When I read through the release announcements of most Linux distributions, the updates seem repetitive and uninspired—typically featuring little more than a newer kernel, a desktop environment upgrade, and the latest versions of popular applications (which have nothing to do with the distro itself). It feels like there’s a shortage of meaningful innovation, to the point that they tout updates to Firefox or LibreOffice as if they were significant contributions from the distribution itself.
It raises the question: are these distributions doing anything beyond repackaging the latest software? Are they adding any genuinely useful features or applications that differentiate them from one another? And more importantly, should they be?
You must log in or register to comment.
I think it is a sign the Linux ecosystem is mature, boring is good in software in my opinion.
wouldn’t think so. automatic upgrades is as essential feature for desktop systems, yet they are nit really here. I can’t appear at the dozens of my friends (significant amount of them elder) to upgrade their systems every few weeks or a month, or when e.g. firefox gets a critical vulnerability fix
Automatic updates are there with the right distro. Which highlights the need to look around for the right distro for the use case.
Example being Opensuse Aeon - automatic updates - doesn’t even tell you it’s happening, just pops up “your system was updated” out of nowhere
Automatic rollback - if an update broke something you would never know, at boot the system will pick the previous snapshot with no user intervention
As far as the user is concerned you just have a working system; that it is the entire goal of that distro
I’ve read about Aeon a few months ago, and it seems very nice, but I wish I would have jotted down what made me not consider it because all I remember is that there were a few
Yes, absolutely. When you look at the innovations happening to Windows recently like Copilot integration and Recall I’m glad that Linux is “boring”
For me distro’s role is to repackage things and then test them to check if they work together. Kinda like a premade sandwitch.
Yeah, I’d rather the distro be as boring as possible while the exciting stuff happens upstream.
I mean that is kinda the point of a distro. If they’re good the work gets merged upstream and benefits everyone. They collate and bug test and conflict resolve (It’s more involved than that, but for the sake of simplicity)
Honestly, when you say
are these distributions doing anything beyond repackaging the latest software?
— I have to wonder what you think is so trivial about keeping your system current with latest bug fixes and security updates?
I don’t need or want a distro to radically reinvent itself with every release. I had enough of that fuckery with Windows, way back when — incidentally, also a direct reason I quit that OS. And seeing “big changes” like Ubuntu deciding to functionally deprecate deb packages is… unappealing to me as well.
There are probably sexier updates going on in DEs, but (insofar as a distro isn’t wedded to one particular desktop environment) I’m fine to let them hog that glamour.
I guess if you want exciting new features you can just switch to a different distro nowadays or add them yourself. Why should distros add more stuff making them bloated or change stuff turning users away that like how things are currently? For general use you really don’t need a lot of fancy new stuff.
You should use Arch, btw
Since adopting a Flatpak and containerized workflow, the choice of distribution matters a lot less to me now than it did 10 years ago.
The majority of apps that I use everyday can be run from any host. And I can install fedora, arch, debian, or whatever I want as a container, whenever I want it, without any thought to my host system.
Ideally, Flatpak’s UX will continue to improve, and upstream app devs will continue to adopt it as an official support channel, which will improve overall security and confidence of the platform. Image-based, atomic distros will be further streamlined, allowing for even more easily interchangeable host images. At that point, traditional distros will be little more than an opinionated collection of command line tools and programming environments.
the deployed architecture of linux is still evolving right now and there are lots of distros experimenting with different approaches
- how the basic core OS is structured - immutability, A/B partitions, versioned rollback
- how third party applications are executed - containerization, compatibilty, virtualization, bare metal
- how software is updated and stored - package management (apt, pacman, nix, flatpak)
i’m sure i’ve missed other features of new linux distros. this is all really important stuff but has nothing to do with the apps you actually use day to day
A boring release is the best kind of release. It means that most of the effort went into stability, compatibility, and bugfixes.
If you want updates to be exciting, install Arch, but only update it once every six months. You can even run bets on which system inroduces some breaking change that forces you to reach into its guts.
no*, no, and no.
*not the ones i’m interested in using.
Some of them add bugs disguised as features, like Ubuntu’s snap
Funny, exactly what I mentioned in another thread https://lemmy.ml/post/21238446/14210360
Yes Snap is the bane of my existence. I actually had to create an ansible playbook for work that permanently removes the snap version of Firefox and then installs the official apt from Mozilla’s PPA. And on top I install other things my teams needs like VSCode and Chromium without using snaps. A nice repeatable process I wish I didn’t have to create but when certain clients insist on Ubuntu there is not much else to do
Since I started using the Nix package manager and switched to NixOS, the notion of a “Linux distribution” faded into little more than “A bootloader + the Linux kernel + some userspace programs”.
The same happens with any of the new immutable distributions. It’s just less effort as you do not need to do the nix configuration dance anymore.
A distro is corposed of:
- an installer
- base system (bootloader, filesystems, service runner, DE, basic apps, settings)
- packet manager and packaged software
- an updater between releases
The biggest things you notice are updated packages. Many of the base-system differences aren’t even pushed to updated installations. Most of what the user sees as °the os° is the DE anyway.
You seem to be comparing a distro release to a new game release. It’s not. A distro is not always exciting because their top priority is having a working system. This means dealing with all the boring stuff.
It feels like there’s a shortage of meaningful innovation
You can look at this in another way: Linux distros are getting mature
are these distributions doing anything beyond repackaging the latest software?
You’re saying it like packaging the latest software is a trivial task.
typically featuring little more than a newer kernel, a desktop environment upgrade, and the latest versions of popular applications
If you don’t think these are meaningful to you, I don’t know what is.
Try phoronix.com if you want a more cutting edge reporting. They’re quite opinionated, but they’re usually on point about the exciting stuff.
Linux distros are getting mature
I think this is exactly it. Back in the early days of Fedora and Ubuntu a new release often meant major bug fixes, new software, and possibly a significant qol/usability changes and performance changes. Now, its all new versions of stable software, which all behave roughly the same. Which is exactly what you want in a daily driver OS. Stability.
comparing a distro release to a new game release
- pay a LinuxGem each time you open a terminal
- Flatpak is only available as a paid DLC
- use your LinuxGems to purchase randomized LootContainers with a chance of winning a Jellyfin install
This reminds me of Rob Pikes paper from the year 2000.
http://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/utah2000/utah2000.html
