> Linux distribution is a distribution, not a vendor.
I don't understand what you mean here. Do you think that the Debian is not trying to provide a full OS, they are just curating a set of popular packages?
I think this is patently false, as most distributions typically take clear decisions to standardize and maintain particular OS components, such as choosing a particular libc (glibc in most distros, musl in Alpine), choosing a particular init system (systemd vs System V), particular network management demon etc.
However, instead of taking additional time to create and commit to a backwards compatible Debian SDK, Alpine SDK etc, they then package all of these OS components the same way they package popular software.
Yep, Debian is not even trying to develop a full OS. They are distributing GNU/Linux with few popular desktops (Gnome, KDE, Mate, XFCE, etc.), and popular applications.
GNU project tries to develop full OS for Linux kernel. GNOME project tries to develop full desktop for GNU/Linux. The Document Foundation tries to develop full office suite. And so on.
I don't understand what you mean here. Do you think that the Debian is not trying to provide a full OS, they are just curating a set of popular packages?
I think this is patently false, as most distributions typically take clear decisions to standardize and maintain particular OS components, such as choosing a particular libc (glibc in most distros, musl in Alpine), choosing a particular init system (systemd vs System V), particular network management demon etc.
However, instead of taking additional time to create and commit to a backwards compatible Debian SDK, Alpine SDK etc, they then package all of these OS components the same way they package popular software.