Is the name the issue?
I want to create manjaro based OS name predator we will design it like changing everything in is fully modified for public release
I don’t want any of your logo or brand name
I think your missing everyone’s point, no one has an issue with you making your own spin/manjaro fork. We are asking what are you going to do differently/add/base your distro for? What would people use your distro for rather than manjaro? You need to make it different from manjaro if you want users to adopt it instead
I found a forum to create manjaro based OS
Let be serious, just by reading his replies (or non replies to be exact, he apparently can’t answer this simple question asked so many times already), it is clear this is never gonna happen. He can’t even make proper sentences, do you think he will make a Manjaro spin when he asks questions like “where is Manjaro logo”?
3 Likes
What is your questions
I believe English is not the native language of @EpicV . Describe what you want to achieve with WHATEVER language you speak so people can give you more constructive suggestions.
The point was, most projects start somewhere and the participants on that project have to agree on things, how are made, from something simple like a name, to where and how the project is stored and shared so is distinct from other similar projects, the installer interface, and even the graphical related part, colors, theme, desktop layout, default installed apps …
Let’s pretend that this projects will be merged in one, as you proposed:
Ubuntu - Debian - CentOS - Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) - Gentoo - Fedora - OpenSUSE - Scientific Linux - CloudLinux - Elementary OS - Linux Mint - Arch Linux - Manjaro - Oracle Linux - Slackware - Mageia - Clear Linux - Rocky Linux - AlmaLinux - Asahi Linux - Lubuntu - SUSE Linux - Knoppix - VzLinux - Peppermint OS - Zorin OS - BlackArch Linux (to name a few)
What project will drop their current name to another one? What packaging format will be opted out, opted in and why?
While all of them are sharing the core GNU Linux philosophy that everyone shall have the granted right to use a program, to copy it, and to change it to make it fit his or her needs , not all this projects share the same vision on how to do it, because there is not only one way of doing it … hence the diversity of distributions …
2 Likes
There’s already distros out there based on manjaro like Mabox for example. But taking mabox it hosts its own repos and does specialise/differentiate itself enough to be a stand alone distro rather than a spin.
If all you are changing is the theming/logos then all you are creating is a spin not a distro
The name? Again?
OK… let us call it X (Xinux) or Y (Ynunx) or Z (Zinux) or New Linux… Ninux
Maybe let me put it this way. Group the RPM, the DEB, the Arch…
Let the distros of each package system join forces to create a new one with the goal of taking market share for Linux. Same time, each distro can remain as it is and will serve as a sandbox for the Major distro…
As long as we r thinking “my distro”, “my package manager”, “my…” it will remain as it is… many “my”…
Think of my home vs “our country”, “my country” vs “our globe”
I see this discussion will take us no where if we keep thinking “my distro” not “our Linux”
1 Like
I am not talking about themes and logos, even not about any distro… I am talking about Linux, all those developers… users…
I believe some OEM had previously made Suse preinstalled… but it didn’t make a big bang because it was “my Suse”, “my distro” nobody thought about “our Linux”
My comment was to the op about what he was going to change.
With Linux in general its biggest strength is also its biggest weakness that’s choice. The more choices the less chance to challenge the monopoly but so many users love the choices so they have a system unique to them
The core question:
Would major distros have a will to make such thing or not? Would major distros have the “vision” of the benefits… let me think here something like “merging” companies to create a conglomerate or a holding company. Suse, Red Hat, Ubuntu… etc.
You got to the point, to the bull’s eye 
My previous post let distros stay as they are if they wish.
My 2 cents. Users care about a stable respectable system, a system that “loves” and “cares” about the users, where users can have a say, not about distrohopping and enjoying “choices”. And I am sure, most M$ users are not happy with “the big brother” who tells you what to do, what not to eat and even feed you forcefully what he wants to feed you.
@limotux you should open another thread instead of hijacking it. People try to understand what @EpicV wants rather than debating if we need a universal Linux OS.
4 Likes
Ok no problem I will create a manjaro based OS
Red Hat company is for Fedora Linux what is Canonical for Ubuntu and what Novell is for Suse Linux. Their (not equal by any means) contribution to the Linux project was always present since their beginnings. Also Linux Foundation was founded as a merger between Open Source Development Labs and the Free Standards Group to standardize Linux, support its growth, and promote its commercial adoption. So, not quite sure what exactly you imply, because as i already explained
If you live with the impression that they don’t do it properly, by all means, take the stance and save them.
1 Like
Lets Let’s be serious
His weak English is not something to make fun of:
“Simply put, treat others as you would be treated;”
From the forum rules in the wiki.
Sorry, sure I didn’t intend to hijack it. I thought it might be in line.
Please accept my apologies.
I’m stating the obvious, after his second message, people should have wished good luck and thread was done. 35 messages in the thread currently. For non sense.
PS: also thanks for incorrecting me 
. It’s “Let’s be serious” not “Lets be serious” 
2 Likes