Ubuntu Release Schedule: How long until...

[RCC2k7]

... until we can afford an 18-month or at least once a year release schedule?

Here's why I ask: My biggest gripe with Ubuntu, and other distros that release every six months, is that good stuff that work on one release is broken on the next. While you can say MS does the same, the truth is we enjoyed whatever worked on XP for five years before Vista came and broke everything.

On the other hand, Linux distros that are too conservative in their releases and what they put into them, feel too outdated to be worth using in a world where technology evolves non-stop.

I'm thinking whether it's possible to have a balance between having the latest and greatest, and not having stuff we depend on broken with every upgrade coming too soon.

[fiddledd]

If you do some research I think you'll find Service Pack 1 broke things, as did 2, and probably 3. I also remember Hotfixes breaking stuff also. However this didn't affect everyone, which, from reading posts here, is like Ubuntu. It seems most people have little or no problems with Hardy.

[RCC2k7]

If you do some research I think you'll find Service Pack 1 broke things, as did 2, and probably 3. I also remember Hotfixes breaking stuff also...

It's still not the same. There's always at least 1 year in between MS service packs.

On the other hand, I've tried Ubuntu since version 6.06. Version 7.04 has been the best one for me, and the first Ubuntu I could actually use, not just try. Then came Ubuntu 7.10 and broke many things. It wasn't until a month or so worth of updates that Ubuntu 7.10 became usable and stable enough. That left five months, (yes months, not years) to enjoy a stable system before Ubuntu 8.04 came in and broke stuff that worked fine in Ubuntu 7.10. Almost two months later and I don't find 8.04 as usable as 7.10 was.

But like I said, staying stuck in a particular release without upgrading is not the answer, given how fast the technology evolves, and how Linux is still trying to catch on with advances in other OS's like Windows and Mac OS.

So, like I said: There's got to be a way to balance having new features with having useful stuff breaking every six months.

[Keyper7]

There's no such thing as a perfect balance. Any choice of release schedule will be too conservative for some apps and make them obsolete and will be too radical for other apps and will break them.

Furthermore, keep in mind that you can do things "the Windows way" in Linux: you can install a conservative distro like Debian stable and then proceed to update specific apps by going to their sites and downloading the latest version instead of using only the repositories.

A Linux installation is as conservative or up-to-date as you want it to be.

[scottuss]

To be fair you don't have to upgrade, it is a choice. If you want new features there's always new applications being created or improved that may add something extra to your experience.

Also, when a new release of Ubuntu is made, you could try testing it within a Virtual Machine to see if anything major is broken. There will always be a few little bits but at least that way you would know of any "show stoppers"

[Sef]

Moved to recurring discussions.

[cardinals_fan]

Slackware releases occur whenever Patrick Volkerding (the Benevolent Dictator for Life) feels that they're ready. They're always stable.

[LaRoza]

... until we can afford an 18-month or at least once a year release schedule?

Here's why I ask: My biggest gripe with Ubuntu, and other distros that release every six months, is that good stuff that work on one release is broken on the next. While you can say MS does the same, the truth is we enjoyed whatever worked on XP for five years before Vista came and broke everything.

I'm thinking whether it's possible to have a balance between having the latest and greatest, and not having stuff we depend on broken with every upgrade coming too soon.

It is best (and mostly proven) for open source projects to release early and often for best results.

Ubuntu may have many releases, but they aren't big jumps (usually) and is a steady improvement.

Think of it as having a new disk with all the updates instead of a new OS.

For what it is worth, I have never had an upgrade cause any problems. I have 100% compatible hardware.

[hellion0]

Remember, you don't always have to upgrade to the new Ubuntu version the second the final comes out. You can, for example, stick solely to LTS releases, giving you that 18-month cycle. You can even stick to that one version that works absolutely perfectly on your machine and learn to compile software for after the support period expires. (My old desktop ran 7.04 up until a couple of weeks ago, when the hardware finally died on me. I was perfectly ready and willing to keep it running by compiling software or hunting down the debs instead of using the repos.)

You always have a choice. You never truly have to upgrade unless you want to.

[RCC2k7]

Not upgrading is not necessarily an option. Like I said, things are evolving and Linux is not there yet. Heck, I can install the most rock-solid Linux distro that may be available today but if tomorrow someone comes up with a distro where synchronizing a Pocket PC phone works and accessibility from Orca works seamlessly for programs that require sudo or root access, I'll be upgrading tomorrow.

Linux still misses features that we need - to some of us the reason why we keep dual-booting with Windows. So basically, not upgrading is not an option, as isn't a release schedule of two years or more. All I'm saying is there's got to be a balance between upgrading too soon and braking up stuff too frequently because of it, and not upgrading soon enough and missing on the progress.

Also, don't you think a release schedule like once a year could give developers more time to fix bugs, and have more betas with better testing?