Okay, the "cylinder" thing means that we can think of this as a 2D system; we can assume that the temperature of the cylinder has reached a steady state. Then there are three constraints at play here:
- Circular symmetry. The temperature of the disk is uniform as the disk is rotated about its center.
- Equilibrium. When you draw a circle around the center, the heat flow through that circle is some constant independent of the radius of the circle. (Otherwise heat energy would be "building up" in an interior circle.
- Linear transfer. The heat flow is proportional to the temperature gradient.
You are right that if you have two boxes separated by a sheet, then the linear transfer equilibrium is solved for a linear temperature gradient. That is effectively a 1D problem.
But when you generalize this to 2D and higher dimensions, the linear temperature gradient doesn't give you this linear transfer equilibrium. Why not? Well think about the absolute simplest case, two boxes at T=0 and T=1 which are at opposite ends of a 3x3 matrix separated by walls. It's not too hard to work out that the temperature solution of this:
+-----+-----+-----+
| T=0 | | |
+-----+-----+-----+
| | | |
+-----+-----+-----+
| | | T=1 |
+-----+-----+-----+
does not look linear:
+-----+-----+-----+ /|\T *
| 0 | 1/3 | 1/2 | |
+-----+-----+-----+ | *
| 1/3 | 1/2 | 2/3 | | *
+-----+-----+-----+ | *
| 1/2 | 2/3 | 1 | | distance along
+-----+-----+-----+ +-*--------------> diagonal
So the way to think of this example is that, say, focusing on the 1/3 cell, you see a flow of 1/3 "out" to the 0 cell exactly balanced by a flow of 2 * 1/6 "in" from the 1/2 cells next to it. Notice that we're missing two values, 1/6 and 5/6, needed for a "linear progression" across the diagonals. We instead see a graph which has a little bit of a curve when we look along the diagonal. There's an even-simpler case where we force the 3 cells in the top corner to be 0, and that's solved by:
+-----+-----+-----+
| 0 | 0 | 1/4 | /|\
+-----+-----+-----+ | *
| 0 | 1/4 | 1/2 | |
+-----+-----+-----+ | *
| 1/4 | 1/2 | 1 | | *
+-----+-----+-----+ +-*--*----------->
Again, the progression is not linear! {0, 1/4, 1/2, 1} is missing a value 3/4 which is nowhere to be found.
The bottom line is: surface area matters. When you've got this increasing/decreasing surface area, even in the "transfer region" you don't necessarily see linear gradients, because it's not just how much energy is in the box that matters -- it's how many boxes are nearby, that this one is flowing into.
OKAY. Returning to your case, how do we solve the conjunction of (2) and (3) for a circular symmetry? The answer is actually really simple. First we notice that the "local" heat flux at any point $J$ must be dropping like $J = k / r$ because, by (1), it is constant along the circles we're drawing, so the integral of it is simply $2 \pi r J$. If that's constant with respect to radius then we have $J \propto 1/r$.
Now we use (3). The gradient in the radial direction is actually still just d/dr, so we just have to integrate $k/r$ to get: $T(r) ~=~ A ~-~ B~ \operatorname{ln} (k / r) $. Those look like three independent constants but because of log-laws we know that they are not, so we can just set $k = R_0$ or so. Solve for A and B such that $T(R_0) = T_0$ and $T(R_1) = R_1$, if you like.
Finally notice that your intuition is right if the cylinder gets super big and thin, in which case we can write $r = R + \delta r$ and expand to first order, getting a linear temperature gradient.