Next Release of Ubuntu LTS Announced

**Hex_Mandos** · July 23rd, 2007

Originally Posted by igknighted

We'll just have to agree to disagree. Although the common userspace driver API proposed for kernel 2.6.23 could very well be a big step towards what I proposed in my earlier post about consistancy across distros.

I'd welcome that, too, and it'd be a better solution than Ubuntu becoming the standard.

psyopper: That sounds like great news! Having a coherent base between the distributions would be a great thing. Add a universal package format and we'll be really close to what Windows users expect from an OS.

**psyopper** · July 23rd, 2007

Originally Posted by salsafyren

I wonder why Shuttleworth deliberately increases the workload on the developers: every second year, a 5 year supported release will emerge. When 8.04 will be released, Ubuntu has to support:

8.04
7.10
7.04
6.06

Next time an LTS will be released they will have to support 5 versions. That's too much IMHO.

Ubuntu has to support all versions no matter how many people are using them.

Not quite true. I'm sitting in Matt Zimmerman's Keynote right now and this discussion is happening as I type. Disregarding the LTS releases, there are only three supported releases at a time. As the newest one comes in the oldest one drops off.

It's two different management cycles, one cycle for the LTS releases (only two at a time), and the regular releases (only 3 at a time)

Most of the management support comes from keeping the repos updated. Build it once and mirror it to the various distros is all it should take, from the kernel to The GIMP.

**salsafyren** · July 24th, 2007

Originally Posted by psyopper

Not quite true. I'm sitting in Matt Zimmerman's Keynote right now and this discussion is happening as I type. Disregarding the LTS releases, there are only three supported releases at a time. As the newest one comes in the oldest one drops off.

It's two different management cycles, one cycle for the LTS releases (only two at a time), and the regular releases (only 3 at a time)

Most of the management support comes from keeping the repos updated. Build it once and mirror it to the various distros is all it should take, from the kernel to The GIMP.

I think you are mistaken.

LTS releases are supported 3 years on the desktop, 5 years on the server.

So if you add an LTS release every two years, you'll have to support a lot of LTS releases in the end.

However, if Ubuntu can handle it, everybody wins.

**Incense** · July 24th, 2007

So is there any real reason for the desktop user to stick with an LTS, rather then update with the normal six month release?

**Rocket2DMn** · July 24th, 2007

Not particularly. They may not want every six month release since it can be a hassle for a lot of users to deal with upgrades like that twice a year. A lot of people will probably prefer to upgrade once a year, but even every 2 years isn't bad for those who don't want to deal with problems associated with upgrading.
I don't imagine a desktop user would want more than the 3 year support since after that length of time, an upgrade is probably in order.

**LaRoza** · July 24th, 2007

I think Linux would need a slightly unified face to appeal to the masses. Now whether I think Linux should spread to the average user is a different story. The average user isn't going to get any smarter, and I don't want the distros to get dumber.

**psyopper** · July 24th, 2007

If you're interested in what the support cycle looks like, there's a good picture of the slide from UbuntuLive that shows it in a nice logical fashion. Thanks to Phoronix for taking this shot and sharing it with the rest of us!

**Tumpster** · August 4th, 2007

I suppose I'll hold off and stick with dapper lts till April 08 then!

**Quillz** · August 4th, 2007

My question is though, why was 6.06 chosen to be the first LTS? What made it so much better than the previous release or the next release? Was 6.06 always planned to be the first LTS?

**FuturePilot** · August 5th, 2007

Originally Posted by Quillz

My question is though, why was 6.06 chosen to be the first LTS? What made it so much better than the previous release or the next release? Was 6.06 always planned to be the first LTS?

I think it was because prior to 6.06 the Ubuntu project was still very young and still getting its feet on the ground. Mark probably figured that Ubuntu had reached a point where it could handle it.