8.10 Should Have Been LTS

[Exsecrabilus]

I mean seriously.

1. By October, Firefox 3 would have settled in comfortably.
2. GNOME 2.24 with possible tabbed browsing in Nautilus among other features.
3. OpenOffice.org 3.0, biggest OpenOffice.org release ever, with Microsoft Office 2007 support and PDF editing.
4. Complete desktop redesign.
5. Cool weather, so no hot-frustrated-workers and it's the time when people start collecting themselves again for work.

Hardy is already released, and I can't change anything.
But I just had to let this out, I'm sorry.

[damis648]

That is a good point...

[amano]

The point LTS releases is predictability for companys. Thus this LTS stuff is driven by corporate needs and NOT by upstream developments.

A LTS release is NOT an extra stable release, because they try to stabilize ANY Ubuntu version. It might be more stable, because it is longer supported and thus it might get more stable OVER TIME. But at the point of the release it will not be more stable than any other Ubuntu.

If the LTS decisions were software (upstream) driven, 8.04 wouldn't have been a LTS release. This was common knowledge and Sebastien Bacher stated that this was the bad Gnome cycle for a LTS release.

[chrisccoulson]

And there would be new features in every new release which make people say "this release should have been LTS instead of the last one because it is going to have `must-have` feature X"

I think that the GNOME cycle for Hardy is only bad because things like GVFS migration wasn't been fully completed and hasn't had time to mature. I don't think it's bad because of the features GNOME 2.24 will have over 2.22. By GNOME 2.26, we'd be saying that Intrepid+1 should be LTS because it has feature X that GNOME 2.24 doesn't have.

[curtis]

Doesn't matter whether it is LTS to most people. Would only affect companies who want to depend on having support available when needed.

Overall it appears to be more polished (8.10) and a lot of work has came in recently upstream and in other areas like has been said above.

[adamorjames]

I agree, 8.10 would have made a much better LTS release. Firefox 3, OpenOffice.org 3.0... great points.

[Exsecrabilus]

And there would be new features in every new release which make people say "this release should have been LTS instead of the last one because it is going to have `must-have` feature X"

I think that the GNOME cycle for Hardy is only bad because things like GVFS migration wasn't been fully completed and hasn't had time to mature. I don't think it's bad because of the features GNOME 2.24 will have over 2.22. By GNOME 2.26, we'd be saying that Intrepid+1 should be LTS because it has feature X that GNOME 2.24 doesn't have.
Good point. But I still think the features underlying Hardy weren't complete for an LTS.

[wwusnobrdr]

I am not so sure if I agree with you. Will Ibex have a lot of new features? Yes. However, in hardy they concentrated on fixing the bugs and improving usability, in a work environment people want something stable and introducing all those new features may not be preferred in a LTS. Just my two cents, there is a few features they could have rolled out for hardy but held back in favor of stability.

[chrisccoulson]

I don't think they just concentrated on fixing bugs in Hardy. Hardy had some fairly big changes and new features, such as the inclusion of Pulseaudio, Policykit and GVFS. I'd say Hardy was quite a racey release for a LTS (even for a non-LTS). Hardy introduced more substantial new features than Gutsy by a long way

[aysiu]

A LTS release is NOT an extra stable release, because they try to stabilize ANY Ubuntu version. It might be more stable, because it is longer supported and thus it might get more stable OVER TIME. But at the point of the release it will not be more stable than any other Ubuntu. Amen.

I'm tired of people mistaking Long-Term Support for Like To-have Stability.

Very few releases are stable on release day (and this isn't just for Linux - my wife held off several months before switching to Leopard on her Mac because she was afraid of bugginess relating to how it integrated with Adobe CS3).

All LTS means is that it will get security updates for 3 years on the desktop and 5 years on the server, as opposed to 18 months (for non-LTS releases).

[nhandler]

Well, one thing that Ubuntu has been pretty good about is releasing a new version every 6 months, and a new LTS version every 2 years. The last LTS was Dapper, 6.04. As a result, Hardy, 8.04, was the next LTS.

Once FF3, Gnome, and all of the other new apps become more stable, we can always work to get the changes backported into Hardy.

[Exsecrabilus]

I am not so sure if I agree with you. Will Ibex have a lot of new features? Yes. However, in hardy they concentrated on fixing the bugs and improving usability, in a work environment people want something stable and introducing all those new features may not be preferred in a LTS. Just my two cents, there is a few features they could have rolled out for hardy but held back in favor of stability.
/wrist
YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG.

Hardy has new features, and it had Firefox 3 Beta 5 in it.
Yet people dealt with it and gave it a thumbs-up. So why not?

[bodhi.zazen]

Thread moved at OP request :)

I was going to say LTS == Long term support not more stable. LTS refers to the life cycle / (security) support of the release w/o mention of "more stable".

+1 amano and aysiu

Check out : https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Releases
http://releases.ubuntu.com/

and the Ubuntu "EULA"

This software is released for free public use under several licenses. It is provided without warranty, without even the implied warranty of merchantability, satisfactoriness or fitness for a particular cause.

No mention of "stability"

[andrewabc]

In case you guys didn't notice, firefox 3 is available for 8.04... ;)

[madjr]

LTS is just another release

nothing special about it.

i too was disappointed in learning this, but that's how it is.

[Exsecrabilus]

LTS is just another release

nothing special about it.

i too was disappointed in learning this, but that's how it is.
Didn't know that. Well, you always learn something new everyday! :-\"

[ibutho]

I am not so sure if I agree with you. Will Ibex have a lot of new features? Yes. However, in hardy they concentrated on fixing the bugs and improving usability, in a work environment people want something stable and introducing all those new features may not be preferred in a LTS. Just my two cents, there is a few features they could have rolled out for hardy but held back in favor of stability.

8.04 can hardly be called stable. How many kernel upgrades have there been since release? How about the problems with auto configuring X. I personally think that more testing needs to be done for LTS releases.

[chrisccoulson]

8.04 can hardly be called stable. How many kernel upgrades have there been since release? How about the problems with auto configuring X. I personally think that more testing needs to be done for LTS releases.
Why more testing just for LTS releases? As already pointed out (and as pointed out in other threads all over the forum by other people all the time), LTS != more stable than non-LTS. LTS = Long Term Support.

[ibutho]

Why more testing just for LTS releases? As already pointed out (and as pointed out in other threads all over the forum by other people all the time), LTS != more stable than non-LTS. LTS = Long Term Support.
I know what LTS means, but as the threads show, most people assume LTS means more stability, so Ubuntu needs to make an effort to release a rock solid distro right from the start instead of something that is buggy. I'm quite sure 8.04 will be more stable as they work through the bugs. RHEL, SLES and Debian Stable are long term support distros, but they undergo a lot of QA and testing before being released. Ubuntu needs to do something similar especially with the LTS releases, if it wants to compete with these distros especially with the ambitions that Canonical has to expand Ubuntu into a viable enterprise class distro.

[bodhi.zazen]

I know what LTS means, but as the threads show, most people assume LTS means more stability, so Ubuntu needs to make an effort to release a rock solid distro right from the start instead of something that is buggy. I'm quite sure 8.04 will be more stable as they work through the bugs. RHEL, SLES and Debian Stable are long term support distros, but they undergo a lot of QA and testing before being released. Ubuntu needs to do something similar especially with the LTS releases, if it wants to compete with these distros especially with the ambitions that Canonical has to expand Ubuntu into a viable enterprise class distro.

If you want to participate in development feel free. There is a development forums here. 8.10 has been available for some time now. Go ahead and feel free to install / upgrade file bug reports, etc. your input would be welcome.

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=346

[aysiu]

I know what LTS means, but as the threads show, most people assume LTS means more stability, so Ubuntu needs to make an effort to release a rock solid distro right from the start instead of something that is buggy. Or maybe people need to stop making bad assumptions... or maybe more people need to actually help to test the alpha, beta, and release candidates?

[Exsecrabilus]

... or maybe more people need to actually help the test the alpha, beta, and release candidates?
Made of win, Aysui.

[syxbit]

Not that it matters anymore.
but the major reasons i saw for making ubuntu 8.10 the LTS are HUGE HUGE HUGE

think of the following.

KDE 4.1 would be in it, so they could drop 3.5x
gnome 2.24, which would include fixes to gvfs, which is pretty shaky right now
OOo 3.0
Firefox 3 final
pulseaudio is still immature.

but seriously, the main ones are big. pulseaudio should probably not have been used for the first time in an LTS (and yes, LTS does stand for stable. they deliberately are more conservative when adding stuff. they almost used 2.6.23!!!!)
it's also funny, because gnome 2.22 was the most bleeding edge, risky, new, potentially lethal release yet!
and seriously, all this combined with the unstable KDE 4, and no longer supporter 3.5x, just meant it was a bad idea.


still though, most of us shouldn't care too much (for a desktop, at least) as most of us use the LTS as just a regular release, and upgrade every 6 months.

P.S. i tested hardy since alpha 1. bug reporter, and recommended as many improvements as possible. those recommendations were ignored however.

[ibutho]

If you want to participate in development feel free. There is a development forums here. 8.10 has been available for some time now. Go ahead and feel free to install / upgrade file bug reports, etc. your input would be welcome.

http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=346

I already help to test development builds of two other distros and have asked to be put on the team to test the Ubuntu development discs, but so far my request has gone unanswered.