What Constitutes a Linux Distribution?

I've been searching for a definitive 'minimum' criteria for a Linux Distribution.
I find loads of examples (as in the link below), but no list of specific criteria.

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/what-are-linux-distributions/

A periodic table of distributions, for the Linux Physicist on the go >

I've counted 138 versions of the Linux kernel as of January 2025:

0.x 0.01 – 0.99 (12 versions)

1.x 1.00 – 1.30 (4 versions)

2.x 2.00 – 2.6.39 (47 versions)

3.x 3.00 – 3.19 (20 versions)

4.x 4.00 – 4.20 (21 versions)

5.x 5.0 – 5.19 (20 versions)

6.x 6.0 – 6.13 (14 versions)

Total: 138

I know ZorinOS is built on Ubuntu 22.04
and Ubuntu releases are made semiannually by Ubuntu's Developer Gnomes Canonical Ltd, using the year and month of the release as a version number.

Zorin uses a Gnome 3 DE (Pro + Core), and XFCE 4 DE (Lite)

But the list of included software is not the same for these 3 versions of ZorinOS.
So there must be some other criteria.

Well, there is the Linux-Kernel; that is all. And then come someone and built around the Kernel a System. And that is the Distro. And then comes someone different and like to use that Distro as a Base to make an own Distro - like Zorin is based on Ubuntu. Now You could go further and say:

Zorin => Ubuntu => Debian So, Ubuntu is the ''Father'' and Debian is the ''Grandfather''.

1 Like

I look at distro's as like flavors on ice cream. Nobody eats basic ice cream on its own, cause its boring. So you add flavoring. One distro is chocolate, another distro is strawberry, another distro is vanilla, another distro is caramel.

Once you see distro's as many flavors of ice cream, then it begins to make sense to you. That, and now your hungry for some ice cream, guess will all scream then, for that sweet delicious Ubuntu Gnome ice cream. :crazy_face:


Quite funny when You know that there actually exists a Vanilla OS Distro, hahaha!

2 Likes

I would use a rather literal definition of the word. A "Linux distribution" is just a piece of software that is based on the Linux kernel and is being distributed, or otherwise made available for the general public or a target audience.

Any derived work from a previous distribution is considered a new one, but it doesn't have to be all that different from it, and the differences don't even need to be perceived by the end user. For example, a different filesystem or kernel parameters.

Personally, I just see it as the result of the author(s)' own selection of software configured in a particular way to achieve a particular goal. Sometimes the goal is serving as testing grounds (like Fedora) and sometimes is just about making people feel at ease trying out something new (like Zorin OS).

No matter how you look at it, everyone's going to have a different opinion... which is why there's still not ultimate answer on this!

3 Likes

What exactly is added to the kernal?
And by the way,, which kernal version is the core of ZorinOS?
What makes Zorin different from Ubuntu, for example.
And how much code is removed, altered, or added to/from the kernal
before it qualifies as a new distribution?

The flavour analogy is hilarious -- but not very useful. =)

When 'Vanilla' is used to describe something other than food or drink,
it usually implies something generic (unaltered).

That's Useful.
Does this mean someone can change 1 line of code in a kernel, within Ubuntu for example. Distribute the change, and call it a new distribution?

I don't think there's a hard-and-fast rule since there is no 'central authority' that would 'certify' a distribution as a 'distribution,' if you know what I mean.

Does this mean someone can change 1 line of code in a kernel, within Ubuntu for example. Distribute the change, and call it a new distribution?

Technically, yes. But would people accept that as a new distro? That's a different question. When people see it's the same as Ubuntu with no major/noticeable change, they'd probably not accept it as a new distro, even if you say so yourself.

There's also the question of what you can bundle with your distro. Canonical may have licenses to distribute some packages that come with Ubuntu. Can you do the same without a license?

I think the answer you're looking for doesn't exist. "What constitutes a Linux distribution?" Anything that's an installable Linux-based OS. "What makes one different from another?" That's up for interpretation.

The Kernel is the Core - the core of all distros out there. that what you built around it (the sowftware, the Libraries, the Desktop Environments etc.) makes an OS out of that.

Zorin OS uses the same Kernel like Ubuntu. Theoretically, they could use a different one but then they would have to care about the Kernel with Updates and Issues.

Zorin brings there own Repo's beneath the Ubuntu one's with there own Gnome-based Desktop with all the preinstalled Zorin Gnome Extensions and Sorftware like Zorin Appearance or the Zorin Upgrader for Example. That is there own Development.

To change the Kernel doesn't mean to change a Distro. There are different kind's of Kernels. You have the one's from kernel.org - which are mostly used. Ubuntu takes Kernel and supports them by them own over an EOL Date (the best Example is the current 6.8 Kernel what is used on Zorin, too. This Kernel is theoretically EOL - End of Live - but Ubuntu supports it with Updates). Then you have something like the Liquorix Kernel, which is specified to Multimedia. The Kerenl isn't the System. The Kernel is the Core of the System.

Which flavor is Windows ? :sweat_smile:

3 Likes

Actually.. that IS the answer I were looking for.
I wanted to get a full picture of what makes a Linux distribution.

Spot ON! -- Windows is indeed mouldy potato flavour. : D
Uncanny.

2 Likes

That makes perfect sense.
Thanks for the clear explanation!

Moldy potato, with a hint of dirt. The ants will love it!


1 Like

OK, to be more correct, how many GNU/Linux distributions are there?
Historically, the OS elements were built first (GNU = GNU (is) Not Unix) by Richard Stallman. He was trying to develop his own kernel years before Linus Torvalds had worked on the Linux Kernel. Putting the two together we have GNU/Linux. Distributions then came out using different Desktop Environments, Gnome, KDE, ice-wm (window manager), Enlightenment, MATE, Budgie, Cosmic, xfce, LXDE, LXQt.

"The first desktop environment to be used with GNU/Linux was the K Desktop Environment (KDE) . KDE was developed as a response to the proprietary nature of the Qt toolkit used by the original GNOME project. GNOME was started on 15 August 1997, but KDE preceded it and was more widely adopted early on due to the licensing issues with Qt at the time. However, KDE's initial development began in 1996, making it the first widely used desktop environment for Linux distributions." [Source: Brave A.I. search engine]

KDE stands for 'Kool Desktop Environment'. It was more familiar to Windows users as it had one panel at the bottom of the desktop with a Win2k style menu and a familiar look-a-like system tray. Gnome had two panels, it's main one at the top showing Applications, Places, and System. The bottom panel tended to just have workspace switcher. Gnome led the way in terms of Accessibility features over KDE with Orca screenreader, but in the early days, the voice of the screenreader in OpenSuSE 9.3 Professional had a squeaky voice, not like today with many different voices and even English Dialects! Nowadays, apps such as Orca are DE Agnostic. You can easily install it if it is not present in Plasma (KDE). When you see distributions offering TDE (Trinity Desktop Environment) that is basically what KDE looked like in the early days and even has the same login and exit sound used by distributions that ran with KDE. OpenSuSE 9.3 Professional came with the option of installing KDE or Gnome. I made the mistake of formatting the drive with ReiserFS and lost a lot of data when it crashed. Ext4 File System is by far the best FS for GNU/Linux. Behind different distributions are different package managers that set it apart from other distributions further. OpenSuSE is a Red Hat form of GNU/Linux, using .rpm (redhat package manager) and Debian based distributions used .deb packaging. Others include PACMAN (Package Manager) and Arch uses something called AUR. So, it is not just the Desktop Environments, or the different distributions that make up the differences, there is a lot of stuff 'in the mix'. Not forgetting Gentoo, again with different DE's available. In the good old days, systemd did not exist, nor did Pulse Audio. Systems would boot with SystemVInit, a single boot process, not a goo ball that systemd is, taking over your machine and limiting what you can do with it. The earliest GNU/Linux sound software was called OSS (Open Sound System). Sound in the early days was not automatic, you had to tweak it in order for you to get any sound at all. It was great fun!
Then things improved with ALSA (Advanced Linux Sound Architecture) which if you are a musician allows multiple streams. Then game pulse audio, created by the same person who created systemd. Like systemd, pulse audio was pushed by Red Hat across the GNU/Linux spectrum, RH wanting to become the Microsoft of the GNU/Linux world, now ironically swallowed by IBM! And the guy who invented systemd and Pulse Audio now works for Microsoft!

1 Like