Linux is just a kernel in the same sense that a disto is just a package manager and an init system. Technically that's the case but colloquially a distro is any set of curated, pre-configured packages with an install script.
which would make chrome, android, and neon all distros
Yea.
Idk I know they don't fit into the usual open source box of Linux but I'd consider Android and ChromeOS as Linux distros, a distro is just a collection of software distributed with the Linux kernel as far as I'm aware. If someone doesn't consider them "Linux distros" it's probably due to the proprietary nature of some of the software surrounding the kernel. No idea why kde thinks neon isnt a distro when it literally is.
Edit: in the case of chrome os it's not even just built around the kernel, it's based on a distro.
If it distributes Linux, it's a distro. Thus ChromeOS, Android, Windows are all Linux distros.
If you have a different definition, best you can do with it is go brighten up some lawyer's day, I guess.
Ah the most popular distro Windows
Windows
Uhhh, well I'd say it's more like a hypervisor if we're really pushing it with WSL
Windows distributes Linux, through its repositories, ergo Windows a Linux distribution.
What does it do with it then – acts as a hypervisor or sings its source aloud backwards – is an orthogonal question.
What does it do with it then [...] is an orthogonal question.
Hm, ok if we take the word "distribution" for it lexical meaning then maybe, although wouldn't that be "distributor"?
In this field "distribution" is the set of things that constitute the software package, by extension, in the case of free software, it is more a synonym of "flavor" since anyone can redistribute with their own changes added on top. You wouldn't call a supermarket a Cocacola distribution, it's a distributor, but the drinks themselves are the distributions (tho in my mind "distributed" sounds more fitting at this point).
If having a system of OS and server, both property of one maker, where the server distributes a form of an OS x (even just the source code) and the client OS can download those files, make the OS a distribution of x, then I can set up a computer with e.g. OpenBSD (with my own modifications to make it mine) that downloads an Ubuntu ISO from my server, then I load up that ISO into a virtual machine and now I magically turned OpenBSD into an Ubuntu distribution??
Me OMW to argue my pointless argument
You wouldn't call a supermarket a Cocacola distribution
Only because it's kinda unconventional to buy oneself some Coca-Cola by purchasing an entire supermarket.
I would still call a combo meal "a Coca-Cola distribution", and whoever sells it to me a "Coca-Cola distributor".
I can set up a computer with e.g. OpenBSD (with my own modifications to make it mine) that downloads an Ubuntu ISO from my server, then I load up that ISO into a virtual machine and now I magically turned OpenBSD into an Ubuntu distribution??
my server
You're now a distributor of Ubuntu (regardless of the OpenBSD-based thingie), and your version of OpenBSD is an Ubuntu distribution. If, however, your hypothetical OpenBSD-based distro pulled all the Ubuntu bits from ubuntu.com, it would've been just an distribution of an Ubuntu installer.
My understanding is that is has to have a certain level of the GNU core utilities in combination with the Kernel but yeah not really, it's hard to define, maybe the use of a package manager? Definitely nothing to do with GUI, probably a philosophy in mind, not sure at all to be honest.
It is hard. We had Chimera Linux posted here yesterday, which has no GNU code at all. None of the early Linux distributions had package managers. The best I can tell, "pms" (package management system) written for Bogus Linux in 1993 was the earliest, but package management didn't hit the mainstream until at least 1995. Slackware didn't get a package manager until the mid-2000s. But we still all consider them distributions. (Right?)
a certain level of the GNU core utilities
Wouldn't that make Alpine, or OpenWRT, not a distro?
The way I see it, a Linux distribution:
I do like this answer since it gets to why chrome/android is excluded.
To riff on "A language is just a dialect with a navy", I'd define it as "a distro is just a package manager with a LiveUSB image".
Does Android really even use the Linux Kernel anymore? I thought they forked it about 15 years ago and at this point it has diverged so much its not even really the Linux kernel anymore.
No, it absolutely uses a Linux kernel.
Dude literally months ago smartphones with android 12 were affected by dirty pipe, that was available only for kernel versions between 5.8 and 5.10.101!
I think your talking about project fuchsia. Which hasbt gotten out of early development
Yes i Read that that's why i asled
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0