2016 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice AwardsThis forum is for the 2016 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards.
You can now vote for your favorite projects/products of 2016. This is your chance to be heard! Voting ends on February 7th.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
View Poll Results: Desktop Distribution of the Year
I'm not even sure that Ubuntu should still be in the list. This is a Linux forum, but Canonical doesn't acknowledge that Ubuntu has anything to do with Linux. Go on to the Ubuntu website and you will see a lot about the Ubuntu platform - even the fact that it is open source. What you won't see is a mention of Linux
I don't understand the world these days. Facts are treated with such disdain. :-) With no disrespect to him/her, Normanlinux makes an incorrect statement as if it were fact (which stevethefiddle rebutes further down) and two people actually mark Norman's post as useful. I don't want to sidetrack this thread in any way, but I'm genuinely dumbfounded. What gives?
I recall reading something along those lines, but it seems to be a myth.
Apart from that, Ubuntu certainly IS a Linux distribution (or a family of Linux distributions) by virtue of the fact that it is based on the Linux kernel. It is not however Gnu/Linux. In fact, there are very few Linux distributions endorsed by the Gnu foundation as free GNU/Linux distributions.
Ubuntu is GNU/Linux because it contains the GNU software and the Linux kernel. It may not be endorsed by FSF, but GNU is still a part of it's core system files. In fact even more accurate would be to describe it as GNU/Linux/etc. because there are also many system files that are neither GNU nor a part of the kernel.
(and last time I checked, Stallman recommended referring to any distro that uses GNU as GNU/Linux, even if it's not endorsed by FSF, just to give credit to GNU)
Android is on the other hand a Linux fork, that dropped the GNU software, and thus is one of the few non-GNU "distros". If we wanted to properly classify Android it would probably be something along the lines of Android/Google-Linux, since the kernel is a fork now entirely separated from the mainstream Linux, while most system files other than the kernel are developed by the Android developers.
Although I'm not saying people should use those clunky names. Only when "avoiding confusion" is more important than "convenience", there's a reason to be more specific.
I don't understand the world these days. Facts are treated with such disdain. :-) With no disrespect to him/her, Normanlinux makes an incorrect statement as if it were fact (which stevethefiddle rebutes further down) and two people actually mark Norman's post as useful. I don't want to sidetrack this thread in any way, but I'm genuinely dumbfounded. What gives?
Well, reading his post, apparently if Ubuntu says "Linux" on their web page, it will mean they are really Linux.
Weird world we live in... Not particularly a fan of Ubuntu anymore, but whether we like it or not... after many tried and failed rather spectacularly... Ubuntu has come the closest to making Linux "main stream"
Mageia (and before it Mandriva and before it Mandrake and before it Red Hat from the first release).
Mageia is easy to install, easy to use and and very stable.
It is well internationalized and the team is very friendly.
It is away from any commercial company, what is very important to me.
I love antiX and use it (and several Debian-based distributions) regularly, but for "Desktop Distribution of the Year", I'd like to put in a vote for MX Linux because it leverages the features of two great distributions - antiX and Debian, using the toolkits provided in antiX (which borrow from several other fine distributions) and the stable packages from Debian.
MX Linux for me is like a smaller, leaner version of the former SimplyMEPIS (using Xfce instead of KDE), and it's also leaner than another fine desktop, Linux Mint, yet not appreciably more difficult to install or configure, and that's why it gets my vote - it's stable, easy to use, and moderate on its use of resources.
I recall reading something along those lines, but it seems to be a myth.
Apart from that, Ubuntu certainly IS a Linux distribution (or a family of Linux distributions) by virtue of the fact that it is based on the Linux kernel. It is not however pureGnu/Linux. In fact, there are very few Linux distributions endorsed by the Gnu foundation as free GNU/Linux distributions.
Unfortunately, not a myth.
Visit https://www.ubuntu.com/desktop and use your browser to search for the word Linux. You won't find it but you will find reference to the Ubuntu platform and Ubuntu operating system.
Whilst I agree that Ubuntu is a Linux distribution, it seems that Canonical would prefer to hide that.
As far as 'pure' Linux systems, as you define above, there are only command-line only versions. The rest rely on the vast range of open source software that is not Gnu software. Even a lot of the software claimed by the FSF proponents as meaning Linux should (wrongly) be called GNU/Linux is - by the FSF's own definition - not GNU software. They state quite clearly that licensing under GPL doesn't make software GNU software
I am aware that the server distribution page refers to Linux - as people want Linux servers. That doesn't change the fact that for their desktop page they avoid all reference to Linux - pretending, instead, that this is something unique "the Ubuntu desktop operating system" and, yes, I do know that you can find some references to Linux on the wiki page but that doesn't alter the fact that nowhere on the Desktop page of the Ubuntu web site is their any mention of Linux
Of course, despite their pretence, uname will reveal that Linux is hidden inside.
Of course, despite their pretence, uname will reveal that Linux is hidden inside.
Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure most Ubuntu users are aware of it's Linux nature. Unless some geek decides to teach his grandma how to use a computer, without explaining what an operating system is, I would expect most Ubuntu users to either have enough technical knowledge that they installed Ubuntu themselves (in which case they most likely had plenty of opportunities to learn about it's linux nature), or these people know someone who installed Ubuntu for them, in which case that person most likely referred to it as a Linux distro.
I wonder how it'll go with SteamOS - while Valve is often referring to it as a Linux distro, it might happen that some people just buy Steam hardware without bothering to read anything about it, in which case they may not know it's Linux.
And of course Google is the worst perpetrator, much worse than Canonical, since I'm pretty sure most Android users are unaware of it's Linux origins.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.