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?
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.)
It’s not. LFS is not an operating system. Just because you state its free to interpretation doesn’t make it free. It’s not. It’s like if you said “its free to interpret if our sun is actually not a star, but in reality it is an asteroid”.
I’m not insisting my interpretation, I explain to you what LFS is. Because it is not an interpretation, its’ a definition. What do you think the worlds “operation system” and “distribution” means? Do you know the difference between what an operating system and a book is?