I just saw a DistroTube video with this question. Quite a thought provoking question [for this seasoned distroholic at least].
“What’s the hardest Linux distro you’ve tried?” can be interpreted many ways, and I wonder what kinds of answers we’ll get.
Especially these days, with much change underfoot and newer users having a different distrosphere to explore…
What’s the hardest Linux distro you’ve tried?
I’m not sure if this is trolling, or some kind of philosophical stumble (like some kind of naive realism ~ hence oblivious to interpretation), or even a personality malady (like NPD, impeding capacity for introspection).
To assert there’s nothing to interpret… is a difficult stance to approach, having already concluded, contrary to present evidence, as if there’s so clearly only one interpretation, so much obliviously so, like the fish asking “what’s water?”, that there’s no interpretation at all…
And so, having dodged answering the question, it’s difficult to know how to proceed.
Also further made difficult by you not answering the question asked about the substance of the question, but answering something entirely different. I wondered (left it open to answer, did not pose it as a direct question), how you interpreted what you just responded to…
as in
I was wondering how you interpreted that line. Perchance that may lead to clarification as to what led you to simply repeat
re-asserting your position, seemed to be missing that this can be, and (evidently through the other comments) has been, interpreted many ways. So I still wonder, how did you interpret that line that restated that the question can be interpreted many ways?
As for your assertion itself, that you’ve double down on, as if there can be no other interpretation… Have you heard of a no-true Scotsman fallacy? The lines are blurred as to what defines a distro, even without someone offering reassurance to interpret a question about distros freely. Would you baulk similarly at various ilk of meta distros and installation scripts and other instructions? If the scripts that fetch the programs that comprise your operating system get from upstream sources, are they no longer a distro either? Where is the line for you, since you exclude LFS? And, we’re all to just agree with your decree? Given thus far^, not my pope of FOSS. Heh.
If I build a car from instructions, then I have that car. … Now you’ve got me hankering after a Caterham again. Heh.
I wonder also how, in your world view, distros based on LFS are assessed. Like on distrowatch, they too draw the distinction, between being Independent, and LFS based.
And still, I am very intrigued by your world view, how you square this away…
Don’t you know what a Linux distribution is? It is an operating system that has the Linux Kernel and is distributed so you can install it.
Linux from Scratch is a documentation / tutorial. There is nothing to interpret. That is the definition. You don’t buy a book how to build a car and say this book is a car that includes a motor and is ready to be installed.
Yeah.
I’d hoped for better. But pretty much expected that kind of a response.
Can’t get there from here.
You are conflicted with what you say. Distrowatch lists distributions. If you build one yourself, then that is a distribution. It doesn’t change what LFS is or not. You are not building a LFS distribution, you are building a distribution. There is no such thing as LFS distribution…
I’ll be sure to tell the NutyX guys that. XD
And the others. https://distrowatch.com/search.php?basedon=LFS#simple
And we’ll need to tell distrowatch they’re doing it wrong, and they’re not allowed to to allow distros distinguish their LFS origins from independent origins.
Y’know, since you’re right, and don’t need to be accountable to scrutiny in what you say because you’re right, and there’s no such thing as interpretation, we’ll just have to make everybody agree with what you restate as the one true way, ignoring any questions about it, disregarding any alternative perspectives and interpretations, … XD
Where?
Even what you said after that seemed offer not only no conflict in what I said, also then went on to undermine your own argument! XD
But I guess if you’re completely oblivious to interpretation… there’s astronomically low odds of stumbling upon that.
I think you don’t understand the issue. Those listed distributions are no longer LFS (based). Based on means they take a distribution and build a new one out of it, like Ubuntu and Debian or Achlinux and SteamOS. But you can’t base on LFS, because you build a new distribution based on the information. Dude are you trolling or don’t you even know what you say? You completely changed the meaning of what I said. It doesn’t even make sense to say based on LFS as a distribution. What Distrowatch lists are distributions created with the help of LFS, its not based on LFS…
I think you don’t understand “open to interpretation”.
And you’re just stating things that are plain wrong, and already evidenced to the contrary of your claims.
You have not a leg to stand on, yet keep doubling down and avoiding the questions.
I think you don’t understand that there is no interpretation. LFS is by definition and by logic not a distribution of Linux. Its not debatable or to interpret.
So all the other people who interpreted the question, and the word “distro” in the question, in a manner that led them to answer LFS, are not just wrong to have interpreted it so, but… I’m sorry, I’m still struggling to get my head around your world view, how this is squared away, where there’s an internal logical consistency. [Edit: “no interpretation”? So what was it they all did?]
If it’s not debatable, how then did we arrive here?
See… its like you’re not even in reality. Reminds of NPD. Stating things as true or not true, contrary to what’s immediately evident. Like your failing efforts at saving face lead you to just try double-down harder, even further removed from awareness and reality. The ignorance that dies is not you. There’s no threat to you here. You can entertain an idea. It wont hurt.
I am not debating with you if LFS is a distribution or not, I teach you that its not.
Let me know when that starts.
You know what a distribution is, right?
Arguably, no one does. But this is a point that seems to be going completely over your head.
[Edit: There was a (iirc) good video about that recently from some linux youtuber… that I’m failing to find… If I do encounter it again, I’ll try remember to add it here.]
If you don’t even know what a distribution is, then why do you discuss and state others are wrong? A Linux distribution is an operating system you can install, that distributes the Linux Kernel. And LFS is not doing that. LFS is not a distribution. It’s documentation that helps you create one.
You’re still not getting it.
Open to interpretation.
Contemplate these words.
I don’t know how to help you, since you’re not getting this.
You’re still not getting it.
Interpretation of LFS being a distribution or not is not open to interpretation. I explained to you what a distribution is (as you admitted not knowing what a distribution is). And you are still stuck.
Sorry to tell you, but LFS is not an operating system.
Happy to tell you, I asked the question, and I stated it was open to interpretation.
And many people have done so. Fitting as intended.
If they want to say the distro they made following LFS is the hardest they’ve tried, they’re perfectly within the remit of the question with that; perfectly on topic. If they were to proclaim their re-write from scratch of templeOS in dreamberd was their hardest Linux distro, I’m happy to accept that. If they were to state the hardest linux distro they tried, was using GNU Hurd, instead of something with a Linux kernel, I’m happy with that too. If they had an entirely non-gnu userland, and an ironclad kernel, fine with that too. If they said Windows, satirising how hard that was on their life, how ignorant and disempowered it made them, that’s fine to interpret the question that broadly too. If someone said a piece of toast, with nothing to do with the linux kernel at all, then that’s fine too. If someone said Norway, by whatever crazy brought them there, that’s still within the remit of the question’s reassurance that it’s open to interpretation. See how open to interpretation works?
See how we’ve been arguing past each other, at different levels?
You’re free to interpret LFS as not a distro. That too is within the remit of open to interpretation. I wonder why you’re so insistent on only your interpretation of the question, and of that one aspect of one possible answer, and so stubborn to accept that the question itself, not merely LFS considered as a distro, is [as already stated in bold italics repeatedly] open to interpretation (and if you’ve even yet got that that’s what’s being questioned here).
(Probably not… but I thought this reply was good enough to help clarify… but then, I thought that several times already… and yet still, astonishing levels of not getting it, like taking a step back’s too difficult for your current apparent catecholamine tone.)