After Shift


Recommended Posts

You've probably heard about Firefly Linux, so I won't spam about that anymore.

Shift Linux was a "learner's distro" - not in the sense of dumbed down K-12 programs, but in the practical sense of I want a Linux distro of my own. Not many mainstream vendors have a clear-cut, well-documented way to do so yourself.

Having built (installable for the most part) Linux Live CDs on 3 (4?) different platforms - Morphix/(Debian), Ubuntu, and Arch Linux, and in good community and continuation of Shift's learning element, I've come up with an idea for a user-guide on how to build Linux (distributions). Think of this post as a pre-announcement. Let's not bury knowledge.

The guide will cleverly be called "Build Linux", slogan pending, and the domain, already registered, will be http://buildlinux.com. I'm contemplating using MediaWiki to power the site. That means users will be able to submit guides and modify existing guides as distributions change and such. Our first three guides will obviously be about the 3 Shift distros. We'll probably shoot some emails out to the writers of LFS to see if we can include their guides on Build Linux.com.

Before you tear this idea apart, keep in mind that there are people out there searching for a way to make Linux distros beyond what UCK and Reconstructor do, or, even if they do use the easier wizard applications, easier documentation isn't always easily found.

What do you guys think?

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/754798-after-shift/
Share on other sites

This is what I don't understand. Why do people feel the need to make their own distro? Why aren't the 1000s of ones already availible good enough? If you know enough about linux to create your own distro, you certainly can install a current distro and easily retool it for your needs. Lord knows the linux platform doesn't need anymore segmentation.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/754798-after-shift/#findComment-590800094
Share on other sites

We're not making another distro. And yes, if you know enough to make your own distro, you can retool one. We tackle the "know enough to make your own distro" part, which in turn might get people to retool their distro, or yes, dump it on the saturated market. If it is released, good for the developer, and unless that distro gets popular enough, people won't really know unless they go searching for themselves. There's a good 2000 distros out there, but no one honestly cares about how many there are. They care about the select few that fit their needs and ignore the rest.

Sorry for the rant. My original point was - this is a documentation site. What the end users do with the information is out of my control - open source. Don't expect 10000 more distros to suddenly slam DistroWatch. But maybe some people will "slipstream" something into their favorite Linux distro?

nLite and vLite could therefore theoretically create 2000 "distributions" of Windows, right?

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/754798-after-shift/#findComment-590800166
Share on other sites

We're not making another distro. And yes, if you know enough to make your own distro, you can retool one. We tackle the "know enough to make your own distro" part, which in turn might get people to retool their distro, or yes, dump it on the saturated market. If it is released, good for the developer, and unless that distro gets popular enough, people won't really know unless they go searching for themselves. There's a good 2000 distros out there, but no one honestly cares about how many there are. They care about the select few that fit their needs and ignore the rest.

Sorry for the rant. My original point was - this is a documentation site. What the end users do with the information is out of my control - open source. Don't expect 10000 more distros to suddenly slam DistroWatch. But maybe some people will "slipstream" something into their favorite Linux distro?

nLite and vLite could therefore theoretically create 2000 "distributions" of Windows, right?

I'm sorry. Perhaps I went a bit off target for this thread with my rant. My rant was a bit more general.

I find the idea of creating new distros to be much like that of pollution, people can do it, and it may have an immediate good result, but in the long run, damages the community as a whole. Its one of the main reasons linux gets so little support from the main stream. There?s so many combinations of glib versions and mono versions and god-knows-what-else-dependencies out there that theres an unlimited amount of variation. Developers cant possibly support every linux distro out there(even the most popular ones) and so they don?t support any at all.

And I was thinking about nLite and vLite when I was typing that last post. And you?d be right, except people don?t freely distribute slipstreamed disks. Windows(and OS X) has a standard that developers can target, the original install disk. Yeah, you can add and remove stuff using nLite and vLite, but that?s your own personal copy, if you screw up something that a program relies on and it doesn?t work, you would know why, you created the disk. But people who install your distro won?t know, they didn?t create the disk.

I guess what I?m getting at is it?s fine to create your own distro for personal use, but when you release your distro to the public, you?re really doing a disservice to the linux community.

Sorry for the rant again. I know, it?s not your problem/fault. Don?t let my rant get in the way of your project, it was aimed more at the community than you specificly.

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/754798-after-shift/#findComment-590800356
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
While I love Linux and what it represents, there are too many distros. :(

I think the point is you can learn to make your own distro, with the software you want and the themes you want and all the settings you want, so it works exactly the way you want it "out of the box".

Or you could also start your own distro targeting a specific audience.

Nice one, Crimson! :D

Link to comment
https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/754798-after-shift/#findComment-590898648
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!