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?
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.
Bring on the boring! Its what lets me daily Linux as a real alternative to windows. I love that my system gets constant updates, I get to pick when they install, it goes out of its way to NOT overwrite my preferences and settings, it maintains the look and feel I set it to, and it stays stable.
Pop_OS! is about to drop a whole new desktop environment (COSMIC) made from scratch that's not just a fork of Gnome. Canonical tried that as well a while back with Unity although it was mostly still Gnome with extra Compiz plugins.
A lot of cool stuff is also either for enterprise uses, or generally under the hood stuff. Simple packages updates can mean someone's GPU is finally usable. Even that LibreOffice update might mean someone's annoying bug is finally fixed.
But yes otherwise distros are mostly there to bundle up and configure the software for you. It's really just a bunch of software, you can get the exact same experience making your own with LFS. Distros also make some choices like what are the best versions to bundle up as a release, what software and features they're gonna use. Distros make choices for you like glibc/musl, will it use PulseAudio or PipeWire, and so on. Some distros like Bazzite are all about a specific use case (gamers), and all they do is ship all the latest tweaks and patches so all the handhelds behave correctly and just run the damn games out of the box. You can use regular Fedora but they just have it all good to go for you out of the box. That's valuable to some people.
Sometimes not much is going on in open-source so it just makes for boring releases. Also means likely more focus on bug fixes and stability.
COSMIC is built from GNOME shell, it is 100% a GNOME desktop and not from scratch.
I'm talking about the new one they made from scratch in Rust: https://system76.com/cosmic
ok, thanks for the precision. I am interested in those projects and was looking at system76's code. This new version is in a different repository named cosmic-epoch. I'll dig it more.
A distro is composed 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 .
a shortage of meaningful innovation
Well... a distribution IS a selection of packages and a way to keep them working together. Arguably the "only" innovation in that context is HOW to do that and WHICH packages to rely on. For the first, the "latest" real change could be considered immutable distributions, as on the SteamDeck, and declarative setup, e.g. NixOS. For the second... well I don't actually know if anybody is doing that, maybe things like PrimTux for kids at schools in France?
Anyway, I agree but I think it's tricky to be innovative there so let me flip the question, what would YOU expect from an innovative distribution?
Well I'd like to see distros doing things to improve UX (which they now seem to have completely left to DEs). For example I remember when Ubuntu released their Hardware Drivers tool. It was samall but a super useful addition that made life easier for millions of users. But nowadays I see less app/utility contributions by distros.
Just yesterday I pinned VLC on my KDE Plasma Task Manager. Why? Because this way I can directly open "Recent Files" from it. I discovered about this functionality just last week with Libre Office Draw. It's so efficient, it absolutely changed how I use my computer daily!
but... why do I bother with this long example? Because IMHO that's from KDE, not Debian. When a distro improve the UX, as I also wish, it can be mostly by selecting the best software in its packages to maintain (e.g. here KDE but yes could indeed be their own custom made package, even though it requires a lot more resource AND other distro could also use them back assuming it's FLOSS) but arguably the UX is mostly of the distribution itself is limited to the installation process.
This reminds me of Rob Pikes paper from the year 2000.
http://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/utah2000/utah2000.htmlI 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)
