Why is it that the basic unit of distribution for anything Linux is a Distro? Want to serve web applications? Here’s a server distro. Want to work on penetration testing? Here’s a distro. Want to develop embedded systems? Another Distro. Creative arts? Distro again.
The OS level fragmentation of Linux is maddening, when you consider that what these actually all are is different operating systems. Why does the Ubuntu desktop operating system need to be re-engineered from the ground up in a to-the-bare-metal OS install just to make it compelling for creatives? What on Earth is wrong with the base Ubuntu desktop distro that makes this in any way a good idea?
Is it due to the way that application package repositories are selected and integrated into base desktop distro repositories? It seems like I should be able to install Ubuntu desktop distro with a KDE desktop package selected from the repo, then select all these creative apps and bingo - I’ve got Ubuntu Studio. Or at least start with Kubuntu. I’m sorry if I’m being negative or antagonistic, I genuinely don’t know - what is it about distro engineering, politics or organisation that leads to this situation?
>It seems like I should be able to install Ubuntu desktop distro with a KDE desktop package selected from the repo, then select all these creative apps and bingo - I’ve got Ubuntu Studio.
You can do this quite easily. If you're already on Ubuntu it's as simple as enabling the universe repository and then doing this:
apt-get install 'ubuntustudio-*'
Which installs a bunch of metapackages, some themes and some performance tweaks. That's all there is to it, everything is in the same repos and there really isn't any fragmentation. From the Ubuntu side it's all based on the same Debian and the majority of Debian packages will run without issue. The presentation of all these different distros is just marketing.
> Want to serve web applications? Here’s a server distro. Want to work on penetration testing? Here’s a distro. Want to develop embedded systems? Another Distro. Creative arts? Distro again.
The distro you're looking for is Debian, and, if you exclude embedded, any up-to-date popular distro.
> It seems like I should be able to install Ubuntu desktop distro with a KDE desktop package selected from the repo, then select all these creative apps and bingo - I’ve got Ubuntu Studio.
Install the Kubuntu, Ubuntu, Xubuntu etc metapackages and you'll have what you want. This is a non-issue.
Linux is only a single entity at the kernel-level. You're getting mad at the diverse community that consumes the kernel for not acting in unison.
Specialized distros are for people who have a specific use-case they want support for out of the box, without having to configure certain subsystems from scratch to solve their particular problem.
The number of distros is an artifact of free licensing/copyright and people working on their problems and collaborating only when solutions to those problems overlap.
It’s a combination of politics and the way that DEs step on each other on Debian-derived distros (more than other package managers, for some reason). For the most part, these specialty distributions are just for newer users who have specific goals and aren’t willing to troubleshoot on their own. Linux is such a vast community that there’s a lot of software that doesn’t play well together. Many people see the value in providing an integrated experience for a particular use.
Some people want or need a tailored experience that they don't have to configure much if at all. e.g. making Linux suitable for near-real time audio work, restricting Linux to a set of well-tested stable packages for high uptime, making it as close to a standards desktop experience where the expectations are set by Windows and MacOS, making it sandbox absolutely everything by default because you have reasons to be extremely security-conscious, etc
Many of these goals are incompatible or at least unfriendly to each other, so you need tailored experiences. And that's fine.
Not sure how I feel about this as a vegan Arch user. :)
On a more serious note, it's actually worked well in my experience for finding other Arch users. It's rather likely that someone exposes themselves as an Arch user soon after a first encounter rather than finding out months later, so (as with veganism) serves as a relatively salient marker of community membership, for better or for worse.
If at anytime ostree or Nix-like distributions will take over, then I would expect more "channels", "repositories" or other wie-heißt-ers, than distros.
Yes I know of course, so why do we need all these tweaked specialist distros? Are they really just repackaging stuff or do they actually contribute real value and if so what is it?
Yes. For example, if you're working with audio, you'll want a realtime kernel, and an audio subsystem configured for that use case over a default desktop distro.
Running a realtime kernel on a desktop can be slower, and a desktop Pulseaudio setup isn't going to be enough for someone working with audio, they'll probably want Jack, too.
In the case of Ubuntu Studio, you get hundreds of apps and plugins and FX systems and other creative apps, already installed out of the box, courtesy of the distro politics you don't seem to understand .. to get a similar degree of packed install on a Windows or Mac DAW you'd have to, at least, spend a week selecting things and downloading from vendors, getting iLok working, and so on.
With Ubuntu Studio, once you've installed it on your hardware you have TONS - and I mean TONS - of things already installed and ready to go. No further work ready to get your workstation settled - just open the apps and start working. This is a feature not a bug.
The OS level fragmentation of Linux is maddening, when you consider that what these actually all are is different operating systems. Why does the Ubuntu desktop operating system need to be re-engineered from the ground up in a to-the-bare-metal OS install just to make it compelling for creatives? What on Earth is wrong with the base Ubuntu desktop distro that makes this in any way a good idea?
Is it due to the way that application package repositories are selected and integrated into base desktop distro repositories? It seems like I should be able to install Ubuntu desktop distro with a KDE desktop package selected from the repo, then select all these creative apps and bingo - I’ve got Ubuntu Studio. Or at least start with Kubuntu. I’m sorry if I’m being negative or antagonistic, I genuinely don’t know - what is it about distro engineering, politics or organisation that leads to this situation?