Linux

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

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.

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.

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.

The role of a distribution is to curate packages - select the right combination of versions and verify if it works together. Providing package repositories is also a big one, imagine if you had to compile everything on your machine yourself on every update (khm gentoo khm).

Other than that there isn't really a lot of space for innovation. After you have a kernel, some base packages, package manager, and maybe a DE, you can install everything else yourself.
The main point of differentiation these days in on the package management side - do you want a rolling release, or a more conservative approach.

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.

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.

No. Kubuntu now has a non-broken KDE Plasma. Fedora 41 has a slightly improved Plasma 6. CentOS Stream 10 with EPEL 10 will have Plasma 6 too, which is a huge step in "being something I could consider switching to".

no*, no, and no.

*not the ones i'm interested in using.

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?

This reminds me of Rob Pikes paper from the year 2000.
http://doc.cat-v.org/bell_labs/utah2000/utah2000.html

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.

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”.

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.

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)

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.

Some of them add bugs disguised as features, like Ubuntu’s snap

For me distro's role is to repackage things and then test them to check if they work together. Kinda like a premade sandwitch.

they shouldn't. everything should be rolling.