Why must LTS die?

[forrestcupp]

Nobody is forcing them, but you are assuming the mass public of the world is far more compentent than they actually are. Most people will look to the media, Canonical, and other software and hardware companies for what to run. Of course they all will be sayin "Use Ubuntu 12.04, it the latest from Canonical!" It's only true as in terms of stable release. But the software will be outdated and the mass user who isn't fully aware of Linux and how it works will likely never get new sofware believing they have already have the current and latest.

If you think of the latest release of Ubuntu as outdated software, then the only thing that would really satisfy you would be a rolling release distro, in which case, Ubuntu is not the answer for you right now.

Are you saying having constant updates to the OS and packages without breakage? That is what Canonical is trying to do if they go rolling release and even though rolling release sounds great but if I have application issues with the interim releases a rolling release sounds horrifying for me.

I thought Canonical ended up saying that the rumor that they're going to rolling release is not true. Am I just out of the loop and they changed their minds again?

[CharlesA]

I thought Canonical ended up saying that the rumor that they're going to rolling release is not true. Am I just out of the loop and they changed their minds again?

I thought they were thinking about it for 14.04.

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/01/u...-release-model

[pfeiffep]

Rolling Releases, LTS, Beta and RC? Isn't it nice there are OPTIONS for all. I seriously don' think that the end users have much say whether Can* or M$, or Deb* implement rolling releases or LTS or SP?
As a relatively technical person I like the fact that I can keep Win 7 installed on one drive and have multiple Linux installations on another.

Linux has quite a way to evolve until it's really business class desktop software.

Ma & Pa small business users certainly don't have the time to mess with every 6 months upgrade cycle.

[forrestcupp]

I thought they were thinking about it for 14.04.

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/01/u...-release-model

Cool. That article is pretty confusing, though. It almost sounds like they haven't decided to switch at all, but they want the framework in place by 14.04 just in case they do decide to switch. In any case, I think they're doing it the right way. You can have a rolling release with LTS snapshots every couple of years so everyone can be satisfied. Either continue with the rolling release, or go with the LTS if you need stability. It also makes sense that they don't want to be confined to 6 months because some things just take longer. This would give them a lot more freedom, and keep the people who want cutting edge happy.

[grahammechanical]

It could be said that as 12.04 is almost a year old it is outdated software but what some of us might be forgetting is that there was a 12.04.1 about six months ago and anyone downloading and installing 12.04 today would get 12.04.2. and this pattern of point releases will follow until 14.04 is released. Those already running 12.04 and are happy with it can stay with it. Those with newer hardware and wanting an LTS will get 12.04.2 with upgraded kernel and stuff.

There is already a kind of rolling release for Ubuntu. It is called the Development branch. Mark Shuttleworth is of the opinion that those who want the "bleeding edge" (his words) can use the development branch. The question at present undecided is whether there will be a 13.10. It could be that the 13.04 development branch code will continue into the 14.04 LTS release. So, it would be the development branch that becomes a sort of rolling release.

One thing we can take as certain, is that Canonical are seeking ways to reduce the work load in maintaining and supporting code branches. Soon they have to support 10.04 server, 12.04 desktop and server, 12.10 desktop and server, 13.04 desktop and server.

[lykwydchykyn]

Well most of us are not "businesses" and that model is not suitable for other users.

Most of us also don't pay Canonical for support, so I'm not sure why our needs would trump those of paying customers.

I'll bet the majority of windows users don't "stick to XP forever" if they can afford a new machine or an upgrade.

Most windows users don't have the option of sticking with XP forever, or if they do they haven't any idea how to exercise that option. They get a new computer and run what it comes with. I sure here from an awful lot of them who wish they could stick with it forever. There's no telling if they represent a majority or not, though.

[craig10x]

Yes, actually what they voted on (after the recent conference) and what is being implemented is:

6 month release continue same as before but with support reduced from 18 months to 9 months, starting with Ubuntu 13.04...reason being is that developers will be freed up to spend more time on improving things like upgrading (to make it more reliable) and fixing bugs that they never seem to have time to get to...

LTS Releases (same as before, every 2 years with full LTS support as it is now)...

Development to become the actual "Rolling Release" supposedly as of 13.04....though they will not officially define it as such, that is essentially what it will be...You will no longer need to upgrade the current development version you are using to go into the next version of development (in example: 13.04 to 13.10)...instead you will simply get "pointed" to the next version and start receiving updates for it as soon as they start sending them for that new version...They already voted to implement this...but they did mention they still have to work out the "details" on how best to implement it....

One developer mention something about possibly doing it with a "symlink"

How you would add that on (whether say by terminal command or if it would be added as an option to select in "update manager") wasn't mentioned...that is what they are figuring out right now..

I hope they get that in place before 13.04 goes final as i would like to roll right into 13.10 with it...except for a few brief glitches here and there, 13.04 development and it's updates have been darn reliable, i must say...i use to run mint's LMDE pointed to debian testing and had FAR FAR more problems with that then ubuntu development, so in my opinion, it's gotten to the point of being more reliable then debian testing...

[kyalami321]

I like the concept of LTS as compared to the Microsoft model of releasing their operating systems. All Windows criticisms aside, imagine if instead of XP --> Vista --> 7 --> 8 we had XP1 --> XP2 --> XP3 --> XP3 The Second Edition --> XP4 --> Vista --> Vista2, etc. You could say service packs mirror this analogy, and it's true, but the thing about service packs is that they don't force you to upgrade your entire system. They may break support for things and have other negative impacts of their own, but the principle is one of UPDATING, not UPGRADING, as downloading and installing each new interim release would entail.

[TomB19]

Big LTS fan here.

[whatthefunk]

Latest and greatest also comes with risks. Several times, Ive installed things from backports and other ppas only to have my entire system crash. For me, it doesnt matter so much, but if I was running Ubuntu at work, this would be a major problem. LTS has a place in the Linux world.