I'm developing my own Linux-based system using Arch as the foundation, and I'm writing the system applications myself. If I remove or replace most of the original system applications, should I call the result a custom operating system, an Arch-based distribution, or an Arch fork? What would distinguish those labels in practice?
I also want the main user experience to be command-line oriented, but I may include Wayland, a graphical compositor, a graphical wallpaper, a lock screen, and other visual elements. Would that still count as a CLI-focused system, or would it be better described as something between a CLI environment and a graphical desktop?
4 Answers
A setup without a desktop environment or window manager is often called headless, but using Wayland or another graphical compositor means the system is not strictly headless. It can still be command-line-first if the graphical layer is limited to supporting features rather than being the main interface.
If the system is built on Arch, it’s still Arch-based regardless of how many applications you replace. Calling it a separate operating system is mostly a matter of how independently it is developed and distributed. A project with its own release cycle, maintained packages or package manager, and a distinct design philosophy is more clearly a separate distribution or fork rather than just a customized Arch installation.
A system is generally CLI-focused when the primary way users interact with it is through the command line. The implementation underneath can still use graphical components. Wayland is a display protocol, and a compositor or graphical wallpaper adds graphical functionality, but those features don’t automatically turn the whole system into a desktop OS. If the user mainly works in a terminal, “CLI-focused with optional graphical components” would be a reasonable description.
That makes sense. I’m nearly finished, with only things like the lock screen, wallpaper, welcome guide, and logo left. At this point I’m more interested in making the system I want than fitting it perfectly into a category.
There isn’t one universally strict definition for “distribution” or “fork.” You can modify Linux and redistribute it under a new name, but the distinction becomes clearer when you maintain your own packages, control your release schedule instead of simply following Arch, and provide a noticeably different overall approach. Custom system applications alone don’t automatically make it a new OS.
So an Arch-based system and an Arch fork aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive? It can be both, depending on how independently it develops?