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?

  • Neo
    link
    fedilink
    11
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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”.

    https://lemmy.hacktheplanet.be/pictrs/image/c6430d79-204f-44ad-b2e9-1e0547332437.jpeg

    • Tobias Hunger
      link
      fedilink
      68 months ago

      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.

  • zelifcam
    link
    fedilink
    English
    23
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    When the initial rush of new Linux users arrived, experienced users had been trying to explain the same point for years: there are options like NixOS or CachyOS that offer unique experiences, optimizations, custom software or unique workflows, while other distros simply rebrand. But ultimately, most of them rely on the same underlying software, regardless of the distro. Having to explain this over and over in post after post became maddening. “What is the fastest distro” Posts on daily. With enough elbow grease my ancient Debian system can be willed into the latest NVIDIA drivers or other various bleeding edge packages. With a bit of suffering, I can compile a bunch of stuff months if not years before it shows up in the standard Debian repo. Point being, it’s all Linux.

    As for updates being “boring”—there’s nothing wrong with a simple update. What massive advancements do people expect these “mostly” volunteers to deliver with every update?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      58 months ago

      (Chris Titus Tech getting blowback last year marking a whole group of distros as “Pointless” when they did nothing more than a reskin or pre-install a couple in-repo packages)

    • nanook
      link
      fedilink
      38 months ago

      @ @mfat The reason I gave up on Nvidia is they never keep their drivers up to date with the latest kernel.

      • zelifcam
        link
        fedilink
        English
        3
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        I gave up on Nvidia is they never keep their drivers up to date with the latest kernel.

        I honestly have no idea what you mean. I’ve been using NVIDIA cards on Linux for well over a decade. Recently the last 5 years on bleeding edge everything to get the latest benefits to gaming and the desktop. I’ve rarely run into issues with the driver. Lack of features, sure. Installing the driver, no. One of my systems has been updating year after year without a problem. Did you not use dkms? If you use dkms, it just rebuilds the driver everytime a new kernel is installed. You don’t have to do anything.

        • nanook
          link
          fedilink
          38 months ago

          @ Download and compile the most recent kernel from kernel.org, sooner or later you’ll run into a situation where the nvidia drivers don’t support it.

          • zelifcam
            link
            fedilink
            English
            2
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Fair point. So having issues running latest mainline and RC kernels? I guess I stay away from those. The compatibility problems seem to never outweigh the benefits.

  • data1701d (He/Him)
    link
    fedilink
    English
    38 months ago

    I think distros at least do some stuff beyond repackaging the latest software, namely default configurations (or lack thereof).

    For instance, technically Debian has the packages to do SELinux, but it’s Fedora (and OpenSUSE, I think?) that actually come out the box with them.

    They are also continually improving, if slowly, their package managers to improve the experience of sourcing new software, as seen with work on apt and dnf.

    You are right overall that new distro releases have little meaning any more. If anything, I think they are a good method for managing the upgrades to new software; when a release comes out, breakages can be addresses all at once and solved for a couple of years, whereas rolling release requires a person to be vigilant and repair breakages more often. That is not to pan rolling - I use Debian Testing on my desktop. As much as I like newer software, though, I am thinking of staying on Trixie after it becomes stable, as I get tired of applying updates all the time and then something breaking that is incredible difficult to diagnose.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      38 months ago

      For instance, technically Debian has the packages to do SELinux, but it’s Fedora (and OpenSUSE, I think?) that actually come out the box with them.

      Debian still has to ensure SELinux works if and when the user decides to install it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    708 months ago

    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.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    108 months ago

    It’s kind of in the word distribution, no? Distros package and … distribute software.

    Larger distros usually do a quite a bit of kernel work as well, and they often include bugfixes or other changes in their kernel that isn’t in mainline or stable. Enterprise-grade distributions often backport hardware support from newer kernels into their older kernels. But even distros with close-to-latest kernels like Tumbleweed or Fedora do this to a certain extent. This isn’t limited to the kernel and often extends to many other packages.

    They also do a lot of (automated) testing, just look at openQA for example. That’s a big part of the reason why Tumbleweed (relatively) rarely breaks. If all they did was collect an up-to-date version of every package they want to ship, it’d probably be permanently broken.

    Also, saying they “just” update the desktop environment doesn’t do it justice. DEs like KDE and GNOME are a lot more than just something that draws application windows on your screen. They come with userspace applications and frameworks. They introduce features like vastly improved HDR support (KDE 6.2, usually along with updates to Wayland etc.).

    Some of the rolling (Tumbleweed) or more regular (Fedora) releases also push for more technical changes. Fedora dropped X11 by default on their KDE spin with v40, and will likely drop X11 with their default GNOME distro as well, now that GNOME no longer requires it even when running Wayland. Tumbleweed is actively pushing for great systemd-boot support, and while it’s still experimental it’s already in a decent state (not ready for prime time yet though).

    Then, distros also integrate packages to work together. A good example of this is the built-in enabled-by-default snapshot system of Tumbleweed (you might’ve figured out that I’m a Tumbleweed user by now): it uses snapper to create btrfs snapshots on every zypper (package manager) system update, and not only can you rollback a running system, you can boot older snapshots directly from the grub2 or systemd-boot bootloader. You can replicate this on pretty much any distro (btrfs support is in the kernel, snapper is made by an openSUSE member but available for other distros etc.), but it’s all integrated and ready to go out of the box. You don’t have to configure your package manager to automatically create snapshots with snapper, the btrfs subvolume layout is already setup for you in a way that makes sense, you don’t have to think about how you want to add these snapshots to your bootloader, etc.

    So distros or their authors do a lot and their releases can be exciting in a way, but maybe not all of that excitement is directly user-facing.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      18 months ago

      I didn’t know systemd-boot loader could boot snapshots. Do you know if there’s a guide to set this up?

      I’m not using tumbleweed anymore for a few reasons, but my system does have snapper taking snapshots, and I’m using systemd-boot loader instead of grub. But I don’t know how to make those work together.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        28 months ago

        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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    98 months ago

    I think you are looking at work horse distros, like Ubuntu, Fedora, etc… That by now are heavily used for productive work, not personal use. So they favor stability and minor quality of life improvements over shiny new updates.

    There’s plenty shiny new cutting edge distros out there that are innovating, e.g. Nix, Silverblue, VanillaOS, all the container focused ones CoreOS, Container OS, Flatcar Container Linux and probably dozens more newer ones I am not aware of .

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    2
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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

  • nanook
    link
    fedilink
    4
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Other than a few graphics, there is so little customization in Zorin that you can drop in the Ubuntu repositories and never notice the difference. And as far as from scratch goes, the first kernel I used as .98 or .99, not quite 1.0, cross compiled for Intel on a Sparc platform, then you had to spend another three days compiling the GNU userland, and then another couple of days for Xorg, at which point you had a mostly usable system.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    9
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    There are 2 kinds of distributions. Ones that are on customization side and those on stability side.

    For example Debian, Fedora, and arguably Arch are on stability side. They are intended for people that want things to work predictably and software to be packaged and shipped as the developer intended it. Customization or lack of it is up to the user.

    Distributions like Manjaro, Zorin OS, Elementary OS, LMDE or even Linux XP are have a given goal to a particular customization. Either a set of tweaks, a particular look or even their own desktop environment or set of software they develop themselves.

    This means that the first kind would have the most boring update, as they just ship new and correctly integrated software. While the second kind would provide very nice customisations or patching of their own to their environment.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    178 months ago

    Short answer: yes, and that’s a good thing.

    Slightly longer answer: it’s a sign of maturity for the most popular distributions and of the platforms at large. Innovation tends to happen in the fringes. Being it free software, someone can always fork the software and add their new ideas to the mix.

    • Soothing Salamander
      link
      fedilink
      English
      48 months ago

      This exactly. It is a good thing that these distros have matured enough that the updates are boring. I can only speak for the recent Fedora releases, but I’ve noticed quite an awesome amount of attention brought to accessibility and usability improvements that we’ve been waiting on for years. Speaking of Fedora, the next release (Fedora 41) the DNF package manager is getting a major overhaul with it moving to DNF v5 after some delay.

      I don’t see updates being boring as necessarily bad since that could mean they decide to dedicate an entire major version to focusing on stability as an example. I get the sentiment and I think it’s healthy for us to engage with. I just don’t think I agree with it at the moment though.