I looked up Hyperbola Linux and their website says:
"Due to the Linux kernel rapidly proceeding down an unstable path, we are planning on implementing a completely new OS derived from several BSD implementations."

... and:
"Future versions of Hyperbola will be using HyperbolaBSD which will have the new kernel, userspace and not be ABI compatible with previous versions."

What the!

They give reasons.  That's somewhat concerning as a Linux user!  But is the Linux kernel really heading significantly down that way, or is the Hyperbola site being slightly alarmist??

I think they're just being a bit hyperbolic about it.

They will support HyperbolaBSD I think till the kernel they are using is defunct or 2027 at the latest from what I remember.
By then, they will make HyperbolaBSD stable supposedly.

Pretty sure that you mean that the Linux version of Hyperbola will be supported until 2027 at the latest, while they work on stabilizing HyperbolaBSD.

I looked up Hyperbola Linux and their website says:
"Due to the Linux kernel rapidly proceeding down an unstable path, we are planning on implementing a completely new OS derived from several BSD implementations."

... and:
"Future versions of Hyperbola will be using HyperbolaBSD which will have the new kernel, userspace and not be ABI compatible with previous versions."

What the!

They give reasons.  That's somewhat concerning as a Linux user!  But is the Linux kernel really heading significantly down that way, or is the Hyperbola site being slightly alarmist??

It all depends on how seriously you take the threat of bloat, including, rust, java, systemd, dbus, etc...

Also, it depends on if you want your system to be as close to free software as possible.
Redhat's dbus, systemd and other trash = really bloated and obnoxius just thought I should add this here...
Rust = non-free (trademarks for modification)
Java =  non-free (trademarks for modification also)
Mono = questionable due to who owns it, aka, microsoft

If you want actual 100% free software or even 99% free software,  or care about security, I would say, yes.
If you do not care about either security or free software to such a level, then meh...
It works for me, I should mention, They will support HyperbolaBSD I think till the kernel they are using is defunct or 2027 at the latest from what I remember.
By then, they will make HyperbolaBSD stable supposedly.
That is my understanding...
I think in 2024 they plan to have the base done, at the latest, but it won't be very feature rich till later.
Again, my understanding, it could happen sooner, but I am not sure.

I think I should leave it here, if you want to say more, probably a new thread would be wise.

... and:
"Future versions of Hyperbola will be using HyperbolaBSD which will have the new kernel, userspace and not be ABI compatible with previous versions."

What the!

They give reasons.  That's somewhat concerning as a Linux user!  But is the Linux kernel really heading significantly down that way, or is the Hyperbola site being slightly alarmist??

I didn't say that I hate them: I said that I don't like them.

I know that package management for Arch et al. is highly touted, but I just don't like it. It's just me. We like what we like. I used Obarun for quite some time...didn't hate it, or I wouldn't have used it for so long...just didn't like the package management.

I apologize for taking the thread off-topic. I'll exit now.

Am I the only person in the world who doesn't like Arch, its derivatives, or respins?

Why do you hate arch derivatives? You do know, Hyperbola is very init freedom friendly, in addition to that, they reject dbus, pulseaudio, networkmanager and other redhat garbage that bloats the system to the insane level.

Also, in my opinion, as long as you use the latest installer of their system always, you will never have problems installing, unless you don't know what you are doing.

That being said, this has nothing to do with the OP,

Distrowatch is good for finding out about new distros like some people in this thread said, but other than that, it is probably useless.

my two cents for ya.

Also, one other thing that's less related, Artix's documentation on how to install is a bit too minimal,  arch is too system dumbed, aka, systemd runs through its veins and parabola is the next easiest, but honestly, screw all other arch distros besides Hyperbola. It is the minimalism king and the most stable, secure, lightweight distro.

For now, I use the testing version, till 0.4 is ready completely, as in stable. 

Anywho, my point being, don't hate all arch derivatives, just hate most of them.

Parabola is meh, Hyperbola is awesome, the rest suck.
Artix only sucks because its documenation isn't really good for encrypted installs.

Artix Linux slipped under my radar, I never heard of it before. It looks like a good distro.

I tried it for a while, when I was looking for a systemd-free distro for my desktop and Devuan was still woefully behind even Debian stable WRT package versions.
It was nice in it's default setup, but anything beyond that ran afoul of the Artix repos being slim pickings, and compatibility (read sync) with the upstream Arch repos, even for init-unrelated things, being a constant source of pain.

The library version incompatibility problems actually reminded me of early-days (2006-2008) Arch itself... And the reasons I stopped using it.

If you do try it, I'd be interested to hear how (and if) it's matured. I might give it a spin again one day.

Thanks for this post, Artix Linux slipped under my radar, I never heard of it before. It looks like a good distro.

If you watch Distrowatch closely you will notice all distros  have an increase in popularity after a new release. So, a newly announce release could temporarily pass a more popular distro that hasn't had a new release in over a year or more. Also people go to distrowatch to learn about distros, not for the newest scoop on high ranking distros like Ubuntu, Arch, Manjaro, Mint, and so on.  People interested in those distros use a search, engine or have the sites bookmarked, or follow a links from popular tech sites. This plays in favor for the small distros as Distrowatch's counters see less activity for the top distros which results in a lower ranks.

Now with that said there are also the "fanboy and girls" who flood distrowatch generate activity for their pet distro in order to increase the ranking.

And don't get me started about how they divide Ubuntu's ranking by all it's available flavors, but do not do this with other distros like Manjaro, Mint, and Puppy that offer various editions. Some of these editions are not even based on the same core. Apparently this is justified because each Ubuntu flavor his a different website, but I see it as nothing more then bias.  I'm not a fan of Ubuntu, but I want fair and honest numbers were ever distro is ranked by the same rules.

With that out of the way. I will say that distrowatch is a useful site, and I even find it's faulty ranking system useful as long as you understand it has faults.

Once people find the distro for them, they seldom go back to Distrowatch, plus these are weekly download figures, many distro hoppers just download to try out new distros, & seldom stay with them more than a few weeks.

And who cares?
What would I gain from knowing the ranking of the distribution(s) I'm using?
Nothing!
Absolutely nothing!

What's ironic is that nothing by RedHat is ever in the discussion in terms of popularity, on Distrowatch or anywhere else, and hasn't been for years. I guess unlimited funding cannot buy you community spirit.