A fresh Linux distribution is ready!
A fresh Linux distribution is ready!
Hey everyone, I'm developing a fresh Linux distribution right now. It aims for simplicity while still offering deep customization—something even Linus might find handy. It won't rely on any existing distro. I'm seeking maintainers to oversee the overall project and individual components like the package manager. I'm also working on a name; feel free to share your ideas. The build will use OpenRC, with systemd as an alternative option. Zsh will be the default shell. There'll be a user-friendly store for downloading games or apps. If you're interested, send me a message on Discord: sfulham#2956. Once we decide on a name and secure a domain, we'll set up a GitLab and Mattermost instance. Thanks!
I interpret "easy" as something straightforward or simple, and I’ll take advantage of any release to reward you with a drink.
Consider calling it "Normal Linux" or "Norma" for clarity. The full name could be "Norma Linux." While some ambitions may seem high for a free initiative, the concept is appealing. Just watch out for burnout—this has happened before. Also, "norme" sounds similar and might be available.
You lack resources, personnel, and existing distribution channels, yet you aim for something unconventional. That approach isn’t feasible. The era of after-hours coding is over. Plus, building security for a project from an unknown source poses serious risks.
It seems you're expressing confusion about the tasks you've avoided. Let me clarify my role.
What aspects can be adjusted for you? Booting ZFS from root is possible. Updating applications to alter build settings is an option. Mixing binary and source packages is allowed. System services such as cron and logging can be customized. You can switch compilers or libc versions. If you prefer not to use GNU Userland, alternatives exist. FreeBSD, Gentoo, and Alpine offer some of these features. What sets you apart? The part I appreciate most from your message is OpenRC; the one I dislike is the "Store Application" feature.
I consider integrating gnome and pipewire by addressing their systemd dependencies. I’m thinking about setting up a software store that supports flatpak, appimage, and snap repositories. Packaging everything myself seems feasible given the scale—Debian hosts around 60k packages. For file systems, I’m evaluating ext4, btrfs with subvolume snapshots, or open ZFS on root, though the maintainers advise against the latter. The chosen packaging format will be rpm, deb, tar.pk, etc., depending on release type—rolling, snapshot, or static. Deployment plans involve hosting repositories, which Github currently charges a high fee for.
It clearly indicates that and it's true. Unfortunately, you're dealing with misinformation. FSF had a misunderstanding regarding the licensing, whereas Ubuntu's legal evaluation in 2016 was accurate. We understand this because they've consistently resisted the most litigious company globally since then, and nothing has changed. The CDDL offers more flexibility than GPL—it stems from MPL principles and permits mixing code with other free licenses while also protecting software patents. GPL doesn't provide any patent safeguards. The flawed judgment comes from the GPL's virus-like structure that treats software as a collection of works. However, ZFS isn't a collective Linux project; it stands independently and benefits from compatibility across multiple operating systems like Solaris, FreeBSD, MacOS, Windows, and Linux. Submitting it to a tree format might pose challenges, but this won't occur now since it's been unified into a single codebase for several OSes. The CDDL also covers files, not just "works," offering a more logical definition. "Works" is subjective compared to files. Ultimately, the intentions behind the licenses align—adhering to both can coexist without conflict. If you can't prove harm, you lack grounds for legal action. And... nothing in this applies legally to you since you're not distributing it or imposing usage rules. So yes, adopting robust technology like Linux's advanced filesystems is wise. Avoiding this choice is reckless. Supporting quality open-source solutions doesn't endanger Linux; it strengthens it. Tl;DR: Any potential legal concerns have been resolved.