Why is Ubuntu updated so often

[maflynn]

And can it keep up the pace w/o sacrificing quality.

New Ubuntu user here and so far I've been impressed with the OS and VERY impressed with the community support of the product. As I get myself more immersed with the OS and learn more about it, the more questions I have.

Here's one of my first ones, that I just never asked as of yet. Why is Ubuntu update 2x a year?

Coming from a Mac, where the development cycle was about 18 months and even then, it had to lengthened because quality was slipping, I wonder if a 6 month release schedule is not sustainable.

[Sand & Mercury]

It is mate. Ubuntu's six month cycle has in mind the idea that you stay up to date with everything, but the changes made in each release aren't anywhere near as significant as you're likely to see in Windows and OS X platforms. Big changes get implemented gradually over the time of numerous releases.

[Arup]

And in case you want long term then there is the LTS edition, currently Hardy 8.04.2

[glotz]

It's all based on Debian development. Ubuntu adds some themes, proprietary drives and other touches.

[sujoy]

bah, ubuntu is not developed at one single place by one single team. there are thousands of people working, hence quality is not sacrificed. as the OP compared to Mac it is to be noted that all Mac development is done by apple which is not the case in any linux distro

@OP - you should really try out some rolling release distro. no concept of a versioned release. i get updates almost everyday, some major, some minor

[3rdalbum]

Coming from a Mac, where the development cycle was about 18 months and even then, it had to lengthened because quality was slipping

The development cycle was not lengthened because of quality concerns. It was lengthened because it was getting difficult to build new features into the Mac OS without disrupting the existing architecture of the operating system. In other words, Leopard took longer because it simply couldn't be programmed in a shorter time; and even then there are quality problems.

The whole of Ubuntu is basically in fluidic state, and Ubuntu itself uses a lot of Python (high-level scripting language that's easy to write in and debug) so new features can be added comparatively quickly and with almost no "rearchitecturing" other than what happens routinely by independent developers.

[snowpine]

Releasing twice a year generates a lot of marketing buzz that helps make Ubuntu the #1 distro. Rolling release distros are more practical (in my opinion) but let's face it: "Canonical is proud to announced the release of Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackolope" is a sexier headline than "Arch Linux is proud to announce 14 packages were updated today." ;)

[binbash]

Releasing twice a year generates a lot of marketing buzz that helps make Ubuntu the #1 distro. Rolling release distros are more practical (in my opinion) but let's face it: "Canonical is proud to announced the release of Ubuntu 9.04 Jaunty Jackolope" is a sexier headline than "Arch Linux is proud to announce 14 packages were updated today." ;)

Rolling release is not good for Ubuntu or any other " install and go " distro.

[snowpine]

Rolling release is not good for Ubuntu or any other " install and go " distro.

I'm not sure I understand your argument... while it is true that rolling release distros have frequently available upgrades, the user can choose how often to actually perform said upgrades. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade every day; you could upgrade every week, every month... A good example is Sidux. It is a rolling release distro (based on Debian Sid) but they release a few "install and go" Live CDs every year. You could conceivably just stick with these releases (never performing upgrades in the interim) and have a simliar experience to Ubuntu.

[binbash]

Yes i have tried sidux.I am a long term gentoo and arch user also.At rolling releases a package can broke the whole system.But with 6 months / per release like ubuntu they can be sure that there is nothing wrong with the current isos.That is why repos are only being updated with security fixes and some critical bugs.

This is good for average desktop users plus in the future this will help linux to get a better market share.


Tho i prefer rolling disros on my box : )

[DLG102282]

At rolling releases a package can broke the whole system.


Not if you actually look at what is going to be Upgraded and what is going to be removed.

[snowpine]

binbash, good points. :) I agree in theory, though in practice, I have found that Ubuntu has bugs and breakage too, just like any other distro.

I think the actual historical reason why Ubuntu releases every 6 months is twofold: First, Ubuntu is based on Debian, and Canonical perceived there was a "niche" for a Debian-based release that was more up to date than Debian Stable (which only releases every 2 or 3 years). Second, Ubuntu is somehow tied in with the release cycle for the Gnome project (not sure of the specifics).

[lovinglinux]

And can it keep up the pace w/o sacrificing quality.

New Ubuntu user here and so far I've been impressed with the OS and VERY impressed with the community support of the product. As I get myself more immersed with the OS and learn more about it, the more questions I have.

Here's one of my first ones, that I just never asked as of yet. Why is Ubuntu update 2x a year?

Coming from a Mac, where the development cycle was about 18 months and even then, it had to lengthened because quality was slipping, I wonder if a 6 month release schedule is not sustainable.

If you don't like to update schedule, stick with the LTS versions (Long Term Support), which are released every two years. Hardy Heron 8.04 is LTS and will be supported until April 2011. When the LTS support expires you can upgrade to the newer LTS without additional steps.

[drawkcab]

In other words, it is nothing to worry about.

[maflynn]

Thanks for all of the posts, I think I have a better picture.

I'm not interested in doing any rolling releases. I want a fairly stable environment and somewhat static. I don't mind dealing with upgrades a couple of times a year but then it seems I can also sit and wait for the next cycle as well.

The smaller updates/with larger changes implemented gradually is a great explanation.

[Xbehave]

I'm not sure I understand your argument... while it is true that rolling release distros have frequently available upgrades, the user can choose how often to actually perform said upgrades. Nobody is forcing you to upgrade every day; you could upgrade every week, every month...Thats great if you don't care about security! with RR you get cutting edge, and you have to stay that way unless you want to be running a system that is not secure. Constant updates can be a real pita, so Schedule releases with security updates are much better for working systems.

As for why ubuntu updates so often, its to keep a balance between the 2, but each normal release is maintained for 18months, then so you can just update every 18months as with apple (only free). Additionally LTS releases are supported for 3 years (about the same as apple, but less than windows i think)

What i like is that with ubuntu you can choose:
new (never more than 6months old)
stable (just sticking with any ubuntu version for 18months)
ultra-stable(ubuntu LTS)

[SunnyRabbiera]

Thanks for all of the posts, I think I have a better picture.

I'm not interested in doing any rolling releases. I want a fairly stable environment and somewhat static. I don't mind dealing with upgrades a couple of times a year but then it seems I can also sit and wait for the next cycle as well.

The smaller updates/with larger changes implemented gradually is a great explanation.

Thats why I also like Ubuntu, you can update when you choose to.
Mostly though you can stick with a LTS release like Dapper or Hardy for a while and not entirely be left out, with community repositories you can stay current without the need of hopping from version a to b.

[snowpine]

Are you saying my Linux system will be completely overrun with viruses and malware if I don't install security updates every single day? ;)

[SunnyRabbiera]

Are you saying my Linux system will be completely overrun with viruses and malware if I don't install security updates every single day? ;)

No, at least I dont say that.
Ubuntu still patches kernels and packages for older versions like LTS releases without needing to keep up with the 6 month release cycle.

[Xbehave]

Are you saying my Linux system will be completely overrun with viruses and malware if I don't install security updates every single day? ;)It'll be no safer than a vista box :P.

If your not going to be cutting edge then why run a rolling release distro? If you update less often than every six months your just exposing yourself to unnecessary risk.

[Dekkon]

Not if you actually look at what is going to be Upgraded and what is going to be removed.

Agreed.

I seriously doubt that an update to Amarok or Firefox is going to break the system, or that just shows how badly coded Linux is. Save the critical updates to Linux for releases but still update my programs when they become available.

Simple, but hey, I'm just a user, what do I know.

[snowpine]

Sorry, my last point wasn't clear. :) I use a rolling release distro and upgrade several times a week. I was just responding to the "rolling release will break your system" argument by pointing out nobody forces you to upgrade every day. Smart users of rolling release distros know to check the forums before doing an upgrade.

[Xbehave]

Sorry, my last point wasn't clear. :) I use a rolling release distro and upgrade several times a week. I was just responding to the "rolling release will break your system" argument by pointing out nobody forces you to upgrade every day. Smart users of rolling release distros know to check the forums before doing an upgrade.
You cant seriously be suggesting that RR is less maintenance than an install and forget system. If you install and forget a RR distro your security is shot, my point was that while RR are good for some, if you want a system that just works(tm) RR isn't the way to go!


I seriously doubt that an update to Amarok or Firefox is going to break the system, or that just shows how badly coded Linux is. Save the critical updates to Linux for releases but still update my programs when they become available. If you've got your system using a workaround for a dodge driver, an update can easy leave you with an unusable system. Cross dependant software is even more volatile (e.g a specific miro version might have bugs with particular version of gstreamer, libtorrent or XULrunner (which may inturn have bugs against specific versions of FF/songbird/thunderbird/etc). RR distros are not for the fainthearted. If the distro is run well people will normally not be exposed to these bugs, but in my experience the chance of you going 18months on a regularly update rolling release distro without any problems is slim (I'd guess 6months isn't exactly guaranteed either)

[snowpine]

You cant seriously be suggesting that RR is less maintenance than an install and forget system. If you install and forget a RR distro your security is shot, my point was that while RR are good for some, if you want a system that just works(tm) RR isn't the way to go!


For the short term, that is arguably true. However, over the course of years, a rolling release distro is much less work than upgrading Ubuntu every six months. Each Ubuntu release inevitably requires some "tweakage" and lost productivity, whereas a good rolling release distro (I use Debian testing personally) is truly "install and forget."