3 ms·
What's the point of creating a new "distro" that just has a different window manager/desktop environment? Like, what kind of person would spend time doing that?
by smabie 7y ago
What's the point of creating a new "distro" that just has a different window manager/desktop environment? Like, what kind of person would spend time doing that? Maybe that's a little harsh, but these kinds of projects seem completely pointless. Changing your wm/de doesn't take more than a couple minutes (including the download time). It might actually be harmful, the world doesn't need more distros, derivative or otherwise.
- londons_explore 7y agoUbuntu sort of encouraged distributions which were identical in all ways except the default set of installed packages. Think kububtu, xububtu, etc. I don't think it's a bad thing - non-default packages tend to not get much use, and are hard to brand.
- RMPR 7y agoFWIW back in the days where Ubuntu used Unity, I tried to change my DE and fucked up my system, Idk, maybe I wasn't enough skilled to do thag1, but that was what make me switch to Fedora.
- mastrsushi 7y agoThis is a remix, not a distribution. Nothing more than Ubuntu with a pre-installed desktop environment. Remixes give users the same benefits installing yourself provide. But they do so while keeping the oobe that makes distros like Ubuntu intuitive and competitive. I do agree the Linux distro ecosystem is a scattered mess. And that negative diversity of incompatible package managers and display systems goes against the standardizations that made POSIX dominant to begin with. When I look at Elementary"OS", I see a branding built on the foundation of what could simply be Ubuntu Pantheon Remix. The idea that these hundreds of mini distros is what caused desktop Linux to fail isn't true though. These projects are nothing more than the IT equivalent of your friend's mix tape. Or your girlfriend's slightly modified Martha Stewart recipe she boasts as her own.