The difference between Minimalism and Purism in Open Source Software

[Shining Arcanine]

I often see people here refer to Linux distributions such as Gentoo Linux, Slackware Linux and Arch Linux and call them "purist distributions". The reason for this seems to be because these distributions give you no GUI or anything else and that doing this is perceived to be a consequence of a "holier than thou" mentality. This seems like a naive thought to me, because OpenWRT and other distributions for embedded systems are very much the same, but no one calls them purist distributions. None of the aforementioned distributions advocate using them without a GUI either. Instead, they advocate doing whatever it is you want with them.

At the same time, these distributions do follow a philosophy of minimalism, where they provide the minimal necessary for the user to get started and the user can take things from there. This is distinctly different than the Microsoft-esque philosophy followed by distributions such as Ubuntu Linux, which is to attempt to automate everything for the user. The notion of being "purist" with its exclusionist "holier than thou" connotion, cannot be readily applied to one philosophy without being applied to the other philosophy, because calling one "purist" for the philosophy behind it is to call the other "purist" for the philosophy behind it. If both are "purist", then calling them that is the equivalent of saying that the sky is blue. If neither are "purist", then the term should not be used at all.

Lastly, I would like to remind people that there does exist something to which the exclusionist "holier than thou" notion of purism does apply, and that is the category of Linux distributions advocated by the Free Software Foundation. They maintain a list at gnu.org:

http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html

In the future, if distributions that resemble MS-DOS because of their default CLIs are discussed, use the term minimalist. If distributions advocated by the madmen of the Free Software Foundation are discussed, use the term purist. Keep in mind that the terms are not mutually exclusive, such that some distributions exist for which both terms apply.

[Bachstelze]

In the future, if distributions that resemble MS-DOS because of their default CLIs are discussed, use the term minimalist.

How about no?

[j7%<RmUg]

Well, i dont use terms like "purist" or anything, but i do actually agree with why some distros are called that.

OP, one thing you should remember is that distros like slackware are quite old (slackware was one of the first distros) and they have remained (to the most part) true to what they were originally designed for, that is, they were designed to give the user full control, and not get in their way at all. Distros like Ubuntu these days are no longer like that, they all have flashy GUI's which alot of people (me included) find annoying and unproductive. Plus all the applications a over-simplified for noobs so they dont get confused.

Minimalism is good, as long as functionality is there as well.

Dont believe me? Do a stage3 install of gentoo, without using any binary packages, then you will realise what benefits a "purist" distro presents.

[RiceMonster]

cool story bro

[koenn]

[words]
explaining why you are wrong would take more time than your post is worth.

[Madspyman]

This is all semantics as each Linux distro often is considered it's own OS. The definition of purist should be defined individually for each OS. I imagine you could call people who like to use their Ubuntu distro sans restricted extras or proprietary drivers, Ubuntu purists, but seeing as Ubuntu's mission isn't to provide what you called a "purist" experience people who use Ubuntu the way its intended to be used could also be considered purists.

Who cares, Linux is created to be used for whatever Linux needs to be used for.

[mickie.kext]

Would like it better if someone call it "dirty distributions" :D.

[Shining Arcanine]

Well, i dont use terms like "purist" or anything, but i do actually agree with why some distros are called that.

OP, one thing you should remember is that distros like slackware are quite old (slackware was one of the first distros) and they have remained (to the most part) true to what they were originally designed for, that is, they were designed to give the user full control, and not get in their way at all. Distros like Ubuntu these days are no longer like that, they all have flashy GUI's which alot of people (me included) find annoying and unproductive. Plus all the applications a over-simplified for noobs so they dont get confused.

Minimalism is good, as long as functionality is there as well.

Dont believe me? Do a stage3 install of gentoo, without using any binary packages, then you will realise what benefits a "purist" distro presents.

For the record, I use Gentoo Linux and I have done multiple stage3 installations of it. It is is fairly easy and straightforward to install Gentoo Linux on x86 hardware.

With that said, Gentoo Linux is a minimalist distribution, not a purist distribution. If you want a purist version of Gentoo Linux, you should try out Utulo Linux, which is a fork of Gentoo Linux. Utulo Linux was the first purist Linux distribution to be recognized by the Free Software Foundation.


Would like it better if someone call it "dirty distributions" :D.

If we can start a trend where every time someone calls minimalist distributions "purist", others respond that distributions like Ubuntu Linux are dirty, perhaps we could kill misusage of the term "purist".

[HoKaze]

The problem here is that you're only seeing one side of "purism", namely the free software side of things. The distros that are advocated by the FSF are "purist" in terms of rejecting proprietary blobs and restricted software whilst distros like Slackware are "purist" in terms of a Linux distro: they hold true to the old conventions of the first linux distros (and often are amongst the oldest of distros), sticking to the idea of user freedom rather the user friendliness.
Whilst Wikipedia may say that software purism is solely about the FSF, that's simply not true. Pursim is having something remain "true" to it's roots and foundations, as such we can argue many different forms of software purism, whether it be because they follow the FSF, follow certain roots or conform strictly to standards.

I do however agree that distros such as gentoo, arch, etc are probably better off called "minimalist" rather than "purist". Purist smacks of zealotry regardless of the original intentions.

[MisfitI38]

Nothing a little threadlock won't fix.
http://www.forumspile.com/Thread-Crap-Lock.jpg

[Shining Arcanine]

The problem here is that you're only seeing one side of "purism", namely the free software side of things. The distros that are advocated by the FSF are "purist" in terms of rejecting proprietary blobs and restricted software whilst distros like Slackware are "purist" in terms of a Linux distro: they hold true to the old conventions of the first linux distros (and often are amongst the oldest of distros), sticking to the idea of user freedom rather the user friendliness.
Whilst Wikipedia may say that software purism is solely about the FSF, that's simply not true. Pursim is having something remain "true" to it's roots and foundations, as such we can argue many different forms of software purism, whether it be because they follow the FSF, follow certain roots or conform strictly to standards.

I do however agree that distros such as gentoo, arch, etc are probably better off called "minimalist" rather than "purist". Purist smacks of zealotry regardless of the original intentions.

Regardless of whether or not it applies, the use of the term "purist" is incorrect, because either it does apply, in which case it is the equivalent of saying that the sky is blue, because it would apply to distributions like Ubuntu Linux as well, or it does not apply, in which case it is wrong. It seems to be used more as a slur than anything else and I think an important question to ask is why is it used as a slur. Is it possible that some people have some kind of psychological need to deride anything too complicated on the surface for them to understand?

[cprofitt]

What is interesting to me is that the FSF wants to 'limit' what can be put in distros.

Ah... that is a 'limit' that is against 'free' principals; right?

[Shining Arcanine]

What is interesting to me is that the FSF wants to 'limit' what can be put in distros.

Ah... that is a 'limit' that is against 'free' principals; right?

As I told one of my professors on this very topic, some open source software is more open software than others.

[koenn]

What is interesting to me is that the FSF wants to 'limit' what can be put in distros.

Ah... that is a 'limit' that is against 'free' principals; right?

The FSF doesn't control those distros, precisely because of the freedoms the FSF (among others) stands for. So there.

Besides that, it's pretty lame rhetorics to play on the word 'free' like that. I live in a free country. We live in a free world. The USA is the land of the free. Guess what, there's an awful lot of things that are forbidden regardless.