I have this simple question.
You have distro X, and you would like to change something and give it a new way / philosophy or whatever. Which one would it be?

For example, if I had to fork a distribution (not now, but someday) would be Lunar Linux.
I really love it. But I would do some changes:
A) No more systemd. Maybe sysvinit or even Busybox init.
B) Builds on home.

That's it. Sorry for my english :P

Lunar looks interesting. So it is basically a source-based discontinued distribution with a new package manager.

I probably wouldn't fork any distribution, Void is pretty nice, as well as OpenBSD and 9front. I can imagine contributing to 9front some day (if I am deemed acceptable by the lead developers).

(09-01-2017, 07:44 AM)pranomostro Wrote: Lunar looks interesting. So it is basically a source-based discontinued distribution with a new package manager.

Lunar is still maintained. Btw, isn't really a famous distribution, and doesn't have an active community.

I would fork TENS - Trusted End Node Security (linux distro provided by the DoD and the Air Force Research Lab, with a file encryption wizard, pdf reader, web browser, and mail client built in, and drivers/setting preconfigured to be able to use a smart card reader for CAC login on .mil websites, and a VPN client)

https://www.spi.dod.mil/lipose.htm

I would add office software (likely libreoffice), switch the WM to openbox, add an installer (right now, it's intented to be ran live from USB, no installer provided), and start a campaign to have the new distro ("Air Force Linux", as I would call it) replace Windows 10 on the average Air Force users' desktop.


Edit: It already has libreoffice, whoops.

I would fork Slackware and replace the horrible kernel by something that works.

(09-01-2017, 03:08 PM)jkl Wrote: I would fork Slackware and replace the horrible kernel by something that works.

Amen brother.

I would fork Void Linux and change the package manager to pacman or apk (from Alpine Linux). When I first read about Void Linux, I was so excited, but I found the package-manager so counter-intuitive, from what I was used to, that I ditched very fast. Writing this, I think, I should give void another try, maybe today the documentation is more accessible for me :)

I'd fork crux, for the simplicity of it's base system/service handling and port syntax. I'd use either apk from alpine, or my own pack manager when it will be ready.

(09-01-2017, 03:08 PM)jkl Wrote: I would fork Slackware and replace the horrible kernel by something that works.

I used Slackware as my main distro some time ago.
My experience:
5 minutes booting. 20 minutes compiling stuff from Slackbuilds. 10 minutes using those.
And that in a fast day.

(09-01-2017, 03:39 PM)asyncial Wrote: I would fork Void Linux and change the package manager to pacman or apk (from Alpine Linux). When I first read about Void Linux, I was so excited, but I found the package-manager so counter-intuitive, from what I was used to, that I ditched very fast. Writing this, I think, I should give void another try, maybe today the documentation is more accessible for me :)

(10-01-2017, 07:20 AM)z3bra Wrote: I'd fork crux, for the simplicity of it's base system/service handling and port syntax. I'd use either apk from alpine, or my own pack manager when it will be ready.

As a guy who never tried Alpine, what makes APK good?

(10-01-2017, 07:59 AM)Mrat Wrote: As a guy who never tried Alpine, what makes APK good?

It's simplicity. If you've never used it, all you need to understand it is one command. From there, all other commands make sense:


A statically compiled version of the binary is available to bootstrap alpine, and it's really all you need.
It is simple, has sane default and does whatever you'd expect from a pack manager, without getting in your way. No need to learn it, read the docs or whatever.

(10-01-2017, 10:56 AM)z3bra Wrote:

(10-01-2017, 07:59 AM)Mrat Wrote: As a guy who never tried Alpine, what makes APK good?

It's simplicity. If you've never used it, all you need to understand it is one command. From there, all other commands make sense:

Code:

apk add apache
apk del coreutils
apk search busybox
apk update
apk upgrade
...

A statically compiled version of the binary is available to bootstrap alpine, and it's really all you need.
It is simple, has sane default and does whatever you'd expect from a pack manager, without getting in your way. No need to learn it, read the docs or whatever.

It's similar to the new package manager on FreeBSD (I'm using it now).

Also, NetBSD's pkgin.

(10-01-2017, 07:20 AM)z3bra Wrote: I'd fork crux, for the simplicity of it's base system/service handling and port syntax. I'd use either apk from alpine, or my own pack manager when it will be ready.

agreed. the weak packaging system although its heart is in the right place is outdated now. i'd probably change the default init too.

(12-01-2017, 10:00 AM)Wildefyr Wrote:

Quote:I'd fork crux, for the simplicity of it's base system/service handling and port syntax. I'd use either apk from alpine, or my own pack manager when it will be ready.

agreed. the weak packaging system although its heart is in the right place is outdated now. i'd probably change the default init too.

Don't get me wrong, I'd keep the port system exactly like it is. I'd simply add apk on top of that, to add a "binary dimension" to the distro. As for the init system, well, it doesn't get in the way at all, so it's fine too me.

As others have said I dont think that I would fork any distribution right out. OpenBSD fits my needs quite well and I have been using it for a year and half or so now. If I had to say I would probably try and write my own package manager that focused on simplicity as an excercise and build it up ontop of Crux.

Thats my $0.02

Slackware :) I used a lot for desktop and servers, so its comfortable to fork.