Hi everyone. I've been thinking about creating a custom Linux distro for a while now, because a separate /home partition and shell scripts only get...
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
I think some distros are already a decent job at asking in the beginning of installation time what programs are needed. they offer to install office, a database or network services. Some more presets would be useful.
As JS developer, install node.js, vscode + some lint plugins, offer db to have a setup mern stack quickly.
as Java developer, IntelliJ might be installed, tomcat (is that still in use?),...
golang: vsCode plus plugins
machine learning - python3, tensorflow, torch...
services could also directly be installed via docker by default. + a nice UI around it. kitematic never worked for me, but I saw others happy with it.
I think the apps are more impirtant than the windowmanager. for years I worked on a ubuntu unity, personal prefering xfce, but it was just stable an for the time it looked good.
i also think cutting old tails would be benefitial. maybe some hard enforced rule, that software not updated in 3-4 years can no longer be installed.
also: having some commands actively blocked. so engineers can not do a forcepush in git for example.
these are some thought I got here on the subway, they are for sure not all smart,... what do you think?
I want to avoid messing with the actual OS installer too much, because nobody likes waiting forever to partition, format, install a ton of packages (after downloading if we're realistic about what you want to squeeze into an ISO - I also want the installer itself to be able to run offline as Ubiquity and Calamares already can), and so on, only for it to bork before it gets to the bootloader install stage and leave an unusable system; I do, however, want to give options for installing at least some of the scenarios you describe in a first-boot welcome app and/or some sort of software center (or something as simple as Ubuntu Studio Installer, though that thing looks hideous on KDE in dark mode).
I have mixed feelings about running bare metal database installs if they only apply to dev environments. Dockerized may be the better option.
As for Docker GUIs, I know there are a few options out there, mostly Electron based - which doesn't bother me nearly as much as it does some - like Kitematic (which I haven't had any luck with on Linux either), some based on containers of their own and running in a browser tab. It's been a while since I've used any though. I know I used Dockstation at one point, but I don't know how well maintained that is anymore and can't remember if it supports Compose.
I really want to avoid scenarios where I hack at the repos too much. While I agree that older releases should be avoided, sometimes there's a perfectly good reason to use them (maybe just feature research to build a newer alternative, for example) or just a lack of newer options that match them in ability (see what I wrote about Synaptic; I'm honestly not sure how well maintained it is anymore, but it's by far the best GUI for apt[-get] in terms of features and stability).
As for limiting commands: If someone can't make
rm -rf *jokes about my distro, is it even really Linux?For Docker GUIs ,I think Dockstation is a good option. I use both Kitematic and Dockstation on my Linux setup.
I haven't tried Kitematic in a while. Is it still "build it yourself" for Linux?
There is a release for Ubuntu.
github.com/docker/kitematic/releas...
Nice. Of course they make it nonstandard by throwing it in a zip (I'm also working on a GitHub-based "PPA" to pull other projects' deb releases into a single spot that can be managed by apt, but I'll have to add an extra step just to extract Kitematic if I include it). I wish they would just put it in the Docker CE apt repo or something.
I would like a Mandrake like installer but for developer stacks like Java/C/C++/Qt/PHP/RoR/Python/JS/Android with all databases and IDE support out of the box. And a way to extend the installer so we don't have to rework.
Mandrake... 🖤🖤🖤 That was my first daily driver distro (I think it was 6 or 7 install CDs back then?), one that I stuck with on a few machines for my first few years after my very first taste of distro hopping. It's been so long, though, that I'd need a refresher on how the installer worked.
Mandrake was wayy back but I think I remember the installer clearly.
I only had 2 installation CDs though. I suppose Mandrake changed to Mandriva to Margia so it's that far.
The menu had list of options on what you are going to install linux . Like Desktop , programming , server ,gaming , internet, multimedia, science and stuff. Each of the items had a list of software which were going to be installed. IIRC Suse has similar menu but not like Mandrake.
And specifically Mandrake, because I am not sure the installer experience of Mandriva or Maegia.
Ok found an installation video.
youtube.com/watch?v=s_pfkQyUJPg
Look at the Package Group Selection Thing. Since you are targeting developers specifically, the stacks can be installed like Ruby Station ,JS Station and stuff
OK, right, so like Ubuntu Studio Installer does for creative software groups (e.g. Graphics, Video, Publishing, Pro Audio, for users of Ubuntu or other non-Studio derivatives), or tasksel does in CLI. It's something I'd like to add to the welcome app instead of the installer itself, again to avoid borked installs as much as possible.
My opinion to this:
In the end I don't think that it makes too much sense as all developers have their own preferences. At least not in this fixed architecture where you have a distro that comes with ... a better approach would be to use just a custom installer with selections, and make it possible to save and restore the selection.
And if it's meant to survive updates, keeping it up to date and keeping the setup for a long time, don't use Ubuntu. It will always crash. Use Fedora as base or something. It's much more stable.
I appreciate the input, but I also need this to be clear: Above all else, the primary stakeholder will always be me. If you like what I put out there, great, and I welcome suggestions. If you can't get past my decisions, you're free to move on, taking anything you do find useful from my implementation with you.
Reading your post, I realized quickly how different we see the world. I'm so opposed to most of your opinions or choices I felt slighted a couple of times. Fun read!
I am wondering though, what is your opinion on something like Fedora with KDE? It seems to fulfill most of your points rather well, so maybe an offshot of Fedora (maybe even Silverblue?) would be better suited to a distro like that?
As I mentioned above, I've seen too many hardware compatibility issues and RPM collision horror stories to consider anything RPM-based.
I don't get the part where you say it ubuntu base but have pacman ?? Also this is why Archlinux awesome in the way that it only contain minimal system and it up to you to install package that you need, I like thing to be stabe but they all (debian, ubuntu, ...) just getting to much in my way
Arch is a nonstarter as a base. It can't compete with Ubuntu on out of box hardware support. Arch's repos for higher-level userland packages, however, might be useful.
Nitrux, as I understand it, allows pacman with Arch repos in a way that doesn't interfere with its Ubuntu/APT base. Even so, some packages are better integrated with Ubuntu and Plasma when installed from APT (Firefox, and Thunderbird for example, both of which are already kept up to date with the latest versions).
I agree that Debian is suboptimal, both because its packages are too stale and because - in my 17 years of experience with it and 12 years of experience with Ubuntu - Debian is less stable (contrary to popular belief). I disagree wholeheartedly about Ubuntu "getting too much in my way." Its own repos are far more expansive than Arch's, and (at least well-maintained) PPAs and 3rd party APT repos are far more stable than AUR.
Like with Snap, Flatpak, AppImage, and Homebrew (which is seriously underrated on Linux, even if it does lack Cask support), adding Arch repos (and BlackArch, and maybe a few others) will just be a way to add even more (or more current) software install options to my distro (note that I have zero desire to add AUR support - it's terrible).
This is so interesting. I would check it out. Needs to be privacy focused.
That isn't a specific aim of this distro, and others are already really good at it (e.g. Tails, Parrot), but I might look into how they achieve it to offer at least some level of what they do.
Maybe a Garuda linux setup style thing , for software that is commonly used ?