Originally Posted by jphilipz I have fallen into the always get the latest version trap as i newly started to move into linux, but am still with windows xp in the windows environment and wouldnt ever change as there isnt a need to fix something that aint broke. Well as ubuntu LTS's are only installed on PCs/Laptops that come with it pre-installed and have longer life spans then interim versions, that tells you everything about what people would have at any point in time. But most reviews i've read normally dont say enough has changed in interim updates to justify the upgrade. Was looking around and saw this article on someone else opinion on the rolling release idea. The problem with that idea, is that the OEM's don't want to have to deal with the constant change due to the 6 month release cycle. As it is, we don't use alpha/beta releases as much any more. My feeling is that there should be two versions, one to keep the OEMs and regular users happy, and one to keep those of us that like to experiment happy.
Forum posting guidelinesMember:Not Canonical TeamUbuntu membership via Forums contributions
Originally Posted by cariboo907 The problem with that idea, is that the OEM's don't want to have to deal with the constant change due to the 6 month release cycle. As it is, we don't use alpha/beta releases as much any more. My feeling is that there should be two versions, one to keep the OEMs and regular users happy, and one to keep those of us that like to experiment happy. That's my feeling as well. With the 2 year release cycle on LTS releases, combined with perhaps a few important software packages being backported regularly (the way Firefox is now for Precise), that would cover the OEM/just-want-it-to-work, folks. And have this rolling thingy for people like, well, like us I think the 6-month tempo was a good idea in its time, and bootstrapped Ubuntu into a good place. But perhaps it is time to look at a new model. As far as the mobile thing, that's not my bag - I'm not a tablet-y smart-phone-y kind of a guy. I just hope it doesn't take away from the desktop development too much.
I think we should just wait for a final plan and then adapt to whatever SABDFL agrees to. The forum mods will adjust easily.
Where would we be able to view the UDS (after it's streamed live)? I may not be able to catch it live, but would like to watch it at my convenience after it takes place...
Seeing as UDS is online this time, I don't think there will be any live streams. I'll have to check with Jorge, if there will be logs available for the sessions.
Thanks, cariboo907
I'm surely gonna miss showing off this "(development branch)" thingy to my friends that use Ubuntu. Code: cat /etc/issue Ubuntu Raring Ringtail (development branch) \n \l
cat /etc/issue Ubuntu Raring Ringtail (development branch) \n \l
Originally Posted by VinDSL Seems obvious to me... Ubu development will take place on the "Ubuntu Touch, the Phone, the Tablet", Ubuntu Glasses and whatever. The mailing says, "I think we should keep LTS releases". ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz... This is still Linux customization rife. Where Ubuntu chooses not to go, no doubt Linux Mint and others will/are rushing in. Interesting to see how "Ubuntu/Unity" will do competing head on with Android and Microsoft. I use Ubuntu (sampling sone of the others) on PC's in preference to Microsoft (haven't tried Windows 8, not likely to unless I buy a new/refurbished PC with it on) and am slowly learning Android on tablets. Very fast and quick vs. Ubuntu/Unity for what limited use I know how to do on it. On rolling release, I'm usually using +1 with LTS and Mint fallbacks. Rolling release to me means not much in the way of major changes?
Stumbled on OMG Ubuntu's post about rolling release and they even had a poll, which 85% of voters seemed fine with it. Ubuntu To Discuss Move to Rolling Release At Next Weeks UDS
That's my feeling as well. With the 2 year release cycle on LTS releases, combined with perhaps a few important software packages being backported regularly (the way Firefox is now for Precise), that would cover the OEM/just-want-it-to-work, folks. And have this rolling thingy for people like, well, like us But it doesn't work like this does it? Why would OEM be interested in OS version that users will not use because they will use newer one? OEM will still have to commit to support newer versions because users buying "Ubuntu Hardware" will demand it works with latest Ubuntu just like with Steam for example Valve can't really say we will support only one of supported Ubuntu versions because in the reality they have to support all of them. For example: http://www.iloveubuntu.net/ubuntu-se...ry-2013-survey There is more Ubuntu 12.10 users ATM and supporting just Ubuntu 12.04 LTS would not make much sense. There really isn't any point in separating what users and OEM-s want and thinking this way only creates confusion and lack of interest. Probably for now low level stuff could remain maintained for periods of at least 5 years and higher level stuff like apps should be available in Ubuntu as they come. The most used software should have committed maintainers that would get the software in USC (or Debian) promptly or developers of the software could have the ability to enable their official PPA in USC. OEM would gain 5 year support for low level stuff and user would get latest App from USC as it is produced. Newer low level stuff like display servers and kernels there should be something like "dev PPA" that users could enable and use if they want to be more "upstream" but that would not really be something average OEMs and users should care about. Or take a risk and turn Ubuntu in rolling release and OEMs and driver makers and software makers that want to compete and support Ubuntu will probably prevail and the rest is not important. Users do want safe and easy way to get and install latest available apps and developers should not have to have to much difficulty providing user just that and OEMs want a model that allows them to easily maintain their hardware for at least 5 years and this two demands have to be addressed in one strategy not two different ones. Having LTS and rolling release is probably less optimal and efficient as having just one of the mentioned ones or use something else that is more optimal for mentioned 2 demands.
Last edited by EgoGratis; March 3rd, 2013 at 03:51 PM.
Ubuntu Forums Code of Conduct
