It really doesn't. I've worked on upstream projects where a significant fraction of all bugs reported were created by distributions screwing up packaging and pa

It really doesn't. I've worked on upstream projects where a significant fraction of all bugs reported were created by distributions screwing up packaging and patching in ways they weren't at all qualified to understand and frequently led to non-obvious failures. When we tried to work with them to fix this, about half the time they flamed us and quoted distro 'policy' as a reason not to fix their bugs, so we just refused to accept bug reports from anyone using those packages anymore. The fact is that a lot of old-school Linux distributions are built by people who have only a very vague understanding of the software they're packaging, and frequently are closer to the sysadmin side of things than the large-scale software development side. It makes the relationships very frustrating and that's why proprietary software vendors invariably opt-out of distro packaging. Even with apps statically linked to the max possible level Linux users generate disproportionate levels of support tickets due to the general flakiness of the distros they use, so allowing them to modify tested software even further is a losing proposition. Basically the whole concept of a Linux distribution is obsolete, fading away and irretrievably broken. Hence the proliferation of containers.