PDA

View Full Version : Should the method of updating software on Ubuntu be changed?



hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 06:34 PM
Just something I have on my mind after comparing the Windows and Ubuntu ways of doing this (I don't know how OSX approaches it but I would be curious to hear :) )

Should it be changed? And, if so, how?

Poll coming :)

Hoppi!

Tibuda
September 28th, 2009, 06:39 PM
If you want it to be like Windows, let me tell you a secret: it can work like this. Download Firefox from Mozilla and extract it to your home folder and it will update itself.

ninjapirate89
September 28th, 2009, 06:40 PM
I like the current way of doing things.

RiceMonster
September 28th, 2009, 06:43 PM
They should keep all software updates unified to one system, as they already have. That's a much better way of doing it, in my opinion. I would also prefer they would update applications to new versions, such as firefox, pidgin, etc (not necessarily major packages like the kernel, xorg, etc). However, the obvious response to that would be "then use a distro that does", and that's what I do.

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 06:49 PM
They should keep all software updates unified to one system, as they already have. That's a much better way of doing it, in my opinion. I would also prefer they would update applications to new versions, such as firefox, pidgin, etc (not necessarily major packages like the kernel, xorg, etc). However, the obvious response to that would be "then use a distro that does", and that's what I do.

what distro do you use?

RiceMonster
September 28th, 2009, 06:51 PM
what distro do you use?

Fedora and Arch (on different computers)

NoaHall
September 28th, 2009, 06:52 PM
If you think the windows update system is good, you've either forgotten what windows is like, or you're insane. The Linux update system is the best, or do you like unstable, unsafe software?

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 06:56 PM
They should keep all software updates unified to one system, as they already have. That's a much better way of doing it, in my opinion. I would also prefer they would update applications to new versions, such as firefox, pidgin, etc (not necessarily major packages like the kernel, xorg, etc). However, the obvious response to that would be "then use a distro that does", and that's what I do.

Also though, doesn't the current method mean that things need to go through Canonical/Ubuntu too much? Doesn't it slow down the speed that updates get released and made available to us? ._.


EDIT -- I do like the ease of the current system though I have to admit, it's very quick and it "sits in the background" a bit more.

NoaHall
September 28th, 2009, 07:18 PM
It makes sure all the updates are STABLE and SECURE.
If you want a more cutting edge, swap to Arch/Fedora
Besides, not all come through Ubuntu, if you add external software sources, it updates by itself.
You can also enable the downloading of "proposed" updates in ubuntu.

forrestcupp
September 28th, 2009, 07:56 PM
No. That's part of what makes Ubuntu Ubuntu. There are plenty of "rolling release" distros out there, if that's what you want.

There are strengths and weaknesses to both methods. At least Ubuntu's cycles are only 6 months.

Also, enabling the proposed and unsupported repos will get you some updates more frequently.

LowSky
September 28th, 2009, 08:04 PM
couldn't we have a repo for software update that are uneffected by kernel or xorg changes, for example Firefox, pidgin, openoffice... etc.
or at least ask these program developers to create suitable .deb's for our release.

The current backport and unsupported repos do not fully work as I'm intending and maybe could be used for this purpose.

snowpine
September 28th, 2009, 08:21 PM
Ubuntu should continue its current policy of providing major updates every six months. I believe this is the best compromise between stability and new features, and a big reason why Ubuntu is the #1 distro.

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 08:43 PM
No. That's part of what makes Ubuntu Ubuntu. There are plenty of "rolling release" distros out there, if that's what you want.

There are strengths and weaknesses to both methods. At least Ubuntu's cycles are only 6 months.

Also, enabling the proposed and unsupported repos will get you some updates more frequently.

Thing is though, I thought the main thing that made Ubuntu Ubuntu was it's desire to make Linux simple and easy for the end-user. Problem is though, that if that end user wants to have the latest version of Firefox for example, instead of just firing it up and waiting, they have to work out 3.5 is currently called Shiretoko, or install it in a non-standard way, or install a PPA repository, or if they're lucky just enable a repository in Synaptic, which still feels a bit technical for most people (and it IS).

Do you see my point? Firefox is only one program and one example, so please don't try to take apart that one case too much, but I think the point I'm making holds quite true! :)

JillSwift
September 28th, 2009, 08:59 PM
Hmm. A corollary question would be: "Should Ubuntu be changed to fit my desires?"

Given that there are plenty of distros that stay closer to the leading edge with rolling updates and whatnot, it makes no sense to change a distro that caters to those looking primarily for stability and ease of use. You would be alienating Ubuntu's primary audience in favor of an audience whose needs are already met by others.

The choices are simple:
Learn to update the packages/applications you are interested in having the latest versions of.
Or.
Switch to a distro that maintains only the latest software.

Easy as pie.

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 09:05 PM
Hmm. A corollary question would be: "Should Ubuntu be changed to fit my desires?"

Given that there are plenty of distros that stay closer to the leading edge with rolling updates and whatnot, it makes no sense to change a distro that caters to those looking primarily for stability and ease of use. You would be alienating Ubuntu's primary audience in favor of an audience whose needs are already met by others.

The choices are simple:
Learn to update the packages/applications you are interested in having the latest versions of.
Or.
Switch to a distro that maintains only the latest software.

Easy as pie.

Honestly, and I am trying not to be harsh to Ubuntu here but, if current Linux-based operating systems are that stubborn, it's no surprise to me that none are mainstream.

I would be amazed if the way it is now (even down to how rarely we see updates) is the way it will stay on Ubuntu. If it is, then man... I am very confused by Mark Shuttleworth's methods! lol

My point here is, that ok people want stability, they want a friendly, usable, accessible system with enough power under the hood to do things they might want it to do. But, to suggest that having standard programs update BI-ANNUALLY is sufficient for a mainstream OS is in my opinion just crazy ._.

LowSky
September 28th, 2009, 09:06 PM
The choices are simple:
Learn to update the packages/applications you are interested in having the latest versions of.
Or.
Switch to a distro that maintains only the latest software.

Easy as pie.

Its not easy as Pie, which by the way is a horrible saying, pie isn't' that easy to make, Haha...

Too many of the users here are looking to have newer important use software on or around release time, and if Ubuntu is for Human Beings, maybe it should embrace updates to non mission critical applications like Firefox or openoffice.

This isn't for power users or release crazies, but the normal users who expect things to just work. And this can be easily done.

SunnyRabbiera
September 28th, 2009, 09:07 PM
Well the Firefox 3.5 incident is the main cause of complaints like this, Firefox 3.5 is not a major security update though and most of its security enhancements can be backported.
We dont need something like windows .exe's, we just need a compromise between stable and being up to date.

snowpine
September 28th, 2009, 09:13 PM
How does using Firefox 3.0 instead of 3.5 for a couple of months make Ubuntu any less "simple and easy for the end user"?

NoaHall
September 28th, 2009, 09:16 PM
Firefox 3.0 is fine. It's stable, and secure. And it's not like Windows, where there a bugs everywhere in the software which allow attacks on the OS.

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 09:17 PM
Firefox 3.0 is fine. It's stable, and secure. And it's not like Windows, where there a bugs everywhere in the software which allow attacks on the OS.

But I don't get it, Firefox 3.5 is fine. Why aren't we updating, or at least giving the users an easy option when they load it up?

SuperSonic4
September 28th, 2009, 09:17 PM
Individual software updates from repos whenever it's available

NoaHall
September 28th, 2009, 09:19 PM
Because it hasn't been through testing to ensure it can't compromise your OS. One of the reasons people start using Linux is because it's more stable and safer. If it wasn't put under testing, it would leave gaps for hackers to attack.

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 09:21 PM
Because it hasn't been through testing to ensure it can't compromise your OS. One of the reasons people start using Linux is because it's more stable and safer. If it wasn't put under testing, it would leave gaps for hackers to attack.

But security and stability aren't the focuses of Ubuntu, we should be doing what's best for the end-user. Firefox 3.5 is faster and has more features ._.

snowpine
September 28th, 2009, 09:21 PM
Honestly, and I am trying not to be harsh to Ubuntu here but, if current Linux-based operating systems are that stubborn, it's no surprise to me that none are mainstream.


First of all, operating systems aren't stubborn--people are. ;)

Second, each Linux distribution must choose their development model. Some choose to have ultra-stable releases every few years, others choose a bleeding-edge rolling release, and some fall somewhere in the middle. In other words, you can't criticize Linux as a whole based solely on Ubuntu's model.

If you want to understand why Ubuntu's development cycle is the way it is, you have to understand its releationship to Debian (its parent distro). Debian offers a "stable" branch that only releases every year or two (it's ready when it's ready) and three "rolling" branches (testing, unstable, experimental) with varying degrees of "bleeding edge-ness." Ubuntu became wildly popular because it fills a niche that Debian doesn't satisfy: a time-based, non-rolling release that is more up-to-date than Debian stable.

tjwoosta
September 28th, 2009, 09:22 PM
Honestly, and I am trying not to be harsh to Ubuntu here but, if current Linux-based operating systems are that stubborn, it's no surprise to me that none are mainstream.

I would be amazed if the way it is now (even down to how rarely we see updates) is the way it will stay on Ubuntu. If it is, then man... I am very confused by Mark Shuttleworth's methods! lol

My point here is, that ok people want stability, they want a friendly, usable, accessible system with enough power under the hood to do things they might want it to do. But, to suggest that having standard programs update BI-ANNUALLY is sufficient for a mainstream OS is in my opinion just crazy ._

The Linux methods of package management are far superior to those of the windows world. If you cant see that you are blind my friend.

If you don't like ubuntu's package release cycles you should try something that uses the rolling release system like arch for instance. Arch uses probably the most up to date yet stable software of any distro and continuously updates things instead of having 6 month release cycles.

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 09:26 PM
First of all, operating systems aren't stubborn--people are. ;)

Second, each Linux distribution must choose their development model. Some choose to have ultra-stable releases every few years, others choose a bleeding-edge rolling release, and some fall somewhere in the middle. In other words, you can't criticize Linux as a whole based solely on Ubuntu's model.

If you want to understand why Ubuntu's development cycle is the way it is, you have to understand its releationship to Debian (its parent distro). Debian offers a "stable" branch that only releases every year or two (it's ready when it's ready) and three "rolling" branches (testing, unstable, experimental) with varying degrees of "bleeding edge-ness." Ubuntu became wildly popular because it fills a niche that Debian doesn't satisfy: a time-based, non-rolling release that is more up-to-date than Debian stable.

I don't think that's true - I think Ubuntu is the most popular distro because it works the best and is the most user-friendly. It is also quite well branded.

NoaHall
September 28th, 2009, 09:26 PM
But security and stability aren't the focuses of Ubuntu, we should be doing what's best for the end-user. Firefox 3.5 is faster and has more features ._.

What are you talking about?!?!
Of course they are! What do you want?? Ubuntu to become a bug filled - virus packed OS???

People use Linux because it's quick, powerful, and safe. Without testing, it becomes none of these things.
It becomes windows vista.

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 09:29 PM
What are you talking about?!?!
Of course they are! What do you want?? Ubuntu to become a bug filled - virus packed OS???

People use Linux because it's quick, powerful, and safe. Without testing, it becomes none of these things.
It becomes windows vista.

It's about compromise. Creating a user-friendly, powerful, flexible, fully-featured OS should be the focus. Security and stability are only 2 of MANY factors, and must also never be forgotten :)

snowpine
September 28th, 2009, 09:32 PM
I don't think that's true - I think Ubuntu is the most popular distro because it works the best and is the most user-friendly. It is also quite well branded.

Agreed; I wasn't saying that's the only reason Ubuntu is so popular... just trying to point out its relationship to Debian for those who might not know. :)

I contend "rolling release Ubuntu" is impossible or at least impractical because of Ubuntu's relationship to Debian. Every six months, the developers take a "snapshot" of Debian unstable and use that as the code base for the next Ubuntu release. Since Debian unstable is a rolling release, in order to become rolling release, Ubuntu would have to become a rolling release based on a rolling release... in other words, any time a package gets updated in Debian unstable, the Canonical team has to examine, test, and port it to Ubuntu. Anyone who's every used Debian unstable (or Sidux) for any length of time will know what a huge task that would be!

toupeiro
September 28th, 2009, 09:38 PM
The Linux methods of package management are far superior to those of the windows world. If you cant see that you are blind my friend.

If you don't like ubuntu's package release cycles you should try something that uses the rolling release system like arch for instance. Arch uses probably the most up to date yet stable software of any distro and continuously updates things instead of having 6 month release cycles.


The Linux package management systems are easier, That doesn't always necessarily mean better.

That being said, when I say package management, I mean benefits of installmaster or installshield versus .deb and .rpm. I think the delivery system of synaptic is superior to the uncontrolled wild-west method windows has. Msiexec has a lot of untapped potential. BITS has a lot of untapped potential. I think windows software development and delivery is too overgrown to start trying to mow it now. As much as I hate to say it, they are better off reinventing the wheel at this stage in the game. MSIExec/BITS could have been THE software delivery method for windows that rivaled, or met what linux users have today in repositories, but they missed that opportunity.

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 09:39 PM
Agreed; I wasn't saying that's the only reason Ubuntu is so popular... just trying to point out its relationship to Debian for those who might not know. :)

I contend "rolling release Ubuntu" is impossible or at least impractical because of Ubuntu's relationship to Debian. Every six months, the developers take a "snapshot" of Debian unstable and use that as the code base for the next Ubuntu release. Since Debian unstable is a rolling release, in order to become rolling release, Ubuntu would have to become a rolling release based on a rolling release... in other words, any time a package gets updated in Debian unstable, the Canonical team has to examine, test, and port it to Ubuntu. Anyone who's every used Debian unstable (or Sidux) for any length of time will know what a huge task that would be!

I do understand it's just we are left with out-of-date versions of so many programs, having to install a bunch of PPAs just to get most of them to auto-update to the versions that our Windows friends have anyway. Surely you can see it's difficult for an OS to compete whilst having such a glaring shortcoming? If Ubuntu wants to play with the big boys it's going to have to eventually provide people with the latest software, AS it's released, with minimal fuss. It depends what Canonical's goal is here ._.

Xbehave
September 28th, 2009, 09:41 PM
Everybody has their pet project they want 100% up to date and assume everybody else feels the same, we do not 90% of ubuntu users are perfectly happy with the current system of the remaining 10% you all want different update while not having your system made unstable by constant changes.

If you want everything up to date ubuntu is the wrong distro for you try debian/arch they still have centralised package management (debain's being somewhat better than arch's)

If you want want your specific app up to date then find a ppa/repo for it (again keeping centralised package management). If you can't find a /ppa/repo install it to /opt/ and keep it up to date yourself (at this point you are in the windows world of package management)

decentralised management has the following problems

Each app must be run with permission to update all apps, mess with configs, etc
If any app gets exploited it can update any app to contain a "root kit"*
Each app has to be trusted to remove itself
...and its config


*note i use "root kit" because in that sense it has nothing to do with root just a modified binary that will still look like the original but compromise your security

Tibuda
September 28th, 2009, 09:46 PM
I do understand it's just we are left with out-of-date versions of so many programs, having to install a bunch of PPAs just to get most of them to auto-update to the versions that our Windows friends have anyway. Surely you can see it's difficult for an OS to compete whilst having such a glaring shortcoming? If Ubuntu wants to play with the big boys it's going to have to eventually provide people with the latest software, AS it's released, with minimal fuss. It depends what Canonical's goal is here ._.

No. I have Windows friends using Firefox 2.0 or worse: IE6!!! You keep with the argument that rolling would bring more "average users", but no. Average users don't care for the last package. You are above the average if you care.

snowpine
September 28th, 2009, 09:50 PM
I do understand it's just we are left with out-of-date versions of so many programs, having to install a bunch of PPAs just to get most of them to auto-update to the versions that our Windows friends have anyway. Surely you can see it's difficult for an OS to compete whilst having such a glaring shortcoming? If Ubuntu wants to play with the big boys it's going to have to eventually provide people with the latest software, AS it's released, with minimal fuss.

Hi there, I think your Windows friends are not representative of the norm--did you know more than 25% of all computer users are still surfing the web with Internet Explorer 6 or older? :) Most users (of any operating system) do not immediately update their applications as soon as a new version is released.

Seriously, Firefox 3.0 didn't suddenly explode and stop working the day 3.5 was released. Most Ubuntu users will have 3.5 as their default browser in about 4 weeks. Those who want 3.5 NOW already have it (or can get it easily). A small minority leave Ubuntu for other distros (not going to name any :lolflag:) that better suit how they think updates should work.


It depends what Canonical's goal is here ._.

Canonical's goal is clearly to release a fantastic new product every six months. Not a slightly different new product 365 times a year. ;)

Xbehave
September 28th, 2009, 09:52 PM
@hoppipolla
PPA

pick software
find PPA
apt-get install program
forget about it

Windows

pick software
download installer
keep it up to date!*


If you ware sane every update will require you to run it as root (otherwise the security of your system is 0). If you have n apps installed:
Under apt you do sudo aptitude dist-upgrade (or whatever) and its done for all of them,
Under windows each will try to update itself everytime you run it, if there is an update you need to restart it and if your not root then you will need to use UAC/login as root n times!

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 09:57 PM
Hi there, I think your Windows friends are not representative of the norm--did you know more than 25% of all computer users are still surfing the web with Internet Explorer 6 or older? :) Most users (of any operating system) do not immediately update their applications as soon as a new version is released.

Seriously, Firefox 3.0 didn't suddenly explode and stop working the day 3.5 was released. Most Ubuntu users will have 3.5 as their default browser in about 4 weeks. Those who want 3.5 NOW already have it (or can get it easily). A small minority leave Ubuntu for other distros (not going to name any :lolflag:) that better suit how they think updates should work.

But what happens if one day a bi-annual version of Ubuntu is released, then a month later some amazing version of some piece of software comes out with all these great updates? All the techie users will run out and grab the PPA and install it, only to get the updates that really should be automatic anyway, and the non-techie users will sit there wondering why their versions suck so much until some more computer literate person can come round and sort it out for them. We may have to agree to disagree, but I feel that this is CLEARLY not the ideal.

norm7446
September 28th, 2009, 10:16 PM
There should maybe be a new WIN setting I think in the UPDATE department. That would download all new updates but not install them, but would draw attention to itself every 30 Seconds saying " NEW UPDATES AVAILABLE " with a button to click on so that all new Win converts can feel right at home and know that there system is secure.....

Sorry I digress. But I do think that the Update should have Super User status to download and install all new updates as a standard setting out of the box, so to speak. Based on say a users computer literacy. When UBUNTU is installing.
IE : tick only one of the below

New to UBUNTU [ ]
Intermediate [ ]
Command Line Commando [ ]

This would then give you various options on the updating of your system.

AlanRick
September 28th, 2009, 10:27 PM
Too many of the users here are looking to have newer important use software on or around release time, and if Ubuntu is for Human Beings, maybe it should embrace updates to non mission critical applications like Firefox or openoffice.

That's me :)

I can't help wondering if a poll like this should distinguish between LTS and Jaunty/Karma users.
Or if there's a distinction between administrators and personal users and their wishes.
I'm wondering if Ubuntu's matured enoough to need a third branch (LTS plus up-to-date apps) and whether the admins would subscribe to that or not because I wouldn't want to break anything.

chriskin
September 28th, 2009, 10:30 PM
if one wants ubuntu to be more cutting edge, is it too difficult to just add the ppa of the app he wants to be more cutting edge?

it is so easy i can't see why people think that cutting edge distros are so special - the apps i want to be cutting edge update via ppas, the apps i don't care don't. that way :
1)i get my apps in their latest releases
2)i don't have to download updates for stuff i don't need to be cutting edge

Ubuntu + ppa seems like the cleverest way to update

starcannon
September 28th, 2009, 10:30 PM
It works perfectly the way it is.
It is not broken, why fix it?

chriskin
September 28th, 2009, 10:33 PM
It works perfectly the way it is.
It is not broken, why fix it?

things can be
1)broken
2)partially ok
3)ok

what the op says is that it seems like "partially ok" to him

"partially ok" things need some fixing in order to become "ok", that's why. (or people who don't care about good stuff, and all they want is for their OS to work ?)

JillSwift
September 28th, 2009, 10:34 PM
I think there are a lot of weird assumptions being made.

For instance, the idea that "the latest" version of any given package is "best" to have. It's clear to me this is not always so - user to user it depends on needs and interests. There are times when a new update screws up what I liked best about a package - and I'm sure I'm not alone on that. Long update intervals give plenty of time to decide what to do about these unwanted changes while leaving you with the software as you like it.

Another example: That Ubuntu should be the be-all-end-all distro. Phfft. There is no such thing, it's impossible. There are too many goals out there that conflict with one another. Ubuntu has a particular audience, and well defined. If you aren't in that audience, there are other distros that will fit your needs and wishes better. Heck, that's the reason there are so many distros.

snowpine
September 28th, 2009, 10:34 PM
But what happens if one day a bi-annual version of Ubuntu is released, then a month later some amazing version of some piece of software comes out with all these great updates? All the techie users will run out and grab the PPA and install it, only to get the updates that really should be automatic anyway, and the non-techie users will sit there wondering why their versions suck so much until some more computer literate person can come round and sort it out for them. We may have to agree to disagree, but I feel that this is CLEARLY not the ideal.

There is no "ideal" Linux distribution... there are thousands of distros, and many of those work exactly how you want Ubuntu to work (automatically upgrade all applications to the latest version as soon as it's released). I personally use Arch, which is a rolling release distro, and yet here I am defending Ubuntu's time-based releases... it is because I understand and appreciate the decision Canonical has made in this regard. I do not personally feel that a software release that was awesome in April automatically begins to "suck so much" by September, nor that the average user needs new features automatically installed on a daily basis. Look how many people are still using Windows XP (8 years old) for example... they would rather stick with what's tested and comfortable than risk the great unknown of a major upgrade.

The bottom line is, you can obviously disagree with how Ubuntu handles updates (or move on to a different distro more compatible with your needs), but there's no denying Canonical consciously and deliberately designed Ubuntu not to automatically update applications to major new versions. It is not a bug or a feature they forgot to include. :)

chriskin
September 28th, 2009, 10:37 PM
I think there are a lot of weird assumptions being made.

For instance, the idea that "the latest" version of any given package is "best" to have. It's clear to me this is not always so - user to user it depends on needs and interests. There are times when a new update screws up what I liked best about a package - and I'm sure I'm not alone on that. Long update intervals give plenty of time to decide what to do about these unwanted changes while leaving you with the software as you like it.

Another example: That Ubuntu should be the be-all-end-all distro. Phfft. There is no such thing, it's impossible. There are too many goals out there that conflict with one another. Ubuntu has a particular audience, and well defined. If you aren't in that audience, there are other distros that will fit your needs and wishes better. Heck, that's the reason there are so many distros.

i totally agree on the first paragraph but there is a serious flaw in the second one

why can't there be another choice (like backports) that gives even more cutting edge stuff?
it doesn't seem to be so conflicting with the other goals of ubuntu

why can't there be a gui way to add ppas at least?

JillSwift
September 28th, 2009, 10:42 PM
i totally agree on the first paragraph but there is a serious flaw in the second one

why can't there be another choice (like backports) that gives even more cutting edge stuff?
it doesn't seem to be so conflicting with the other goals of ubuntu

why can't there be a gui way to add ppas at least?
How is that a flaw? There are already ways to get "cutting edge" stuff, including backports and last time I added a PPA I used the GUI. I also compile from source when I want to go bleeding edge.

Just how far do they need to go to please everyone? The point isn't that there is no way to get the latest stuff, but that Ubuntu is oriented toward keeping it predictable and stable. That, and if one wants more cutting edge stuff, there are other distros that will meet those interests - no one's hands are tied.

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 10:43 PM
There is no "ideal" Linux distribution... there are thousands of distros, and many of those work exactly how you want Ubuntu to work (automatically upgrade all applications to the latest version as soon as it's released). I personally use Arch, which is a rolling release distro, and yet here I am defending Ubuntu's time-based releases... it is because I understand and appreciate the decision Canonical has made in this regard. I do not personally feel that a software release that was awesome in April automatically begins to "suck so much" by September, nor that the average user needs new features automatically installed on a daily basis. Look how many people are still using Windows XP (8 years old) for example... they would rather stick with what's tested and comfortable than risk the great unknown of a major upgrade.

The bottom line is, you can obviously disagree with how Ubuntu handles updates (or move on to a different distro more compatible with your needs), but there's no denying Canonical consciously and deliberately designed Ubuntu not to automatically update applications to major new versions. It is not a bug or a feature they forgot to include. :)

Ah but it might be a feature they PLAN to include when things get a bit further along development and achieve more support.

And I know I could move to another distro if I want it to do this (and I do)... it's just that Ubuntu is such a cool distribution and such a kinda, pioneer for friendly, accessible Linux on the desktop. I want it to compete with OSX and Windows 7 in every way and come out on top, because it CAN do it!

Chriskin I agree with a lot of your points by the way man, well said :)

I do think Ubuntu has more developing to do, and I do think a lot of these things will get improved on or smoothed out with time. I also think that if they don't, another distro may well come along that DOES do that, and that may make it look better to an end-user (it would certainly make me switch).

As it is... I am considering switching ._. I mean, if I could be sure this kind of thing would be changed for the the future of Ubuntu so it handled a bit more like 7 or OSX then I would stay around as I really like the OS, but as it is, I want my programs to be up to date automatically, and to have the easy, GUI option of turning this on or off ._.

Does OpenSuse do this?

chriskin
September 28th, 2009, 10:48 PM
How is that a flaw? There are already ways to get "cutting edge" stuff, including backports and last time I added a PPA I used the GUI. I also compile from source when I want to go bleeding edge.

Just how far do they need to go to please everyone? The point isn't that there is no way to get the latest stuff, but that Ubuntu is oriented toward keeping it predictable and stable. That, and if one wants more cutting edge stuff, there are other distros that will meet those interests - no one's hands are tied.

undeniably , ubuntu needs the least work to get the os up and running and keep it that way. having an official way of adding ppas (like an official version of ubuntu tweak or something like that) would make it even better against their "competitors" (<--not the best word for this case, since i mean the other gnu/linux distros).

that wouldn't need a lot of work(considering ubuntu-tweak is maintained by one man for example), and it would seriously add a lot more to the whole OS

as for using other distros, most apps (at sites) offer debs or source as their choices and last time i checked, debs are Way easier to install than source code.

Chame_Wizard
September 28th, 2009, 10:57 PM
my answer:No thank you , I like it how it is for years now (repositories and 6 monthly upgrades/updates).

Xbehave
September 28th, 2009, 11:00 PM
Does OpenSuse do this?
How many times does it have to be said!!! If you want everything in your system up to date use arch or debian, no OpenSuse and Fedora will not give you up to date software, they follow the same sane development model as ubuntu, fedora/opensuse may be more current but it neither will be 100% up to date!

Most people do not want this ubuntu will never change to suit a few people who want 100% up to date software with no package management!

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 11:08 PM
How many times does it have to be said!!! If you want everything in your system up to date use arch or debian, no OpenSuse and Fedora will not give you up to date software, they follow the same sane development model as ubuntu, fedora/opensuse may be more current but it neither will be 100% up to date!

Most people do not want this ubuntu will never change to suit a few people who want 100% up to date software with no package management!

I don't necessarily mind the package management ._.

And I don't even need it 100% up to date :) I would just like it, for example, that emesene that I have installed auto-updates to the new released 1.5. Or Pidgin to 2.6, or Nicotine or... just in general :)

Fedora and Arch are too techy for my liking that's the thing (plus Fedora seemed quite buggy).

Different strokes I guess ._.

I would like to hear from the devs and Mark Shuttleworth if faster program updates like on Mac or Win are something that will one day make an appearance :)

chriskin
September 28th, 2009, 11:11 PM
I don't necessarily mind the package management ._.

And I don't even need it 100% up to date :) I would just like it, for example, that emesene that I have installed auto-updates to the new released 1.5. Or Pidgin to 2.6, or Nicotine or... just in general :)

Fedora and Arch are too techy for my liking that's the thing (plus Fedora seemed quite buggy).

Different strokes I guess ._.

I would like to hear from the devs and Mark Shuttleworth if faster program updates like on Mac or Win are something that will one day make an appearance :)

karmic already has emesene at 1.5 (probably the other ones as well?), and for the future ppas will do the job. adding ppas is easier than distro hopping :popcorn:

Viva
September 28th, 2009, 11:14 PM
Wow, did not expect such a positive opinion about the repository system

Viva
September 28th, 2009, 11:15 PM
i totally agree on the first paragraph but there is a serious flaw in the second one

why can't there be another choice (like backports) that gives even more cutting edge stuff?
it doesn't seem to be so conflicting with the other goals of ubuntu

why can't there be a gui way to add ppas at least?

:confused: You can add PPAs using a GUI

JillSwift
September 28th, 2009, 11:16 PM
undeniably , ubuntu needs the least work to get the os up and running and keep it that way. having an official way of adding ppas (like an official version of ubuntu tweak or something like that) would make it even better against their "competitors" (<--not the best word for this case, since i mean the other gnu/linux distros).

that wouldn't need a lot of work(considering ubuntu-tweak is maintained by one man for example), and it would seriously add a lot more to the whole OS

as for using other distros, most apps (at sites) offer debs or source as their choices and last time i checked, debs are Way easier to install than source code.
You can re-assert that all you like, but my point is there's nothing that really suggests that is true. Besides serving the wishes of a few who have posted about it here, can you tell me if there is real need to make the addition of PPAs and other alternate sources any easier to use than they already are? Or is my corollary question closer to the truth of things?

chriskin
September 28th, 2009, 11:16 PM
:confused: You can add PPAs using a GUI

i mean using ONLY a gui
you can add ppas using a gui and your browser to hunt them down
ubuntu tweak, automatix etc aren't official

JDShu
September 28th, 2009, 11:17 PM
If you want it to be like Windows, let me tell you a secret: it can work like this. Download Firefox from Mozilla and extract it to your home folder and it will update itself.

To the OP: Read this over and over again. What is described is the Windows way.

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 11:19 PM
I am so different to most people here ._. hehe

I wonder what would be my perfect OS! Joke is, it's probably Windows or OSX, but I hate the companies and love Open Source! Oh my my my... lol

Plus KDE kicks some serious *** :)

chriskin
September 28th, 2009, 11:19 PM
You can re-assert that all you like, but my point is there's nothing that really suggests that is true. Besides serving the wishes of a few who have posted about it here, can you tell me if there is real need to make the addition of PPAs and other alternate sources any easier to use than they already are? Or is my corollary question closer to the truth of things?

you might be close to the truth, i am not sure. it just seems to me that since it doesn't need much work, and it would be nice, it's worth the little trouble it needs.
as for if it is needed. no , it isn't. but it is wanted by many users , or else automatix, ubuntu -tweak etc wouldn't be used as widely as they are used.

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 11:22 PM
i mean using ONLY a gui
you can add ppas using a gui and your browser to hunt them down
ubuntu tweak, automatix etc aren't official

I agree with Chriskin! If Ubuntu really is designed to be user-friendly, then the current system of adding PPAs even just to install some applications (such as when I installed Wakoopa) has to be revised! Pretty much anything can be installed in Windows with one click (or thereabouts), and I just think this should be the goal on Ubuntu as well :)

Viva
September 28th, 2009, 11:26 PM
But I don't get it, Firefox 3.5 is fine. Why aren't we updating, or at least giving the users an easy option when they load it up?

Comparing the browser that comes with ubuntu to the firefox you download and install isn't fair. Technically, the browser that comes with ubuntu is not Mozilla Firefox, but a variant based on Firefox. You should be comparing it with the browser that is preinstalled with windows, i.e., IE, which is updated less often and far inferior to the Ubuntu Browser. If you install Firefox from Mozilla's website like you do in windows, it will automatically update itself.

Viva
September 28th, 2009, 11:28 PM
i mean using ONLY a gui
you can add ppas using a gui and your browser to hunt them down
ubuntu tweak, automatix etc aren't official

Even in windows, you have to open up your browser and visit a website like download.com to download something.

JillSwift
September 28th, 2009, 11:34 PM
you might be close to the truth, i am not sure. it just seems to me that since it doesn't need much work, and it would be nice, it's worth the little trouble it needs."Nice" isn't enough to expend any resources on. Especially given the need to chase bugs and whatnot for the core of the distro. Where would you really rather have any resources expended?


as for if it is needed. no , it isn't. but it is wanted by many users , or else automatix, ubuntu -tweak etc wouldn't be used as widely as they are used.
Odd argument. "The need to fulfill desire is proven by that which fulfills this desire!".

Great! Since it already exists, Ubuntu devs can concentrate on the important bits. :P

Regenweald
September 28th, 2009, 11:36 PM
it's sad and pitiful when users make sweeping statements without a shread of research.

Open a terminal:


sudo add-apt-repository ppa:exaile-devel


This command adds a ppa and automatically fetches the key. It is also silly to demand ease of use and stability while at the same time demanding access to bleeding edge software. Stability = testing and re-testing. If you want to see software hit the repos earlier, take a look at this list:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Specs/Karmic/Firefox35Transition
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-karmic-firefox-3.5

and make yourself useful.

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 11:41 PM
"Nice" isn't enough to expend any resources on. Especially given the need to chase bugs and whatnot for the core of the distro. Where would you really rather have any resources expended?


Odd argument. "The need to fulfill desire is proven by that which fulfills this desire!".

Great! Since it already exists, Ubuntu devs can concentrate on the important bits. :P

Sometimes I think people intentionally miss points ._.


it's sad and pitiful when users make sweeping statements without a shread of research.

Open a terminal:


sudo add-apt-repository ppa:exaile-devel


This command adds a ppa and automatically fetches the key. It is also silly to demand ease of use and stability while at the same time demanding access to bleeding edge software. Stability = testing and re-testing. If you want to see software hit the repos earlier, take a look at this list:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MozillaTeam/Specs/Karmic/Firefox35Transition
https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/desktop-karmic-firefox-3.5

and make yourself useful.

You're right, and I totally understand PPAs for unstable or development updates, betas etc etc. In that case it also makes sense they might be a little tricky to add, because onlyy fairly well-versed users would even attempt it.

However, more often than not normal software installs require this same procedure, and this I think is silly, what day-to-day computer user is technically minded enough to do that, or has the time to do it multiple times if different programs require it?

MaxIBoy
September 28th, 2009, 11:44 PM
The thing is, it can be changed. It's simple really.



First, you go into synaptic and uninstall every single package.
At this point, your system will be unbootable. You should boot from a liveCD. Mount the root partition on your hard drive as /media/root.
Use it to download a .deb package for the Linux kernel. A .deb package is really a renamed .ar archive, so you can extract it using the "ar xv file.deb" command. Get the binary kernel image from that and install it in /media/root/boot. You might also get an initramfs to install, or you might get that in a separate package.
Create a text file in /media/root/registry.txt. Add "Linux kernel" as the first line of text.
If you are building a system from scratch (which is basically what you are doing, except in this case all your documents, pictures, music, etc. have not been erased,) the easiest bootloader to install is EXTLINUX. Directions for that can be found here: http://www.vyvy.org/main/en/node/167 (Note, substitute EXTLINUX for SYSLINUX if you want to use a Fat32 partition or similar, but heaven knows why you'd want to do that.
Install the GNU coreutils using the same method as above. The binaries go in the appropriate /media/root/bin and /media/root/sbin directories. Remember to chmod +x all the files!
Modify your registry.txt file, adding "coreutils" as the second line. Or "GNU core utilities" if you prefer.
You now have a simple but bootable Linux installation which used Windows-style package management every step of the way! We did use .deb packages, but we simply installed the files directly. The operating system itself isn't properly keeping track of them, and you will need to delete them whenever you want to uninstall something. Of course, some programs will be in more-obvious positions than others, but you can keep the .deb packages around (which contain uninstallation info in them.)



It's so easy and simple to do, in fact, that it's quite astonishing that no one uses Linux this way, myself included. Oh well, you can have fun with your new easy-to-use system, I'll go back to my difficult task of remembering what all five buttons of the update manager do whilst simultaneously chewing on a pretzel.

JillSwift
September 28th, 2009, 11:44 PM
Sometimes I think people intentionally miss points ._.
Sometimes I think no one has any communication skills, and blame others for their failure to get a point across.

Strange, no?

Ric_NYC
September 28th, 2009, 11:46 PM
"No, I like it how it is (repositories and 6 monthly updates)"


Yeah, right...

Then we get stuck with something called "Shiretoko".

:tongue:

JillSwift
September 28th, 2009, 11:47 PM
It's so easy and simple to do, in fact, that it's quite astonishing that no one uses Linux this way, myself included. Oh well, you can have fun with your new easy-to-use system, I'll go back to my difficult task of remembering what all five buttons of the update manager do whilst simultaneously chewing on a pretzel.
I prefer to gnaw on a Popsicle, myself.

hoppipolla
September 28th, 2009, 11:50 PM
"No, I like it how it is (repositories and 6 monthly updates)"


Yeah, right...

Then we get stuck with something called "Shiretoko".

:tongue:

haha exactly :)

Mateo
September 28th, 2009, 11:54 PM
Not changed, but modified. In addition to apt, there should be a cross-platform installable package available from developers. I know there are many attempts at making such a system; we need one that's popular.

Regenweald
September 28th, 2009, 11:58 PM
You're right, and I totally understand PPAs for unstable or development updates, betas etc etc. In that case it also makes sense they might be a little tricky to add, because onlyy fairly well-versed users would even attempt it.

However, more often than not normal software installs require this same procedure, and this I think is silly, what day-to-day computer user is technically minded enough to do that, or has the time to do it multiple times if different programs require it?

Well I get you, but at the same time how much software really exists outside of the repos that new users are going to have to add ?

Take me for instance, added the exaile-devel ppa and sh** broke. Latest version, but loss of functionality. Couple of weeks later, exaile3.1 comes through the repos, tested, and works like a charm. so the question really is how much functionality does one really loose by waiting for tried and tested latest versions ?

Also, i believe a graphical way of managing ppa's is coming with the final software centre so it's on it's way.

--Totally off topic, Just did some updates and killed chromium mid post to allow the chromium update(i DO know i didn't have to but it's a quirk :)) restart chromium and it jumps to my reply, text intact!--

hoppipolla
September 29th, 2009, 12:34 AM
Well I get you, but at the same time how much software really exists outside of the repos that new users are going to have to add ?

Take me for instance, added the exaile-devel ppa and sh** broke. Latest version, but loss of functionality. Couple of weeks later, exaile3.1 comes through the repos, tested, and works like a charm. so the question really is how much functionality does one really loose by waiting for tried and tested latest versions ?

Also, i believe a graphical way of managing ppa's is coming with the final software centre so it's on it's way.

--Totally off topic, Just did some updates and killed chromium mid post to allow the chromium update(i DO know i didn't have to but it's a quirk :)) restart chromium and it jumps to my reply, text intact!--

haha that's cool :)

cariboo
September 29th, 2009, 02:30 AM
Except for Regenweald, I haven't seen anybody mention that the latest and greatest is not always better. Mozilla changed Firefox enough for version 3.5 that some of the add-ons I used still don't work.

Look at the changes vlc went through and the regression from .08 to .09, in .08 all you had to do was move the mouse and the controls were at the bottom of the screen, with .09 if you were running full screen you had to resize the window in order to access the controls. In 1.0 they have reverted back to the same behaviour as .08.

I can qoute many other examples of where the latest and greatest doesn't work as well as the version it replaced.

This newer is better is part of Microsofts Marketing, and look how well that works. :)

hoppipolla
September 29th, 2009, 03:10 AM
Except for Regenweald, I haven't seen anybody mention that the latest and greatest is not always better. Mozilla changed Firefox enough for version 3.5 that some of the add-ons I used still don't work.

Look at the changes vlc went through and the regression from .08 to .09, in .08 all you had to do was move the mouse and the controls were at the bottom of the screen, with .09 if you were running full screen you had to resize the window in order to access the controls. In 1.0 they have reverted back to the same behaviour as .08.

I can qoute many other examples of where the latest and greatest doesn't work as well as the version it replaced.

This newer is better is part of Microsofts Marketing, and look how well that works. :)

Usually though, newer is better, isn't it? I mean in 80-90% of cases.

Plus, I think it should be easier to have the option, personally :)

JDShu
September 29th, 2009, 04:11 AM
Comparing the browser that comes with ubuntu to the firefox you download and install isn't fair. Technically, the browser that comes with ubuntu is not Mozilla Firefox, but a variant based on Firefox. You should be comparing it with the browser that is preinstalled with windows, i.e., IE, which is updated less often and far inferior to the Ubuntu Browser. If you install Firefox from Mozilla's website like you do in windows, it will automatically update itself.

Another person trying to tell the OP something brought up by the second poster in this thread. Its a very simple point that is getting completely ignored.

Mateo
September 29th, 2009, 04:16 AM
Except for Regenweald, I haven't seen anybody mention that the latest and greatest is not always better. Mozilla changed Firefox enough for version 3.5 that some of the add-ons I used still don't work.

Look at the changes vlc went through and the regression from .08 to .09, in .08 all you had to do was move the mouse and the controls were at the bottom of the screen, with .09 if you were running full screen you had to resize the window in order to access the controls. In 1.0 they have reverted back to the same behaviour as .08.

I can qoute many other examples of where the latest and greatest doesn't work as well as the version it replaced.

This newer is better is part of Microsofts Marketing, and look how well that works. :)

I'm assuming you posted this from your Apple ][

Regenweald
September 29th, 2009, 04:20 AM
Usually though, newer is better, isn't it? I mean in 80-90% of cases.

Plus, I think it should be easier to have the option, personally :)

In my experience, latest from repos, 97% better experience
latest from ppa's for me, 60-80% better experience but generally newversion.1 is the charm. The modest difficulty with adding ppa's in Ubuntu I think is a good abstraction layer for noobs. Too easy and the forums feel the weight of Multiverse, Universe and pre-release software. Ubuntu gets an undeservedly bad rep for 'almost fully functional' software that should not be handled without gloves in the first place...

hoppipolla
September 29th, 2009, 04:22 AM
Another person trying to tell the OP something brought up by the second poster in this thread. Its a very simple point that is getting completely ignored.

No I didn't ignore it, it's just I'm not really talking about what's best for me I'm talking about what is best as an approach for the OS, to encourage a user to do when installing software, and the commonly accepted way of doing it.

Plus, this isn't just about Firefox - I have Shiretoko and I always use Chromium anyway - it's about the update system in general.

I don't think we will ever agree though hehe :)

Frak
September 29th, 2009, 04:26 AM
It works perfectly the way it is.
It is not broken, why fix it?
IMHO, it's broken. I'm stuck with Firefox 3 until Karmic, in which it will be 3.5, but will be on it's way to obsoletion as well.

If I want to install from a PPA, I'll be stuck with a hackish way of overriding what the repositories have in store.

As I've told over and over, I'm working on my own installer system. So far, I've gotten far enough to have it upgrade smoothly up to Karmic, and have it sucessfully update the installed packages of DPMS and RPM managers. The only downfall is that it is about as stable as a warm plate of jello that happens to be sitting in a microwave, spinning, while that microwave is in a 500 degree oven.

Mateo
September 29th, 2009, 04:32 AM
PPA is fine, but it should be easier to use. A user shouldn't need to know the back-end of how apt works. It should be 1 click from the browser, a simple administrative rights dialog and have it add the ppa to the sources and install the app. Basic software design; separate user experience from back-end function.

3rdalbum
September 29th, 2009, 04:50 AM
Let's make the updating system work like Apple's. If there's, say, an Amarok update, it should also install Epiphany-browser and K9Copy under the guise of it being an "update".

hoppipolla
September 29th, 2009, 04:51 AM
IMHO, it's broken. I'm stuck with Firefox 3 until Karmic, in which it will be 3.5, but will be on it's way to obsoletion as well.

If I want to install from a PPA, I'll be stuck with a hackish way of overriding what the repositories have in store.

As I've told over and over, I'm working on my own installer system. So far, I've gotten far enough to have it upgrade smoothly up to Karmic, and have it sucessfully update the installed packages of DPMS and RPM managers. The only downfall is that it is about as stable as a warm plate of jello that happens to be sitting in a microwave, spinning, while that microwave is in a 500 degree oven.

Sounds pretty stable O.O lol

But thanks man, it's nice to hear someone else who shares my views a bit on this one :)

I would be really interested to see your program though - well done for giving it a bash so far and I hope it gets more stable! :)

hoppipolla
September 29th, 2009, 04:53 AM
Let's make the updating system work like Apple's. If there's, say, an Amarok update, it should also install Epiphany-browser and K9Copy under the guise of it being an "update".

haha :)

Thing is, at least it would give us quick updates of the programs we want to use! :)

cariboo
September 29th, 2009, 06:12 AM
I'm assuming you posted this from your Apple ][

No I loaned it out, I have to use my Blueberry iMac. running Xubuntu 9.04. :)

Tibuda
September 29th, 2009, 12:16 PM
IMHO, it's broken. I'm stuck with Firefox 3 until Karmic, in which it will be 3.5, but will be on it's way to obsoletion as well.

If I want to install from a PPA, I'll be stuck with a hackish way of overriding what the repositories have in store.

As I've told over and over, I'm working on my own installer system. So far, I've gotten far enough to have it upgrade smoothly up to Karmic, and have it sucessfully update the installed packages of DPMS and RPM managers. The only downfall is that it is about as stable as a warm plate of jello that happens to be sitting in a microwave, spinning, while that microwave is in a 500 degree oven.

You are not stuck with FF 3.0.

Can you tell more about your installer system? What it does? Backport karmic packages?

Xbehave
September 29th, 2009, 12:42 PM
Dammit guys! I'm already on a warning but you keep ignoring the answers many, many, many people are giving you.

Centralised packages is good
Release cycles are good


note to mods: I really tried to tone down anything harsh this time, apologies if i have failed.


I think the problem is understanding here,:

Those of you who do not understand release cycles. The rest of us do not want constantly updating software because it means the compatibility between software and stability of each piece will be much tested. Those that do understand and still want uptodate software use a distro that provides that debian sid, arch, etc.

Those of you who do not understand /opt and that you can install individual programs and have them update themselves ala windows, seam to think it cannot be done, it can:
ls /opt/
asciiportal-linux64 cisco-vpnclient firefox
Those of you who do not understand computer security, letting programs update itself is suicide, as soon as one program gets exploited it can rootkit itself. This means if you run a non-root account on windows you do not get up to date software (ofc if you run a root account you deserve to be shot and if you run vista you get UACs for every individual update)

Those of you who do not understand package management, trusting programs to manage themselves is stupid:
If you boot 10 programs and they all need updates the first thing they have to do is update themselves before you use them
Every program must be trusted not to mess with other programs files (*cough* add firefox extensions *cough*)
Every prgaram must be trusted to remove its config
If a program breaks, it is not a trivial to uninstall it




IMHO, it's broken. I'm stuck with Firefox 3 until Karmic, in which it will be 3.5, but will be on it's way to obsoletion as well.
Simply not true, you can install firefox to /opt if you want the latest version.


If I want to install from a PPA, I'll be stuck with a hackish way of overriding what the repositories have in store.
A PPA is not a "hack", it is a well designed way to have one* program be kept up to date by package management tools.

*I say one one i mean a subset of program, it just often one.

Back in the day i would have 5/6 custom repos (not even ppa's but independent hosted repos) to keep the various software projects up to date, this included my window manager image what it would be like if every time i logged in i got a popup, "your window manager needs updating", then i start using the other apps "your media player needs updating", "your browser needs updating", etc

Frak
September 29th, 2009, 01:49 PM
Snipped for great justice!

1. I understand release cycles. If Ubuntu wants to displace Microsoft, they'll have to latch onto a faster release cycle. It doesn't have to be immediate, but it should be prompt.

2. That's much too difficult for a new user with limited computer experience.

3. I DOUBT that'd ever happen. This is coming from a security expert.

4. Why don't we just quit updating applications altogether! I just don't trust Canonical. They're a really sneaky company.

5. I don't want to install Firefox in /opt, I have to constantly recompile it for updates.

6. I damn well know what a PPA is, but the method to keep it as a higher version than the repos is hackish. Please read before you respond.

Tibuda
September 29th, 2009, 02:04 PM
5. I don't want to install Firefox in /opt, I have to constantly recompile it for updates.
Untrue, the tar.gz downloaded from mozilla is not the source code, but a pre-compiled static x86 executable binary that can update itself from the Help menu, just like the Windows version.

Pasdar
September 29th, 2009, 03:06 PM
What I want is not to be asked to enter my password for every little stupid thing I want to do, including look at and updating of system.

SomeGuyDude
September 29th, 2009, 03:21 PM
Everybody has their pet project they want 100% up to date and assume everybody else feels the same, we do not 90% of ubuntu users are perfectly happy with the current system of the remaining 10% you all want different update while not having your system made unstable by constant changes.

I almost argued, but then I realize I'm not an Ubuntu user and the above is one of the reasons for that. :lolflag:

Xbehave
September 29th, 2009, 04:44 PM
1. I understand release cycles. If Ubuntu wants to displace Microsoft, they'll have to latch onto a faster release cycle. It doesn't have to be immediate, but it should be prompt.
Why MS update system libraries less often than every 6 months, most users are fine with having their apps updated every 6/12 months it means less changes to their computer while remaining safe!

2. That's much too difficult for a new user with limited computer experience.
Clicking extract to and selecting a folder to extract it to is no harder than doing the same under windows, doing it safely (e.g choosing opt over ~/firefox requires a clue but then again you can install it under a userfolder on windows too)


3. I DOUBT that'd ever happen. This is coming from a security expert.Wait as a security expert, your are saying that all applications should be self updating? Please tell me who you work for so I can avoid them! I'm no pro but I saying that something like firefox (something with network access and a less than 100% security record) should be able to rewrite it's self if exploited sounds ridiculous.


5. I don't want to install Firefox in /opt, I have to constantly recompile it for updates.Clearly you don't understand /opt it is where you can put binaries that are not maintained by the system, its not /usr/local (where compiled binaries go).


6. I damn well know what a PPA is, but the method to keep it as a higher version than the repos is hackish. Please read before you respond.
Please understand package management before you respond or at least explain how a PPA is "hackish", it uses the package management tools provided to install/update/remove from repositories, its no more "hackish" than using mediabuntu or backports (both completely un "hackish" ways of installing/updating/remove apps)


What I want is not to be asked to enter my password for every little stupid thing I want to do, including look at and updating of system. You should only be asked once every time you are prompted to update, if you are asked more than that something is wrong with your setup.


I almost argued, but then I realize I'm not an Ubuntu user and the above is one of the reasons for that. You are one of the 10% (maybe more maybe less i pulled the number out of my ...hat) that wants constantly updating software, Ubuntu is not the distro for you, you found the distro for you, everybody wins :D (unless that distro was arch :P)

ReddogOne
September 29th, 2009, 05:16 PM
[Novice looking at this purely as a user] Overall the current approach it cool and wouldn't change it but a few thoughts pop into my head.


Maybe it should offer an option to use a more up to date repository managed by the creators or a particular application
The user is information of the trustworthyness of the new repository: life in your hands, seems good or a safe to do
The trustworthyness is worked out by the number of people who have installed and found it to work
If it doesn't work you can fire off a problem report to the applicaiton owner and communittee informing them of the problem and the trustworthyness is reduced
When the release cycle comes around if is it proven to work then they can just update the repository and move to the newest working implementation. No (or less) need to test. Automatically switches those using version so they stick with the ubuntu repositories


So ubuntu bobs need to do less work to test updates to repositories. Application developers get prompt feedback to how programs work and those that want cutting edge can do so relatively safely.

Just a thought... please don't shoot me.

BrokenKingpin
September 29th, 2009, 05:33 PM
I think the way that Linux (Ubuntu) updates is one of the big benefits of using Linux.

hoppipolla
September 29th, 2009, 05:36 PM
[Novice looking at this purely as a user] Overall the current approach it cool and wouldn't change it but a few thoughts pop into my head.


Maybe it should offer an option to use a more up to date repository managed by the creators or a particular application
The user is information of the trustworthyness of the new repository: life in your hands, seems good or a safe to do
The trustworthyness is worked out by the number of people who have installed and found it to work
If it doesn't work you can fire off a problem report to the applicaiton owner and communittee informing them of the problem and the trustworthyness is reduced
When the release cycle comes around if is it proven to work then they can just update the repository and move to the newest working implementation. No (or less) need to test. Automatically switches those using version so they stick with the ubuntu repositories


So ubuntu bobs need to do less work to test updates to repositories. Application developers get prompt feedback to how programs work and those that want cutting edge can do so relatively safely.

Just a thought... please don't shoot me.

Haha, no i think you're right about most of that, I also agree with most things that Frak said.

The thing is, I am not arguing what's best for ME, and I am not arguing what is most compatible with current Ubuntu, most suitable for Linux, or works best with the current set-up. I am arguing what I feel to be the IDEAL if Canonical hope to build an OS that can compete with commercial alternatives such as Windows 7 and Snow Leopard, or even older choices such as XP. Those operating systems DO automatically update programs easily and quickly, and ok it's not perfect, but I would like to have the easy option of doing this as well.

As I said it really depends what Canonical's goal is here with their OS. They need solutions which are simple and give the end-user what they want. And I believe that enough end-users want their software upgraded speedily for this to be a prudent change to make. If it were my distro and I hoped to make it mainstream and competitive, asking my users to wait up to 6 months for an program update (or go through a lengthy or non-standard procedure) would feel like "suicide".

I also very much agree with a lot of what you said there ReddogOne about basically offering people more options and allowing the community to inform itself on the trustworthiness and overall quality of repositories and packages. It's moves like that that I think will make Ubuntu or any similar OS look far more powerful when compared to it's competitors.

I honestly wouldn't be surprised if changes and improvements to this were already in the works.

chriskin
September 29th, 2009, 05:41 PM
Even in windows, you have to open up your browser and visit a website like download.com to download something.

i'm not comparing windows and ubuntu but ubuntu and ubuntu as i would like it :)



Sometimes I think no one has any communication skills, and blame others for their failure to get a point across.

Strange, no?

or people just keep missing the point intentionally :)
it's not the first time , it won't be the last
if someone got the point, and another didn't, then there is not a problem of the communication skills of the poster :)

snowpine
September 29th, 2009, 05:52 PM
Why re-invent the wheel? There are several excellent rolling-release, bleeding-edge linux distributions that automatically give you the latest software. Yet for some strange reason, none of them are as popular as Ubuntu...? Maybe the poll results will shed some light on the answer?

Xbehave
September 29th, 2009, 05:52 PM
Maybe it should offer an option to use a more up to date repository managed by the creators or a particular application
This requires the program makers to do it, alternatively we have PPAs that are made by packagers that do exactly what you said

The user is information of the trustworthyness of the new repository: life in your hands, seems good or a safe to do

This true, equally so for installing windows programs for using PPAs/archbuilds/etc

The trustworthyness is worked out by the number of people who have installed and found it to work
I don't think that works as you can put spyware in an app but still leave it working, trust is very subjective, you have to trust the person packaging it not some arbitrary number that can be gamed.

When the release cycle comes around if is it proven to work then they can just update the repository and move to the newest working implementation. This is more or less how debian unstable packaging works.


No (or less) need to test. Automatically switches those using version so they stick with the ubuntu repositories
You could do that, that is called a rolling release schedule and is done by many debian and arch, however it has its problems. A small test base may not run include ABC.exe version X.Y.Z and DEF.exe v X.Y.Z, most people think that not enough work is done stabilising ubuntu! One difference between ubuntu and windows is the way apps interact with libraries, under ubuntu two apps that render web pages will often share the same libraries, for example if you update webbrowser you need to check that the changes made to libwebbrowser do not break mediabrowser, htmleditor etc, on windows every app that needs libwebbrowser will do that checking itself (or often just implement libwebbrowser itself). At the end of the day the package management means that my entire OS+apps+(loads of libraries i use for development and debuging) fit inside the space take by just the core vista install, it means that if a security flaw is found in libwebbrowser just one update fixes it and even unmaintained apps, the price we pay is that more testing is needed before releasing updates, ubuntu/fedora/opensuse "solve" this by releasing stable versions every 6 months then forgetting about non-security fixes, debian/arch "fixes" this by constantly releasing updates and changing versions of apps if a x.y.z is incompatible with b x.y.z , Having maintained both times of systems (for short periods of time), I think it is much easier to install & forget than it is to have everything updating all day, SomeGuyDude respectfully disagrees and that is why he uses arch/debian etc.


Just a thought... please don't shoot me.Not shooting you its just that what you described is already out there only most projects don't take the time to package stuff themselves so thats what PPAs are for


Those operating systems DO automatically update programs easily and quickly, and ok it's not perfect, but I would like to have the easy option of doing this as well. No they do not, they do nothing each program is expected to update itself! Please stop parroting nonsense, there are many linux distros that keep updating themselves constantly, if you are arguing about release management then go look at other distros arch and debian do what you want, however i do not want to live in a world of patch tuesdays, I prefer to install ubuntu/fedora/etc set it up then forget about updates for 6 to 5 years months I get a consistent, secure, stable computer, then when I have the time i will update my system. people with a clue that disagree with me, such as SomeGuyDude have realises that there are many distros that offer that and picked one that suites them.

hoppipolla
September 29th, 2009, 06:09 PM
No they do not, they do nothing each program is expected to update itself! Please stop parroting nonsense, there are many linux distros that keep updating themselves constantly, if you are arguing about release management then go look at other distros arch and debian do what you want, however i do not want to live in a world of patch tuesdays, I prefer to install ubuntu/fedora/etc set it up then forget about updates for 6 to 5 years months I get a consistent, secure, stable computer, then when I have the time i will update my system. people with a clue that disagree with me, such as SomeGuyDude have realises that there are many distros that offer that and picked one that suites them.

Yes but I'm not arguing what's best for me :( I'm arguing what's best for a distribution that hopes to compete with commercial OSs :(

Nevermind.

Xbehave
September 29th, 2009, 06:20 PM
Yes but I'm not arguing what's best for me :( I'm arguing what's best for a distribution that hopes to compete with commercial OSs :(

Nevermind.
Ah in that case what you are arguing is weather a Rolling Release or a Cyclic release is better for a distribution. This is very different as the exact same tools/methods can be used in both (apt is in ubuntu and debian).
In that case you have to remember that most users just want to use their computer (this is especially true in office environments where ubuntu is looking to make money), so for commercial success everybody has chosen cyclic releases Ubuntu/Suse/RHEL/etc. Arguments can be made for RR vs cyclical as better for geeks but for your average user or enterprise cyclical is going to win hands down. If you would prefer it for you I would recommend you use debian sid (essentially ubuntu but with a RR) or arch (a very different system that some users love) rather than suggest ubuntu changes the way it is working.

Paqman
September 29th, 2009, 06:35 PM
Why on earth would anyone want it to be like Windows? Windows' lack of a cohesive system-wide update system is it's biggest flaw IMO.

SomeGuyDude
September 29th, 2009, 07:16 PM
FWIW, most Windows users I know wish it'd update LESS often. A six month release cycle is crazy frequent for the number of people who want a "set it and forget it" operating system.

timestandstill
September 29th, 2009, 07:20 PM
Why bother to change it? Ubuntu is already perfect as it is. I love Synaptic and now the Ubuntu Software Center is going to make installing things even better. Ubuntu is amazing.

JillSwift
September 29th, 2009, 07:28 PM
or people just keep missing the point intentionally :)
it's not the first time , it won't be the last
if someone got the point, and another didn't, then there is not a problem of the communication skills of the poster :)
Well, so long as one makes the definition of "got the point" the same as "agrees with me", I suppose you can look at it that way.

grturner
September 29th, 2009, 07:31 PM
The only thing that aggravates me of the current system is the GPG keys, but I understand why they're there. Otherwise, the update system is quite sufficient. Why fix what isn't broken?

Tibuda
September 29th, 2009, 07:48 PM
The only thing that aggravates me of the current system is the GPG keys, but I understand why they're there. Otherwise, the update system is quite sufficient. Why fix what isn't broken?

I agree about keys. Karmic can handle PPA keys a lot more friendly, (not Medibuntu or other repositories). You just type "ppa:chromium-daily" in Software Sources instead of the whole "deb http://ppa.launchpad.net/chromium-daily/...." and it will add the deb line and the GPG key. There's also an "add-apt-repository" command-line tool available. Perhaps they will add an "ppaurl" tool for Firefox like apturl, so you click a ppa:chromium-daily link and it will add the PPA for you after confirmation.

hoppipolla
September 29th, 2009, 08:04 PM
Ah in that case what you are arguing is weather a Rolling Release or a Cyclic release is better for a distribution. This is very different as the exact same tools/methods can be used in both (apt is in ubuntu and debian).
In that case you have to remember that most users just want to use their computer (this is especially true in office environments where ubuntu is looking to make money), so for commercial success everybody has chosen cyclic releases Ubuntu/Suse/RHEL/etc. Arguments can be made for RR vs cyclical as better for geeks but for your average user or enterprise cyclical is going to win hands down. If you would prefer it for you I would recommend you use debian sid (essentially ubuntu but with a RR) or arch (a very different system that some users love) rather than suggest ubuntu changes the way it is working.

Well put, I understand what you mean much more now, and largely I do agree. I particularly agree with your argument when applied to businesses.

However, for casual users who just want new programs (basically like Mac users or slightly more techie Windows users) this can be quite frustrating though, I mean it feels quite a headache to keep up-to-date on Ubuntu, relative to commercial OSs for example.

For everyday people (we are reminded here of the "Linux for Human Beings" slogan) wanting a solution on the desktop, I still feel demand is sufficient to at least offer an option that allows more regular general program updates, without having to go through a non-standard or long-winded procedure. It would also be nice if said user doesn't necessarily have to switch to a more technical distro such as Debian or Arch.

I do not think I am in that much of a minority being someone who wants an easy-to-use system, but still gets excited and interested in the latest updates for his favourite programs and applications (or even just occasionally notices a new feature in one that he would like to have now, with ease).

It is a great shame I feel that there seems to be no current Linux distribution of reasonable quality that ticks all these boxes. :(


EDIT -- I suppose Fedora may be the closest and fills this gap doesn't it? It's just a shame it's not as friendly as Ubuntu and has a fair few little bugs and niggles! Oh well :)

AlanRick
September 29th, 2009, 08:53 PM
I still feel demand is sufficient to at least offer an option that allows more regular general program updates, without having to go through a non-standard or long-winded procedure....

I do not think I am in that much of a minority being someone who wants an easy-to-use system, but still gets excited and interested in the latest updates .

Absolutely, you're not alone. RR is not an option for many of us. And the idea of Ubuntu users being the last Mohicans on firefox 3.0 until late 2010 (Lucid ) is disturbing.

hoppipolla
September 29th, 2009, 08:56 PM
Absolutely, you're not alone. RR is not an option for many of us. And the idea of Ubuntu users being the last Mohicans on firefox 3.0 until late 2010 (Lucid ) is disturbing.

Hehe I know what you mean :)

3.5 is in Karmic though isn't it?

Tibuda
September 29th, 2009, 08:58 PM
Hehe I know what you mean :)

3.5 is in Karmic though isn't it?

Yes, by default. And jaunty too, if you install it yourself (apt:firefox-3.5).

Xbehave
September 29th, 2009, 09:00 PM
FWIW, most Windows users I know wish it'd update LESS often. A six month release cycle is crazy frequent for the number of people who want a "set it and forget it" operating system.
yeah but if you like you can forget about it for 5 years using LTS.


I do not think I am in that much of a minority being someone who wants an easy-to-use system, but still gets excited and interested in the latest updates for his favourite programs and applications (
I think that your casual user doesn't want everything being constantly updated (and by virtue of there policy I think canonical agree). I think if you look at the numbers (both on this poll and for distros generally). From distrowatch we get page hits not a perfect measure but at a glance worth looking at


Rank Distribution H.P.D*
1 Ubuntu 2078> 6 month release
2 Fedora 1539> 6 month release
3 Mint 1300> 6 month release
4 openSUSE 1223= 8 month release
5 Mandriva 915> 6 month release
6 Debian 890> both sid=rolling, stable=timed(ish) releases
7 Puppy 775< liveCD
8 Sabayon 721> Rolling (I think, it's gentoo based and i know gentoo is RR)
9 PCLinuxOS 681= Don't know
10 Arch 643> Rolling Release
I think the numbers back up my argument, even if they are only indicative rather than factual you'll notice that the top5 are all cyclical releases.
You might also notice that the for profit distros are all cyclical and im sure companies have looked into where the money is.


but still gets excited and interested in the latest updates for his favourite programs and applications
That is what PPAs are for, get excited go find the PPA -> add to list of constantly updated apps. It's pretty similar to get excited downloaded, only you don't get a popup to excite you and there are not PPA's for everything. Major programs will usually have a repo, a PPA or a self updating binary (e.g firefox)


It would also be nice if said user doesn't necessarily have to switch to a more technical distro such as Debian or Arch.The solution is to make Debian easier to install (sidux does this), because once Debian is installed it's maintained pretty similar to ubuntu! You could try and Arch less technical, but i don't think arch users will take kindly to that.


EDIT -- I suppose Fedora may be the closest and fills this gap doesn't it? It's just a shame it's not as friendly as Ubuntu and has a fair few little bugs and niggles! Oh well
Fedora does not fill the gap arch or debian sid do (debian sid uses the same tools as ubuntu so its not hard to get used to). As a fedora user I'm moving back to ubuntu after 9.10 because while my base is more cutting edge more and more programs have PPAs for ubuntu and no equivalent for fedora.

hoppipolla
September 29th, 2009, 09:00 PM
Yes, by default. And jaunty too, if you install it yourself (apt:firefox-3.5).

I already have it as Shiretoko lol

And I use Chromium/Chrome anyway hehe

Frak
September 29th, 2009, 09:28 PM
Untrue, the tar.gz downloaded from mozilla is not the source code, but a pre-compiled static executable binary that can update itself from the Help menu, just like the Windows version.
I have a PowerPC, I have to recompile Firefox. Quit arguing with someone more qualified.

Also, to whoever told me I don't know what I'm talking about with regard to PPA's being hackish with some software, the version numbering on the package has to be artificially higher than the default in the repositories.

Frak
September 29th, 2009, 09:35 PM
Wait as a security expert, your are saying that all applications should be self updating? Please tell me who you work for so I can avoid them! I'm no pro but I saying that something like firefox (something with network access and a less than 100% security record) should be able to rewrite it's self if exploited sounds ridiculous.

Some applications, such as internal, desktop apps, are kept for stability tests to make sure the future version works without a hitch.

Other software that makes frequent connections to external networks are updated immediately. In an attempt to foil attempts at exploits, constant changes to the software can be safer than letting the application sit and stagnate waiting for testing to be completed.

So, no, you wouldn't be hired, because we only accept people with certifications and degrees, and some common sense.

Tibuda
September 29th, 2009, 09:49 PM
I have a PowerPC, I have to recompile Firefox. Quit arguing with someone more qualified.

It is not a matter of qualification. I made the wrong suposition that you had a x86 or compatible (x86_64) architecture. I should have rephrased that.

So Mozilla don't provide a binary for your architecture and you want Canonical to provide such binary?

hoppipolla
September 29th, 2009, 09:52 PM
I think the numbers back up my argument, even if they are only indicative rather than factual you'll notice that the top5 are all cyclical releases.
You might also notice that the for profit distros are all cyclical and im sure companies have looked into where the money is.

And what is the biggest OS in the world? And how do they do it?

The point I am making is that just because this model is employed by the biggest LINUX distributions in the world, doesn't mean it is the best model, it just means it is the best one we have or for whatever reason the one those companies have chosen to use (this may mean it is better for business and server deployment but not necessarily for the average user desktop).

I dunno man... lol I did intend to work around it, it's just it's starting to get on my nerves as it seems to slow everything down ._.

Maybe I need to find a new OS ._. I don't want to be mean but, Apple employed all these changes and it seems to be working for them ._. (Just sayin'. lol :) )


EDIT -- I know I am anti-Apple but I never actually said I didn't like their OSs! lol

Frak
September 29th, 2009, 09:53 PM
It is not a matter of qualification. I made the wrong suposition that you had a x86 or compatible (x86_64) architecture. I should have rephrased that.

So Mozilla don't provide a binary for your architecture and you want Canonical to provide such binary?
No, what I mean is that there should be an easier way for people to package a new version of a program regardless of the platform. This way, somebody could simply click a few buttons and have a new installer ready to go. DPMS will not be the way.

EDIT
hoppipolla is absolutely correct. Packages and Repositories are really great... for server systems. Though, LETS SAY FOR A MINUTE THAT THE GREAT UBUNTU WERE TO BECOME OUTRAGEOUSLY POPULAR, there's no way that Canonical could follow all of the applications created. I admire how .deb's can be created and spread regardless of whether it's in a repo or not, but it's still using a system tied to a central release line. Installers and updaters will need to be detached from the canonical method, and sent to a completely agnostic method of updating software. There are 3rd party updaters for Mac programs, and they work flawlessly. Ubuntu will need to embrace that, or they will not reach the popularity they want.

Xbehave
September 29th, 2009, 10:00 PM
I have a PowerPC, I have to recompile Firefox. Quit arguing with someone more qualified. that is an issue with firefox on PPC (an unsupported platform)


Also, to whoever told me I don't know what I'm talking about with regard to PPA's being hackish with some software, the version numbering on the package has to be artificially higher than the default in the repositories.
How is that issue when users are asking for newer versions of software?:confused:


In an attempt to foil attempts at exploits, constant changes to the software can be safer than letting the application sit and stagnate waiting for testing to be completed.
Nobody is saying that you leave applications exploitable, but having an exploitable application capable of updating itself is a bad idea, getting those updates to it via another channel is a much better way to have applications update!


And what is the biggest OS in the world? And how do they do it?Both them and apple do nothing, they leave it up to individual apps to install/update/remove themselves, if you want that you can use slackware

Tibuda
September 29th, 2009, 10:01 PM
No, what I mean is that there should be an easier way for people to package a new version of a program regardless of the platform. This way, somebody could simply click a few buttons and have a new installer ready to go. DPMS will not be the way.

I like what you are describing. You want to make packagers' life easier? That's nice.

Tibuda
September 29th, 2009, 10:03 PM
How is that issue when users are asking for newer versions of software?:confused:
If you read Frak last post, you'll understand what he meant. It is hackish for the packagers.

Xbehave
September 29th, 2009, 10:09 PM
I like what you are describing. You want to make packagers' life easier? That's nice.
Check this (https://build.opensuse.org/) out


If you read Frak last post, you'll understand what he meant. It is hackish for the packagers. Well that's a different issue, but its still null and void if your releasing newer versions of software anyway!

Frak
September 29th, 2009, 10:11 PM
I like what you are describing. You want to make packagers' life easier? That's nice.
Take it the way Microsoft does it. The central developer can write programs, and then create the installer. Developers don't even need to touch the command-line to do it either. All they have to do is configure the settings of an installer and the installer itself will stage the program into the destination.

DPMS, though, for instance, requires signing, repository management, various configuration files, various scripts for managing how it's staged into the destination, various scripts to manaage how the source will be built, if it should be done that way. It's just a big mess, that can be solved with more standard ways of doing "stuff".

This is great for other programs such as Apache, I'll admit, since it can aid in post configuration, but much of these extra features are useless for normal desktop applications like Firefox, Gimp, or even the basic GEdit text-editor. Why not execute your own script post-install. Your own scripts are probably better and more suited to what you need to be done compared to these premade templates.

I'll get responses saying I'm wrong, but I believe that I'm right. So I'm sorry for being so gosh-darn stubborn.

AlanRick
September 29th, 2009, 10:15 PM
3.5 is in Karmic though isn't it?
But Karmic is not an LTS release. Many follow the Ubuntu LTS cycle because a 6 month cycle is virtually RR.

chriskin
September 29th, 2009, 10:18 PM
Well, so long as one makes the definition of "got the point" the same as "agrees with me", I suppose you can look at it that way.

that's not what i meant but you probably didn't get the point :)


But Karmic is not an LTS release. Many follow the Ubuntu LTS cycle because a 6 month cycle is virtually RR.

if people wanted firefox 3.5 they wouldn't be part of the LTS "fan" group now, would they?
what is RR by the way?

Xbehave
September 29th, 2009, 10:20 PM
Take it the way Microsoft does it. The central developer can write programs, and then create the installer. Developers don't even need to touch the command-line to do it either. All they have to do is configure the settings of an installer and the installer itself will stage the program into the destination.

DPMS, though, for instance, requires signing, repository management, various configuration files, various scripts for managing how it's staged into the destination, various scripts to manaage how the source will be built, if it should be done that way. It's just a big mess, that can be solved with more standard ways of doing "stuff".

This is great for other programs such as Apache, I'll admit, since it can aid in post configuration, but much of these extra features are useless for normal desktop applications like Firefox, Gimp, or even the basic GEdit text-editor. Why not execute your own script post-install. Your own scripts are probably better and more suited to what you need to be done compared to these premade templates.

I'll get responses saying I'm wrong, but I believe that I'm right. So I'm sorry for being so gosh-darn stubborn.
OK so what you are saying is you want a nice GUI tool to make & debs/rpms? Because that is very different from claiming that we need to stop everything and change package management!
I think your completely wrong as you can make tar's with installer scripts, that put apps in /opt and never touch system dependent tools, you can even put the tar in a binary and have a windows style install exe, but you do have a point that could be calid. I think the shared library management of Linux systems is one of it's strengths not a weakness!


what is RR by the way?Rolling Release: Arch/debian sid style release management where packages constantly update to the latest version (- packaging delay)

Frak
September 29th, 2009, 10:25 PM
OK so what you are saying is you want a nice GUI tool to make & debs/rpms? Because that is very different from claiming that we need to stop everything and change package management!
I think your completely wrong as you can make tar's with installer scripts, that put apps in /opt and never touch system dependent tools, you can even put the tar in a binary and have a windows style install exe. I think the shared library management of Linux systems is one of it's strengths not a weakness!

Rolling Release
I see it as a weakness, since shared libraries are slower than static libraries, and we have plenty of hard drive space nowadays to do perfectly fine. From my tests, there's a 1% - 5% and sometimes 10 % performance hit using shared libraries (more shared libraries, bigger performance hit). Most applications have a very small performance hit though.

Still, we have the hard drive space to spare. I have two 1TB HD's logically connected. I could easily store thousands of duplicate libraries. Finally, if anything, we could avoid this dependency hell that we have to worry so much about when we compile our own programs.

Oh, and I don't just mean a GUI application, I'm talking about something bigger that can satisfy more than one distribution. No worry about having an internet connection, and no worry about dependencies on your platform (unless those dependencies are buried deep, then you may need the very deep dependencies from the internet, but that should be understandable).

The application I'm working on now can almost solve dependencies two levels deep. Besides that, it can now create static libraries from the repositories (people are to evangelistic to fix what's broken, so profit from it). It's coming along nicely from my own tests, should be alpha within the next two months, hopefully.

Xbehave
September 29th, 2009, 10:31 PM
I see it as a weakness, since shared libraries are slower than static libraries, and we have plenty of hard drive space nowadays to do perfectly fine. From my tests, there's a 1% - 5% and sometimes 10 % performance hit using shared libraries (more shared libraries, bigger performance hit). Most applications have a very small performance hit though.
Well you have some points however i believe OS X also uses shared libs and that most of the performance hit can be removed by prelinking. The main benifit of shared libraries is that, only the library needs updating when it is updated, not all the packages that depend on it (this is very nice for security if your running unmaintained or lightly maintained apps (quite common for desktop systems). Are there any distros that don't share libraries? I suspect if everybody does it it's for a reason.

hoppipolla
September 29th, 2009, 10:41 PM
Well you have some points however i believe OS X also uses shared libs and that most of the performance hit can be removed by prelinking. The main benifit of shared libraries is that, only the library needs updating when it is updated, not all the packages that depend on it (this is very nice for security if your running unmaintained or lightly maintained apps (quite common for desktop systems). Are there any distros that don't share libraries? I suspect if everybody does it it's for a reason.

We're back to "Linux Vs the most popular desktop OSs" again :) lol

Could they all operate the way they do because it's easier? I'm not sure what the actual reason is, but I do know the current method does seem to create quite a few problems.

JillSwift
September 29th, 2009, 10:48 PM
that's not what i meant but you probably didn't get the point :)I just want to point out that I got the point, though the point I was making may have appeared to miss a point it's point was still on point even if you thought your point was beside the point I was pointing out.

=>.>=

POINTY!


if people wanted firefox 3.5 they wouldn't be part of the LTS "fan" group now, would they?
That's not 100% so. I use 8.04 LTS and wanted FF 3.5. So, I compiled the booger.

NCLI
September 29th, 2009, 10:49 PM
We're back to "Linux Vs the most popular desktop OSs" again :) lol

Could they all operate the way they do because it's easier? I'm not sure what the actual reason is, but I do know the current method does seem to create quite a few problems.
I think Windows being the number one OS has absolutely nothing to do with the way it manages libraries and updates, and everything to do with smart, shady deals between Bill Gates and IBM in Microsoft's heydays.

JDShu
September 29th, 2009, 10:54 PM
I think Windows being the number one OS has absolutely nothing to do with the way it manages libraries and updates, and everything to do with smart, shady deals between Bill Gates and IBM in Microsoft's heydays.

Bill Gates was smart, savvy, and lucky. Everything he did was legal though :P

@OP: My (and others') point is that you can do it like Windows if you want, so "being as easy as it is in Windows" is inherently misleading. Maybe the poll is just flawed.

Xbehave
September 29th, 2009, 10:56 PM
Could they all operate the way they do because it's easier? I'm not sure what the actual reason is, but I do know the current method does seem to create quite a few problems.

It seams there are now 3 pretty separate arguments going on here:
1) Rolling release vs scheduled release (discussed sooo much elsewhere)
2) Centralised package management vs every app for themselves (A pretty dead argument IMO, but Frak seams to believe he will show the world differently)
3) Dynamic vs Static libs ( an interesting debate, but pretty separate from the rest)

We are also running into a wall over what is normal, everybody seams to claim they are but if you look at the numbers (and not just for linux i.e IE6, IE7 despite there being IE8 out, etc) its clear that I am right :P.


Bill Gates was smart, savvy, and lucky. Everything he did was legal though :P
Apart from the stuff he got convicted of doing ofc :o (do we have a :zing: or owned face on these forums :P)


That's not 100% so. I use 8.04 LTS and wanted FF 3.5. So, I compiled the booger.
Seriously the opt way is much better, get tar from mozilla, upack in opt, update every so often. (unless you want to do smart stuff like PGO ofc :D)

hoppipolla
September 29th, 2009, 11:13 PM
It seams there are now 3 pretty separate arguments going on here:
1) Rolling release vs scheduled release (discussed sooo much elsewhere)
2) Centralised package management vs every app for themselves (A pretty dead argument IMO, but Frak seams to believe he will show the world differently)
3) Dynamic vs Static libs ( an interesting debate, but pretty separate from the rest)

We are also running into a wall over what is normal, everybody seams to claim they are but if you look at the numbers (and not just for linux i.e IE6, IE7 despite there being IE8 out, etc) its clear that I am right :P.

Believe me if you are on the side of Linux on the desktop, the LAST thing you want to do is look at the numbers! rofl :)

Sorry, I know I'm being harsh, it's just wouldn't it be a good idea to try to equal or exceed commercial OSs in as many ways as we can? Assuming the goal is to gain market share as a home/casual desktop OS, why stick to providing something which is less than a competitor, when we can re-evaluate it and come up with something new?

I'm not saying it needs to be instant, I'm just saying that if I were the one making a Linux-based, Open Source operating system to compete with 7 and OSX, I would be thinking about ways to do this better...

Xbehave
September 29th, 2009, 11:17 PM
Believe me if you are on the side of Linux on the desktop, the LAST thing you want to do is look at the numbers! rofl :)Did you read the end of the sentence? My point is that most users (of all OSes) have better thing to do than spend all day updating software that is why ther are more IE6/IE7 users than IE8 despite IE8 being much more secure/standards compliant. There are some people that want to spend all day updating and they can do that on any OS, however most of us are CBA to spend time updating.

Frak
September 29th, 2009, 11:30 PM
I just keep thinking of things like "I need X to do Y, so X needs to be updated". The developers just say "Wait 4 more months".

Xbehave
September 29th, 2009, 11:47 PM
I just keep thinking of things like "I need X to do Y, so X needs to be updated". The developers just say "Wait 4 more months".
What is stopping you installing X (manually in /opt or /usr/local/) or switching to a distro with a rolling release, developing your own package manager based on static linking seams like it will take a lot more work than switching to debian/arch?

hoppipolla
September 29th, 2009, 11:48 PM
Did you read the end of the sentence? My point is that most users (of all OSes) have better thing to do than spend all day updating software that is why ther are more IE6/IE7 users than IE8 despite IE8 being much more secure/standards compliant. There are some people that want to spend all day updating and they can do that on any OS, however most of us are CBA to spend time updating.

My point though was that, although you are right on that point, if we spend too long looking at the numbers as desktop Linux users we realize we are HORRIBLY outnumbered! lol

Like I said in my post, if it were me, I would not sit back and say "Well, Windows/OSX can do that quicker and more easily. So what?"

Frak
September 29th, 2009, 11:53 PM
What is stopping you installing X (manually in /opt or /usr/local/) or switching to a distro with a rolling release, developing your own package manager based on static linking seams like it will take a lot more work than switching to debian/arch?
We're talking about Ubuntu, the operating system that wants to displace Windows. Users on Windows may want faster upgrades to software X, but the developers will say "No, now wait". How are the users supposed to know that there are other ways to get software? They won't, that's how.

aysiu
September 29th, 2009, 11:55 PM
I think people interested in this idea should consider developing or donating to a fork of GoboLinux.

GoboLinux believes in putting each version of software in its own self-contained folder... but GoboLinux as it exists now is not for those who don't want to know the guts of their computer. I can definitely see a case made for making a Linux distro that installs software similar to the way Mac OS X or Windows does.

I don't think it makes sense for Ubuntu to be that distro, though. I love repositories and the 6-month release cycle. More importantly, I think this model (coupled with LTS releases) serves better the computing needs of the vast majority of computer users. It's mainly power users who want newer versions of software immediately (and can't wait six months).

Ubuntu is not the only distro out there, and if you don't like it, you can make your own distro... or contribute in other ways to people who can make another distro.

Frak
September 29th, 2009, 11:58 PM
I think people interested in this idea should consider developing or donating to a fork of GoboLinux.

GoboLinux believes in putting each version of software in its own self-contained folder... but GoboLinux as it exists now is not for those who don't want to know the guts of their computer. I can definitely see a case made for making a Linux distro that installs software similar to the way Mac OS X or Windows does.

I don't think it makes sense for Ubuntu to be that distro, though. I love repositories and the 6-month release cycle. Ubuntu is not the only distro out there, and if you don't like it, you can make your own distro... or contribute in other ways to people who can make another distro.
The current method I am using does the same thing as Gobo, to a degree. It stages it into /opt with it's own versioning up to 3 (for rollbacks, JIC). A symbolic will be made to the /usr/bin directory when I get around to implementing that.

aysiu
September 30th, 2009, 12:04 AM
The current method I am using does the same thing as Gobo, to a degree. It stages it into /opt with it's own versioning up to 3 (for rollbacks, JIC). A symbolic will be made to the /usr/bin directory when I get around to implementing that.
It sounds interesting, Frak. Would that be something you'd consider showcasing in a distro or variant? I'm sure a lot of folks here would be interested in that kind of management system.

Xbehave
September 30th, 2009, 12:18 AM
Like I said in my post, if it were me, I would not sit back and say "Well, Windows/OSX can do that quicker and more easily. So what?" No I'm sitting back and saying I think the way that ubuntu deals with it is the best way to do it, I have seen what you describe and I think none of the methods meet your average computer users methods better then ubuntus! If you wish want to change the tried and tested method of package management, you are going to have to come up with better arguments than do it the windows way.


It stages it into /opt with it's own versioning up to 3 (for rollbacks, JIC). A symbolic will be made to the /usr/bin directory when I get around to implementing that.
why not put the link in /opt/bin and add /opt/bin to $PATH? /opt can be used across distros and mounted on a different partition so IMO it makes more sense to not mess with files outside it. It would also follow 'standards (http://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesystem-Hierarchy/html/opt.html)' better

lethalfang
September 30th, 2009, 12:24 AM
If you think the windows update system is good, you've either forgotten what windows is like, or you're insane. The Linux update system is the best, or do you like unstable, unsafe software?

You sound like softwares in the ubuntu repo are actually stable. Not even close.

Frak
September 30th, 2009, 12:33 AM
It sounds interesting, Frak. Would that be something you'd consider showcasing in a distro or variant? I'm sure a lot of folks here would be interested in that kind of management system.

Once it makes it to Alpha. There are many more features I want to add to it. Besides that, it still relies on configuration files and has no [graphical] interface yet.


No I'm sitting back and saying I think the way that ubuntu deals with it is the best way to do it, I have seen what you describe and I think none of the methods meet your average computer users methods better then ubuntus! If you wish want to change the tried and tested method of package management, you are going to have to come up with better arguments than do it the windows way.


why not put the link in /opt/bin and add /opt/bin to $PATH? /opt can be used across distros and mounted on a different partition so IMO it makes more sense to not mess with files outside it. It would also follow 'standards (http://tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesystem-Hierarchy/html/opt.html)' better

Well, I plan on allowing alternative installations, such as only installing to /opt, and keeping all symbols in /opt/bin, but the idea here is to override DPMS to think that an official update has taken place. This keeps scripts and programs that use static links at bay. They'll look for /usr/bin/whatever instead of searching the path, and it'll ultimately mess-up the entire process.

What I'm working on so far is a way to install critical system files to /bin, instead of a symbolic link (since I don't think symbolic links can be read at boot-time, but I'll check on this), add RPM overriding, add support for build-on-demand (I'm thinking using E-Build style), better support for including libraries, and getting this thing to work with the other 19,998 packages available.

Xbehave
September 30th, 2009, 12:54 AM
Well, I plan on allowing alternative installations, such as only installing to /opt, and keeping all symbols in /opt/bin, but the idea here is to override DPMS to think that an official update has taken place. This keeps scripts and programs that use static links at bay. They'll look for /usr/bin/whatever instead of searching the path, and it'll ultimately mess-up the entire process. I believe if you but /opt/bin before /usr/bin it will prefer your files to the system ones.


What I'm working on so far is a way to install critical system files to /bin, instead of a symbolic link (since I don't think symbolic links can be read at boot-time, but I'll check on this), I wasn't aware of that limitation, i think /bin files are either statically linked or can only depend on /lib as /usr /var /opt and friends get mounted later.

hoppipolla
September 30th, 2009, 12:59 AM
No I'm sitting back and saying I think the way that ubuntu deals with it is the best way to do it, I have seen what you describe and I think none of the methods meet your average computer users methods better then ubuntus! If you wish want to change the tried and tested method of package management, you are going to have to come up with better arguments than do it the windows way.

I am not necessarily saying we should do it the "Windows way", just in a way that offers the same level (or better) of quick and easy program updates.

Mac does it differently and still achieves this doesn't it?

EDIT -- Frak may have the right kind of idea, I'm interested to see how it turns out ^_^

t0p
September 30th, 2009, 01:08 AM
I think this discussion is hilarious. "OMG I can't wait until the next release to get the latest version of package XYZ, so let's change Ubuntu's cycle!" LMAO!

I can't see the problem. If a user really really can't wait until the next release, that user can install the new version of whatever quite easily. Let's take the example of Firefox-3.5. There's not really any pressing need to switch from Firefox-3.0. But if you absolutely must have 3.5, there are plenty of ways to upgrade. And they don't all depend on you knowing what "Shiretoko" is.

I heard nice stuff about Firefox-3.5, so I went to getfirefox.com and downloaded it from there. Result, I have a version of Firefox-3.5 that is called Firefox, that updates itself independently of Ubuntu's system, and that works nicely. But I certainly didn't *need* to upgrade to 3.5. I could have waited for Karmic to come out. Which is exactly what I do for all the rest of the software that will be upgraded when the next version of Ubuntu comes out.

That's a very simple system - Ubuntu upgrades every 6 months, we all know that, and it isn't too hard to wait those few months. Like many other people have said: if you want a rolling release distro, why not go use a rolling release distro? Why mess with the Ubuntu cycle? I really don't understand.

As for all this crap about how difficult it is to manually upgrade your software: you what?! If you really really feel the need to upgrade some app before the next Ubuntu release, you can go ask google how to do it. Or switch to arch. Or do any one of a thousand other options. But ubuntu upgrades every 6 months, we all know that. If you don't like that fact, why are you using ubuntu? Why?

hoppipolla
September 30th, 2009, 01:28 AM
If you don't like that fact, why are you using ubuntu? Why?

Because I like Linux and Open Source and Ubuntu is the best and most friendly distribution at the moment ._.

I just think they may need to make some changes if they hope to make it truly competitive.

misfitpierce
September 30th, 2009, 02:16 AM
What!!! The repo's are fantastic and the way everything updates auto through one application how everything is linked is amazing! Mac and Windows wish they had that sort of updating link through all app's.

Frak
September 30th, 2009, 02:28 AM
I believe if you but /opt/bin before /usr/bin it will prefer your files to the system ones.

I mean if a person hard-codes something to /usr/bin, not just using the relative path. Besides, I'm getting it to override the package in DPMS with a path that leads to /opt/ instead of /usr/bin. In the alpha I'll take it out.

@t0p, why use Ubuntu?

Because it's supposed to do what Microsoft Windows does, only better and cheaper. See Bug #1. I should be able to use it, and it should do everything better than Windows can do it. If I can use Windows and be able to view a page in Firefox using new, spiffy CSS3 and HTML5 options, but I can't on Ubuntu (without much effort), then Ubuntu has failed the consumer. I mean, hey? There was a simple installer for Windows, where's my simple installer for Ubuntu?

Xbehave
September 30th, 2009, 02:53 AM
Because it's supposed to do what Microsoft Windows does, only better and cheaper. See Bug #1. I should be able to use it, and it should do everything better than Windows can do it.
The problem we are having is your definition of better is different from mine. IMO and 76% of people who took the pole, ubuntu is better at software updating.


If I can use Windows and be able to view a page in Firefox using new, spiffy CSS3 and HTML5 options, but I can't on Ubuntu (without much effort), then Ubuntu has failed the consumer. I mean, hey? There was a simple installer for Windows, where's my simple installer for Ubuntu?under windows you need to find the exe, download and install it, under ubuntu you need to find the repo/PPA add it to your repo list and install it (apparently karmic is going to provide a nice GUI way to do this), both seam equally easy, but one leaves you with a nice centralised package management system the other does not!

hoppipolla
September 30th, 2009, 03:08 AM
The problem we are having is your definition of better is different from mine. IMO and 76% of people who took the pole, ubuntu is better at software updating.

Yes, a poll amongst UBUNTU FORUM MEMBERS! lol


under windows you need to find the exe, download and install it, under ubuntu you need to find the repo/PPA add it to your repo list and install it (apparently karmic is going to provide a nice GUI way to do this), both seam equally easy, but one leaves you with a nice centralised package management system the other does not!

The Ubuntu way no matter how you spin it is NOT currently easier than the Windows way.

However, it may become a bit easier after they smooth the repo adding procedure a bit with a better GUI method, and true it will leave a nice package management system :)

Maybe with a great GUI method of installing the repos for specific pieces of software, this problem could actually be smoothed out. However, these can't all be development repos, they have to be suited to a casual user and provide stable releases, don't you think?

I think that may well be an excellent compromise :)

Xbehave
September 30th, 2009, 03:24 AM
Yes, a poll amongst UBUNTU FORUM MEMBERS! lol
Where do you suggest you poll for how to improve ubuntu, the arch forums?


However, these can't all be development repos, they have to be suited to a casual user and provide stable releases, don't you think?
The casual user is happy with things how they are, the casual user doesn't want updates more often, these facts are plain to see on every OS. You are labelling yourself a casual user when you are not, you are a power user.

anonymous_user
September 30th, 2009, 03:25 AM
I like the repositories system, but I hate having to look for PPAs just to get the newest versions of software (VLC, Firefox, mplayer, etc).

hoppipolla
September 30th, 2009, 03:35 AM
Where do you suggest you poll for how to improve ubuntu, the arch forums?

lol what I mean is, most people on here already use Ubuntu, and so must quite like it, or at least be used to it! Therefore results like this will always be biased.


The casual user is happy with things how they are, the casual user doesn't want updates more often, these facts are plain to see on every OS. You are labelling yourself a casual user when you are not, you are a power user.

I don't know, possibly. It's just, it's a reasonably standard request, it really is. The advantage Windows and Mac have here you see, is that they cater comfortably to BOTH.

Anyway, I really think that that compromise is quite good! It just requires a tad more standardization, automatic adding of repos with new software (any security problems could be worked around) and preferably general improvements to the tools used to manage them.

All these things may actually be in the works already, so I may end up quite content here! :)

(maybe it isn't time for me to consider commercial alternatives JUST yet! ^_^ )

Xbehave
September 30th, 2009, 03:36 AM
I like the repositories system, but I hate having to look for PPAs just to get the newest versions of software (VLC, Firefox, mplayer, etc).
It would be nice if somebody made a PPA with all of them (perhaps packaged them as *-latest) and had the dependencies replace the originals.


The advantage Windows and Mac have here you see, is that they cater comfortably to BOTH.
No they do not! if you don't want major bugs/security exploits you have to keep each program up to date, you only get the option of constant updating. Again we are going back to RR vs Cyclical release.
Windows,OS X,arch all offer RR, ubuntu does not!
Ubuntu,Fedora,Suse all offer cyclical windows,OS X,Arch do not!

snowpine
September 30th, 2009, 03:43 AM
Maybe with a great GUI method of installing the repos for specific pieces of software, this problem could actually be smoothed out. However, these can't all be development repos, they have to be suited to a casual user and provide stable releases, don't you think?

I think that may well be an excellent compromise :)

Ubuntu provides its users with a single repository containing stable releases of thousands of applications... with not one but two (and soon to be three) excellent GUI tools to manage it.

This excellent compromise is accomplished through the six-month cycle.

hoppipolla
September 30th, 2009, 03:47 AM
No they do not! if you don't want major bugs/security exploits you have to keep each program up to date, you only get the option of constant updating. Again we are going back to RR vs Cyclical release.
Windows,OS X,arch all offer RR, ubuntu does not!
Ubuntu,Fedora,Suse all offer cyclical windows,OS X,Arch do not!

OSX is fairly secure isn't it? As mainstream OSs go? Windows is getting better as well, and I dunno I think it holds together for the most part.

And wow this debate has been going on for so LONG.. hehe :)

I just really care about ol' Linux! I've been using it for 6 years now! Deep down, I want it to be the best it can be, and I certainly don't want to ditch it particularly as I dislike both m$ and Apple with quite a passion!

However, I just have certain things I want my OS to do, and this is one of them. I am patient though, but I just don't like the thought that this kinda stuff might never change ._.

Frak
September 30th, 2009, 03:54 AM
It would be nice if somebody made a PPA with all of them (perhaps packaged them as *-latest) and had the dependencies replace the originals.


No they do not! if you don't want major bugs/security exploits you have to keep each program up to date, you only get the option of constant updating. Again we are going back to RR vs Cyclical release.
Windows,OS X,arch all offer RR, ubuntu does not!
Ubuntu,Fedora,Suse all offer cyclical windows,OS X,Arch do not!
See, though, that's great for an office environment. Ubuntu would be great on office desktops because all the packages are tested for stability and security patches are provided promptly. Though, when it comes to the "latest and greatest", it becomes a config editing job for the end user (besides the "Software sources" dialog, but even that is cryptic to a user who doesn't care about how their system works). People want the latest iTunes, because it gives them crazy cool new features. People want a new Firefox, because it lets them browse more websites. People want the latest flash, because it lets them use the most flash... things... But, the user would probably rather have the latest version for max compatibility than an older version because that's "safe". Oh, and Arch is way to much for the casual user, plus it releases way too often. The answer to this would be "well, test all packages for stability", but instead, if we just assigned that to the developers and packagers of those teams themselves. No need to have a core-team to do all the work.

Xbehave
September 30th, 2009, 04:59 AM
OSX is fairly secure isn't it? As mainstream OSs go? Windows is getting better as well, and I dunno I think it holds together for the most part.
Sort of* they are but only because they constantly up date themselves and all the apps are expected to constantly update themselves ( and that doesn't always happen (http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=3202112) >30m out of date flash users on firefox on windows, of them 30% updated when told).

*Apple seams to keep losing the pwn2own contests very quickly and all windows vista/7 machines that you can access port 445 on can be remote BSOD (unless the user has explicitly disabled filesharing)


People want the latest iTunes, because it gives them crazy cool new features. People want a new Firefox, because it lets them browse more websites. People want the latest flash, because it lets them use the most flash... things... But, the user would probably rather have the latest version for max compatibility than an older version because that's "safe".
This is the point of contention, i say that most users do not new software, I claim this is true because stats (http://w3counter.com/globalstats.php) back me up:

1 Internet Explorer 7.0 22.99% (old)
2 Firefox 3.0 17.08% (old)
3 Internet Explorer 8.0 15.33%
4 Internet Explorer 6.0 14.04% (old)
5 Firefox 3.5 13.35%
65% of that sample are on old versions.
note: and if you go to install an app you always get pushed hte latest version so the remaining 35% may or may not want to upgrade (poll here suggests that only 15% would)
windows xp has 3x the market share of vista, and that is with vista being the only os you get by default on new PCs!

You disagree, that is fair enough, however all the hand wavy arguments and anecdotal evidence in the world is not going to convince me that users your average user actually wants to have the latest version of their software installed, for that you two are going to need numbers!


Oh, and Arch is way to much for the casual user, plus it releases way too often. Have you looked at debian, I ran Lenny for a few months and it was pretty much the same as ubuntu.

It lacked a nice GUI tool to install prop drivers (which i don't use so i don't know if its hard to install them manually) but other than that it was pretty similar
I had to install firefox in /opt because i was on stable not sid
You probably need experimental (which despite the name is usable as a distro) if you want the latest and greatest


But if you want the most current software arch is the way to go as this study (http://tannewt.org/slides/shawcroft-oscon_presentation.pdf) shows. It seams like the 15% that voted for change would be better off making arch easier to use than trying to get the other 77% to change our ways!

hessiess
September 30th, 2009, 08:01 AM
The windows method is a pain in the *** for mantinance and lets known sccurity vonribilitys in applications hang around without the end user knowing about them. Being able to update *everything* with one command is so much easier.

Though I do think ubuntu should switch to a rolling release model.

j7%<RmUg
September 30th, 2009, 08:11 AM
I think the current method used is excellent, VERY easy and pretty quick, also unlike ubuntu widnows updates at shutdown most of the time, which means that its a MASSIVE pain if you want your computer updated AND you want to shut it down RIGHT NOW.

anonymous_user
September 30th, 2009, 03:27 PM
Windows,OS X,arch all offer RR
Why do you call Windows and OSX rolling release?

They offer security updates, but you cannot get features from the new versions simply by updating. You have to acquire the new version and upgrade or clean install.

Xbehave
September 30th, 2009, 03:33 PM
Why do you call Windows and OSX rolling release?
For most user programs (the main thrust of what the OP was about), you have the upgrade cycle.


They offer security updates, but you cannot get features from the new versions simply by updating. You have to acquire the new version and upgrade or clean install.I don't know about OSX but windows will push software and updates through windows updater (IE7, IE8, WGA, etc)

note i put UAC instead of WGA 1st time then edited

tjwoosta
September 30th, 2009, 03:44 PM
The only way to make packages update separately, like windows does, would be to have every package come bundled with all the necessary libraries and other dependencies. This would lead to systems with duplicate libraries and other dependencies all over the place, as well as much larger packages. Systems would become extremely bloated and use alot more disk space. It would literally become another windows.

Basically your asking for the entire linux hierarchy and the linux way in general to be redesigned just so packages could update seperately. Its just not worth it. You might as well just use windows.

Its not like you can't just manually hunt down and install different versions of packages now. Sure it might require a little knowledge and effort, but it can be done without too much trouble. And like mentioned before you could just use a distro with the rolling release system if you want more up to date software.

anonymous_user
September 30th, 2009, 04:06 PM
For most user programs (the main thrust of what the OP was about), you have the upgrade cycle.
Well to be fair, OSX and Windows don't have software repositories. Software installers or images are usually downloaded from the website.

Although you could do the same with Ubuntu, I suppose the preferred way for installing software on Linux is to use the package manager.

I don't know about OSX but windows will push software and updates through windows updater (IE7, IE8, UAC, etc)
I consider that a backport (IE7/IE8 on Windows XP). Although some features, like DirectX 10 or UAC, don't get backported.

hoppipolla
September 30th, 2009, 05:08 PM
The only way to make packages update separately, like windows does, would be to have every package come bundled with all the necessary libraries and other dependencies. This would lead to systems with duplicate libraries and other dependencies all over the place, as well as much larger packages. Systems would become extremely bloated and use alot more disk space. It would literally become another windows.

I do think a case could be made for a system like that ._.

I also think though like I said earlier, that a cleaner way to add program repositories would work fine as well, as then you could install program, appropriate repository or repositories and GPG key all with one click (and perhaps root authentication) at the program's official website.


You disagree, that is fair enough, however all the hand wavy arguments and anecdotal evidence in the world is not going to convince me that users your average user actually wants to have the latest version of their software installed, for that you two are going to need numbers!

I'm not really saying that your average user NEEDS this, I'm just saying that it's an unfortunate shortcoming for an operating system that hopes to compete with Windows and Mac OS.

aysiu
September 30th, 2009, 05:20 PM
I do think a case could be made for a system like that ._. I would love to see a system like that... just not in Ubuntu.

This is another Linux distro, and I don't really see why it can't happen. There seem to be a lot of ex-Windows users and ex-Mac users who like the model. Surely some of them would be programmers who could do a Linux from Scratch with that model. Surely some of them have some money to donate to a project like that.

Right?

And, if not, then it doesn't happen. And that's generally the way things work. Either someone does it or pays someone to do it. It doesn't just happen because you think it "should" happen.

hoppipolla
September 30th, 2009, 09:16 PM
I would love to see a system like that... just not in Ubuntu.

This is another Linux distro, and I don't really see why it can't happen. There seem to be a lot of ex-Windows users and ex-Mac users who like the model. Surely some of them would be programmers who could do a Linux from Scratch with that model. Surely some of them have some money to donate to a project like that.

Right?

And, if not, then it doesn't happen. And that's generally the way things work. Either someone does it or pays someone to do it. It doesn't just happen because you think it "should" happen.

It's true :)

I think for now though if they just smooth over the way adding repositories is handled (and preferably work it into the installation packages themselves) the problem might pretty much go away anyway, as we would get quick updates and easy program installs :)

It's already been done perfectly with Google Chrome!

Tibuda
September 30th, 2009, 09:26 PM
It's true :)

I think for now though if they just smooth over the way adding repositories is handled (and preferably work it into the installation packages themselves) the problem might pretty much go away anyway, as we would get quick updates and easy program installs :)

It's already been done perfectly with Google Chrome!

Opera too.

hoppipolla
October 1st, 2009, 11:54 AM
Hiya I'm REALLY sorry to bump this thread RIGHT back up again and I know the topic is getting tired (I am a lil bored of it too hehe) but I'm just SO glad I have a better picture of it all now!

Ok basically, my personal conclusion after MUCH deliberation (you won't believe this) is I do actually think the current system is OK ^_^

I really understand why people like it - it is an AWESOME background way to maintain a system and install/upgrade packages with minimal fuss. I love the Add/Remove tool and future Software Store, and I can fully understand why people say that Windows/OSX are potentially almost jealous of the speed and simplicity of it all - it really is astonishingly user-friendly, more so than Windows.

I also think that the dependencies system, whilst it has it's flaws, is there for a reason. As far as I can see, surely developers DO have the option of building all of the higher level required libraries into their applications (thereby removing a large part of any potential "dependency hell" and making it possible to install them more easily without being connected to the internet) but this would also make their programs larger. The programs would also of course take them longer to compile/package and require more server space to be stored. However, surely they do still have this option if they want it :)

Lastly, I think the repositories system can be made to work, and there is a high chance this is already a strong consideration for the Ubuntu developers. The notion of just clicking a program online and having it's (stable release) repository, GPG key and package automatically installed in one go is fantastic, and ties it in perfectly with the central package manager. It may also make these easier to be secure and managed, due to, as people pointed out, it being less anarchic than on Windows. I do feel that improvements could be made (for example, would repositories have a way of auto-updating on your system if one of them changed on the internet?) however fundamentally I feel it is ok :)

And that's my final, thought-through, newly-informed 2 cents! Basically I think it can be made to work, and in many ways it IS better than Windows :)

I'm sorry to have kicked up such a fuss in this thread (and also sorry to STILL be going on about it lol) but man I'm glad I don't have to force myself to change operating systems - Linux 'till I die, baby! ^_^

Hoppi :)

Xbehave
October 1st, 2009, 02:49 PM
1) No need for apologies, debate is good. I apologies for being a bit harsh when i got frustrated.
2) The problem with your idea is linux has 1% market share, of that ubuntu is 50% of them id guess 40% will use ppas/repos, few developers are going to host a repos for 0.02% (0.05 if everybody uses it) of their users.
3) 2 is why PPAs exist, however users will still need to know about ppas and know where to look
(https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas)
I think perhaps there could be a project put together, to maintain a single PPA/repo which is kept up to date, with the programs listed as <prog>-latest, so you don't have to do anything "hackish" and can be used to get only firefox-latest without replacing other programs offerd by the repo. However i think this is something the somebody in the 15% of people that want it should do, not some that will come from canonical any time soon.

mkarr
October 1st, 2009, 03:22 PM
I like the way Ubuntu is updated now!! The way windows is updated is one of the things I despise most. First off, I don't do the automatic, behind the scenes updates. I do not care to give Microsoft permission to monopolize my computer resources whenever they please. I hate trying to accomplish something and all of a sudden hitting a brick wall because of some daily update, sometimes several times daily. It doesn't seem to even matter how much I upgrade my memory or processor, every program run in windows xp is a resource hog. And, of course, if it's not done automatically, when I do their updates I need to walk away and do something else for awhile because it's gonna take twice as long but still hog all memory so nothing else worthwhile can be accomplished.

I like the straightforward way Ubuntu is updated. I always know what is being updated and why and how long it will take. You can't beat that so please don't even try!!!! If it's not broke don't fix it!!!!

random turnip
October 1st, 2009, 03:42 PM
No, i think it's pretty much perfect the way it is.

hoppipolla
October 1st, 2009, 05:03 PM
1) No need for apologies, debate is good. I apologies for being a bit harsh when i got frustrated.
2) The problem with your idea is linux has 1% market share, of that ubuntu is 50% of them id guess 40% will use ppas/repos, few developers are going to host a repos for 0.02% (0.05 if everybody uses it) of their users.

True, I was really talking about in the long term though, I mean, is it really that different from updates on Windows coming direct from say, Mozilla?

Couldn't they be bolted on to existing development/testing PPAs or just run alongside them? Or just the stable releases within them marked somehow?


3) 2 is why PPAs exist, however users will still need to know about ppas and know where to look
(https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas)

Yes, but adding PPAs is going to get easier in Karmic and beyond isn't it? :)


I think perhaps there could be a project put together, to maintain a single PPA/repo which is kept up to date, with the programs listed as <prog>-latest, so you don't have to do anything "hackish" and can be used to get only firefox-latest without replacing other programs offerd by the repo. However i think this is something the somebody in the 15% of people that want it should do, not some that will come from canonical any time soon.

That's quite a good idea I like that :)

So you mean, a repository that exists solely to provide the latest stable versions of all the major Ubuntu programs? I don't think something like that exists... I mean, of course we have backports and proposed official repositories, but as far as I can tell they hardly cover everything (I don't remember seeing new versions of things like Pidgin for example as well as many other mainstream applications). Is that right?

What would be cool about that is it doesn't interfere with anything else, and can exist alongside development such as making adding PPAs easier, or an increased number of program-specific PPAs.

Are there any flaws in this plan? :)


Oh, by the way, I'm slightly hazy on the terminology here - what defines a PPA exactly from a normal repository? It doesn't have to be for development releases does it?

Tibuda
October 1st, 2009, 07:01 PM
Oh, by the way, I'm slightly hazy on the terminology here - what defines a PPA exactly from a normal repository? It doesn't have to be for development releases does it?

No. PPAs are just repositories hosted on launchpad and maintained by launchpad users.

AlanRick
October 1st, 2009, 11:05 PM
So you mean, a repository that exists solely to provide the latest stable versions of all the major Ubuntu programs?

That's the holy grail I'm looking for, too.
Follow the Ubuntu LTS cycle for the OS (updates every 3 years or so) but have frequent auto-updates for the applications (Openoffice, firefox, thunderbird...).

The only thrilling thing about Ubuntu is its stability and security - so why move to a newer version more often than every few years unless you have to or you buy new hardware and have to re-install. But the applications add features and speed more frequently so they're worth updating.

BTW: I spend about 99% of my time in one of the major applications and very little doing other OS stuff like maintenance or copying files so that's why the apps are more important to me.

hoppipolla
October 1st, 2009, 11:20 PM
That's the holy grail I'm looking for, too.
Follow the Ubuntu LTS cycle for the OS (updates every 3 years or so) but have frequent auto-updates for the applications (Openoffice, firefox, thunderbird...).

The only thrilling thing about Ubuntu is its stability and security - so why move to a newer version more often than every few years unless you have to or you buy new hardware and have to re-install. But the applications add features and speed more frequently so they're worth updating.

BTW: I spend about 99% of my time in one of the major applications and very little doing other OS stuff like maintenance or copying files so that's why the apps are more important to me.

Well, I think it's worth doing :)

I mean, I wonder if a repository could be automatically SELF-maintaining.

Couldn't it just distinguish or be informed of stable releases from the developer's program-specific PPAs, and merge them all together into one? So we would find a way of missing out the unstable ones, and just providing the stable ones automagically! ^_^

Beautiful! I think we need to do it :)


EDIT -- My friend even suggested just LINKING to the packages (and asking permission from the hosters)... can this still be made into an automatic repository? I wonder if it would be slower o.O

Xbehave
October 2nd, 2009, 01:24 AM
[quote]EDIT -- My friend even suggested just LINKING to the packages (and asking permission from the hosters)... can this still be made into an automatic repository? I wonder if it would be slower o.O
The problem with that is most PPAs call firefox, firefox and use number tricks to get it to overwrite firefox, for the -latest PPA to not overrid all the programs (so you can just install firefox-latest OR gimp-latest) you would need to change the metainfo of any package. You might be able to do this using scripts but just copying the package from another PPA will probably not work. If you are only going to be tracking major upstream releases (and ofc security fixes) of a few program a small team might be better off just packaging the stuff themselves than spending time messing around with metadata. I dont know how many projects you would be looking at tracking but it seams like a few (10ish) people could do this in their spare time fairly easily*.

*I say fairly easily because despite having compiled loads of programs I have yet to properly package anything (checkdeb doesn't count)

note: for PPAs they are all hosted by canonical so you would not need permission, for other repos you would.

Khushboo_khan
October 8th, 2009, 07:33 AM
I think the linux update system is good then windows. windows is unsecure..

Frak
October 8th, 2009, 09:56 PM
I think the linux update system is good then windows. windows is unsecure..
Example?