The topic of downstream and upstream is an important one in the Linux ecosystem, where from one base distribution you can go many layers of distros deep before even looking at all the other base distributions. Within that veritable jungle you get questions about who is responsible for packaging software, where to report bugs found with a specific application, as well as what ‘LTS’ truly means in a consumer context. These and other points are raised in a recent video by [Brodie Robertson], with many examples of things going tragically wrong.

There’s a good argument to be made that ultimately it is the distro that is responsible for the software that they provide via their repositories. As [Brodie] shows in the video, there are a few cases where an ‘LTS’ distro uses an old version of some software that contains a bug that has been fixed a while ago, so reporting it to the developer is rather pointless, while the distro maintainers should fix it with backporting of patches or updating the version.

From an end user experience this also makes the most sense, as in the end they just want to have the Windows experience of downloading a proverbial installer, clicking through whatever dialogs pop and have working software. If the software is provided via the distro, it is their responsibility, the same way that you contact the developer if you get a DEB or RPM from a GitHub project page and it doesn’t work.

This current Linux Chaos Vortex can be called a major issue when e.g. FreeBSD has no such upstream/downstream issues, with cross-platform installers being basically impossible on Linux ever since the Linux Standard Base effort died.

Perhaps Linux will get a distroless future, however, which may finally herald that Year of the Linux Desktop.