Why can we make Linux distros, but not really Windows or macOS distros? đŸ€”

General Discussions
1

It started when I was developing my Linux distro.
There are so many distros available in Linux. There are some distros developed by large communities; there are some distros developed by smaller communities; some are even developed by individuals.
But this is not the case for Windows or macOS.
Windows/macOS can be customized, modified in terms of preferences, settings, etc., and you can develop your own version of it.
But you cannot convert Windows or macOS into your own distro of it like what you do with Linux distros.
What makes Linux different from Windows and macOS?
Is it the open-source nature of Linux?
Is it anything related to licensing?
Or is it just the nature of Windows and macOS?
And one more question:

What if Windows/macOS becomes open source tomorrow, will we have hundreds of Windows/macOS distros overnight? :joy:

2 Likes
Weekly Forum Summary
2

You need the source code to build your own distro.

Microsoft does not provide source code, Linux does.

6 Likes
3

Well, it takes some effort on my part to believe you are not making a joke. Ok, just in case you are not kidding


First, Linux (as OS) from the very start is composed as Lego toy. It is union of many independent parts by design. And the great majority of these parts have alternatives to select from.

Second, that design is thoroughly documented as well as the assembly process.

6 Likes
4

I know this , I am not joking , just viewing community opinions.

1 Like
5

For Windows, there’s Windows Embedded. This allows you to customise and remove at least some components.

However, it can hardly be considered a proper distro.

A few years ago, in a previous job, I created Windows 10 Embedded images for embedded Intel Atom boards with an 8GB SSD (soldered in place!). Yes, that’s right, 8GB of storage space, not 8GB of RAM (that was 2 or 4).

I also created a few slightly customised Ubuntu installations (server) for the devices.

5 Likes
6

Linux, as an ecosystem of sofware, allows independant individuals or groups to create their own distro by the simple fact that those individuals or groups are applying the philosophical advantages spelled out in the Open Source ecosphere’s various licenses, which specifically allow

  • the re-use of code published under one of those OSS licenses,

and

  • the modification or customization of such code 
 without restriction or cost 
 as long as those mods/customizations are also shared publicly under the same licences as the original code.

The end goal is to underline and, by the eventual availability of the various permutations as distinct versions, offer shared benefit derived from the availability, and free distribution and application, of all such code!

:slight_smile:

7 Likes
7

What You Actually Own When Windows Is Installed

The clean mental model is: you own the hardware and your data; you license the operating system that runs on it.

Why Licensing Is The Center Of The Story

Windows is protected by copyright and trademark law. Those rights let Microsoft decide how Windows is distributed and used. Licensing is the mechanism that turns those rights into real-world rules for installation, activation, and transfer.

That’s why the purchase experience feels different from buying physical goods. You can buy a Windows retail copy and still be bound by conditions, since what you purchased is permission to use the software under set terms.

8 Likes
8

In my opinion it’s the “share-alike” nature of the license, be it GPL, BSD or MIT
It promotes cooperation between people and each one has its own specialism.
It also honours the urge to share.

I think, programmers write in their free time code based on what subject they like.
If all that code is freely shared, everybody ends up with an operating system and a plethora of applications..

A commercial license usually prohibits sharing, so everybody ends up with nothing.

b.t.w. Have you read the cathedral and the bazaar of Eric S Raymond ?

6 Likes
9

Some of my opinionated personal reminiscences were provoked by @tkn words.

You see, in the early days of computing
 Well, not that early, but some decades ago, probably about ‘young adulthood’ of the current state of affairs
 Ok, at that time programmers were not taught and methodically ‘grown up’ compared to engineers. Programmers came in the business from elsewhere by themselves. And typically they were not ‘average Joes’ being noticeably more potent. They shared the same trait of being genuinely fascinated with writing programs and computing. Provided that there were no much programmers even in large cities, they made up natural community of themselves from the very start. And yes, they willingly shared anything and everything they wrote and managed to find out about programming.

That is where one has to look for roots of FOSS and Linux spirit.

Sometimes I dearly miss those times as well as my youth :slight_smile:

6 Likes
10

I read something very recently, perhaps yesterday, about which system and kernel is the most prevalent. First the article asked could it be Windows, Linux, BSD, or something else?

You could understand if it was Windows, and with the increasing use of Chromebooks, which do use Linux kernels, or Mac software, which uses a BSD kernel, could it be any of them?

Turns out no, but the reason is really telling. When you have a BSD license there is very little to stop anyone or any company from doing anything, and that’s exactly what happened.

At some point, Intel discovered that the Minux 3 kernel is VERY small, and therefore it can fit into software, hardware, or firmware almost anywhere. Once Intel figured that out, they embedded the Minux kernel into virtually all of their products, so it doesn’t matter if the Intel processor is on a Windows system, a Linux system or even a Mac-based system, chances are very high that it has a Minux kernel running at a low level with Intel-based chips, so far and away Minux is used on more hardware than anything else. Not positive where I got that information, but I’m guessing that it came from a recent Phoronix article. Though they were not mandated to say anything, it may have been courteous to do so, yet this was a secret for years, and the article I saw about it was this week, so this was NOT well known.

In any case, the genius of Linus Torvalds in using a GPL license rather than a BSD license ensures that such things cannot be done with Linux kernels without published information, otherwise it violates the terms of the license.

7 Likes
11
5 Likes
12

That’s a really interesting example, especially the Intel ME/MINIX connection.

I think the distinction between “most widely deployed kernel” and “most widely used operating system” is important here, though. MINIX being embedded in Intel’s Management Engine means it can exist on a huge number of machines without Windows, Linux, or macOS actually using MINIX as their main OS.

The GPL vs BSD point is interesting too, although I think the licensing situation is a little more nuanced than simply saying GPL prevents hardware vendors from using Linux internally. It mainly creates stronger obligations when GPL-covered code is distributed as part of a product.

Still, this actually strengthens the original point of my topic: Linux’s openness makes it possible for almost anyone to build something on top of it, while the licensing and source-availability models of Windows and macOS make the same kind of distro ecosystem fundamentally different.

Great rabbit hole! :grinning_face_with_smiling_eyes:

3 Likes