I'm not hating but just curious if you have a sales pitch for the purpose of Rhino Linux over just using Arch (or one of it variants with easier install).
https://rhinolinux.org/statement our mission statement states why we exist, and what our purpose is. Beyond that we also like to bring some novel features to our distribution like rhino-pkg.
Neither the statement nor your comment answer "why?". So it's Arch release model and dpkg, as far as I understand. Is using dpkg an improvement over pacman? It's not like it brings Debian/Ubuntu compatibility, as versions wouldn't match. If you want to try installing .deb/.rpm packages and take the risk, many AUR packages demonstrate how to script it properly.
Perhaps it would be better to port the missing dpkg features to pacman, if any?
Pacstall is also, still, really lacking in, well, anything, and seeing as that comes with the exact same caveats that the AUR does, the AUR is just better. The AUR has literally everything.
On top of this; being based on the dev branch also will cause conflicts with PPAs.
The whole point of Rhino Linux is that its an ubuntu-based rolling release distribution. The desktop environment (while we put a lot of effort into its development) is not *the distribution.* Here is our mission statement: https://rhinolinux.org/statement
I work on Mesa, and one of the biggest annoyances is how Ubuntu and other popular distros ship outdated Mesa packages. So I appreciate the effort you are doing.
However, it sounds to me like Ubuntu itself (along with its other derivatives) could benefit from your team's work for updating packages more frequently. The better solution (in my opinion) would be to fix Ubuntu and then there would be no need for creating another derivative distro.
Of course, you can feel free to disagree with me, it's your time, so you do with it what you want and I can't tell you what to do.
We cannot control Ubuntu's release cadance, Ubuntu chooses the packages that they put into their repositories including versions, it's not an issue of Ubuntu not having enough packagers, canonical has plenty of employees to do that, it's that it isn't their release model, that's not the purpose of Ubuntu (however much I wish it to be).
What do you see as the main advantages of making this project based on Ubuntu or Debian, rather than either something with more frequent and timely package releases already, or something with a more ports-like package definition format?
Impressive_Corner207@reddit
I'm not hating but just curious if you have a sales pitch for the purpose of Rhino Linux over just using Arch (or one of it variants with easier install).
MrBeeBenson@reddit (OP)
https://rhinolinux.org/statement our mission statement states why we exist, and what our purpose is. Beyond that we also like to bring some novel features to our distribution like rhino-pkg.
ThiefClashRoyale@reddit
Wow the hostility to a response that was totally fine.
kansetsupanikku@reddit
Neither the statement nor your comment answer "why?". So it's Arch release model and dpkg, as far as I understand. Is using dpkg an improvement over pacman? It's not like it brings Debian/Ubuntu compatibility, as versions wouldn't match. If you want to try installing .deb/.rpm packages and take the risk, many AUR packages demonstrate how to script it properly.
Perhaps it would be better to port the missing dpkg features to pacman, if any?
xcorv42@reddit
It’s for distro hoping
Fwidjewator@reddit
I'll echo this.
Pacstall is also, still, really lacking in, well, anything, and seeing as that comes with the exact same caveats that the AUR does, the AUR is just better. The AUR has literally everything.
On top of this; being based on the dev branch also will cause conflicts with PPAs.
I just don't see the point of it.
Adventurous-Test-246@reddit
I respect any distro that goes out of their way to offer images for devices like the pinetab2
TimurHu@reddit
If they just want a modern looking Xfce desktop, why not just develop a theme that is available for any distro?
Sorry to say this but I don't think we need another distro.
MrBeeBenson@reddit (OP)
The whole point of Rhino Linux is that its an ubuntu-based rolling release distribution. The desktop environment (while we put a lot of effort into its development) is not *the distribution.* Here is our mission statement: https://rhinolinux.org/statement
TimurHu@reddit
I work on Mesa, and one of the biggest annoyances is how Ubuntu and other popular distros ship outdated Mesa packages. So I appreciate the effort you are doing.
However, it sounds to me like Ubuntu itself (along with its other derivatives) could benefit from your team's work for updating packages more frequently. The better solution (in my opinion) would be to fix Ubuntu and then there would be no need for creating another derivative distro.
Of course, you can feel free to disagree with me, it's your time, so you do with it what you want and I can't tell you what to do.
MrBeeBenson@reddit (OP)
We cannot control Ubuntu's release cadance, Ubuntu chooses the packages that they put into their repositories including versions, it's not an issue of Ubuntu not having enough packagers, canonical has plenty of employees to do that, it's that it isn't their release model, that's not the purpose of Ubuntu (however much I wish it to be).
AndydeCleyre@reddit
What do you see as the main advantages of making this project based on Ubuntu or Debian, rather than either something with more frequent and timely package releases already, or something with a more ports-like package definition format?
RDForTheWin@reddit
They also developed their own package manager, to be able to ship the latest packages with Ubuntu
nossaquesapao@reddit
Love the design you achieved over xfce. I wish you good luck with the project