(untitled)

Is there such thing as a "one-size-fits-all" distribution of Linux? Something that allows the user to choose things such as their DE/WM, init system, kernel (i.e. you could pick either the "normal" Linux kernel or something like Trisquel's libre version), and maybe even package manager, while still being easy to use for someone who's sort of a newb to Linux? Or is this simply impossible due to incompatibility between programs and stuff like that? It'd be really convenient. You'd download an image building software, use either a GUI or command line to specify things, and then it'd spit out an ISO file for you to burn to a USB and install. It'd sort-of be the "ultimate" Linux distro. Obviously other distros would still exist and be available to use, but it could solve the fragmentation issue that Linux seems to have. Maybe I'm just daydreaming about something that would never be feasible, but stuff like Gentoo already kinda does this (problem is for most people is that it's Gentoo). What do you think, Lain?

Any Linux distribution? You can change all that stuff no matter which distro you install. For kernel changing, Manjaro has an easy to use kernel manager.

>>55543 I think he means something more graphical and simple. Think the debian installer letting you choose your window manager. >>55542 I like the idea. The first issue that comes to mind is that certain choices (e.g. sound system, window manager) have to be tracked in the package manager of choice, meaning you have to use the package manager to manage the install of the window manager but that shouldn't be the end of the world, just means that the package managers all have to support the window manager/audio systems given. One question is what you do in the installation phase. I'd imagine you have to run some basic system to swap the parts of (which should all be doable btw as all the systems you mentioned can be changed post install) but this might then pose issues for those who want a libre kernel but are forced to use the standard kernel for install, but those are minor philosophical issues. Overall I really like your idea and it seems perfectly plausible. I tried to find the debian installer source code to help clear all the feasablity of this up but wasn't very successful. Unless someone can poke a hole in the idea I really like it and if you worked on it I would be happy to try and help though my linux knowledge isn't much greater than the stuff needed for daily usage.

For me the ultimate distro would be something like arch with rolling release, but with everything set up out of the box with minimal tweaks a la Fedora. So it doesn't take a while to set up shop.

>>55543 >For kernel changing, Manjaro has an easy to use kernel manager. AHAHAHAH imagine using a distro that actively bundles proprietary spyware browsers like vivaldi. what a fuarrrking joke >>55545 >For me the ultimate distro would be something like arch with rolling release enjoy getting hacked constantly and having your system break down all the time. AUR and any rolling release is filled with malware packages and this stuff never gets audited >>55542 whats the point? you can already do this by picking a distro that has the default packages you want and install/build the remaining ones, and many distros package many different DE and WMs. also having a distro like you describe is a debugging nightmare, you ask the maintainers basic questions for support and they would need to understand what init system you are using, what DE, what WM, what kernel, etc etc youll have a broken system on your hands with no help

making something like this friendly for non-technical users would make no sense. there's a reason why there are linux distros that let you pick your DE from a graphical installer but none that fulfill these needs, because the average PC user has no idea what an init system, kernel, C runtime, package manager, etc. are and doesn't care. creating a GUI to select all of these things would be a solution in search of a problem because everyone who cares about this stuff will just use something like Gentoo and customize their install to their liking.

If Arch Linux had the installer of ArchLabs but with an additional option for c libraries (glibc or musl) and init system (systemd, sysv, runit, and openrc), then yes.

>>55547 >AUR and any rolling release is filled with malware packages and this stuff never gets audited Proofs, I'll like to read more about that.

>>55568 >grant untrustworthy parties arbitrary access to your system through updates dont need proof, the rolling release model lends itself to this problem. The only way to do a proper rolling release model is to minimize your dependencies to a small core that are all from trustworthy parties that frequently invest in and audit the packages. the way arch does it, its trivial for an attacker from gaining access to an AUR package maintainer's github and pushing malware. Arch's website documents cases of this already. arch is a convenience distro, not a security distro, manjaro being the Windows of the linux world

>>55570 the majority of packages you will use on arch arent from the AUR, you can have a fully functional system with most of the necessary programs without ever using the AUR.

>>55571 doesn't matter, even well known packages like PHP get hacked and backdoors attempt to be added. the non AUR packages are less likely to be hacked, but they still are not thoroughly audited. The only way to do rolling release right is a base system of frozen, stable, audited packages, and rolling release applications within sandboxes. You should never rolling release anything unless it is contained in its own sandbox. that way when you get a malwared app (and you definitely will at some point), the damage is minimized and self contained. rolling releasing an entire system is inherently an insecure model

>>55558 I think there's a market. The biggest things stopping people from doing the gentoo install are time and the package manager, both of which could be solved by this idea in theory.

>>55590 There's never going to be a way to include every option available when there are users using things like dwm (which should be recompiled to customize it), old wm, or something that should be modified before compiling to be compatible with modern packages. Even more when there's people using specific versions of these components, people that don't want to use the latest version.

>>55594 I think dwm poses philosophical challenges more than anything else. It could easily be run from a binary blob then replaced by the user later but that of course creates the issue of a precompiled binary being used, which some users might not like. I think it would only be logical that versioning would have to be abandoned entirely and that each release of the os should just update the window managers to the latest version available.

>>55625 >versioning would have to be abandoned entirely Wouldn't that make this distro non-suitable for everyone? I've met people that choose not to use the latest version of a DE/WM