PDA

View Full Version : Do we need a 6 month cycle?



RawMustard
September 28th, 2005, 02:14 PM
Does anyone else feel that 6 month release cycles are too short?

I'm stuffed if I know how you could iron out all the bugs within 6 months. Probably not so much with the distro, but with added software.

I mean Gnome has a 1million + <insert your own number here> unsolved problems. then again, if we waited for all those to be fixed we probably wouldn't have a distro ](*,) :D

NeoSNightmarE
September 28th, 2005, 02:27 PM
If it's at least functional, I'm happy. It's impossible to get every single bug out without extensive time, staff, and money. I learned this when working in Java. The idea is to get something stable and do minor fixes as needed

endy
September 28th, 2005, 02:29 PM
Things can move pretty fast in the Open Source world, I think a six month release schedule based around Gnome is fine. It's alot better then the years and years you wait for new versions of Windows ;)

Dragonfly_X
September 28th, 2005, 03:29 PM
I agree that it's to short. If they where to release a distro ever 9 or 12 months I believe they would be able to fix more bugs and build a better new distro.

When Mr Porsche designed his first porch it was a daft idea to have the engine hanging over at the back just because it's simply wrong and on paper it still is!! And 911 of the past of, the late 70's and 80's was the grim reaper's car. Huge crowds used to gather at round-abouts to watch fat stock brokers and bankers climb trees with their 911's the reason for this being all that weight at the back was like a big pendulum swinging the car around in corners and bends. Porsche even tried sticking lead in the front bumper to get more weight in front to balance the car. But over the years porche have taken their car, tuned and honed it to perfection to give us what we have today, the epic 911 Turbo and GT3.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that maybe that's what they should do with Ubuntu. Take it as it is and tune and tweak it till it is a sublime OS, even if it is 12 months between releaseses. :)

kleeman
September 28th, 2005, 03:43 PM
I think if you think that 6 months it too short you should have a look instead at Debian stable which has a much longer release cycle time. The point about this distro is that it is meant for people who put a premium on stability. The other thing I have noticed is that bugs from previous releases are often applicable in the current release so fixing them up helps all releases. As a result overall Ubuntu seems to me to be getting slowly more stable. Of course this all depends on how ambitious the developers are in introducing new code (and hence bugs!) and Breezy has a lot new in it "under the hood". In particular the modularization of X was a big code jump. Looks pretty stable at the moment to me anyway so kudos to the developers. There are some smart guys there I think which is why Ubuntu is such a success IMHO.

mrtaber
September 28th, 2005, 03:56 PM
6 months is a little short, but seems to be common (Fedora Core was averaging about 6 months, too...although for FC 5, it's going to be more like 9 months). On the other hand, 18 months (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) is too long. Well, actually, it won't matter quite as much with backports, since that's what I'm interested in, the latest-and-greatest of my favorite packages. I guess the problem is when the infrastructural packages (bad phrase, but I haven't had my first cup of java yet) like Xorg, and the window managers, with their countless libraries, require changes in order to get our hands on the latest versions. That's what should force a totally new release. I guess, through all this rambling, I'm saying I like an incremental model.

Mark :)

Kvark
September 28th, 2005, 04:02 PM
6 months is just fine IMO because those who think it's too often can upgrade every 2nd or 3rd release instead. So you can choose between 6, 12 or 18 months upgrade cycles.

Cirkus
September 28th, 2005, 04:56 PM
The OpenBSD people seem to manage ok with a six month release cycle.

Of course you can't release a bug-free release every six months; but since Ubuntu automatically notifies the user and encourages them to download updates, I really see this as being very much a non-issue.

Stormy Eyes
September 28th, 2005, 05:08 PM
Does anyone else feel that 6 month release cycles are too short?

If you want Debian, you know where to find it. :)

Kyral
September 28th, 2005, 05:14 PM
I think the jump to Breezy was complicated by the whole X going modular thing...

Omnios
September 28th, 2005, 05:22 PM
6 months seems a tad short but also remember this version is still supported for a while.

mstlyevil
September 28th, 2005, 06:02 PM
You still have a year support with this version. If you have no real reason to change right now, then you probally should not feel pressured to. I am going to upgrade my pc soon, so that is when I will upgrade to the new BB version.

Ubunted
September 28th, 2005, 06:44 PM
On the other hand, 18 months (Red Hat Enterprise Linux) is too long.

RHEL has a long release cycle because of the market it's targeted to - Enterprise customers. Businesses don't want to upgrade every 6 months to a year, they want a system that works and will be supported for a long time. A good example of this is the continued prevalence of Windows 2000 in the corporate world, where it's still the most popular OS.

RHEL needs stability and reliability more than it needs the latest and greatest of everything, hence 18 months.

mstlyevil
September 28th, 2005, 06:48 PM
Dapper Drake is going to get three years support after it's release. I think that should answer your concerns on having a OS for bussinesses that they can use for years without upgrading.

Ubunted
September 28th, 2005, 06:55 PM
True, but no individual Ubuntu release can claim 18 months of professional development and stabilizing before release, which followed up on years of work and months of userbase testing in Fedora Core versions.

Goober
September 28th, 2005, 06:59 PM
As long as everything works, and any bugs can be quickly and easy fixed with the Updates that appear every so often, then 6 months is just perfect. I agree that 6 months seems short, I have taken some Computer Programming classes, and can appreciate the ages and ages that it can take to do some simple programming, never mind a whole OS. Since Ubuntu is my first Linux OS, and Windoze shovels more of their "improved" crap (sorry, forced to use Win2000 at school right now, in a anti-Windoze mood) at us every like 2-3 years, 6 months seems very short.

I guess the bottom line is that it takes as long as it takes. Thus far, Hoary and Warty have worked pretty good, and both have taken only 6 months, so I guess 6 months is enough. Frankly, as long as Ubuntu continues to work as well as its worked thus far, take as long as you need, developers!

gorkhal
September 28th, 2005, 10:43 PM
Bugs will always be there...so with a 6 month release cycle...they may not remove all the bugs but at least it will be better than it was 6 months ago. and frankly I like getting updates faster...already October 5th seems sooo far away

brentoboy
September 28th, 2005, 10:55 PM
6 months is great.

The kernel adds new hardware support for all the new stuff that people are buying. The kernel from a year ago just wont work with the PC that enthusias buy today. It seems that most enthusiasts like to tinker with linux.

These are the same people who tell there friends what distro to go with.

If your distro doenst update fast enough to support the new hardware, then you fall by the wayside.

It is good to have one kernel build for each release, and iron out all the kinks for that kernel, and not change kernel build numbers mid version. So each version supports newer and newer stuff.

It isnt like you have to update your hoarty if you dont want to, they will contiune supporting it and patchng it for a long time from now - upgrade when they dump it if you want a longer life cycle. Skip a few versions.

openmind
September 29th, 2005, 01:40 AM
6 months is just fine IMO because those who think it's too often can upgrade every 2nd or 3rd release instead. So you can choose between 6, 12 or 18 months upgrade cycles.
Good point, it's your choice, most of today's bugs are likely to be solved in a year, but then a whole new set awaits you.;-)

missmoondog
November 4th, 2005, 12:05 PM
You still have a year support with this version. If you have no real reason to change right now, then you probally should not feel pressured to. I am going to upgrade my pc soon, so that is when I will upgrade to the new BB version.

This is exactly what I was just searching for, but not a totally complete answer. What I would like to know is, what happens after that year? Will the updating function (Synaptic/Update manager) of Ubuntu just quit working?

Thanks

BoyOfDestiny
November 4th, 2005, 02:24 PM
This is exactly what I was just searching for, but not a totally complete answer. What I would like to know is, what happens after that year? Will the updating function (Synaptic/Update manager) of Ubuntu just quit working?

Thanks

Well you have the options of mixing packages or backports I suppose.

Why would you still want to run the old version anyway?

If this is a server machine I guess I could understand. Ubuntu is billed as a desktop distro (for now?)

missmoondog
November 4th, 2005, 03:11 PM
about the only reason for staying with the old version is the fact of i'm just learning this stuff (linux)!! being as i just started with 5.04 and 5.10 is out already, i don't need to go threw that again so soon.

poofyhairguy
November 4th, 2005, 07:03 PM
Does anyone else feel that 6 month release cycles are too short?


No. I like getting a new OS every six months and those that don't can just skip out and get the one that comes next. Don't punish me.

poofyhairguy
November 4th, 2005, 09:08 PM
about the only reason for staying with the old version is the fact of i'm just learning this stuff (linux)!! being as i just started with 5.04 and 5.10 is out already, i don't need to go threw that again so soon.


you have about a year to upgrade from Hoary. No rush.

xequence
November 4th, 2005, 09:13 PM
I think 6 months is good. Would you rather a 4 year old XP type thing?

Anyway, some people dont like to format and do a fresh install, where I do one every week.

kleeman
November 4th, 2005, 09:18 PM
The overall equation is fairly straightforward:

Long release cycle=stable software=Debian stable

Short release cycle=current software=Ubuntu

It's always a balancing act between these. Since Ubuntu is mainly aimed at the desktop where current software is often a necessity 6 months plus a crack dev team seems an excellent choice. On the other hand if you want to set up a file/mail/web server choose Debian.

BoyOfDestiny
November 5th, 2005, 02:42 AM
about the only reason for staying with the old version is the fact of i'm just learning this stuff (linux)!! being as i just started with 5.04 and 5.10 is out already, i don't need to go threw that again so soon.

Hmm. I can understand the thought of wiping and reinstalling (that's why I'd recommend setting up /home on another partition)

However a lot of problems and quirks (at least for me are resolved with breezy).

When I accidently went into the hoary forums, people are having trouble with things (like their inspiron 6000), and it works like a charm with breezy.

If you want to upgrade, load up your sources.list and change hoary to breezy

(try sudo gedit /etc/apt/sources.list)

Then just use the find/replace tool in gedit.

Fire up synaptic or type sudo apt-get update
sudo apt-get dist-upgrade.

I claim that you will learn more at the risk of breaking stuff. When xorg was breaking in breezy while it was still in testing, I learned a lot...

Try the system monitor and see how much space / takes and how much space /home takes in nautilus.

Once you get an idea of how much you need, be adventurous and partition.

Having /home on another parition means you can put ubuntu back on and have your files and settings pretty much intact...

Ok and yes, for those who don't want to upgrade... just don't :)
For the older distros there should be backports, and for dapper you'll have years to procrastinate.

hellmet
September 29th, 2006, 07:59 PM
Pardon me , and delete the topic if redundant, but I was
wondering why ubuntu needs a 6 month dist upgrade cycle.

IMHO, 6months is a very short time to actually incorporate something
really solid into an OS apart from Kernel updates and other s/w updates.
And these are things that can be done even using the current Dist.

I feel Ubuntu shud have a longer cycle of atleast 1 year so that
the current OS has the time to fully mature and settle into the market
with most bugs and annoyances fixed.

Right now what we have is that we are just into getting fully settled with Dapper and we have edgy round the corner.

I had high hopes on Edgy , and I wanted it to compete solidly with Vista , but I don't read much about the improvements in it..that mite appear to the eye(not just eyecandy)...it seems there are only things
under the hood.And each time with a dist upgrade...all s/w needs to
be ported to the new platform..(ex:Automatix..etc)
What do u say guys...??

Kateikyoushi
September 29th, 2006, 08:08 PM
You can stick with the LTS releases then you have the one year cycle.

kripkenstein
September 29th, 2006, 08:21 PM
The 6-month cycle fits in well with the GNOME cycle, as well as the Linux kernel cycle.

But, if you want less turnover, by all means use the LTS release.

muep
September 29th, 2006, 08:22 PM
I think the LTS releases would be coming with two year intervals, so there is a longer cycle available. The new stuff needs to be tested somewhere, and a 6-month cycle gets tons of the more tech savvy people using the latest software. I think this pattern leads to faster development.

Remember, Dapper's desktop applications will be supported for three years and no one is forcing you to install edgy. Even Shipit will still send you Dapper disks if you order them.

justin whitaker
September 29th, 2006, 08:24 PM
I like the 6 month cycle, but up until the LTS designation, it made me wonder if it was really sustainable.

Ubuntu 6.06.1 LTS is a great linux distro, and people can stay on it for the next 3 years if they want stability, while ricers and fearless bleeding edgers can see what is new with the 6month releases.

Everyone wins. :mrgreen:

hellmet
September 29th, 2006, 08:28 PM
hmm..i see ..
I am anyway going to stick to my Dapper for sometime..
I just don't have the time these days to actually upgrade, break,
join the pieces etc...
I'd need my beautifully stable dapper for now..

mips
September 29th, 2006, 08:30 PM
http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu


...with 6.06 LTS you get 3 years on the desktop and 5 on the server!

justin whitaker
September 29th, 2006, 08:35 PM
hmm..i see ..
I am anyway going to stick to my Dapper for sometime..
I just don't have the time these days to actually upgrade, break,
join the pieces etc...
I'd need my beautifully stable dapper for now..

Dapper + Automatix...and you really do not need much more than that. Be happy! 100% uptime!

For me, Edgy is right at the point where there are just enough changes to make it worthwhile for me. The early knots where not all that interesting, but Knot 3 and Beta 1? Very nice.

And the next one, Fearless Ferret, or whatever, will likely improve on that in both features and polish.

hellmet
September 29th, 2006, 08:39 PM
not just automatix..everything else is currently stable..and nothing's happened to the system to destabilise it since ages now..I am liking
it this way..

Spif
September 29th, 2006, 08:49 PM
I think a release every 12 months would be better. Having to reinstall everything twice a year is quite annoying.

hellmet
September 29th, 2006, 08:51 PM
aah...finally one more to support me..

Pelekophori
September 29th, 2006, 08:55 PM
So long as the resources available to Ubuntu can sustain a 6 month cycle, then it can only only have a good effect, by forcing the pace of Ubuntu's development.

If Microsoft waits 5 years between releases and Ubuntu manages one every 6 months, then in time, Ubuntu is going to develop a huge usability lead over Windows.

Shay Stephens
September 29th, 2006, 09:22 PM
When you decide it's time to upgrade, upgrade! No one is forcing you to upgrade against your will or need.

But there are still some poor slobs out here who's computer is not so stabe or working (like my laptop) and for them, having more frequent updates is vital. Don't take that away from us just because you don't need the updates.

siimo
September 30th, 2006, 12:53 AM
I think a release every 12 months would be better. Having to reinstall everything twice a year is quite annoying.

no one is FORCING you to reinstall every 6 months! ](*,)

Each and every release is supported for atleast 18 months and LTS releases for 36 months on the desktop. Reinstall when you need to and not when every frecking release comes out! One of my computers still has Ubuntu Hoary 5.04
which will be supported till edgy comes out and thats when i will upgrade.

Bloodfen Razormaw
September 30th, 2006, 01:11 AM
Strict development deadlines are a bad thing that result in badly designed software. Forcing yourself to release something before it is ready won't help anyone, e.g. GNOME not being able to finish a menu editor for their new menus before their 6-month release. I firmly believe that there should be no timed cycles. Ubuntu, fortunately, has extended deadlines when necessary in the past. If it takes 8 months to make your product, take 8 months.

Luggy
September 30th, 2006, 01:39 AM
Pardon me , and delete the topic if redundant, but I was
wondering why ubuntu needs a 6 month dist upgrade cycle.

IMHO, 6months is a very short time to actually incorporate something
really solid into an OS apart from Kernel updates and other s/w updates.
And these are things that can be done even using the current Dist.

I feel Ubuntu shud have a longer cycle of atleast 1 year so that
the current OS has the time to fully mature and settle into the market
with most bugs and annoyances fixed.


It coincides with the Gnome releases.
Newer Gnome is da shizzel.
Nuff said.

aysiu
September 30th, 2006, 02:25 AM
They're not strict. Dapper was released two months late.

I think Ubuntu can stick with a 6-month release cycle--no harm done. If people want tested and true, they should use Debian. If they don't like new releases every six months, they can keep using the same version they've used. No one is forcing you next month to upgrade to Edgy.

What's the big deal?

gnomeuser
September 30th, 2006, 03:01 AM
Given that you can now follow the upgrade path via a nice GUI tool, why is it a big problem. No reinstall needed and if you don't feel like getting to the latest and greatest don't upgrade at all. Ubuntu releases are support for what 2 years after a release so it's not like anyone is pushing you forward.

And plenty can be done in 6 months given the many people working within and without Ubuntu on the entire stack.

Yossarian
September 30th, 2006, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by gnomeuser
Given that you can now follow the upgrade path via a nice GUI tool, why is it a big problem.
...

Which GUI tool is this? I might make use of this. A more important question, is do updates work as advertised, or are people not kidding when they say to do a fresh install instead?


Originally posted by aysiu
They're not strict. Dapper was released two months late.

I think Ubuntu can stick with a 6-month release cycle--no harm done. If people want tested and true, they should use Debian. If they don't like new releases every six months, they can keep using the same version they've used. No one is forcing you next month to upgrade to Edgy.

What's the big deal?

I think the six-month cycle is just about perfect. It's good for lazy bums like me who like up-to-date-ish software, but not actually installing it themselves. One update every 6 months isn't too much to ask.

The Noble
September 30th, 2006, 03:17 AM
Software in the Linux world updates quite a bit faster than something in Windows or OSX, thus a 6 month release can be blessing when you want nice up to date system. Between each release quiteIf you want anything new to run you have to recompile all the dependencies beacause yours are so old.

KoRnholio
September 30th, 2006, 03:31 AM
It does seem like the distro releases spend a lot of time in feature freeze (or colder) because a full release needs to happen every six months, taking away more time from innovation.

However, the freeze times for a one year release would also be bigger than those for six-month releases.

I voted maybe :)

K.Mandla
September 30th, 2006, 04:14 AM
Definitely. In fact, the six-month release cycle is one of Ubuntu's strongest points in my opinion.

It's more appealing to me to see a regular schedule of releases, instead just whenever it seems right.

vayu
September 30th, 2006, 05:12 AM
hmm..i see ..
I am anyway going to stick to my Dapper for sometime..
I just don't have the time these days to actually upgrade, break,
join the pieces etc...
I'd need my beautifully stable dapper for now..

I say the same thing every release. Then the new stuff comes out and I give in. I also spend the next week getting everything working again.

I would like a longer release cycle. A major release every 8 months and a smaller bug fix / performance upgrade every 4 months.

hellmet
September 30th, 2006, 05:26 AM
I say the same thing every release. Then the new stuff comes out and I give in. I also spend the next week getting everything working again.

I would like a longer release cycle. A major release every 8 months and a smaller bug fix / performance upgrade every 4 months.
well, it mite be that even I'd upgrade..if edgy does tempt me to do so,
but if I don't find much in it(thru reviews) i'd stay..

ubuntuman001
September 30th, 2006, 06:45 AM
6 months is good, makes everybody happy.
u want long term support? get LTS releases.
want bleeding edge? get 6 month cycle releases.

javaJake
November 3rd, 2006, 01:30 AM
Read First
I am open to well-made suggestions (no flaming, or blunt "this won't work" posts please). I will even add them in the Arguments section at the bottom in a tree format so the developers have a nice way to see how we've responded. In order for this to work, please Quote the pieces you disagree on by clicking the Quote button that's found on the lower right corner of every post: http://ubuntuforums.org/images/buttons/quote.gif. Otherwise your post may never make it to the arguments section.

The Post Itself
OK, I get it now. Edgy was actually not supposed to be as stable as Dapper, because it is almost an in-between release. Thus, the name Edgy. The following article I wrote is abosutely wrong, because of a misunderstanding.


Hey, Ubuntu Developers, I love the new Edgy look on start-up, and the new icons, and the new, latest Firefox, etc. Gnome's gotten some nifty new features as well. Oh, yea, Ubuntu Edgy ROCKS! Up to that point. From there on you have issues. We don't want an OS with tons of features. We want an OS with tons of features and stability.

Oh, sure, most users are probably bumping along just fine, but I'm betting that at least 25% (which is probably way below the mark) of all users who've downloaded Edgy have had some serious problem or other that requires some major fixing.

Let's get straight to the point. Dapper had to have its release schedule extended to get through some major bugs. Edgy never had its release schedule extended, but got released with, you guessed it, major bugs.

What I propose is an extended release schedule to be made mandatory for all future releases.

Why do this?

The obvious answer is that we'd fix more bugs if we extended our release schedule. Many users that complained about the Dapper delay are probably going to disagree, but the fact is that if you are keen on getting Ubuntu early, you can get it early by downloading an RC or Knot version.

Ubuntu doesn't want to be known as an unstable Linux distribution with many bugs. We want to be known as the best distribution out there, and be proud of our Human-Friendly name! Let's think beyond the wait, and to the rewards!


Arguments
LoKe (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1706418&postcount=3)
Edgy is supposed to be...well...edgy. It's the price you pay for the bleeding edge.


javaJake (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1706443&postcount=4)
But it isn't supposed to crash, is it? Edgy is supposed to be a stable release. It isn't very close to being stable.

The point is that releases are supposed to be stable. If the Ubuntu developers didn't intend to have most of the bugs fixed for the release, they would've mentioned that.


~LoKe (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1706557&postcount=6)
Problems always occur with the bleeding-edge, and as I mentioned, that's the price you pay. Dapper is the LTS release for a reason. If you want stability, go back to dapper or wait for Feisty.

qamelian (http://ubuntuforums.org/member.php?u=8229)
That's a matter of opinion. I've got Edgy installed on my laptop and even decided to put my (previously) Dapper production machine at risk as of two days ago. I find Edgy to be emminently stable on both. The only problems I've had are a carryover of an issue with ESD that I also had in Dapper (but not Breezy) and the occasional spastic episode with Beryl, that I can't honestly blame on Edgy because Beryl is still quite immature and not really an official part of the distro. Other than that, both machines are working steadily all day everyday without a hitch.
Delaying the release of Dapper made sense since Dapper was the long term support offering. Since Edgy was not LTS, I don't think it made sense to delay it. I'm sure if there is a need, the next LTS release will be delayed as necessary.


kiddo (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1706518&postcount=5)
Well, Mark Shuttleworth did warn us didn't he? thing is, I don't want ubuntu to become like debian (ie.: long, unpredictable releases). I especially don't want to have any release being delayed for a LONG TIME. Why? Because it will be bad marketing-wise (I mean, now ubuntu will be laughed at on news site for "oh look they are doing a dapper again"). Ok that point is not really strong, but I think that anyway.

Arguments section closed! Thanks for your input!


Revisions To Article Itself
Novermber 4, 2006 - Added "I'm Wrong" note.
November 2, 2006 - Changed "Read First" section to be more clear, and added titles to sections.

javaJake
November 3rd, 2006, 01:31 AM
If it is "worthy", could this be made into a sticky? :)

~LoKe
November 3rd, 2006, 02:16 AM
If it is "worthy", could this be made into a sticky? :)

Edgy is supposed to be...well...edgy. It's the price you pay for the bleeding edge.

javaJake
November 3rd, 2006, 02:24 AM
Edgy is supposed to be...well...edgy. It's the price you pay for the bleeding edge.

But it isn't supposed to crash, is it? Edgy is supposed to be a stable release. It isn't very close to being stable.

The point is that releases are supposed to be stable. If the Ubuntu developers didn't intend to have most of the bugs fixed for the release, they would've mentioned that.

kiddo
November 3rd, 2006, 02:41 AM
Well, Mark Shuttleworth did warn us didn't he? :) thing is, I don't want ubuntu to become like debian (ie.: long, unpredictable releases). I especially don't want to have any release being delayed for a LONG TIME. Why? Because it will be bad marketing-wise (I mean, now ubuntu will be laughed at on news site for "oh look they are doing a dapper again"). Ok that point is not really strong, but I think that anyway.

~LoKe
November 3rd, 2006, 02:51 AM
But it isn't supposed to crash, is it? Edgy is supposed to be a stable release. It isn't very close to being stable.

The point is that releases are supposed to be stable. If the Ubuntu developers didn't intend to have most of the bugs fixed for the release, they would've mentioned that.

Problems always occur with the bleeding-edge, and as I mentioned, that's the price you pay. Dapper is the LTS release for a reason. If you want stability, go back to dapper or wait for Feisty.

qamelian
November 3rd, 2006, 03:39 AM
But it isn't supposed to crash, is it? Edgy is supposed to be a stable release. It isn't very close to being stable.
That's a matter of opinion. I've got Edgy installed on my laptop and even decided to put my (previously) Dapper production machine at risk as of two days ago. I find Edgy to be emminently stable on both. The only problems I've had are a carryover of an issue with ESD that I also had in Dapper (but not Breezy) and the occasional spastic episode with Beryl, that I can't honestly blame on Edgy because Beryl is still quite immature and not really an official part of the distro. Other than that, both machines are working steadily all day everyday without a hitch.
Delaying the release of Dapper made sense since Dapper was the long term support offering. Since Edgy was not LTS, I don't think it made sense to delay it. I'm sure if there is a need, the next LTS release will be delayed as necessary.

stu
November 3rd, 2006, 06:09 AM
Let's get straight to the point. Dapper had to have its release schedule extended to get through some major bugs. Edgy never had its release schedule extended, but got released with, you guessed it, major bugs.

Dapper had a 7.5 month release schedule. Those 6 extra weeks were taken away from Edgy's schedule... ON PURPOSE. They wanted to get back on a 6 month schedule to keep in sync with Gnome.

Edgy had a 4.5 month release on purpose, and if it shows, then Canonical is perfectly justified in saying: "told you so".

AlexC_
November 3rd, 2006, 08:55 AM
Edgy was suppose to be a short release time as they needed to get in sync with the Gnome release. Every other release will have a 6 month release cycle, which IMO is perfect. Any longer and it wouldn't feel the same, it wont feel as if Ubuntu is developing if you know what I mean - with a 6 month cycle it just feels realllly active development wise

nocturn
November 3rd, 2006, 09:19 AM
Dapper is the version you should go to for long term support and stability.

Edgy is stable, but as it is about taking risks with new technologies, it might break on some setups. Fitting a new init system is by far no small change.

If you take a look at Edgy, you'll see that it includes a lot of software that is either very new, or still in BETA. This is to make sure we have a good foundation to build a new LTS verion in the next years.

You must think about it this way, Dapper is an LTS release, which means ultrastable. Edgy is a branch to go in new directions, but stable enough for most.

asimon
November 3rd, 2006, 10:29 AM
Oh, sure, most users are probably bumping along just fine, but I'm betting that at least 25% (which is probably way below the mark) of all users who've downloaded Edgy have had some serious problem or other that requires some major fixing.
25% is your wild guess. Can you back up this number? For all I know it could be 3%, couldn't it?



Let's get straight to the point. Dapper had to have its release schedule extended to get through some major bugs. Edgy never had its release schedule extended, but got released with, you guessed it, major bugs.
Just as dapper, it got released with 'major bugs' too. If you think by extending the schedule you get all major bugs fixed then you delude yourself. You can enxtend the release schedule as long as you want, there will always remain bugs which will be for some people 'major bugs'. Depending on the length of the schedule more and more "major" bugs will be of the kind "version XYZ is too old, I need the newer version to be happy/get my work done, please update it".

Look at your example of Dapper LTS. You can find many postings in this forum or at the mailing lists that the extended schedule was not long enough, that Dapper would have needed another 6 or 12 month stabilizing to get truly stable. For me edgy is actually a better expierience than dapper when it was released - but of course this is very subjective and can change very fast depending for example on your hardware.



Why do this?

The obvious answer is that we'd fix more bugs if we extended our release schedule. Many users that complained about the Dapper delay are probably going to disagree, but the fact is that if you are keen on getting Ubuntu early, you can get it early by downloading an RC or Knot version.
To be frank I don't see Dapper more unstable then Edgy (actually I had more issues on Dapper then on Edgy), thus I don't see how the extended freezing time had a dramatical impact.



The point is that releases are supposed to be stable. If the Ubuntu developers didn't intend to have most of the bugs fixed for the release, they would've mentioned that.
You say "most of the bugs". If you look at the sheer number of open bugs in malone and the growing rate I think it's true that even with a full year release cycle you won't be able to fix "most of the bugs" at all - no way.

bullgr
November 3rd, 2006, 11:17 AM
hi...

i am very dissarpointed with the last ubuntu release (edgy).
i can't understand why there must be a release every 6 months if it's have so many bug's and almost nobody can't upgrade to this.

is it not better to make a stable release every year?
or couldn't named the edgy release "beta"? and after six months (makes us one release a year) to be a stable release?

ok, i know, someone could say "you can stay to dapper, it's LTS".
but you know human nature... if there is a new release we must have it.

and there is no issue in the ubuntu main page
(http://www.ubuntu.com/news/610released) that it's better to stay in dapper than to upgrade to edgy.

they say just
"JUST ANNOUNCED: Ubuntu 6.10, code named Edgy Eft, has been released with many exciting new features. Visit the download page for CD images."

so, how many people are upgraded and now have a crashed pc and need to reinstall?

must we visit the forum to see if the new release are ok to upgrade?
and this happens also to the updates (after the brocken x server update disaster)... i see the forum before i update if there is any update problem with other users.

but this makes ubuntu (and linux) untrusted to the users.

to grow up ubuntu (and linux) to all users (not only the hardcore) IT MUST BE TRUSTED, STABLE, WORKING PERFECT AFTER INSTALL OR UPGRADE.

and not search the forum everytime for infos like (from ubuntu forum staff http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=286599&page=4)

I agree that the Dapper -> Edgy upgrad is somewhat Edgy.
But don't disrecommend Ubuntu for that. Dapper is the one for most users to go,

the purpose of Edgy was taking risks. If they get Dapper LTS, they should have a good install.

The reason is that Dapper is LTS, so by default the upgrade to Edgy is not recommended. Only for those who are willing to track a semi-stable version.

THAT MUST BE IN THE UBUNTU MAIN PAGE... WITH BIG WRITING

"JUST ANNOUNCED: Ubuntu 6.10, code named Edgy Eft SEMI-STABLE, USE IT WITH YOUR OWN RISK, has been released with many exciting new features. Visit the download page for CD images."

but no, for them i must search the forum to figure out all that.

ok, i suggest some issues to make ubuntu more for human beings

1. one new STABLE release every year. for alternate, the first six month release must named "beta", announcement like "semi-stable release", and after six months the second release will be the stable.

2. upgrade to the new (stable) release must always working, to avoid users to make every year a fresh install.

3. update disasters (like the x server before 2-3 months) must redused to zero, to make users to trust ubuntu again.

if this are not happen, then ubuntu (and linux) will be always be the "hardcore users OS".

Rhubarb
November 3rd, 2006, 11:35 AM
Yes I mostly agree with you there.

Depending on the situation, edgy can indeed be quite unstable.
For a release that's only been 5 months in the making, it's very good though.

In a way it is human nature to always want the latest and greatest.
But it all goes back Dapper's LTS.

You wouldn't expect your average windowz xp user to buy vista when it comes out. They're more likely to stick with what works (well, it sort-of works).

I think over the next few months Edgy's apps will harden up, and it should be a bit more stable.
For me, I love edgy. And I know now how to avoid some of the bugs that I experience with it (they have all been bug reported).

rejser
November 3rd, 2006, 11:45 AM
Well, isn't it like you type.
Dapper is Long Term supported and Edgy isn't, edgy is released to include som more up to date software for those who wan't it.
Next LTS is Feisty, so it is 1 stable release a year and 1 "beta".
And it says so on the website.
"Edgy is not long term supported"

bullgr
November 3rd, 2006, 11:58 AM
yes rejser, this is what i mean...

where is this written that the next release will be stable and the edgy is just "semi-stable" or "beta"?

to figure this out i must go FIRST TO THE FORUM

can someone write in plain english in the ubuntu main website that every second release will be LTS and stable and the other "semi-stable" or "beta"?
is this so hard?

and that "Edgy is not long term supported" says me nothing... breezy was not too but i have no problem with the upgrade from hoary...

loell
November 3rd, 2006, 12:04 PM
;)
perhaps the real question is why did your system get borked after upgrading from dapper to edgy .. if that is the real question, then the answer would be very technical

to the main question on why the release in every six months..

well, why not?

bullgr
November 3rd, 2006, 12:19 PM
perhaps the real question is why did your system get borked after upgrading from dapper to edgy .. if that is the real question, then the answer would be very technical


go there and you can see that the 99% of the users who upgrade to edgy (upgrade, not fresh install) get they system borked.
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=286599

to the main question on why the release in every six months... well, why not?

because six months is to short to make a new release stable...
but rejser aswers this question.

loell
November 3rd, 2006, 12:28 PM
so this is not a question
but more of a complain?

bullgr
November 3rd, 2006, 12:39 PM
questions and complains that be answered... almost

wkulecz
November 3rd, 2006, 03:01 PM
edgy is released to include som more up to date software for those who wan't it.


Why not release the more "up to date" software as an update or addition to 6.06?

I'd like to know what is in 6.10 that makes it more "up to date" that couldn't be added to 6.06 for those who'd need it, instead of risk breaking a great many working systems to enable stuff that is not really needed or perhaps even wanted by most of the existing 6.06 base.

I've been around the block more than a few times, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm still running a bunch of old Redhat 6.1 systems that quietly sit there reliably doing what they have to do 24/7. When new needs arose that they couldn't handle, I tried Fedora Core 5 and Ubuntu 6.06, both worked, but Ubuntu was easier to install, seemed easier to maintain (synaptic blows away yum), and offered LTS that was much better than FC5 offered.

I've got six happily running 6.06 systems and one sick one that was all mdadm raid that quit working when something changed the md disk assignments so it won't boot -- I've not yet figured out the fix, got some ideas but its only a test system to see if raid really buys me anything useful so I've not had much time to investigate, obviously its flunked its initial challenge.

--wally.

Sef
November 3rd, 2006, 03:48 PM
go there and you can see that the 99% of the users who upgrade to edgy (upgrade, not fresh install) get they system borked.

One thread can't be applied to everyone. I updated via an upgrade, and overall it went ok. Upgrade is always more risky than a fresh install. I would be interesting to see how many people had problems via upgrade versus those who did a fresh install.

Jerry G
November 3rd, 2006, 03:51 PM
I have a question....
I am going to run the Live CD and want to know if I would need
an internet connection in order to use Ubuntu?
Thanks,
Jerry G :)

Arby
November 3rd, 2006, 04:09 PM
With the live cd you'll get a completely operational desktop ubuntu system, minus the things you would expect i.e. no email etc. But that last part is obvious. Everything else should work just fine. Office software, assorted media players etc should all be present and working.

If you intend to do a full install at some point then it will be easier to have an internet connection for downloading updates, email etc.

basically the answer to your question is, it depends what you want to use it for'. Everything that doesn't require communication with the outside world should work fine.

One caveat, you may have issues playing mp3s because you won't be able to download the extra codecs but I *think* there may be a workaround to get these from the alternate install cd, but don't quote me on that

rejser
November 3rd, 2006, 04:19 PM
Why not release the more "up to date" software as an update or addition to 6.06?

I'd like to know what is in 6.10 that makes it more "up to date" that couldn't be added to 6.06 for those who'd need it, instead of risk breaking a great many working systems to enable stuff that is not really needed or perhaps even wanted by most of the existing 6.06 base.

--wally.

On release version number is freezed to version 100% working. If starting to update major releases it's quite easy to get an unstable system if things get messy, so therefor no updated versions of software, only bug-fixes in the version included in the release.

viper
November 3rd, 2006, 06:15 PM
perhaps the real question is why did your system get borked after upgrading from dapper to edgy .. if that is the real question, then the answer would be very technical


go there and you can see that the 99% of the users who upgrade to edgy (upgrade, not fresh install) get they system borked.
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=286599

to the main question on why the release in every six months... well, why not?

because six months is to short to make a new release stable...
but rejser aswers this question.

Then i must be the 1% that did not have any real dramas to really speak about, sure x was broken and some minor stuff but hey this is what this forum and for example Google are about, an abundance of helpful people with so much knowledge.
Personally i think the upgrade every six months leads to a better product for the "geeks" and for the every day end users that just want to use Linux (*buntu) instead of another platform. Trial and error is what its all about coz without breakage there is no real learning to be had.........

23meg
November 3rd, 2006, 06:23 PM
edgy is released to include some more up to date software for those who wan't it.No, it's a regular release, not a mid-term release of any sort. The only difference is that its release proces was shorter at four months instead of six, to compensate for Dapper's delay and get back in sync with the GNOME release schedule. And because Dapper is extra stable, some risk was taken with Edgy that could compromise stability in certain cases, but not necessarily. That's likely to happen with every post-LTS release.

Next LTS is Feisty, so it is 1 stable release a year and 1 "beta".%100 wrong. There's nothing indicating Feisty will be LTS and there's no such policy as one stable and one "beta" a year.

rejser
November 3rd, 2006, 08:13 PM
23meg but it says somewhere on the ubuntulinux.org that the spring release each year is lts and the autumn is not.
On the other hand it was a while since I read on ubuntulinux.org
Just remember from when I downloaded my first ubuntu

incubus
November 3rd, 2006, 08:36 PM
Why a new release every six months?


Remember the context in which Ubuntu was created. Debian has been traditionally rock-stable, but many people were unhappy with the long development time and "when it's ready" type of schedule. Institutionalizing a six-month release schedule was, in part, a response to that.

It also departs from the unpredictability in Windows' releases -- Vista is probably the best example. Well, in fact, Ubuntu is different from most operating systems for having this nice commitment. It reduces imperfect information and lets people and companies plan in advance.

Are there problems? Yes and there will always be. It's hard to find a solution that pleases everybody. Remember we have users who just surf the Internet and we have users who want to have their latest graphics card working in Linux (and need newer kernel, modules, etc).

We want to expand, so I absolutely agree with you that we must learn from these mistakes and prepare better for the next release. But unless Canonical feels it's not possible to commit to the schedule anymore, I think we should stick to six months.

What we, users, can do is help test Edgy+1. Use a spare partition. Run it in VMware. Qemu for the open source zealots. Xen is in the repositories already. Keep in mind this is a community project, so the final product is just as good as we make it. We can save developers a lot of time by giving them feedback.

best,
incubus

bullgr
November 4th, 2006, 10:12 AM
i spent much-much time with dapper...

i install the official ubuntu ati drivers (this is the reason i believe that the x server borked after upgrading to edgy) i use many tutorials from the forum to have xgl compiz, read-write support in ntfs and also a bunch of staff.

so, i respect the six months new releases, but is this not realy shame to upgrade the new release and finaly get a borked mashine and all the work i do in dapper are gone?

the upgrade crash problem was the ati drivers, but i have installed in dapper the ubuntu official ones...
and now people in the forum tell me that was the problem?

i try to spread ubuntu in friends and people from my work, i tell them how perfect ubuntu is, no viruses, no blue screens etc.

and after many of them tryed to upgrade to edgy they get a borked mashine... and my mobile phone is on fire!!!

can me someone tell me what can i say to them?
"o, sorry you must go first to the forum before you upgrade to see if any problem happens"

Whe must understand that most users are just upgrade and don't search the forum first.
for them, ubuntu must work perfect after every upgrade-update and don't get after that a borked mashine.

to grow up ubuntu and linux it must be for the masses, for all users (beginner-expert), for users who don't care how to fix the x server, they want just install-update-upgrade perfect and to have a working mashine.

but with releases like edgy ubuntu shows that it's only for hardcore users...
i am a hardcore user and i never give up... but i will not anymore spread ubuntu to other people until the new release-update crashes stops.

aysiu
November 4th, 2006, 10:31 AM
Merged this with the other extremely similar thread, by the way.

go there and you can see that the 99% of the users who upgrade to edgy (upgrade, not fresh install) get they system borked.
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=286599 I don't know where you're pulling this 99% number from.

Based on this thread, which actually has a poll (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=285446&highlight=edgy+successful), it looks more like 44%.

When you go to the Ubuntu download page, one of the first things you see on the top is this:
Choosing an Ubuntu Release

There are now two versions of Ubuntu, choose which is best for you:

Ubuntu 6.10, the newest Ubuntu release: If you would like to benefit from the latest Ubuntu features, this is the release for you

Ubuntu 6.06 LTS, Ubuntu with long-term support: Choose this to benefit from the long support life-cycle of the 6.06 LTS release. This version is supported for 3 years on the desktop and 5 years on servers. And, it's true. If you want to benefit from the long-term support of Ubuntu 6.06, use 6.06. If you want the newest features, use 6.10.

If they wanted everybody using 6.10, they wouldn't even mention 6.06. They certainly didn't mention Breezy any more after Dapper was released.

You don't have to have the latest. If you do, then take your medicine. Geez.

P.S. I've had nothing but a positive Edgy experience. Guess I'm one of the lucky 56%.

EdThaSlayer
November 4th, 2006, 10:54 AM
I think that it is a little too short.I wouldn't mind waiting a whole year, but I like the 6 month time schedule since I really kind of love to upgrade and experiment you know? Also most bugs can only be caught when these developers try the operating system at a large scale. There is a big difference between running and debugging a 100 computers running Ubuntu and actually getting error reports from thousands of pcs running Ubuntu.

warlorddagaz
November 4th, 2006, 11:03 AM
The quick release cycles are one of the things that separate the open-source community from closed source mega-corps like Microsoft. It may result in a couple of extra bugs, but compered to windows, which is currently running on something like a 5 year release cycle, and still probably will have as many bugs when Vista is released, it separates us.

In the time since IE6 was released (aug 27 2001), Firefox has had a first release(1.0), a second release (1.5) and a third release (2.0) with numerous sub-releases in between - a slightly quicker release cycle I would say!

bullgr
November 4th, 2006, 11:17 AM
When you go to the Ubuntu download page, one of the first things you see on the top is this:

Choosing an Ubuntu Release

There are now two versions of Ubuntu, choose which is best for you:

Ubuntu 6.10, the newest Ubuntu release: If you would like to benefit from the latest Ubuntu features, this is the release for you

Ubuntu 6.06 LTS, Ubuntu with long-term support: Choose this to benefit from the long support life-cycle of the 6.06 LTS release. This version is supported for 3 years on the desktop and 5 years on servers.

yes, it' stays nothere that it's like "semi-beta" and it's not stable and if you have in dapper the ati drivers installed (official ones) i get x server borked.

and like i wrote above... many people see that there is a new release and just installs it. they don't go first to the forum to see if is there any upgrade problem.

and like i wrote above... ubuntu must be for the masses to grow up and not only for geeks who like to make a fresh install every 6 months.

how can someone have any prediction what happens if he/she upgrades to edgy without visit the forum?

it' must stay somewere in the ubuntu website the release cycle, witch release will be stable-LTS and witch will be unstable.

will every second release LTS?
or every 2 years?
or after 3 years after dapper stops the update cycle?

can someone answer this questions? to see how long can someone stick with dapper and upgrade to the next LTS release without the danger to bork the mashine?

3rdalbum
November 4th, 2006, 11:51 AM
6 months is a good cycle. The problems with Edgy were due to trying to fit in 6 months worth of changes into only 4 months. As long as the LTS releases take an extra six weeks for extra bug-busting polish, that's fine by me.

However, I am concerned at the number of Edgy-only packages that have sprung up in the past week. It makes sticking to Dapper very difficult.

MedivhX
November 4th, 2006, 12:04 PM
This cycle is good, but wouldn't be bad if it would be a bit longer, 7 months or so...

Erik Trybom
November 4th, 2006, 01:34 PM
I think it's good, because of the LTS release system. If you want you can upgrade every 18 months and get a stable release every time.

Six months is of course quite arbitrary. I don't care much if it's six or seven or twelve months, but I do like the system with fixed release dates. If you aim to release it "when it's done" it tends to drag on forever. This is especially true for a whole OS since it can never get "done". All the time there are new stuff to implement and new bugs to fix. You must draw the line somewhere, so why not after six months?

Actually I think the short time between releases can have a relaxing effect on the greed for new features. Developers can say "OK, we won't be able to squeeze in this-or-that feature, but it doesn't matter because we get another chance in a couple of months". The people who miss the train can wait for the next, instead of delaying the train for everyone else.

23meg
November 4th, 2006, 01:37 PM
I haven't read this whole thread, maybe it's already been mentioned but one of the main goals of Ubuntu has been to push open source development further by adopting new technologies earlier than other distros and helping them get tested. The predictable and short release cycle helps a lot with this.

javaJake
November 5th, 2006, 12:12 AM
Alright, I get it now. Edgy is more of an in-between-stable-releases kind of release.

What I don't get is why we are giving out copies of Edgy to users who don't know any better, like me. Why not present the two versions saying that one could be possibly less stable, but the latest and greatest, while Dapper is more stable, without latest, but still great?

Or am I still not getting the point?

Artemis3
November 5th, 2006, 01:02 AM
Most of the problems i have seen are related to people using closed binaries for their hardware. How could you not expect this?

We can ignore gnome; see openbsd. They also have a 6 month release cycle and its not unstable at all, but they refuse anything to do with closed hardware.

I have used Edgy since the beta release did not have any problems. Ok i missed that major Xorg mistake on aug27 because i didn't reboot that day, but i had not seen any problems after that and everything is working.

If you people let closed hardware to creep in, you will never have a stable system. Ubuntu can not control what is ocurring inside blackboxes; you have to beg the owners of the boxes to fix it for you _after_ the work in ubuntu is finished (ie. released); and they can take all the time they want if ever.

So why again did you choose to use free software for?

javaJake
November 5th, 2006, 02:54 PM
Well, you really can't blame some of us for the hardware we have. I, for one, am using closed hardware because I didn't know better, and the other time someone gave me a laptop, so it wasn't like I could select different components to put into it. In both times I didn't really have a choice.

I chose free software (or at least Linux) because it is free and matches my needs better then Microsoft's software could.

But, I agree that closed hardware doesn't help the situation.

Nonno Bassotto
November 5th, 2006, 03:11 PM
What I propose is an extended release schedule to be made mandatory for all future releases.


Ubuntu releases are now synchronized with Gnome, and Gnome has a six months schedule.

TitanKing
November 6th, 2006, 12:56 PM
My 2c...

I believe that the short intervals of releases is what makes Ubuntu so active. Its this that makes people coming back. Yea sure Edgy is well... edgy, but no one said go over immediately, use your own initiative and wait a few weeks before converting.

I find Edgy very nice, could be just my luck, but I love it. To have a hard time with a system might not be all that bad, you gain Linux experience this way.

My final point I would like to make is, keep on keeping on, bring out new releases, this builds an active community, this also assures to keep people interested. This is a very healthy sign for a distro, and should not be made out as bad.

nocturn
November 6th, 2006, 03:09 PM
Alright, I get it now. Edgy is more of an in-between-stable-releases kind of release.

What I don't get is why we are giving out copies of Edgy to users who don't know any better, like me. Why not present the two versions saying that one could be possibly less stable, but the latest and greatest, while Dapper is more stable, without latest, but still great?

Or am I still not getting the point?

The shipit page puts it like that, though the download one does not.

Hyperion
November 6th, 2006, 09:43 PM
I 've been a Windows user,with some knowledge of DOS and my first pc has Z80 CPU,so i m not exactly a "brick" with PCs.In Windows i can do anything i want,i ve built my own PC and other people's pcs,etc.I wanted to really pass to Linux.

After a year of sporadic use of various distros,i slowly came towards ubuntu.I ran Dapper for a while,but was kind of slow,even if i put the K7 SPM kernel.I never understood how contacts work in Evolution,but that was minor.I learned how to edit fstab,use Automatix or Easy Ubuntu,edit Xorg etc,varieties of sudo,gksudo nautilus,chown,how to format a second disc in ext3 and mount it...I THOUGHT i could USE Ubuntu finally.I had hardware problems,mu onboard audio,getting sound problem as soon as i install multimedia "restricted" packages,but i was willing to make the "sacrifice" and use an older 5.1 audio card i had.My ADSL USB modem wouldn't work easily with linux,i bought an ethernet one.This would cause Firestarter to crash during P2p.So i bought a router.There was one program i really needed in Linux,something like Nero DVD Speed to check PIE/PIF error in dvd media.Qpxtool is the only one i found.It doesn't exist in the Dapper repos.I tried to install from source,with no luck,something wrong with the qt.So i installed Edgy that had the package in repos,although an older version.I even crossflashed my burner so to make it part of the "supported" drives.Bad luck,the version was old and didn't support it.

Anyway,Edgy is unstable,right?Well,it sure was for me!First even if i used automatix to do the job,i open an avi and mplayer wouldn't open it.I don't remember how but i fixed it.Then the audio gave mp3lib i think problem.I searched the forum and fixed that too (selected ffmpeg codec).Oddly,i thought the picutre quality was worse than in Dapper.I used Totem-xine.After some minutes,the avi would close,for no apparent reason and i got a form to file bug report.Anyway,i rebooted,and i got a black screen telling more or less that the file system check had failed and i needed to restore things MANUALLY? :D :mrgreen: ](*,) Thank GOD,i had manually partioned the disc,and had separate /home directory.So i installed Dapper on root and copied my data to my auxiliary disc which i had also formatted in ext3.Then i reinstalled Windows and retreived my data from the ext3 discs via software and now reformatted the disc in NTFS.

My point is,WHY?i read also the "known issues".Why MUST there be a new version so soon if there are bugs to correct?My PC is 3800+x2 Toledo,2GB DDR400,NV6600,AsRock 939 DUAL VSTA.

Edgy (but also Dapper),are CRAWLING compared to Windows.Even with the K7 SMP Kernel.But i could live with that.I boot in Edgy and can't have my resolution at 1280x1024.Stuck at 1024x768.On the bright side,my desktop was correctly positioned,while in Dapper,i did have the right resolution,but the desktop was moved to the right of the screen.I edit my Xorg and put the desired resolution,i try alt+ctrl+backspace,try reboot,nothing.Again here to read the forum.At the end i don't know how many times i edited that Xorg file and installed Nvidia drivers and somehow fixed it.
In Evolution,i must be thick,but when i press "To" and there is a contacts window below,foolishly,i expect to see the names of the contacts in that box so that i can choose.But there is nothing.Blank.Then i had all kind of slowdowns,freezes etc in Edgy.Once it froze as soon as i booted in the desktop.

Linux for human beings.Not quite.Unfortunately,non quite.There are a LOT of people willing to ditch MS,but i feel like it will never happen.Ubuntu DOES have the cards to be a user friendly distro,but with other people i ve spoken,it's more unstable than XP or some other distros,probably cause there is the RUSH to give the next release.Why the rush?Just because it is "promiced"? I don't want to become Linux geek.I just want a system that i can use the programs and be able to do basic things,fast and reliably and without having to use often anything more than my imagination.Ok,i ve learned some basic stuff,but for me especially Edgy has serious issues.Even the liveCD,sometimes boots and the graphics during boot start trembling or become "cut".Another time it didn't boot at all.Seems like a Russian roulette.

Anyway,an awful impression overall.For me Edgy is certainly a step BACKWARDS compared to Dapper.Linux is already difficult to deal with with comands etc.If you add slow performance,bugs etc,then it's over.

Personally i ll be very careful before trying Ubuntu again.I did want to use Edgy,cause the kernel "sees" the 2 cored right from start.BTW,i think the DVD version should contain most common programs ,so to avoid long downloads.

Bye

Joe_CoT
November 6th, 2006, 09:46 PM
Dapper had a longer 8 month release schedule, because they spent time fixing said bugs. Edgy had a 4 month release schedule, to get releases back on track. There've been a number of complaints, but when the slogan is "Edgy Eft: Fire up the crack pipes! (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DevelopmentCodeNames)", I can't understand many of the complaints. Corporate might've been pushing it as a stable release, but there's a reason why Dapper is LTS.

I'm running Edgy and it worked fine. It broke. I fixed it. If people can't handle that, use Dapper.

Ramses de Norre
November 6th, 2006, 09:52 PM
Edgy isn't unstable! But it does has newer less tested software.

And for your problems: these things are rare but they happen, and I'm pretty sure most of them can be fixed (like the resolution problem etc.) but this is not the place to start discussing solutions, maybe you could make threads for them in the support section.

I hope you get them sorted out.

aysiu
November 6th, 2006, 09:53 PM
As you can see--after I've merged this with the other similar thread--this debate has raged for over a year and has nothing to do with Edgy.

When a new release comes out, people complain about how unstable it is, and then a couple of months later, it suddenly becomes stable, and then people complain about the next release.

Watch. You will see it happen.

When Feisty Fawn gets released in April, there will be many posts saying, "I thought Edgy was supposed to be the unstable one. It works great for me, but Feisty is a disaster."

If the the release cycle were expanded to eight months, it would be "unstable" at eight months and people would be saying, "Let's push it back to ten months."

Before you know it, we'd have Debian instead of Ubuntu.

If you don't like the potential for problems, don't upgrade to a new version on release day.

chaosgeisterchen
November 6th, 2006, 09:55 PM
From my point of view we need the 6-month-cycle. Ubuntu was never designed to be ultra-rock-solid and therefore needn't be tested thousands of hours before release. We have our LTS editions which are aimed to provide solid software for server and business usage and after that we have one release very bleeding edgy, another one improving the emphasis of the former release and after that again the LTS release providing what was before offered as bleeding edge on a rather stable emphasis.

That's the ubuntu lifecycle, designed to be infinite.

raqball
November 6th, 2006, 09:59 PM
I would say have a once a year release and have it just flat out work!

Dapper loves my laptop and edgy hates it!

Once a year would allow more bugs to be worked out and less new user issues.

But on the flip side, we get to play with a new release every 6 months :)

But I would say once a year is plenty :)

Ramses de Norre
November 6th, 2006, 10:00 PM
As you can see--after I've merged this with the other similar thread--this debate has raged for over a year and has nothing to do with Edgy.

Ow that's why suddenly there were so much posts before mine:D I already thought it was strange I missed them all..

Hyperion
November 6th, 2006, 10:03 PM
I'm running Edgy and it worked fine. It broke. I fixed it. If people can't handle that, use Dapper.

YEah,some people can't handle that.Some people can't spend their lives memorizing commands,cause Edgy may "brake".

When "people" can't handle that,they go back to Windows.You think that an "average" person,that just wants a working pc,if has a dual core and sees in system in Dapper that only one core shows up,that he ll waste his day searching in the forum on how to get the second core to function? (the K7 SMP kernel)?No,he ll go back to Win.You think he ll wonder why the screen has wrong resolution or position?

I know the reply "We don't care,better this way".Yes,but when the X hardware piece isn't supported in Linux,then it's the vendor's fault,isn't it?Or MS' that has "monopoly".Linux could change the world,but it used like a "toy" by people who don't care about the good they could do and instead think of "how they 'd have fun" and feel "superior" compared to their teenager school mate,cause they do something others "can't".A great potential,that could really change the world,used with elitistic mentality,that brings things to be used only to the "few",who are happy with this and at the same time angry for the monopoly of the "other" and the "bad" vendors that don't release details on that X or Y piece of hardware so to make drivers.

Reminds me of Fleming inventing penicilin.Imagine if instead of giving it in pills,the pharmacist gave you the procedure to make the molecule at your house.Fortunately,not all people that could change the world,thought their potential as a toy.

I know,i shouldn't complain,after all,i didn't pay for it.I just put in risk my data on the HD,and it was my own foolish initiative.



Good bye

aysiu
November 6th, 2006, 10:04 PM
People who want a once-a-year release should just upgrade once a year.

Seriously.

Use Dapper until Feisty comes out. Then use Feisty for a year until Feisty+2 comes out.

aysiu
November 6th, 2006, 10:05 PM
You think that an "average" person,that just wants a working pc,if has a dual core and sees in system in Dapper that only one core shows up,that he ll waste his day searching in the forum on how to get the second core to function? (the K7 SMP kernel)? You think an average person installs and configures her own operating system? Or even knows when new releases come out?

Most of my Windows-using friends have no idea what Vista is...

chaosgeisterchen
November 6th, 2006, 10:06 PM
People who want a once-a-year release should just upgrade once a year.

Seriously.

Use Dapper until Feisty comes out. Then use Feisty for a year until Feisty+2 comes out.

I can second that. The distros are maintained for at least 18 months, LTS releases for 5 years.. way enough to use the distro longer than a year if you are not dead keen on bleeding edge (which is in fact not the emphaisis of Ubuntu).

warlorddagaz
November 6th, 2006, 10:30 PM
I can second that. The distros are maintained for at least 18 months, LTS releases for 5 years.. way enough to use the distro longer than a year if you are not dead keen on bleeding edge (which is in fact not the emphaisis of Ubuntu).

And I'll third it - the point about most windows users not knowign about vista above is also a good point - I'm surprised microsoft haven't tried their mass brainwashing/marketing (delete as appropriate) scheme yet. I'm currently in two mind about it - I'll be buying a new computer soon, and it will need to run windows. But Vista seems so resource intensive that any computer that will come anywhere near running the premium edition will probably end up beyond my price budget.

maybe caniocal should consider a brief TV advertising campaign (or something), just to get the word out - offer free cds or something. (I feel I should start a thread on this, but I can't be bothered - sorrry)

Brunellus
November 6th, 2006, 10:31 PM
the six-month-cycle was what attracted me to ubuntu in the first place.

I would argue that the semiannual Ubuntu release cycle has done a lot for Debian, too. Am I the only person that seems to have noticed a considerable acceleration in Debian's development/testing cycle since Ubuntu's been on the scene?

javaJake
November 7th, 2006, 12:26 AM
The shipit page puts it like that, though the download one does not.

So I believe everyone agrees that this is a good idea, then, right? I'm this close (*holds his fingers really close together*) to switching back to Dapper because of this new knowledge.

jdong
November 7th, 2006, 12:49 AM
Why not release the more "up to date" software as an update or addition to 6.06?

I'd like to know what is in 6.10 that makes it more "up to date" that couldn't be added to 6.06 for those who'd need it, instead of risk breaking a great many working systems to enable stuff that is not really needed or perhaps even wanted by most of the existing 6.06 base.

Because newer software often times needs newer libraries to support them, and sometimes even a newer compiler toolchain in order for them to build properly.

You can see evidence of this by looking through dapper-backports requests on Launchpad. Recently, the rejection rate has gone above 80% because newer programs no longer build under Dapper.

And as soon as you start chasing after those supporting packages, before you know it, you'll end up with a 75% Edgy, 25% Dapper system (which is, actually, what my rock-stable desktop is right now). Rock-stable has become somewhat of a misnomer for that box.... I should say that it's my Ubuntu box that has the most mature customization of Ubuntu without a reformat in between. And, surely enough, I actually am starting to see some Edgy bugs pop up here and there as I pull in more backports.

You can use Prevu (search the forums) to try to roll your own updates for your chosen version of Ubuntu, but it doesn't get you as far as you wish.

Luggy
November 7th, 2006, 12:52 AM
Does anyone else feel that 6 month release cycles are too short?

I'm stuffed if I know how you could iron out all the bugs within 6 months. Probably not so much with the distro, but with added software.

I mean Gnome has a 1million + <insert your own number here> unsolved problems. then again, if we waited for all those to be fixed we probably wouldn't have a distro ](*,) :D

They should aim for 6 but let it go late if they still have bugs to iron out.

We waited 8 ( or so ) months for the release of Dapper right? They delayed it because they wanted to get it all smoothed out. Why not keep that same sort of policy? To me stability is far more important then having the latest and greatest. If I wanted to use the latest stuff I'd use Gentoo.

jdong
November 7th, 2006, 12:56 AM
They should aim for 6 but let it go late if they still have bugs to iron out.

We waited 8 ( or so ) months for the release of Dapper right? They delayed it because they wanted to get it all smoothed out. Why not keep that same sort of policy? To me stability is far more important then having the latest and greatest. If I wanted to use the latest stuff I'd use Gentoo.

One delay leads to another which leads to another, and soon you have Debian's 2-years-pushed-back syndrome.

I'm all for taking sweet time for LTS releases, but for the in-between 6-month releases I'd rather see progress in the distribution's technology rather than trying to polish every last detail...

chaosgeisterchen
November 7th, 2006, 07:28 AM
maybe caniocal should consider a brief TV advertising campaign (or something), just to get the word out - offer free cds or something. (I feel I should start a thread on this, but I can't be bothered - sorrry)

Interesting idea to broadcast a TV commercial. But where and using which platform? It's a hard decision...

What about a 5-minutes-spot after the superbowl proclaiming freedom for the world ;)?

23meg
November 7th, 2006, 09:48 AM
the six-month-cycle was what attracted me to ubuntu in the first place.Me too, and an interesting point is, many people complaining about how buggy Ubuntu releases generally are and arguing that a longer cycle will help with this were also attracted by it, without knowing they were.


Am I the only person that seems to have noticed a considerable acceleration in Debian's development/testing cycle since Ubuntu's been on the scene?
No you aren't. The short cycle has given us and the whole FOSS world a lot.

To everyone complaining about the short release cycle: please make an effort to understand the technical rationale. Scan through the development lists, get on IRC and listen / talk to the developers, read their blogs and wiki pages, watch the UDS, Debconf and similar conference videos to get informed about why this is being preferred. Right now your arguments are mostly revolving around "if it's so buggy why release it", which hints to a poor understanding of open source development.

You want to play safer, with less bugs? Use a distro with a longer cycle, don't switch to new releases on release day, or stay with the LTS releases. Ubuntu pushing forward at the current pace is doing a lot of good to the whole FOSS world. Sure, there will be causalities here and there, it's a compromise. So far there's no well backed argument from anyone that Ubuntu would have done more for itself and the rest of the FOSS world in two years, had it made two releases instead of five.

pmilin@ptt.yu
November 7th, 2006, 11:09 AM
Hmmm, this question is excellent, I think. I managed to make my Dapper as suitable as possible, and now, I am nervous to try to upgrade, afraid that things will crash, and that I shall lose my applications and settings.
Can anyone recommend what to do? Is it smart to do the upgrade if everything is so neat under Dapper? What are the risks and how big they are? Please, give some advice!!!

Best,
Petar Milin

_duncan_
November 7th, 2006, 11:39 AM
When I decided to use Ubuntu as the main OS, I repartitioned the hard drive such that there's always a spare 16 GB slot to try out another distro or the newest release of Ubuntu. The /home directory is in a separate partition too.

So I started out with Breezy 5.10, got it to a point where it worked perfectly for my rig. When dapper 6.06 came out, I installed it to the 16 GB slot and worked on it for a week. The partition Breezy was in then became my spare partition. Used it to try out Fedora Core, openSuSE, etc.

I plan to use the spare partition to try out Edgy Eft 6.10 next. If it gives me problems, then Dapper will remain my main OS until something better comes along.

Doing things this way means I don't have to take unnecessary risks every time a new release comes out. So I view the 6-month release cycle as an opportunity to make my OS even better. If not, a few mouse clicks and it's gone.

merlyn
November 7th, 2006, 04:23 PM
Personally, I'd be wary of upgrading my system until I was sure there won't be any problems, and the way to do this is search/browse and participate in the forums.

I run a dual boot basically with my main desktop running, the current stable release, and the second desktop running the developmental stuff.

This set up works well for me, as it enables me to play with the new stuff, and when things break boot back into stable and pay a visit to the forums to see whats up, and ask for help if need be. Of course this approach requires a fair amount of drive space.

When you have a problem provide as much detail as you can. This way you've got a better chance of recieving a workable solution.

The bottom line is that the forums are your best friend, and as you're experiencing problems provide more information, ie what type of hardware/software is giving you grief, does it crash everytime or only when a certain task or operation is performed?

Apart from that Edgy's release cycle was reduced, as has already been mentioned, hence it would have been wise to excercise a degree of caution before an upgrade.

Cheers.

jdong
November 7th, 2006, 05:07 PM
Hmmm, this question is excellent, I think. I managed to make my Dapper as suitable as possible, and now, I am nervous to try to upgrade, afraid that things will crash, and that I shall lose my applications and settings.
Can anyone recommend what to do? Is it smart to do the upgrade if everything is so neat under Dapper? What are the risks and how big they are? Please, give some advice!!!

Best,
Petar Milin

If it works great the way it is, then leave it be!

saphil
November 7th, 2006, 05:21 PM
Ubuntu is a very active distro, the developers and the users are (at least 3 of them are) very interested in being just 1 step back from the slippery sharp place on the bleeding edge of opensource technology. I do not have a lot of data on the other distros, but I seem to run into RH9 a lot. That is ancient 6 or 7 releases back of RH and FC. All the Debian fans I know are running sarge and looking at stability first. We seem to like the 6-month cycle. I would say "no" if it was only an upgrade of the artwork, but things are really different in mostly good ways everytime the Clock proceeds and another Ubuntu appears. I can hardly wait for the next one to release into pre-alpha. I kinda missed the daily upgrades possibikity when Canonical stopped all patch-work for the production release of edgy. Call me crazy, but I like the action. -Wolf

javaJake
November 7th, 2006, 08:20 PM
I would do that, merlyn, if my hard drive was bigger then 20 GB. (Will upgrade soon!) :(

pmilin@ptt.yu
November 8th, 2006, 09:56 AM
If it works great the way it is, then leave it be!

Thanks for the advice, but ... if it is possible to have even better OS? You suggest not trying, and I am ready to accept your advice, since I need Ubuntu for work, not fun. However, what about support and the fact that my Dapper may become ancient? In brief, I would like both: updated and nicely personalized OS. Can I have both? Shall I lose all my applications and settings?

Best,
Petar Milin

mips
November 8th, 2006, 10:27 AM
Thanks for the advice, but ... if it is possible to have even better OS? You suggest not trying, and I am ready to accept your advice, since I need Ubuntu for work, not fun. However, what about support and the fact that my Dapper may become ancient? In brief, I would like both: updated and nicely personalized OS. Can I have both? Shall I lose all my applications and settings?

Best,
Petar Milin

Petar,

Why not create/resize a new partition and install edgy on there. Evaluate Edgy for a month and if you are happy with it do a proper install and overwrite dapper. keep the spare partition for when feisty comes out.

I regret installing Edgy and should have sticked to Dapper.

jdong
November 8th, 2006, 05:10 PM
Thanks for the advice, but ... if it is possible to have even better OS? You suggest not trying, and I am ready to accept your advice, since I need Ubuntu for work, not fun. However, what about support and the fact that my Dapper may become ancient? In brief, I would like both: updated and nicely personalized OS. Can I have both? Shall I lose all my applications and settings?

Best,
Petar Milin

In all theory, as long as the upgrade goes smoothly, all your settings and applications should be preserved across the update.

However, any update this great in scope (think about it -- every single file on your computer is being updated to a newer version while they are replacing themselves!) has some risks of failure, and if you've ever installed something from a non-official source, that further complicates the upgrade scenario.


Bottom line is, I do a full system backup before attempting an upgrade, and you probably should too.

PriceChild
November 8th, 2006, 05:19 PM
Thanks for the advice, but ... if it is possible to have even better OS? You suggest not trying, and I am ready to accept your advice, since I need Ubuntu for work, not fun. However, what about support and the fact that my Dapper may become ancient? In brief, I would like both: updated and nicely personalized OS. Can I have both? Shall I lose all my applications and settings?

Best,
Petar MilinAlso remember that Dapper is a lot more stable than Edgy... Edgy is well.... "edgy"!

Check out http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=286209 for more.


Note:If you have no compelling reason to upgrade to Edgy, please consider postponing your dist-upgrades.

roachk71
November 9th, 2006, 07:01 AM
I agree that this is a good policy, since I've tried Edgy, and it still isn't fit for my desktop. It only had about four months after Dapper, and the lack of development time shows (although the desktop itself has quite a few improvements.)

calvinpriest
November 10th, 2006, 12:43 AM
I think that LTS vs. cutting edge model is a reasonable compromise. I also think 12-18 month release cycles are more practical and produce higher quality software.

But I'm pretty sure Ubuntu will stick with 6 month release cycles, at least for a while.

My concern is how to make the LTS release as functional as possible for those who stick with it. Currently, the applications in Dapper are reasonably up-to-date, with some notable exceptions (such as Firefox 2). But those of us with Dapper may not think so by the time Fiesty releases, or by Fiesty+1.

In my mind, the Linux world is going to have to sooner or later recognize that Windows & Mac have a better release model. OS releases are separate from application releases. You can update a given application anytime you like, without doing a complete system upgrade.

So what I propose is that more of Canonical's energy go into creating Backports for the current LTS release. Any major software that is released should end up in dapper backports. If this was done, I would happily stick with LTS on my main computer and play around with the interim releases on my test computer. I'd be a very happy camper.

At the moment, Backports is quite thin. There are a smattering of apps there, and I'm very grateful for the ones that have made it. But considering that LTS has to be regarded as Ubuntu's primary offering for the business world, it's backport repository deserves to receive a lot more attention.

One problem with the Backports model is related applications with high numbers of dependencies, and this keeps certain software (such as Firefox 2) from becoming a backport. There are sound technical reasons for this.

However, I believe there is a perfectly good, technically sound, alternative by which Firefox2 (and apps like it) could be availabe via apt. For more info on my proposal, see here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=288360

saphil
November 10th, 2006, 12:47 AM
Several good points about backports

jhenager
November 16th, 2006, 08:41 PM
I saw that Edgy was edgy, and held off. I am not unhappy about my decision. Dapper is solid, even with Beryl on top of it, and believe me, I did not do that addition by the book. I think I had Ubuntu installed for less than a week before I added the eye candy.

Serenader
November 21st, 2006, 11:58 PM
I am just wondering why ubuntu has a new release every six months. I have been using Linux for quite some time and I have always found that most of the bugs that appear in Linux distros are because of insufficient testing. To have a new release every six months doesnt leave enough time for testing. I currently upgraded to Edgy from Dapper and suspend and hibernate stopped working. I think thats a sign of insufficient regression testing. What do you guys think? I think a new release once every year would be more appropriate.

Aranel
November 22nd, 2006, 12:07 AM
It's released every 6 months to synchronize itself with GNOME, which also has a 6-month release cycle.

GStubbs43
November 22nd, 2006, 12:07 AM
You might want to read this thread, http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=268050&highlight=do+we+need+a+6+month

Also, Edgy is buggy, because it only had 4 months, there is still a 24 month wait between Stable releases, so there is a lot of testing for people who want a very stable system. Edgy, Fiesty, and Fiesty +1 are all going to be pretty buggy.

Crashmaxx
November 22nd, 2006, 12:15 AM
I don't know why this kind of thing keeps coming up. Edgy was done in 4 months to get back on schedule. And with dapper being a Long Term Support release and therefore being very stable and supported for 5 years, this let them make edgy much more outgoing and they implemented lots of new things and some of it is beta and I believe even alpha software.

It is stable, i have had no bugs or problems with it since day one it was released. But it replaces some important underlying parts with "better" ones, so it lost some compatibility.

In short, it is the most bleeding edge release yet, and ubuntu is moving to a new system of LTS releases, that get only security updates and are "good" for 5 years, and bleeding edge releases that will try new things and use non-stable packages, and get updates to the newest of everything during their short 18 month life.

This is why we have the live cd. Use that first for something like edgy. If something is not supported, stick with dapper. If you want the bleeding edge, and are willing to work for it, then edgy is for you. Edgy is stable and fine for a desktop system, but make sure it supports all your hardware first.

Its really very simple, and nothing to complain about or "fix". I think it is a great plan that pleases people that want a stable system and those that want the bleeding edge at the same time. You just have to pay attention and realize if its not for you. Their is a reason they are still shipping dapper cd's, and not edgy ones.

23meg
November 22nd, 2006, 12:16 AM
Release early, release often. (http://catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar/ar01s04.html)

adamkane
November 22nd, 2006, 12:27 AM
Linux is always coming out with new kernels and new libraries. People start programming using the new code, and pretty soon your old OS is obsolete.

It's the one thing that annoys me about Linux. It keeps it interesting. That's for sure.

banjobacon
November 22nd, 2006, 12:27 AM
Wouldn't releasing less frequently mean there would be more changes between versions? And wouldn't that cancel out the increased testing time, because there would be more to test?

23meg
November 22nd, 2006, 12:33 AM
Wouldn't releasing less frequently mean there would be more changes between versions? And wouldn't that cancel out the increased testing time, because there would be more to test?
Given that the development force remains equal, yes. We'd just be deprived of the ability to get our hands on things early and test them, and less testing means less quality.

Serenader
November 22nd, 2006, 12:41 AM
So, basically everyone is saying that we shouldnt upgrade to a new release unless it has proven itself to be stable. Shouldn't that be called a Beta in that case. And if no one upgrades, how do you actually know its stable.

cantormath
November 22nd, 2006, 12:45 AM
I am just wondering why ubuntu has a new release every six months. I have been using Linux for quite some time and I have always found that most of the bugs that appear in Linux distros are because of insufficient testing. To have a new release every six months doesnt leave enough time for testing. I currently upgraded to Edgy from Dapper and suspend and hibernate stopped working. I think thats a sign of insufficient regression testing. What do you guys think? I think a new release once every year would be more appropriate.

Its not every six months, more like 18.
Even though there are new releases, Ubuntu dapper is considered the long term supported version for those looking for a more stable release.
Canonical wants to explore the cutting edge of linux. Other distributions have left their current releases lacking the most current versions of software. The purpose of edgy is not intended, necessarily, for people or companies to use in production. The purpose is to show and test the newest packages as they develope in a way that includes the community and not just developers.

Another note: many of the bugs that exist have very little to do with linux and more to do with the hardware industry designing hardware in a way that does not promote linux use in the desktop linux community; anyone who has ati hardware probably has experienced what I am suggesting.

If you have upgraded from dapper to edgy, you are taking that risk, and the adventure, of the lastest, or more current, packages that are still less stable then dapper.

If you want hibernate, go back to dapper.

Bottomline, packages get updated more then once a year, and we all want to try them out. It is nice to have Canonical bundle them up into a nice new , often cutting edge and less stable for some, distribution.

aysiu
November 22nd, 2006, 12:51 AM
Merged with the other "6-month release cycle" thread.

lyceum
November 22nd, 2006, 12:54 AM
I purge my system every 6 month. Wipe everything clean and re-install the OS. The 6 month Ubuntu cycle is great for me, as I am going to clean the slate anyway. And, as mentioned before, not every cycle has long term support. Edgy is just that, edgy, Feisty will be... feisty. You get the picture. So keep on the path! The only thing that worries me is what we will do when we run out of animals? :)

Serenader
November 22nd, 2006, 12:56 AM
Given that the development force remains equal, yes. We'd just be deprived of the ability to get our hands on things early and test them, and less testing means less quality.


Its not every six months, more like 18.
Even though there are new releases, Ubuntu dapper is considered the long term supported version for those looking for a more stable release.
Canonical wants to explore the cutting edge of linux. Other distributions have left their current releases lacking the most current versions of software. The purpose of edgy is not intended, necessarily, for people or companies to use in production. The purpose is to show and test the newest packages as they develope in a way that includes the community and not just developers.

Another note: many of the bugs that exist have very little to do with linux and more to do with the hardware industry designing hardware in a way that does not promote linux use in the desktop linux community; anyone who has ati hardware probably has experienced what I am suggesting.

If you have upgraded from dapper to edgy, you are taking that risk, and the adventure, of the lastest, or more current, packages that are still less stable then dapper.

If you want hibernate, go back to dapper.

Bottomline, packages get updated more then once a year, and we all want to try them out. It is nice to have Canonical bundle them up into a nice new , often cutting edge and less stable for some, distribution.

So, how exactly would I know when to make the switch???????????????

How do I know its the right time to move from Dapper to Edgy or Fiesty or Naughty Nurse (may be the next name for ubunut release, just kidding :-))

adamkane
November 22nd, 2006, 12:58 AM
Two months after it is declared stable. :)

maniacmusician
November 22nd, 2006, 01:00 AM
it also allows for much quicker development. Ubuntu is starting to get pretty revolutionary in the way it grows; by leaps and bounds. From dapper to the next LTS, you'll see a huge, huge improvement. the six month release cycle is so that users can test it in between LTS's, to see how to the work is going, give their input, etc. No one's encouraging everyone to try edgy. In fact, if you want a stable system, it's best to stick with Dapper. If you want the latest and the greatest, you've gotta upgrade to edgy; that understandably comes with a substantial amount of risk.


So, basically, if you want a stable system, you should switch when the next LTS release comes out.

23meg
November 22nd, 2006, 01:16 AM
So, how exactly would I know when to make the switch???????????????

Look at the overview of new features and decide if you really want or need them, see if you're in need of the new versions of software you already have. Decide for yourself. Nobody says you must switch.

prizrak
November 22nd, 2006, 01:22 AM
It's not a 6 month cycle it's a 2 year cycle. Ubuntu gets LTS version every two years with intermidiate releases every 6 months. Each release is feature frozen as well so that if new features/applications become available they will not make it to the current release but only the next one. So a 6 month cycle allows us not to fall into the Debian trap with releases every couple of years for the sake of stability while still providing a rock solid OS.

darkhatter
November 22nd, 2006, 01:24 AM
Look at the overview of new features and decide if you really want or need them, see if you're in need of the new versions of software you already have. Decide for yourself. Nobody says you must switch.

I say you must. <jedi_powers>You will switch with every Ubuntu release</jedi_powers>

23meg
November 22nd, 2006, 01:26 AM
Ubuntu gets LTS version every two years with intermidiate releases every 6 months.Not exactly, since there's no official schedule that says "a LTS release every two years". To quote myself from a previous post:
LTS releases are done when the FOSS universe reaches certain plateaus of development where stability is high and large amounts of groundbreaking work is newly completed. With Dapper Xorg 7 and the 2.6.15 kernel in particular constituted the plateau. The next LTS will try to land on the next one; it's hard to know in advance.

prizrak
November 22nd, 2006, 03:25 PM
Not exactly, since there's no official schedule that says "a LTS release every two years". To quote myself from a previous post:

In that case let me change what I said to:

6 months is plenty of time for a stable enough OS that will fit most regular users needs, it's not like Ubuntu devs have to develop everything that comes on the CD. For those who need more stable environments there are the LTS releases that come in much larger time intervals.

plb
December 26th, 2006, 03:19 AM
Anyone else think 6 months is just too soon for releases? Seems right when I get comfortable out pops a new release and the upgrade never seems to go over so well. Of course I don't have to upgrade but it's just too tempting. What are your thoughts about the release cycle?

23meg
December 26th, 2006, 03:32 AM
Anyone else think 6 months is just too soon for releases?
I think it's fine.

What are your thoughts about the release cycle?

Here (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=1803358&postcount=50) are some of mine.


Seems right when I get comfortable out pops a new release and the upgrade never seems to go over so well. Of course I don't have to upgrade but it's just too tempting.Try keeping a separate home partition and doing a reinstall with each release. It's much less painful in many cases.

macogw
December 26th, 2006, 04:02 AM
Don't use the command line update. Use the update manager. It worked flawlessly for me while the apt-get dist-upgrade resulted in a 12-hour ordeal.

MetalMusicAddict
December 26th, 2006, 04:14 AM
I did clean installs with every release up until Edgy. Update manager worked flawlessly. :)

missmoondog
December 26th, 2006, 04:25 AM
that's WAY to often!!

especially now with the 3 year life cycle of dapper. hardly seems to make any sense to come out with new versions now.

macogw
December 26th, 2006, 05:20 AM
Ah but I like having the newest little toys, and with Edgy having AiGLX, I prefer it over Dapper. 3d cube is awesome. I couldn't figure out how to set up XGL on Dapper.

Compucore
December 26th, 2006, 05:25 AM
I find 6 months is about right when it comes to a long term releases for me anyways. Not to put the recent release of edgy off kilter here. I had tried the recent recent. Didn't like it personally since it is not from my point of view that goes along with what Dapper has come along ways in the release version. For those who enjoy Edgy More to you that didn't have a problem with it. I will be waiting until the next major release of Ubuntu that is similar to like what Dapper is. Which is holding nicely for me right now.

COmpucore

vayu
December 26th, 2006, 08:57 AM
Anyone else think 6 months is just too soon for releases? Seems right when I get comfortable out pops a new release and the upgrade never seems to go over so well. Of course I don't have to upgrade but it's just too tempting. What are your thoughts about the release cycle?

It's too often for me. I'm still using Dapper. I don't have the time to be fixing things every six months. I have so far dist-upgraded from Hoary to Breezy to Dapper on three machines. I'm staying put for a while. It takes a lot of work to get a fresh install setup the way I like and dist-upgrade always takes work to fix things that weren't broken.

.t.
December 26th, 2006, 10:22 AM
It keeps the devs entertained. It gives us cool new features. We can be quickly one-up on any other distribution, or operating system (look at Vista!). sabdfl is impatient. LTS releases are nice, as the whole release cycle gets bug fixes and polish, and stability for the next set of interesting bugs as new things are implemented.

aysiu
December 26th, 2006, 03:04 PM
I've merged this with the other six-month-release-cycle thread.

patrick295767
December 26th, 2006, 03:09 PM
For new release, rush in time, It is a choice between (Stability and No Bugs) or ( having buggy new programs) !

Anyhow, there is releases for everdby
--
breezy, no major severe bugs
dapper, some bugs created, but significant hardware & video & xorg improvements and repos
edgy, more buggy but brand new programs !!


---
(That's why I choosed Debian, which is a Rock !!)

patrickfromspain
December 26th, 2006, 03:25 PM
I don't thinki we need 6 months releases at all... Dapper, the High Quality release had to be released 2 months later.. that clearly proves that 6 months isn't enough to make a high quality release.

If there must be releases every 6 months (I agree the kernel changes are very significat with every release), then maybe we shouldn't use the latest gnome version... I mean, gnome 2.16 isn't perfect, has some bugs.. why not stay with gnome 2.16 and fix it for feisty instead of going with 2.18 which will have bugs too?

Anyway... I'm sticking with debian etch for now, which even in testing time, is better for me than edgy... which I have turned to dislike it quite a lot.

patrick295767
December 26th, 2006, 10:11 PM
I don't thinki we need 6 months releases at all... Dapper, the High Quality release had to be released 2 months later.. that clearly proves that 6 months isn't enough to make a high quality release.

If there must be releases every 6 months (I agree the kernel changes are very significat with every release), then maybe we shouldn't use the latest gnome version... I mean, gnome 2.16 isn't perfect, has some bugs.. why not stay with gnome 2.16 and fix it for feisty instead of going with 2.18 which will have bugs too?

Anyway... I'm sticking with debian etch for now, which even in testing time, is better for me than edgy... which I have turned to dislike it quite a lot.


I confirm your opinion,

The no-care of bugs & stability & reliability of debs of Ubuntu is going against the principle of the Linux community itself.

Linux has to be made & targeting companies too & being reliable.

I had enough to wait ages for bug fixes that never came (one year is enough)

hellmet
January 22nd, 2007, 08:17 PM
I've always wondered why we had this 6 month cycle.
a 1-1/2 year one would do lots of good for all.
We'd stick to one Release for long enuff to be stable,
and we could also have lots of new features, bug fixes, etc
with each new release. 6months is too less a time to be able
to come up with 'edgy' work

Brunellus
January 22nd, 2007, 08:37 PM
I've always wondered why we had this 6 month cycle.
a 1-1/2 year one would do lots of good for all.
We'd stick to one Release for long enuff to be stable,
and we could also have lots of new features, bug fixes, etc
with each new release. 6months is too less a time to be able
to come up with 'edgy' work
6 months tracks the GNOME project's build cycle. Every new Ubuntu release is a new release of GNOME.

NObody says you MUST upgrade every cycle, either, by the way. Each release is supported for a minimum of 18 months. Designated LTS releases (currently Dapper) have a THREE YEAR support cycle.

Ubuntu's release schedule walks the line between bleeding-edge on the one hand (Gentoo and Debian Sid, say) and utterly safe on the other (Debian Stable--currently at what, Sarge? and RHEL/CentOS come to mind). This seems to suit the needs of most desktop users. If it doesn't suit your needs--well, there are distros that do.

Wolki
January 22nd, 2007, 08:38 PM
If there must be releases every 6 months (I agree the kernel changes are very significat with every release), then maybe we shouldn't use the latest gnome version... I mean, gnome 2.16 isn't perfect, has some bugs.. why not stay with gnome 2.16 and fix it for feisty instead of going with 2.18 which will have bugs too?

This was evaluated for Dapper, with the result that the number of bugs fixed in new GNOME versions is far greater than the number of bugs the Ubuntu devs could fix during a release cycle.

Anyway, one of the main reasons some people use Ubuntu is because it has the latest GNOME. If it wasn't for that, why not just use Debian?

hillbilly
May 30th, 2007, 07:44 PM
I really think Ubuntu must now focus on stability rather than user friendliness. Fiesty Fawn is as user friendly as Windows as far as I'm concerned, except for rare cases of driver incompatibilties.
So now for Ubuntu to expand I really would like to see a longer release cycle with very few bugs and zilch backward compatibility issues (Vista is either going to change the way microsoft does business or else the whole world is going to become one big roosting place for sightless, emotionless, deaf cannibalistic zombies and with each passing day I kindof think that its the second scenario that seems more likely :< !!

Simran
May 30th, 2007, 07:47 PM
I am happy with the 6 month cycle i don't think i have noticed anything negative because of it, but hey beats a 5 year cycle just for a new skin. :KS

javaJake
May 30th, 2007, 10:03 PM
I am happy with the 6 month cycle i don't think i have noticed anything negative because of it, but hey beats a 5 year cycle just for a new skin. :KS

Of course, we all know that Vista isn't just a new skin. :P

kevinlyfellow
May 30th, 2007, 10:15 PM
Of course, we all know that Vista isn't just a new skin. :P

Yeah, they added important features like the drm layer to protect consumers.

kevinlyfellow
May 30th, 2007, 10:26 PM
The way I look at it, is that the normal releases are just releases that build up to the LTS. I'm sure that wasn't the way it was intended, but I think that this mentality took form after Dapper. I think its a good thing, think about what happened with Debian. They have an "it's done when it's done" mentality, and how many years did it take for them to release Sarge? A short release cycle isn't a bad thing, it keeps everyone on their toes. One thing they could think about is to decide when the next release will be LTS and make that release a full year development cycle from the last non-LTS. But how many among us want to wait a full year to upgrade? I certainly don't, there are way too many exciting things happening in Linux these days.

I can't wait to see what's up for Gutsy...

aysiu
May 30th, 2007, 10:30 PM
The only problem is that right now Ubuntu isn't built to skip releases in a dist-upgrade. Maybe by the time the next LTS arrives, they'll have figured out a way to make a smooth jump from LTS to LTS.

ZCarPilot
May 30th, 2007, 10:43 PM
I like the 6 month cycle even though I only upgrade about every 2nd or 3rd release. If the cycle is too long, there is pressure on the developers to get more into each release, which can then delay the new release, which then lengthens the cycle even more. With a 6 month cycle, if a fix or a new feature isn't quite ready, there isn't as much urgency to add it, since it won't be that long before the next release.

Well, that's my story and I'm stickin' to it!

GrueTamer
May 30th, 2007, 10:47 PM
I personally prefer having NO large new releases, and just distributing the content through apt...but this makes it harder to stay with an older version of ubuntu, as many people do, so it's not the way to do this either. But for now, stick with the 6 month release cycle.

23meg
May 30th, 2007, 10:49 PM
LTS to LTS upgrades will be supported; it was announced at Dapper's release time. LTS releases would have lost a lot of their appeal otherwise.

javaJake
May 30th, 2007, 10:56 PM
Yeah, they added important features like the drm layer to protect consumers.

Yea, there is that. But if you actually look at all the good vs. all the bad in Vista, Vista is a good upgrade.
*gets back on topic*

starcraft.man
May 31st, 2007, 12:50 AM
Yea, there is that. But if you actually look at all the good vs. all the bad in Vista, Vista is a good upgrade.
*gets back on topic*

Really? Well if ya say so... I don't particularly want to burn CDs only working on windows though, (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070422083715451) or be limited by my media centre, (http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005269.php) or be spyed upon. (http://www.mypcpros.com/computer-blog/2007/5/1/microsofts-new-validation-policy.html). IMO an upgrade should enable you to do more, not less... nor should it make you feel like a pirate trapped. I mean I looked upgrade up in a dictionary and found this (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=upgrade&x=0&y=0), seems like the dictionary agrees with me. Course, it could be a conspiracy and both myself and the dictionary could have it all wrong... >.>. And apart from the newly coded DX 10 (which many gamers have found doesn't play well with old/new games) I haven't seen anything noticeably new except for a face lift and moved/renamed apps.

*back on topic*

Anyway, as for the 6 month cycle. I like it. The world changes faster and faster and 6 months seems like a sweet spot to me so that they have enough time to plan what changes are needed, put them in, debug them and then release. No one forces ya to upgrade right away either... ya can always wait a month or so till it works perfectly (or at least is less bug then the release version). I say stick with it devs, you do a great job from what I've seen :D.

esaym
May 31st, 2007, 03:43 AM
To keep the story short, if anyone doesn't like the 6 month cycle (or release cycles in general) they should look into debian-testing. It is in the middle between debian stable and debian unstable. Ubuntu comes from unstable so one could say that debian-testing is more stable :) The unique thing about it is that testing is always being updated and kept pretty much somewhat up to date. Yes it is testing so some packages might come broken and you can either fix them yourself or wait a couple of days (or weeks) for the devs to fix it. For the last month or so there has not been much updated in the testing branch. This is because of the updated libc6 in unstable. So once the new libc6 is brought down into testing it is going to bring with it about 500-1gb of updates. So pretty much you are going to get a brand new system with a simple "aptitude dist-upgrade", no having to change sources and cross your fingers.

Just search the debian forums www.forums.debian.net for ubuntu for more info ;)

juxtaposed
May 31st, 2007, 07:39 PM
The unique thing about it is that testing is always being updated and kept pretty much somewhat up to date.

It still has gnome 2.14.3 instead of 2.18 which is, I think, the newest.


. For the last month or so there has not been much updated in the testing branch. This is because of the updated libc6 in unstable. So once the new libc6 is brought down into testing it is going to bring with it about 500-1gb of updates.

Oh, makes sense :)


So pretty much you are going to get a brand new system with a simple "aptitude dist-upgrade", no having to change sources and cross your fingers.

Why would someone on testing need to do a dist-upgrade? I just do upgrade. I thought dist-upgrade was when you changed your sources.list to another version and wanted to switch.

aysiu
May 31st, 2007, 07:49 PM
I just tried out Debian Etch yesterday, and I have to say I'm impressed. Sure, it took forever to install, but it's pretty solid, and the artwork isn't too shabby either. If I can ever convince someone I know to switch to Linux, I'll probably put Debian stable on there. Most people I know don't want cutting edge software--they just want something rock solid. From my experience, Ubuntu isn't rock solid.

juxtaposed
May 31st, 2007, 08:33 PM
I just tried out Debian Etch yesterday, and I have to say I'm impressed. Sure, it took forever to install, but it's pretty solid, and the artwork isn't too shabby either. If I can ever convince someone I know to switch to Linux, I'll probably put Debian stable on there. Most people I know don't want cutting edge software--they just want something rock solid. From my experience, Ubuntu isn't rock solid.

Didn't take me too long to install.

I'd recommend ubuntu to someone who has never used linux before, but debian to anyone else.

aysiu
May 31st, 2007, 08:41 PM
Didn't take me too long to install.

I'd recommend ubuntu to someone who has never used linux before, but debian to anyone else.
Well, it depends on what you call "too long." The Debian installer CD is like the Ubuntu Alternate CD and unpacks and installs each individual package (on my computer, this takes over an hour). I believe the Ubuntu Desktop CD just makes a quick copy of the live session (usually in 10-20 minutes).

In terms of migration, I was kind of thinking Debian after I'd already installed it and set it up. I wouldn't expect any of the people I know to install and configure an operating system themselves.

dimbulb1024
October 26th, 2007, 05:43 PM
It appears there are some issues with the 7.10 release (I know I have had some that I didn't have with 7.04) and I have seen a couple articles recently on the release cycle being to quick (Plea for a more reasonable release cycle (http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2007/10/25/13/29/47-plea-for-a-more-reasonable-relea))
What do you think?

Anessen
October 26th, 2007, 05:49 PM
I think they were somewhat ambitious with Gutsy. It's not the time that's the problem, it's what you do with it. Hopefully, there will be a focus on stability with Hardy, seeing as it's an LTS release and all.

wolfen69
October 26th, 2007, 05:52 PM
you go to the store.
was the release of gutsy too quick?

and above all, stay in school.

Anessen
October 26th, 2007, 05:55 PM
you go to the store.
was the release of gutsy too quick?

and above all, stay in school.

You're missing capital letters.
:p

FuturePilot
October 26th, 2007, 05:58 PM
IIRC there were a bunch of these threads after Feisty was released. People said Feisty had too many problems. Gutsy has just been released. There's bound to be issues. No OS will be stable on initial release. (Look at Vista :p) But by the time Feisty was about 2-3 months in, it got pretty darn stable. And I'm sure Gutsy will be the same. Give it some time.

dimbulb1024
October 26th, 2007, 06:01 PM
Sorry, wasn't learned (oh ****, not again) to ... too ... two good :lolflag:

p_quarles
October 26th, 2007, 06:05 PM
IIRC there were a bunch of these threads after Feisty was released. People said Feisty had too many problems. Gutsy has just been released. There's bound to be issues. No OS will be stable on initial release. (Look at Vista :p) But by the time Feisty was about 2-3 months in, it got pretty darn stable. And I'm sure Gutsy will be the same. Give it some time.
+1. The other thing is that Gutsy has actually been less buggy for some people. In my case, I've noticed several significant improvements on my laptop: wireless networking is more consistent, and the sound quality is improved.

thx11381974
October 26th, 2007, 07:11 PM
One problem with the 6 month cycle is it creates confusion. A new version with a new name every few months, It makes Ubuntu a little like a traveling circus. Exciting and new is great but I just want my printer to work. I think Anon's comments are right about the package system. Developers have to find a way to make applications more independent.

bruce89
October 26th, 2007, 07:42 PM
You can try the Debian 2 year cycle then. GNOME is released every 6 months, so it would have to be a muliple of 6 months.

zugu
October 26th, 2007, 07:43 PM
I read Beranger for a long time, because I like to see how he torments himself in search of the perfect operating system *evil grin*. Apart from being a knowledgeable OSS user, he's also a trolling machine. This is how he's driving traffic to his blog. Nevertheless, I still read him, just because it's entertaining and sometimes has "strong opinions" that make sense.

Unfortunately, I have to agree with him. A fixed release cycle = bugs and instability. Software should be released "when it's done", no sooner.

For those of you who read the blog post, take a look at the first comment. It pretty much summarizes everything that's wrong with the Culture.

Bungo Pony
October 26th, 2007, 07:56 PM
I think that's what the LTS release is for. It's to right the wrongs of living on the bleedin' edge. Too bad Dapper's too old for my new(er) computer, or I'd be using that.

How can you tell I'm anticipating Hardy?

Once Ubuntu has a few more LTS releases under its belt, people will probably figure out exactly what they want out of Ubuntu whether it's being up to date, or being stable.

bruce89
October 26th, 2007, 07:59 PM
If you want stablilty, use Debian.

aysiu
October 26th, 2007, 08:01 PM
I've been through five upgrades since I started using Ubuntu (Hoary > Breezy > Dapper> Edgy > Feisty > Gutsy).

Every single time there's a new release, people always consider it too buggy to have been released. Six months later, Ubuntu users have collective amnesia and then imagine the previous release was far stabler when released.

All new releases are buggy.

SunnyRabbiera
October 26th, 2007, 08:07 PM
I think stability is an issue with the latest versions of ubuntu.
by focusing more on flash then on actual functionality I feel that feisty and gutsy are more poorly made then dapper and edgy.
Ubuntu has been a roller coaster ride for me, versions before dapper simply sucked for me in one area, and versions after dapper and edgy are seeming like the same deal.
I think ubuntu should take more time this round, a nice round 10 or even 8 month release cycle would give more time to make the system more stable.

bruce89
October 26th, 2007, 08:09 PM
Every single time there's a new release, people always consider it too buggy to have been released. Six months later, Ubuntu users have collective amnesia and then imagine the previous release was far stabler when released.

Takes about a month to quieten down.

See your Edgy impressions (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1667676#post1667676).


my impressions?

I've been a huge fan of ubuntu since i first tried it. In fact i still am, but i'm very very pissed off.

Doing an upgrade from kubuntu dapper to edgy has taken.. get this ::drum roll:: 23 god damned hours. You heard right, 23 solid hours. This has never happened on an upgrade before ever.

not only that be it reverted gaim back to it's older version (beta4 to beta3), and it broke my damned nvidia setup which i can't seem to fix.. i can't even get into X right now to do have the crap these tutorials are advising me to.

this sucks.


[snip hard to read paragraph]a nice round 10 or even 8 month release cycle would give more time to make the system more stable.

Based on 10 months:

Hardy = GNOME 2.22.3
Hardy+1 = GNOME 2.26.2
Hardy+2 = 2.28.0

See the problem?

Dragonbite
October 26th, 2007, 08:26 PM
Things can move pretty fast in the Open Source world, I think a six month release schedule based around Gnome is fine. It's alot better then the years and years you wait for new versions of Windows ;)

I think moving things to a 9 months cycle would allow more time to make sure things work seamlessly without slowing the adoption of the latest Open Source has to offer!

It may even increase the speed of deploying new Open Source technology because less time would be spent going back and trying to "fix" older stuff.

Do it right the first time and you have more time to concentrate on something new instead of having to revisit things.

Or for stability / backwards compatibility sake 12 month cycle isn't out of the question! I think Red Hat does an 18 month cycle.

Not to mention, I never get around to updating every 6 months! Heck, I *JUST* updated to Feisty but I still have to move all of my files and make sure all of my applications are installed .. by that time 8.04 should be out!!

aysiu
October 26th, 2007, 08:31 PM
I would be happy with this kind of approach:
Have the October release focus on new features and flashy things.
Have the April release focus on stability and bug fixing.

Obviously, the April release would still have some new features and the October release would involve a lot of bug fixing, but it's a matter of focus and goal-making.

SunnyRabbiera
October 26th, 2007, 08:32 PM
Takes about a month to quieten down.

See your Edgy impressions (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=1667676#post1667676).





Based on 10 months:

Hardy = GNOME 2.22.3
Hardy+1 = GNOME 2.26.2
Hardy+2 = 2.28.0

See the problem?

but we dont really need to keep updating the system just for gnome though...
stability, stability, stability!!!!

Vansinnesvisan
October 26th, 2007, 08:39 PM
I think the sole advantage of this release cycle is all the free advertisement Ubuntu gets. All the blogs/journals/tech sites talk about it when a new release is coming.

Otherwise, I think a rolling release with stable/unstable/testing repositories is a better way to go about it. That way software gets tested as long as need be and everything is kept up to date. Therefore no need to wait 6 months for new software or bug fixes.

Artificial Intelligence
October 26th, 2007, 08:48 PM
I've been through five upgrades since I started using Ubuntu (Hoary > Breezy > Dapper> Edgy > Feisty > Gutsy).

Every single time there's a new release, people always consider it too buggy to have been released. Six months later, Ubuntu users have collective amnesia and then imagine the previous release was far stabler when released.

All new releases are buggy.

Bingo!
Nothing new here. I've seen them all come and go.
We don't need a longer release cycle, if people are concern about stability then wait a month or two - That way we get the best of the stability contra bleeding edge.

dimbulb1024
October 26th, 2007, 09:18 PM
Am I correct in thinking that the LST release will be based more on stability than anything else, and thus for me, who is not that Linux knowledgeable, it will be a good release for me?
And because of this, could it be the release for most people who are new to Linux and then won't have to deal with as many hardware issues?

BTW, I am using a laptop that is almost 2 years old and has onboard sound and video, I really don't need anything cutting edge. What I am looking for is just a good OS for basic everyday computing. Maybe with 7.04 working for me I shouldn't have upgraded, but I just had to check it out. :popcorn:

aysiu
October 26th, 2007, 10:02 PM
This is a common misconception. LTS releases are not stabler than other releases. They are just supported for a longer period of time. Instead of being supported for 18 months, LTS releases are supported for 3 years.

As it stands now, the last LTS release has its support end in June 2009, and the most recent non-LTS release has its support end April 2010, so you're actually better off with Ubuntu 7.10 (Gutsy Gibbon).

Of course, since Gutsy was released only weeks ago, it still has some bugs that need to be worked out. Maybe stick with 7.04 until a couple of months from now.

dimbulb1024
October 26th, 2007, 10:42 PM
This is a common misconception. LTS releases are not stabler than other releases. They are just supported for a longer period of time. Instead of being supported for 18 months, LTS releases are supported for 3 years.

Thanks for the clarification. I had thought they put out a regular and a LTS release at the same time and the LTS was different.

aysiu
October 26th, 2007, 10:47 PM
Thanks for the clarification. I had thought they put out a regular and a LTS release at the same time and the LTS was different.
You're welcome. This is how it goes:

Ubuntu 4.10 (Warty) - Normal
Ubuntu 5.04 (Hoary) - Normal
Ubuntu 5.10 (Breezy) - Normal
Ubuntu 6.06 (Dapper) - LTS
Ubuntu 6.10 (Edgy) - Normal
Ubuntu 7.04 (Feisty) - Normal
Ubuntu 7.10 (Gutsy) - Normal
Ubuntu 8.04 (Hardy) - LTS