and Encoder (MPlayer and MEncoder),
10) some politics, eg: Israel Fakes a Provocation for War (the "kidnapping" of Cpl Shalit),
11) an article suggesting many world leaders are Jews,
12) and an AMAZING comparison of filesystems,
13) an article on the Linux Kernel SABOTEURS.
Never ascribe to maliciousnes that which can be explained by stupidity. Maybe people who don't understand the code in question should simply refrain from making changes to it.
A Distro is simply a collection of free software packages, or in a loose sense freely distributable software. I think it also includes solaris,gnu/linux,*bsds,hurd et al. Windows can never be called a distribution because it isn't freely distributable. Thats it.
This is also an issue in the LiveCD definition in Wikipedia. Recently someone renamed it to "LiveDistro" to cover all LiveCDs, including those based on Windows. See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LiveDistro" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:LiveDistro</a wikipedia.org>.
>First, we in the community will argue about almost anything.
Nonsense. We will argue about anything!
Nonsense. We will argue about anything!
No we won't!
"Linux, Linux, Linux" - you can be pretty sure that most of the participants, certainly most of the participants who say "only Linux", wouldn't know the difference if you sat them in front of a computer running GNU/BSD or GNU/Solaris. They'd think they were using "Linux".
Of course, it doesn't help matters that Red Hat describe their GNU/Windows offering (aka Cygwin) as a "UNIX/Linux development environment".
What if you sat them in front of a computer running FreeBSD?
one "distributes" free software
one "sells" commercial software
this was the case long before there was a linux.
so does linux get exclusive 'ownership' of the short slang, "distro"? why?
where i come from, "distro" has always meant a software distribution, typically that can install/build/run itself. what kernel is running at the core is hardly important.
one "sells" commercial software
this was the case long before there was a linux.
so does linux get exclusive 'ownership' of the short slang, "distro"? why?
where i come from, "distro" has always meant a software distribution, typically that can install/build/run itself. what kernel is running at the core is hardly important.
Free/Open/Net/DragonflyBSD aren't distros.
They are operating systems.
The primary development within the same organization that produces the release, on a single codebase, instead of being assembled piecemeal from other sources into an installation image.
They are operating systems.
The primary development within the same organization that produces the release, on a single codebase, instead of being assembled piecemeal from other sources into an installation image.
distro
Posted by: Fletch on May 19, 2007 07:42 PM#