The number of Linux distributions is huge, more and more of them are being born. This can be an advantage, allowing you to have projects for almost any taste or need, but I think that such a high fragmentation is bad. Although apparently the GNU / Linux project is not affected by this fragmentation, enjoying good health and taking more and more giant steps, I wonder what GNU / Linux would be without this division of talents and development, concentrating all the effort in a only project ...
I'm not saying that a few distributions are a problem, but hundreds and hundreds maybe yes or maybe I'm wrong ... Well, after this personal opinion, I would like to talk about a new project, it's called OS Chalet. Well, it is a new project for this blog, since we have not talked about it, although it has been in development for some time and you may know it. But if you still don't know him, it's about time you at least heard about him.
Chalet OS is a modern distro as I say in the title and with a minimalist and light touch, since it uses a desktop environment Xfce DE remodeled. It is especially penalized for users who come from Windows operating systems because of its appearance. For this reason, it focuses on usability and ease of being more friendly for novice users or for those who are not very familiar with Linux environments as other distros do, therefore in this sense it does not contribute anything extremely new.
Chalet OS is based on Ubuntu and if you don't have a Linux distro already defined or you are new, maybe you like it because of its style. In addition, having Ubuntu as a base will be advantageous in many aspects. The previous version, 14.04.3, and this new one, Chalet OS 16.04 are not far behind, it is a refinement rather than a big evolutionary leap ...
More info on the project website
We are going to see and without the intention of polemicizing or offending anyone, but the issue of the supposed fragmentation of GNU / Linux sometimes touches the… I mean, morals. There are three or four distributions that we could call "general": Debian, Arch, Red Hat, Slackware ... and the rest are the same with a different icon theme. Ubuntu and its clones with different gtk or Qt themes and icon pack may be something different. It started from being an easy-to-install copy of Debian and is on its way to becoming Microsoft Linux. This chalet is nothing more than ubuntu with a blue wallpaper and icon theme pulled from gnome-look.org. I use Debian, I have put a wallpaper that I found out there and an icon theme modified by me and according to this "fragmentation" law, if I gave a copy to my cousin, I would have invented a new GNU / Linux distribution ... Well no. It is the Debian of a lifetime. Like the Chalet or the Bungalow OS this is the Ubuntu of always.
First time I comment on this blog or any blog about GNU / Linux, what a shame it is to agree with an opinion like this. Uname, you are absolutely right…. I am also a Debian user.
Hello,
First of all, I know that there are some "mother" distributions from which the rest are derived so to speak. If you only analyze these, they are not too many, but it is still fragmentation whether we like it or not. I do not disagree that there are different distributions, but as I say there should be less ... at least in my opinion. Different icon themes, backgrounds, different themes, some own tools, remove / put packages that were / were not in the mother distro, update, etc., all that you will agree with me, that even if it is a fork it is a job and time invested. That is what I mean, if instead of investing that work / time in creating a similar fork, it is better to join forces. Obviously if you are going to make a derivative that is worthwhile or is very different from the base, then go ahead because it is necessary. But to do something as similar as you say: change icons, themes, etc., I don't think it's worth much for that.
And if we are strict (although this should be debated), if you use a distro as a base and change a few things and give it to your cousin, because you could speak of a "new" distribution, that is the great advantage of the code open, but that sometimes becomes ballast. Otherwise Chalet OS wouldn't be called that, it would be called Ubuntu. But I think that although the changes are very slight, there is a job behind Chalet OS that is different from Ubuntu and that is why it is the name change.
I insist, I am not totally against fragmentation, as long as it is nutritious. I think Debian has done a lot for Ubuntu and Ubuntu has done a lot for Debian, just like other cases. But if the changes are as slight as is the case with some distros ... Why else? Why not the "mother" distro with those changes without changing its name, uploading new images to the network, creating repositories on different occasions, ...?
A greeting!
Can it be installed from the terminal?
sudo apt-get install ????
I think the same ... I do not think distributions are needed that change the appearance of ubuntu ... if I think that distros can be prepared with pre-installed tools for specific uses such as: kali or ubuntustudio..etc.
I was convinced by the thread of the conversation. I installed Debian 8.4 with Gnome. A marvel. I don't know why I stopped using it a few years ago.
Interesting debate. I think that perhaps the excess of GNU / Linux distributions is necessary to recognize the good distributions. It is the people, the users who decide in the end. They are the ones that indicate whether a distribution will continue or not. There are dozens of distributions with little maintenance and few updates. And there are paradigmatic examples, like Slackware. About the other derived distributions, all is well. Let the people decide. For my part, I decide that the original is always better than the copy.
Until when are they going to understand that in GNU / LINUX there is no such "fragmentation"? but rather this has been and is diversity without more, like everything in life.
As long as Linux is used, which version does it matter? welcome to be one more option for anyone who wants to make the leap. In each one is the power to choose and that is allowed by Linux.
I do very much agree with so many flavors, it is for every need ... I have installed an old toke on my PC like 30 distros and obviously they all behave differently ... the most fluid and that for my strange hardware is the most stable and feels like silk is with the flavors of Ubuntu, but especially Xubuntu or its family. Well, Lxde does not behave as it should, and in Debian it did not give me so much performance, less with Manjaro, but in another newer PC that had Windows 10 but I was bothered by the slow updates and that almost always touch the stability and less support so much advertising, because I put Mint on it and it was rather slow and the monitor that is a 19 lcd TV only took the resolution of 1024 × 768, in Xubuntu as well and some others but with Zorin it automatically sets the resolution to 1366 × 768 and as the silk ... I mean every need for hardware, pc has a distro that fits more, just search and see which block. good for performance and appearance to me if I like diversity! That is, if I became addicted to distros and every time one is updated I install it even if later I return to Xubuntu hehe, but the ease and customization is a mania that if you have the time it is great to learn !.
It seems perfect to me that the distros forcks that exist have expanded to GNU / Linux, if it were for the orthodox Users, it would not expand, many of those who use "Debian" and "Arch" seem to believe they are superior to other mortals, thanks to the variety I came to GNU / Linux God bless the forsk
True about the inconvenience of the existence of many GNU_Linux distributions, but it is the collateral damage caused by their open and free source. Perhaps that is the reason why most PC users prefer to stick with Microsoft or macOS, especially businesses and businesses.
Speaking of the issue of publication, it seems to me that Chalet OS is a good option to resurrect the pentium 4 and the like; But as with all distros, in order for them to work properly, their minimum requirements must be increased, especially with regard to RAM. In that aspect, it seems better to me that q4OS