I have an old notebook which I’ve been toying with a few smaller distros on (typically easy to install, liveCD types), and while I enjoy the tinkering aspects of this, I had a thought that I’ve been mulling.
In the past I’ve run distributions based on larger, better supported, systems (Ubuntu, Debian, Arch, etc.) and if or when they have folded, like crunchbang did, or PeppermintOS (however briefly), I just changed them out.
However, if I were to go back to peppermintOS, say, would it be feasible to ‘convert’ the system to the parent distribution? So, could I force peppermintOS to ‘become’ Debian, for example? Or is this overly simplistic? It’s a level of engagement with my operating systems that I just haven’t had!
Well, it’s possible, but I don’t think it’s feasible… If you want another distro, it’s easier if you format your pc with the distro you want
The problem with package based distros (everything non-immutable) is, that a distro is very complex.
Even if you manage to “swap out” the package repositories, you usually still have a lot of remaining stuff in the background and many things tweaked by the maintainers. It’s a huge mess.
In theory, you could absolutely do that, but to be honest, why bother? You already always should have a backup of all your personal data, so why not reinstall it cleanly?
Speaking of image based distros (“immutable”), the cool thing about most is that that you can easily swap out the underlying OS with just one command.
For example, you can always rebase from Fedora Silverblue to Kinoite to Bazzite to something with Hyprland and then back to vanilla Silverblue, without any traces.
So, for example, if the guy who makes your custom image on Github stops maintaining it, you can simply switch to something else in just seconds.
Maybe this is something relevant for you :)
Tiny vocab tip: “Non-immutable” is actually just called “mutable”.
Package based distro doesn’t has any relation with immutability. NixOS and GuixSD are package based distro and they are immutable.
Sorry if my english is bad
If you’re interested in doing the tech equivalent of a party trick (except that it’s less interesting to watch), go ahead and try. You’ll probably just end up reinstalling almost every package on the system that differs between the base distro and the offshoot. Harmless, but also pointless, since you could just have installed Debian from the get-go and saved yourself a lot of trouble.
There are a whole bunch of Very Silly Things you can do in the Linux world that aren’t worth the effort unless your income relies on the creation of niche Youtube vids. For instance, it should theoretically be possible to convert a system from Debian to Gentoo without wiping and reinstalling. I’m not going to try it.
Fair enough!
I’ve done some blindingly stupid things with my installs in the past, and I’m not angling to try any in the near future - I guess I’ll just embrace the reinstallation game!
It may just be a pre-configured Debian in which case there will be nothing to convert or it may have several additional repositories in which case it will be easier to install the new one.
So if there’s additional repositories does that mean that there is likely to be core functionality which would be broken if it stops being maintained?
Again it depends on what those repositories do.
EndeavourOS (Arch based) adds a repository which appears to be for their utilities, otherwise they use the Arch repositories. You could probably continue using it with minimal disruption although the utilities would be unmaintained.
Manjaro (also Arch based) uses its own mirrors of the Arch repositories and adds some of its own. If it vanished, it would quickly become out of date and full of security holes. A new install would be necessary.
In either case, I’d do a clean install of Arch because why give yourself the headache.
check the distro’s changelist to find something like that since not all downstream distros are the same; some are more modified than others from their base.
It’s going to go poorly and probably break. That said, I don’t enjoy these “lite distros” because as soon as you load YouTube in a browser, your system specs are cooked.
Point taken!
I don’t think the lite distros are to blame for performance drops in that case, are they? Unless it’s down to a lack of system optimisation.
No, they aren’t to blame, but it makes “light” distros pointless.
Not really - there’s plenty of use cases where running memory intensive stuff like that isn’t an issue and running a small footprint distro makes more sense than, say, a maximalist, fully featured desktop distro.
I’m not trying to run a media centre or play games on my 11 year old MacBook!
