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?

  • lengau
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Wayland was entirely unusable and mired in politics. (Still is mired in politics tbh.) So Canonical took the things they wanted, added things they needed to get it working, and called it Mir.

    When Wayland finally became functional, they also made mir a Wayland compositor.

    Some of the Wayland Frog protocols stuff is stuff that originated with Canonical trying to make Wayland usable before they took their ball and went home because the giants of the industry didn’t want to talk to a company of under 1000 people.

    • serenissi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      My point was that unity was innovative, not just gnome with extras.

      Back then I actually liked mir (also unity) personally more than wayland.