Why is Ubuntu releasing new version?

[jwxie]

I was told that 9.04 Beta has been released, meaning the 9.04 Stable will be soon.
I have been an Ubuntu fan for a year something. I like it. But I really have a doubt and wonder about certain things:

Ever since my first touch with Ubuntu, it's the 6 series. And then it came out the 7 series. And soon it came down to 8 series (which happened last Fall).

I see there are some big changes, and new features added to each release, but I don't see the point of keep on releasing new version (or I mean, the identityof the version).

Ubuntu has about 2 LTS so far. But IMO, I think Ubuntu should, instead of making "new version" with a new number - new identity, why can't the Ubuntu team just continue the current release?

If they have to add new features, improve the kernel, or anything like that, isn't rolling update a better choice? IMO, not only the users will benefit from it, but support is generally better and eaiser.

Some people, like me, don't like being "outdated". If I see a new release, I feel like I have to upgrade my current version.

Many people choose Linux over MS because they "don't like it". But I think MS is making the right choice: rolling updates.

I know it really doesn't matter - because you can still upgrade your old release to the latest version via command apt-get.

But I am just curious about it....

[Muffinabus]

Stability.

[jwxie]

Stability.

I still don;t get the point
Like I said, you can always make it better, fixing bugs, and improving the kernels, the apps by releasing mandatory updates.

I mean it's the choice the team to make - release something that's called "new version"

some people may treat it differently - it isn't new version, just another update....

[kevin11951]

I was told that 9.04 Beta has been released, meaning the 9.04 Stable will be soon.
I have been an Ubuntu fan for a year something. I like it. But I really have a doubt and wonder about certain things:

Ever since my first touch with Ubuntu, it's the 6 series. And then it came out the 7 series. And soon it came down to 8 series (which happened last Fall).

I see there are some big changes, and new features added to each release, but I don't see the point of keep on releasing new version (or I mean, the identify of the version).

Ubuntu has about 4 LTS so far (counting 9.04, even though 6 series will end soon). But IMO, I think Ubuntu should, instead of making "new version" with a new number - new identiy, why can't the Ubuntu team just continue the current release?

If they have to add new features, improve the kernel, or anything like that, just do update package.
This way, not only the users can benefit from it, but giving the support is easier and generally better.
Some people, like me, don't like being "outdated". If I see a new release, I feel like I have to upgrade my current version.
And by not releasing new version, it is easier to users to make contriubte.

Many people choose Linux over MS because they "don't like it". But I think MS is doing the right choice: update the products.

I know it really doesn't matter - because you can still upgrade your old release to the latest version via command apt-get.

But I am just curious about it....

ok, they release every six months, because of the new software that comes out, and they dont do a rolling-release because they cant be sure all apps will work together.

the 8.04, 8.10, 9.04, etc... is not new versions (well kinda) that are dates: as in, 8.04 is April 2008, and 8.10 is October 2008.

[wolfen69]

Ubuntu has about 4 LTS so far (counting 9.04, even though 6 series will end soon).

ubuntu has only had 2 LTS versions so far. 6.06 and 8.04
9.04 will be a regular release, supported for 18 months.

[pbpersson]

the 8.04, 8.10, 9.04, etc... is not new versions (well kinda) that are dates: as in, 8.04 is April 2008, and 8.10 is October 2008.

OH MY GOSH! :o I never realized!! :lolflag:

[jwbrase]

The LTS's are spaced every two years, which is about the spacing other OS's have, though XP to Vista was about 5 years, IIRC.

9.04 isn't an LTS though...

And as stated above, the version numbers for Ubuntu are date-based, not "major version" based as with many other programs.

[jwxie]

ubuntu has only had 2 LTS versions so far. 6.06 and 8.04
9.04 will be a regular release, supported for 18 months.

Oh my bad, I always thought that 0.x is LTS

thanks

[lykwydchykyn]

A few things: first, I don't know where you get the idea that there are 4 LTS releases. 6.06 and 8.04 are the only two LTS releases.

Ubuntu does a regular six month release; you can expect another release in October this year. The version numbers are nothing more than the year and month of release, going from the "six series" to the "seven series" is not significant in an greater way than that the former was released in 2006 and the latter in 2007 (in contrast to software projects for whom major version changes signify major changes to the software).

There has always been a lot of debate about the six month release schedule; other distributions do things differently. Some do a "rolling release" model, which sounds like what you're talking about (though that's not at all what Windows does). Each method has its drawbacks and advantages.

EDIT: sorry, guess you'd been well informed of all this by the time I clicked "post".

[jwxie]

The LTS's are spaced every two years, which is about the spacing other OS's have, though XP to Vista was about 5 years, IIRC.

9.04 isn't an LTS though...

And as stated above, the version numbers for Ubuntu are date-based, not "major version" based as with many other programs.

NICE! I never knew that too
Cool:P
Now it really makes sense they can release it until like 2050 LOL
50.4

[Arkenzor]

To better explain the rationale, when a new major version of some software comes out the format of its configuration might change, or it might need to be integrated with the rest of the system in a different way. Releasing new major versions of software as normal updates would mean that the user has to stay informed about potential changes and handle them manually, which requires a fairly good knowledge of the system.

This is why Ubuntu (like most other newbie-friendly distros) only distributes bug fixes and security updates through Synaptic, and does a new major release every six months with the latest stable versions of the software. This gathers all the potential breakage in one place, and people always have the fail-safe option of simply installing the new version to avoid it (those skilled/lucky enough can also do a dist-upgrade, but no-one has to).

[3rdalbum]

Microsoft doesn't do a rolling release - otherwise there would be no distinction between XP, Vista and 7.

[SpriteSODA]

Honestly, I currently use 8.10, and I see no real need to upgrade to 9.04 when it comes out. I mean, new notifications system, Gnome 2.26 (new burning tool? woohoo?) and ext4 basicly are the only few things that should appeal the older versions to upgrade, but is this worth the mess?

[MickS]

The 6 monthly releases are good fun too and in a world full of doom and gloom it's nice to have something to look forward to that isn't going to cost you anything except your time.

Mick

[SpriteSODA]

yeah well, its a b*tch re-configin everything again and installing all the applications I use.

[Netsu]

Microsoft doesn't do a rolling release - otherwise there would be no distinction between XP, Vista and 7.

Those are different systems, not newer versions of some "windows" system. Service packs were new versions of XP.
And you can't really compare what does "rolling release" mean on Linux to what it could mean on Windows.

[hyperdude111]

Microsoft do not have rolling updates look at xp-vista NOT rolling the do have a constant bug fixing and application upgrading and ubuntu also . Ubuntu also has this.

[sekinto]

It is because they do a major revamp of the repositories, with software that is all supposed to work together but newer than the stuff in the older repos. If they just updated a bunch of individual programs within the same repos there could be some major compatibility issues. Debian does the same thing, but at a much slower rate.

[darthmob]

yeah well, its a b*tch re-configin everything again and installing all the applications I use.you are not forced to do a fresh install everytime. I have been upgrading since 7.04 and had no major problems so far.

[MrWES]

yeah well, its a b*tch re-configin everything again and installing all the applications I use.

Come on! -- that's the fun part :lolflag:

[23meg]

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/TimeBasedReleases

[luvr]

Honestly, I currently use 8.10, and I see no real need to upgrade to 9.04 when it comes out.
My reason to upgrade will be an inconvenience that I'm having with 8.10 on my 19" LCD monitor: The display image is being displayed a little too high on the screen, with the result that about half of the top panel disappears from view.

The problem is apparently caused by some kind of error in the way that the open-source ATI display driver handles the capabilities of the monitor--on the one hand, the driver seems to believe that my monitor supports a maximum resolution of 1600x1024, which it doesn't; on the other hand, the native resolution of the monitor is 1280x1024, which the driver doesn't detect as an option (I have to explicitly specify this resolution in the xorg.conf file).

Since the 9.04 alpha 5 release, this issue seems to be gone--which makes the upgrade well worth doing. In fact, if alpha 6 is any indication, I may well find 9.04 the most stable Ubuntu release to date.

[snowpine]

There is a "rolling release" version of Ubuntu; it is called Debian, specifically Debian Sid (aka Unstable), the distro from which Ubuntu is derived. If you are a Debian Sid user, you never need to install a new release version, just keep doing regular updates and your system will stay up to date. There are other rolling release distros as well, such as Arch.

I think the deal with Ubuntu is that they asked themselves: What can we bring to the table? What will make our new distro unique? The answer, of course, is to take a "snapshot" of Debian Sid every six months, fix any bugs that may be present at that moment, and add some new features. Clearly, there is merit to this idea, because Ubuntu has eclipsed Debian in popularity among desktop users.

I also think that having a regular six month release cycle is fantastic from a marketing/PR point of view. It is hard to come up with press releases for a rolling release distro, whereas a new Ubuntu release (with a cute name) every 6 months is a marketing department's dream.

[Tomosaur]

Actually, every version of Ubuntu undergoes significant changes under the hood. It's just not realistic to push every version as a collection of updates, because things WILL break.