Turnaround for new OS version

[Khakilang]

o 6 month
o 1 year
o 2 years
o 3 years

What do you think of a turnaround time for new version of the OS. I started with 8.10 at the begining of this year and thought its the latest. Bought a book and before I know it 9.04 came out and now 9.10 and I haven't finish reading the book. So in your opinion whats the best turnaround time for a new version. Pardon me, I still don't how to post a polls vote here. But you get the idea.

[hoppipolla]

hehe, I guess no-one told you how this works!

We are now on 9.10. The reason for this is because it was released in the 10th month (October) of 2009 :)

Geddit?

So 9.04 is April 09, 9.10 is Oct 09, 10.04 is April 2010 etc etc :)

And they get their unique names as well which go alphabetically, such as Intrepid Ibex, Jaunty Jackalope and Karmic Koala :)

[SunnyRabbiera]

Ubuntu has a 6 month release cycle, both a good thing and a bad thing as sometimes bugs crop up.
But the thing is if you have a guide for 8.04 there is not much that changed between that and 9.10 other then a few apps here and there and one or two features in terms of user interface.
This isnt like a leap from XP to Win7

[SomeGuyDude]

Some love it, some don't.

To be honest, I think it's a poor idea in terms of making it widespread. Linux users might be cool with it, but imagine if Windows was putting out new versions before even the first service pack for the old one was released.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Some love it, some don't.

To be honest, I think it's a poor idea in terms of making it widespread. Linux users might be cool with it, but imagine if Windows was putting out new versions before even the first service pack for the old one was released.

Might be that way for windows 7 and up though, according to what we heard from Microsoft

[SomeGuyDude]

Might be that way for windows 7 and up though, according to what we heard from Microsoft

Every six months, though?

One reason I'm on Arch is that full OS upgrades are a thing of the past. Yeah I get updates a lot, but there's never a "oh god here's a 600MB update of absolutely everything I hope this works" moment. While I'm not suggesting Ubuntu should go rolling, I think what'd be best is if they did one annual update and then a six month "service pack" of sorts.

Like I said before, updating that often leaves the user never feeling secure. One of the great things about XP was it hung around forever. You installed it and you were good for YEARS. Look at OSX, they've been on the latest version for, what, two years now?

[jazzvibes]

thats why there are Long term support (LTS) versions though, if you don't want to stay completely brandspanking new, then stick to the 2year LTS cycle

[JDShu]

thats why there are Long term support (LTS) versions though, if you don't want to stay completely brandspanking new, then stick to the 2year LTS cycle

+1

In addition, if you want a stable OS, never use one that has just been released. That said, I am a fan of the "release early, release often" philosophy. It just makes sense to me.

[SomeGuyDude]

thats why there are Long term support (LTS) versions though, if you don't want to stay completely brandspanking new, then stick to the 2year LTS cycle

Sure, but let's not forget that if you stick with an LTS it also means you're not getting the latest version of many packages. For example, people sticking with Hardy for the LTS are stuck using Firefox 3.0. You're basically telling people who are leary of constant SYSTEM upgrades to forego APPLICATION updates.

[tc3000]

IMO, Ubuntu should move to a Tick/Tock style release (A.K.A.)
10.4 : Tick, Major Upgrade for functionality,
10.10 : Tock, Upgrade for speed and bugginess (LTS)
11.4 tick
11.10 tock (LTS)

[3rdalbum]

Look at OSX, they've been on the latest version for, what, two years now?

Less than two months :-)

OS X is only taking a longer time between upgrades because Apple is coming up to the limits of what they can do in their operating system without making it terribly unstable. It takes longer for them to add new features, basically.

I quite like the idea just proposed of a "Tick-tock" cycle, except that the x.04 release must be the bugfixing "tock" (because only the x.04 releases are LTSes, and you must have a stable LTS).

A longer release cycle doesn't work, because it means people go a much longer time without hardware drivers. But the "tick-tock" idea would still allow this.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Every six months, though?

One reason I'm on Arch is that full OS upgrades are a thing of the past. Yeah I get updates a lot, but there's never a "oh god here's a 600MB update of absolutely everything I hope this works" moment. While I'm not suggesting Ubuntu should go rolling, I think what'd be best is if they did one annual update and then a six month "service pack" of sorts.

Like I said before, updating that often leaves the user never feeling secure. One of the great things about XP was it hung around forever. You installed it and you were good for YEARS. Look at OSX, they've been on the latest version for, what, two years now?

No but Windows is rumored to release once a year starting with 7, we might see win8 next year.
And everyone complains about buntu

[SomeGuyDude]

Less than two months :-)

Right, sorry. It was two years between the last versions of OSX. And over two years between the versions prior to that.

[Dimitriid]

I don't like set dates. I much rather have a rolling release for enthusiast/testing new features and a "it will be out when its ready" cycle for most users/stable everyday use.

Ideally I'd have both installed and just have the stable version as a fail back system.

[ZankerH]

I don't like set dates. I much rather have a rolling release for enthusiast/testing new features and a "it will be out when its ready" cycle for most users/stable everyday use.

Ideally I'd have both installed and just have the stable version as a fail back system.

This. Ubuntu should just roll new versions of software in the repos as they're released, and focus on a stable, optional LTS freeze every two years, replacing the half-year release cycle with a rolling release system.

[bonfire89]

hehe, I guess no-one told you how this works!

We are now on 9.10. The reason for this is because it was released in the 10th month (October) of 2009 :)

Geddit?

So 9.04 is April 09, 9.10 is Oct 09, 10.04 is April 2010 etc etc :)

And they get their unique names as well which go alphabetically, such as Intrepid Ibex, Jaunty Jackalope and Karmic Koala :)

woooaa!!! I never knew.. haha I just accepted it.

[SomeGuyDude]

Ubuntu will NEVER be a rolling distro, I think we can just scrap that notion right now.

However, it WOULD be nice for those who like the LTS releases if there wasn't a total and utter freeze on all software. It's just bonkers to have people unable to update even simple packages like Pidgin or amaroK because they didn't feel comfortable upgrading the OS itself.

After all, people still using XP can use the newest versions of IE/AIM/Office/whatever, so what's up with Ubuntu?

[mivo]

thats why there are Long term support (LTS) versions though, if you don't want to stay completely brandspanking new, then stick to the 2year LTS cycle

And get stuck with old software for two years. It's a myth that LTS releases are all that stable anyway. 8.04 LTS shipped with Firefox 3.0 Beta 4. "Stable" really means "old" when it comes to Ubuntu and Debian.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Ubuntu will NEVER be a rolling distro, I think we can just scrap that notion right now.

However, it WOULD be nice for those who like the LTS releases if there wasn't a total and utter freeze on all software. It's just bonkers to have people unable to update even simple packages like Pidgin or amaroK because they didn't feel comfortable upgrading the OS itself.

After all, people still using XP can use the newest versions of IE/AIM/Office/whatever, so what's up with Ubuntu?

there are always PPA's though.
For me I like ubuntu's cycle as it is predictable, unlike most other OS's