[jraph]

Yeah, a general purpose distro would come with a desktop environment and you'd be able to run it on your PC as your main OS. Calling this general purpose is so misleading.

Of course describing reality in titles would have the inconvenience of causing fewer clicks to these articles.

The title on HN could be updated though.

[rswail]

It's general purpose in that it can run any Linux application in numerous different ways, containerized, as a VM, or on specific bare hardware.

You and Microsoft are using the word "general purpose" to mean different things.

This is not generally compatible with different hardware.

Nor does it include things that could be considered applications, like desktop environments etc. It's not designed to be run by an end user on a desktop.

[embedding-shape]

Someone says:

> Here is a general purpose Linux distribution, give it a try!

Where does your mind go? That this is a server-only distribution meant for a specific provider? Or that it's something like Debian, that could be run on servers and desktops alike without much tinkering, or meant for any provider?

FWIW, Microsoft themselves don't seem to call this a "general purpose Linux distribution", I could probably guess why, what Microsoft themselves say is "Purpose-Built for Azure" which sounds much more accurate. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/blog/linuxandopensourceb...

I think the author might have confused (unintentionally or intentionally, who knows?) "general purpose" with "Purpose-Built for Azure", since Microsoft's own announcements get this right, while submission article is littered with this mistake.

[tossandthrow]

Ubuntu server distributions are definitely general purpose.

[embedding-shape]

So if I understand what you're saying, if someone asks you "Hey, could you recommend me a general purpose Linux distribution?", you'd recommend them Ubuntu Server rather than just straight up Ubuntu?

I'd agree both could be used in a general-purpose way, but I'd definitively call one of them more general-purpose than the other.

[PeterStuer]

95% of my VM's run Ubuntu Server LTS, so yes, that is what I would recommend if I was a recommending person.

[tossandthrow]

If they need a general purpose distro for a server, absolutely.

That would likely be a better recommendation than android.

[embedding-shape]

But that wasn't the question, what they ask is specifically "Hey, could you recommend me a general purpose Linux distribution?", would you still first recommend Ubuntu Server?

[thesuperbigfrog]

Most Linux server distributions would be expected to be headless.

"General purpose" Linux distributions (not "server") typically would include a GUI desktop.

[joxdosba]

A GUI Linux distribution feels vastly more niche than a headless one.

[thesuperbigfrog]

Really?

What are some major Linux distributions that are only headless?

What is the market share of those Linux distributions compared to Linux distributions that have a GUI desktop?

[stuaxo]

When he said "general purpose" I totally imagined a desktop environment.

[gunalx]

According to [1] the guidelines explicitly say to keep editorializing to a specified minimum, unless it is spam. Dont know it this title would allow editorialising

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[jraph]

They say "please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize".

I think it's misleading and linkbait. The mods would decide what to use instead, this could be "Azure Linux 4.0, Microsoft's Linux distribution for its cloud" or something like this.

[graemep]

Especially given the article says this:

> It is minimal on purpose. Azure Linux ships only what cloud and server workloads need. There is no desktop, no GUI, no general-purpose sprawl.

[hmry]

Yep sure does. Love an article that contradicts its own title. Bonus points for that sentence sounding extremely AI-generated.