Rolling Rhino: A rolling-release remix of Ubuntu Rolling Rhino is a new community remix of Ubuntu, but with a unique twist: it has a whole new release model, rather than just a different desktop. The new remix builds upon a tool of the same name. The Rolling Rhino script converts an installation of one of Ubuntu's daily images into a rolling release by setting it to track …
Yet Another Linux Distribution...
I am laughing, I really am. I am chuckling at the dunderheads who keep doing this. Another distribution of Linux (that's GNU/Linux, you uneducated Windows Lusers), based on constantly moving branch, is all the world needs. This one will surely usher in the much-feted Year Of The Linux Desktop.
I hope it will use Gnome 42, so I can enjoy the inconsistent theming while taking solace from the new text editor which is not gedit. And great bolshy yarblockos to those who give me a thumbs down.
You have a serious point here. Choice is both a strength and a weakness.
I have always said that to break into the big time, we need a really dominant Linux distribution, but it has to be stable. Rolling releases will never get much traction outside of the fan community, merely because the 'user' community (those who want to use Linux, rather than those who have an interest in checking the progress) want it to remain fairly constant, rather than changing all the time.
I used to think that Ubuntu LTS releases were a good path, but from about 16.04 (or whatever it was), there have been more changes between the LTS releases than I am comfortable with. I am still using 16.04 on my daily driver, because I really don't want to progress into the world of systemd (I do run 18.04 and 20.04 systems, but I'm not really comfortable with them). I know I need to change, but...
But what do you compare it with? I note that in Windows space, the constant changes for the quarterly updates for Windows 10 has generated change that many people don't like, and I think that Windows 11 has issues as well (not that I use either).
I'm actually looking away from Linux at the BSDs, to see whether they actually meet my needs. But I am not a mainstream user, and I know that they probably won't meet the needs of most users.
-> we need a really dominant Linux distribution
Indeed. And one consistent package manager because it is a huge WASTE OF TIME to learn more than one. I'm not interested in the reasons why a is better than b - that too is a waste of my time. The Linux 'community' (such as it is) should make perhaps 1 or 2 distributions, and kick the others to the kerb. That doesn't stop other people doing their own thing, but it will substantially reduce the amount of duplicated work (= wasted time). Work only on these 1 or 2 distros, and completely ignore the others.
Linux has also become hideously complicated compared to how it used to be. Who does this benefit?
"The Linux 'community' (such as it is) should make perhaps 1 or 2 distributions, and kick the others to the kerb."
And what if the two chosen distros do not meet your needs or include things that you do not want on your boxes? And anyway who are the people anointing the "chosen ones"?
I'm thinking of things like systemd, sudo, snap packages and so on. I have no use for such things but being Linux I can pick and chose, or is world dominance so important that you want to force everyone into a straitjacket, get everyone marching in lockstep and do away with one of the real strengths of Linux, freedom, both to chose how you set up your systems and the freedom to change things if they do not fit your needs.
The Gnome devs will be delighted to read your post, it's the direction they have been travelling in for years.
And anyway who are the people anointing the "chosen ones"? Me, you, Linus Torvalds, Mark Shuttleworth or Uncle Tom Cobley?
Therein lies the fatal problem. Freedom is its own worst enemy. What you consider the ability to make your own choices is, to most people, Too Much Information. For the Joe Stupids who want to Just Get S*** Done, they want fewer choices, not more. Apple would not still be a significant player in the electronics sphere if freedom was really all that.
How has the release of this new Ubuntu descendent helped you in any way? Is it substantially different from other distros?
My prediction: it will be available for a while. Maybe a few hundred people in the whole world will try it. They will mostly fade away, like they always do. A few diehards will stick to it - maybe 10 people in the whole world.
In a few months people who waste their time wondering about this sort of thing will ask 'what happened to the rolling remix of Ubuntu distro?' Lemme tell you: Nobody cares.
The interminable supply of new distros is nothing but a waste of time.
Because GNU/Linux is open, you can't 'force' just one or two releases. People do what they want to do, and if they think they have a good idea, and have the resources to do it, they will.
The existing distros all have their own purpose. I thought that Ubuntu's was to produce a version that was fit for the masses, easy to use and manage, and with enough function pre-installed (like paid for codecs for some proprietary AV formats) to enable it to slot in as a Windows replacement. For a while in the late noughties and into the 2010's, it looked as if it could become the 'defacto' distribution for home users.
But IMHO, rather than trying to become a Windows alternative, they actually tried to become a Mac alternative, with an emphasis on features that were sufficiently different from other distros (Unity and Mir, for example), and a blind faith that their way was the one and only right way. You could still run other desktops, and I did, but Canonical made it deliberately difficult. This is precisely what caused Mint, with Mate and Cinnamon desktops to appear as a derivative.
I am one of those very old-time UNIX users. The primary purpose for me to use Linux was to have a usable UNIX-like OS on a system that I could use as my personal working environment. I was prepared to accept UI differences, as quite honestly the integration in CDE was too heavy, and the *twm derivatives lacked important functions for a PC replacement. My view is that I think it peaked with the later versions of Gnome 2.
As Linux moves and changes, and gets less UNIX like and more like other OSes in all of the look and feel, management practices and direction of development, it is looking less and less appealing to me. This makes me realize that I'm probably out-of-touch with reality, and in no position to recommend things to other people, so I've stopped doing it.
I am becoming that dinosaur that people used to call me.
I too am an old time UNIX user. Perhaps my curmudgeonly view about YALD derives (not forks) from that. These YALDs are pointless. They fizzle away. They offer nothing substantially different from other distributions. They are the ultimate 'me too' of Linux things.
I didn't suggest 'forcing' one or two releases (distros). I said the community should gather round one or two distros and shun the rest. Let those who want to do their own thing do it - I encourage it. But the world does not need YALD. There is absolutely no pressing need for YALD. These are like hobby shops run at a loss by the wives of rich men. They attract a few users who gradually disappear and become moribund.
The thing is this: some aspects of building an operating system are hard to do, while some aspects are easy/easier. So if you Google for 'Linux file managers' you will see results like '5 best', '30 best', '41 best', '8 best' file managers, because file managers are relatively easy to build. And those 41 (taking the most obscene number) file managers, how different are they to each other? I AM NOT going to try 41 file managers to see which one or two has the best widgets. It is a waste of my time.
Of course I meant distros.
But the people you suggest should get behind one or two distros are the very people who want, and are most able to setup systems to their own requirements.
The existing community cannot come behind a dominant release for precisely the reason that they are currently only there because they are adventurous and less likely to follow trends.
I think that the way had to be forged by someone with significant clout (like an existing distro producer) to evaluate the real needs of the majority of users, and produce a distro aimed at these masses, and then try to find a way to shoe-horn this into the distribution chain so the masses get a chance to see it. Most users just want to buy a device and use it, not faff around replacing the (to them) perfectly functional OS that is already on the system, invalidating the warranty in the process.
Microsoft spotted this possible trend, and rapidly shutdown the netbooks segment in the noughties. If that sector had been allowed to continue running with Linux, rather than crippled with cut-down, out of date, restricted Windows products, we would have seen the low end of the market dominated by Linux, which would have slowly percolated upwards as more people actually used it.
And of course, Microsoft threatening manufacturers with taking away their bulk Windows pricing if they shipped products with Linux didn't help.
I think that had cheap Linux netbooks matured, they would also have dented the tablet market, but that's another discussion.
The chance to get Linux (as GNU/Linux rather than Android or ChromeOS) to the masses has passed. In my view. Ubuntu was in the best position, but they blew it by trying to go after the Mac market. We (the informed ones IMHO) can all look back with regret, and look forward to an increasingly locked in, leased or rented digital environment, while trying to keep Desktop Linux alive on hardware the main vendors won't want to sell us.
This is amusing to me, because you're answering your own question but you don't realise it.
Allow me to illustrate:
> one consistent package manager because it is a huge WASTE OF TIME to learn more than one.
Sure. Let us abstract away all the differences between distros, and have one central tool that is backed by a prominent vendor and which can be installed on almost anything and run fine.
It's Flatpak.
It's huge, it's inefficient, it requires backflips in the filesystem to support block-level deduplication to reduce the inefficiency of multiple copies of the same things because they're in different places. That's what you get if you build a one-size-fits-all solution.
Which is *exactly why*...
> Linux has also become hideously complicated compared to how it used to be.
It's because people want cross-platform tools that work on everything.
If you try to make something that works for everyone, it becomes big and complicated.
Which is both what you are asking for, and what you are cursing.
You can have one or the other. Not both.
Ask for the first and you inevitably get the second. Which means you and people trying to do what you too want are the reason why it's becoming big and complex.
> we need a really dominant Linux distribution
№ 1 is Android.
№ 2 is ChromeOS.
№ 3 is (probably) iOS. Yes, I know, not a Linux.
*Everything* else, *including Windows and macOS,* totals to under 10% of them in terms of volume of new sales _plus_ major-version upgrades installed annually.
The dominant Linux is Android. The dominant desktop/laptop Linux is ChromeOS.
I don't think anyone knows what is the dominant _server_ Linux on all those millions of cloud boxes.
The majority come and go in minutes or hours. They never get updated, so they don't show in update-server traffic stats. If a new component is important, a new image is deployed and the old one deleted, by an automation tool. The images come from internal caches and so do not show up on distro-vendors' download trackers.
My guess is that it's probably Debian, or maybe Ubuntu Server, but I don't think there's any way to tell, and if anyone implemented a way to tell, it'd extremely rapidly drop out of favour, in a Heisenbergian sort of way: attempt to measure it and you destroy the value you're trying to measure.
It could be CentOS which means it will probably be replaced soon... ;-)
If you are just wanting a Linux kernel, you are quite right.
BUT... if you want something that looks even vaguely like a UNIX system, then neither Andriod nor ChromeOS hack it. And that is even the case if you put the various toolset application on top of the basic OS, because the application deployment model gets in the way on both Android and ChromeOS.
I don't know that much about how you can tune iOS to look as you want it, but taking Apple's insistance to not allow programming languages or shells on iOS, I suspect that you can't do anything on that platform while remaining in the walled garden.
Of course, the majority of users who are satisfied with a single-app full screen environment don't care any more. They've left the realm of computer users, and are now just data consumers. Right up to the point where some bank or other online service becomes so difficult to use without a proper keyboard that they'll be cursing on-screen ones.
But that's not me.
He's right. The world does NOT need Yet Another Linux Distro. The world needs a solid, easy-to-install, easy-to-maintain, easy-to-support (not the same thing) distro which can actually be used to get work done for a _lot_ of non-technical users. It has to support lots of hardware, including hardware which might have 'binary blob' drivers, so that users can get work done. It has to support lots of software, so users can get work done. And software which has strange UIs (I'm looking at _you_, GIMP) won' cut it. Most users don't want to learn something new, they want to do what they need to do to get work done. They don't care if the latest version of Gentoo installs in 0.27 nanoseconds--if the user knows how to get down to the bare metal and use a few really neat hacks. Most users don't know, and don't care about, really neat hacks. Most users don't care about how superior GPL is to any other license (or not). Most users couldn't give a damn about how LibreOffice is ribbonfrei.They want to get work done, and they know how to use Photoshop and MS Office. Any replacements had better work the same way, or at least close, or the users will revolt.. Until there is a simple-to-install, simple-to-use, distro which has standard tools which behave the way users expect, users will use OSes which do support lots of hardware and lots of software, such as Windows or macOS. Users can buy computers with Windows or Mac already installed, with lots of drivers for all kinds of hardware, with lots of software which they already know how to use, and which they can be confident will be supported for at least the next few years. Most Linux distros simp0ly don't make the cut, and those which do 'rolling-release' are _worse_, they _change all the time_, which is something that most users DO NOT LIKE. Those who like to tweak their boxes will just love rolling releases. Those who must do actual work, no play with computers, will not.
"The world needs a solid, easy-to-install, easy-to-maintain, easy-to-support (not the same thing) distro which can actually be used to get work done for a _lot_ of non-technical users."
Well, for me -- and clearly for many others -- that turns out to be Mint. Some years back (before it self-sabotaged), that was Ubuntu.
A lot of commentary on this thread about the "curse" of choice; but in practice, those easy-to-use, easy-to-maintain distros bubble to the top as users vote with their feet.
Also, remind me again why people are so exercised about Linux (not) going mainstream? Who really gives a toss (besides a small cadre of noisy zealots)? I use Linux because it is by some distance the best OS for me; if someone else's mileage varies, what do I care?
Ultimately desktop Linux will never go mainstream until the major PC/laptop manufacturers and distributors ship it pre-installed on their kit -- same as Android and iOS on mobile, or Linux on, say routers or STBs -- and I don't see that happening anytime soon. But again: what do I care?
So when the next big thing comes along, you don't miss out. It's kind of trying to break the vicious cycle perpetuated by Windows: to decouple the OS from the software people to use and from the hardware that gets supported on them.
IMO, the OS has reached a level of maturity that perhaps it's time to put that aside, let it chug along on its own while people move on to competing in other things. But since Windows and its associated UI remains Microsoft's meal ticket, they'll be hell bent on keeping it that way. Same with Apple and it's tight integration; that's its major selling point at this point.
It already is.
The universal no-knobs-to-twiddle end-user distro is here.
It's ChromeOS.
Can't decide between packaging systems? Right then. There isn't one.
Can't choose a desktop? No problem. There's no choice.
Can't pick a best filesystem? Easy. No choice. But dual redundant root partitions. How come nobody else thought of that?
Did you perhaps mean Chromiun OS? My understanding is that ChromeOS is designed specifically for Chromebooks - which is fine (perhaps more like MacOS running on Mac kit), but not exactly "universal" compared to desktop Linux or Windows, which should run on any PC/laptop.
I can answer all this, but I warn you: You're not going to like the answers.
> The world needs a solid, easy-to-install, easy-to-maintain, easy-to-support (not the same thing) distro
Does it? Really?
OK, for the sake of argument, let us say it does.
> which can actually be used to get work done for a _lot_ of non-technical users.
OK. No problem.
It's ChromeOS. It sells more new hardware every year than all the downloads and installations of all the other general-purpose Linux distros put together and it has done for years now. In the last 2 years, it's also been outselling all Macs, desktops and laptops combined.
It is everything you asked for.
> It has to support lots of hardware, including hardware which might have 'binary blob' drivers, so that
> users can get work done
Yep, does that.
> It has to support lots of software, so users can get work done.
It does. It supports the single most versatile software platform in the world today: Web apps.
> Most users don't want to learn something new, they want to do what they need to do to get work
> done.
Yup. It does that. It supports the one most widespread use of computers today.
It's been the dominant Linux for about half a decade.
Happy now?
> Those who like to tweak their boxes will just love rolling releases.
So why is everyone complaining about there being a new one?
> Yet Another Linux Distribution...
No. Wrong. It's Ubuntu, based on an existing Ubuntu channel
> Another distribution of Linux
No.
> This one will surely usher in the much-feted Year Of The Linux Desktop.
*Do* keep up. That happened in 2020, the first year Chromebooks outsold Macs.
> I hope it will use Gnome 42
It won't use anything specific. It's Ubuntu. It can use any desktop that's in the Ubuntu `universe` repositories.
I'd think twice about this one. I've run (in a VM) the non-LTS Ubuntu versions from time to time, and sometimes they become quite the mess. A distro designed as a rolling distro, they tend to have some mechanism to have, say, a stable, unstable, and testing branches, so some big change can be rolled out to those who wish to have the test version, then rolled out to everyone else when the bugs are worked out. Ubuntu? Secure in the knowledge that those who favor stability run the LTS version, sometimes the non-LTS versions are quite unstable for a while, as they make some big sweeping change and work out the bugs from it. It's not a technical issue, apt & dpkg (the Debian packaging tools Ubuntu uses) fully support having multiple branches and switching between them; it's simply that administratively Ubuntu doesn't do it that way.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
