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?

  • 0x0
    1·
    12 hours ago

    There is one point of innovation left, but it highly technical and somewhat risky for everyday users - libc alternatives. The C standard library is one of the few core packages in a distro that can’t really be replaced by the user.

    Why would that be innovation? libc is stable and ubiquitous. Ironically, Gentoo would probably pull it off but it’s not for the distros to do, but rather upstream.

    • flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
      3·
      12 hours ago

      Alpine for example uses musl, and Gentoo offers it as an option.
      I don’t completely understand the benefits, my own programming experience is several layers away from inner workings of an OS, but at least some distros claim there is space for improvement.

      • 0x0
        3·
        11 hours ago

        This compares GNU’s libc with musl (aims at POSIX conformance and being lightweigth), uClibc (size) and dietlibc (size but has no full support?).

        It leaves out Google’s bionic, used in Android, which is not compatible with GNU’s libc… go figure…

        So most alternatives aim to be smaller and some also focus on standards compliance (GNU’s libc is not fully POSIX-compliant AFAIK).