Ubuntu to be a Rolling Release

[simpleblue]

*** Edit ***

Ubuntu is NOT changing to a rolling release:

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/11/ubuntu-is-not-changing-to-a-rolling-release/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+d0od+(Omg!+Ubuntu!)



** Original Post **

Here is an article with the news:

"Mark Shuttleworth recently told reporters that Ubuntu will likely be moving from its current six-month release schedule to daily updates. A step of this nature would help Ubuntu keep up the rapidly changing and increasing complex software and hardware landscape. This is especially true as Ubuntu finds itself on more mobile and smartphone devices.

Shuttleworth said more services and software available through and in connection with the Ubuntu Software Center will see rapid advancement in the next few years. He explained, "In an internet-oriented world, we need to be able to release something every day." The main advantage for Ubuntu would be the possibility of keeping excitement up during what is considered the developmental cycles, when larger Websites and publications concentrate on other distributions and topics. For users, a decreased wait for significant and minor application updates as well as the opportunity to break the six-month reinstall or risky upgrade cycle. More significantly, embedded device manufactures using Ubuntu send out updates to their systems regularly and this would help Canonical accommodate those services.

A move of this nature would essentially change the whole philosophy and operating procedures as Ubuntu moves to a rolling release. It does mean a bit more work for developers as they have to make sure their packages are user-ready more often. In addition, Ubuntu would still have to periodically release updated ISOs for those in need of a new or fresh install.

But add up and the pluses and minuses, it means more value for Ubuntu users and partners."

The above is courtesy of:
http://ostatic.com/blog/ubuntu-to-become-a-rolling-release
(http://ostatic.com/blog/ubuntu-to-become-a-rolling-release)

More info here as well:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/11/23/darily_ubuntu_updates/


What do you think?

[Cuddles McKitten]

Does this mean we'll need to come up with new funny animal names on almost a daily basis?

[Mrandersonjr]

A step in the right direction.

[Tibuda]

I like it, but I don't think everybody will enjoy it.

[wrtpeeps]

I'd be interested to see how the user numbers for Ubuntu correlate to these release dates.

Would I be right in assuming that just after the 6 month releases, user numbers are bound to have a slight bump up as curiosity gets the better of people (people who have been caught by the press releases or something who wouldn't otherwise know about it).

I assume that if they do move to rolling releases they'll still have "big" releases of some sort.

Maybe I'm wrong though?

[NightwishFan]

I doubt it will be a complete rolling model. I like the way it is now, though for some stuff like games and antivirus that need to be current this might be useful.

[Tibuda]

I assume that if they do move to rolling releases they'll still have "big" releases of some sort.

Yeah, they would release LiveCDs as snapshots of what is in the repositories, so you would not have too many updates after installing.

[Rasa1111]

A step in the right direction.

I think so to.
Makes sense. :) <3

[madjr]

DELL will be so HAPPy !

they still selling computers with ubuntu 9.10 for Gods sake....

time for ubuntu to get truly adopted by Hardware Manufacturers and the world!

And if we have Butter FS (btrfs) ready and integrated with grub, then we can revert back in case a package or upgrade messes up something. that would be final piece of the puzzle.

also a bit funny, linuxmint will have 2 rolling distros now!

[wilee-nilee]

I think so to.
Makes sense. :) <3

+1 Arch has been doing it and you just keep your cache and know the commands to get them back if needed.

[Nytram]

Personally I like the idea, I might condiser moving back to Ubuntu from Arch which I'm using now (mainly because it's RR.)

[wilee-nilee]

Personally I like the idea, I might condiser moving back to Ubuntu from Arch which I'm using now (mainly because it's RR.)

Oh no what will we do with the arch users, if they come back, I see a brawl coming now. Just kidding here I use arch as well at times.;)

[Pogeymanz]

I'm willing to bet the core will still only be updated rarely. Probably just security/bug fixes and user-apps will be updated often.

I always thought it was silly to have an OS you need to reinstall every six months... No wonder Windows users think we're nuts.

[Simian Man]

This is a horrible idea for Ubuntu's target audience. It would make the chance of random breakage totally unpredictable as opposed to the system now where you know what you're getting into.

Secondly people get excited about new releases. Ubuntu's contribution to the Linux world is supposed to be marketing. Without release parties, codenames etc. it's harder to do that sort of thing.

I seriously doubt this will happen, at least not in the normal sense of "rolling release".

[nerdy_kid]

I think this is a good idea. Personally, I find it to be a pain in the butt upgrading ubuntu, just too many things can and do break. It will be interesting to see what happens to the concept of LTS releases though.

[matt_symes]

This is a horrible idea for Ubuntu's target audience. It would make the chance of random breakage totally unpredictable as opposed to the system now where you know what you're getting into.

Secondly people get excited about new releases. Ubuntu's contribution to the Linux world is supposed to be marketing. Without release parties, codenames etc. it's harder to do that sort of thing.

I seriously doubt this will happen, at least not in the normal sense of "rolling release".

I have to say, i am veering towards this position for the same reasons.

[demosthene1]

I love the idea. I don't like being locked into quickly outdated releases. I don't like the re-installation to get the latest,greatest OS. This is the missing piece to making Ubuntu a near perfect distro.

[Nytram]

Oh no what will we do with the arch users, if they come back, I see a brawl coming now. Just kidding here I use arch as well at times.;)

I think there's already a lot of arch users on this forum ;)

[tekkidd]

DELL will be so HAPPy !

they still selling computers with ubuntu 9.10 for Gods sake....

time for ubuntu to get truly adopted by Hardware Manufacturers and the world!

And if we have Butter FS (btrfs) ready and integrated with grub, then we can revert back in case a package or upgrade messes up something. that would be final piece of the puzzle.

also a bit funny, linuxmint will have 2 rolling distros now!

correction, oldest i saw was 8.10

[wilee-nilee]

I think there's already a lot of arch users on this forum ;)

Arghh matey they be lurking for sure, there have been more then a few threads closed with the arguments ensuing. Actually we have a variety of users on the forum for sure some are even just using MS, or Apple users.;)

Some of the things I like about this forum are the knowledge base, and most of all no shiny power user badge junk.;) I really liked the removal of the thanks button although it was when I just lurked.

[matt_symes]

Most of the people who will be responding to this thread will be technically savy. I wonder what it will mean for those who post questions in absolute beginners and general help. I can't see it being a pure RR.

[darrenn]

Originally Posted by Simian Man View Post
This is a horrible idea for Ubuntu's target audience. It would make the chance of random breakage totally unpredictable as opposed to the system now where you know what you're getting into.

Secondly people get excited about new releases. Ubuntu's contribution to the Linux world is supposed to be marketing. Without release parties, codenames etc. it's harder to do that sort of thing.

I seriously doubt this will happen, at least not in the normal sense of "rolling release".

Yeah they couldn't do it exactly the same way as arch because of breakage. I guess they would have to slowly roll out updates. First to the most experienced users and keep going until it breaks.

Or maybe im completely wrong in what they are trying to do.

[czr114]

This will be a good thing as long as they're focused on stability over bleeding edge bragging rights.

The current release cycle leaves much to be desired in terms of excluded new branches.

For certain apps, this isn't a problem.

Hopefully it will be those that are kept perpetually at the latest stable branch.

It doesn't make much sense to use an old branch of something fairly well-behaved like VLC or Deluge. If the release is stable, then it should be pushed to the repos.

A bit of lag in something as heavy as OO or MySQL would merit a more conservative approach.

[smellyman]

Most of the people who will be responding to this thread will be technically savy. I wonder what it will mean for those who post questions in absolute beginners and general help. I can't see it being a pure RR.

to beginners it would be much better. full installs or major upgrades less often would be much easier for them.

I have used Arch for a year now. So far updates have not broken a thing.

[qamelian]

This is a horrible idea for Ubuntu's target audience. It would make the chance of random breakage totally unpredictable as opposed to the system now where you know what you're getting into.


I agree. If this happens, it actually renders Ubuntu useless for the business clients I've migrated to Ubuntu since it will violate one of the principle characteristics we were looking for in a desktop linux. We wanted to ensure that our platform did remain relatively static to minimize the chance of downtime.

[Nytram]

Arghh matey they be lurking for sure, there have been more then a few threads closed with the arguments ensuing. Actually we have a variety of users on the forum for sure some are even just using MS, or Apple users.;)

Some of the things I like about this forum are the knowledge base, and most of all no shiny power user badge junk.;) I really liked the removal of the thanks button although it was when I just lurked.

Got to agree, this forum is on the whole friendly and helpful, and isn't elitest. I've tried the Arch forum and.. uff.. no thanks.

[stmiller]

So will there be a constant rolling dev version along side the rolling 'stable' version?

[brandenmikal]

I agree. If this happens, it actually renders Ubuntu useless for the business clients I've migrated to Ubuntu since it will violate one of the principle characteristics we were looking for in a desktop linux. We wanted to ensure that our platform did remain relatively static to minimize the chance of downtime.

I think for Business users; they should leave it as is and then have a separate edition for home users to do this sort of release change.

Some examples could mean that the Business Edition would be a six-month release cycle and would be stable as promised for each cycle.

Home Edition could be a rolling release or you could also download a separate version that is updated every six-months as the Business Edition is.

To me, this would keep business users happy and would help provide users who are not in agreement with the change to have the old options still available.

Personally; I prefer the six-month cycle releases. Stability is a major importance for me.

[mpt]

I always thought it was silly to have an OS you need to reinstall every six months... No wonder Windows users think we're nuts.

If you’re using an operating system that you need to reinstall every six months, I suggest you try Ubuntu instead. I’ve been upgrading since 8.04, and never had to reinstall.

[simpleblue]

Rolling release + Unity + Wayland = Awesomeness :p

:popcorn:


Would this rolling release have the ability to 'roll-back' changes that were made during an update? If so, I think this would easily solve ALOT of update related problems until they could be fixed and sent out again.

...

Another article related to rolling release news on OMG Ubuntu:

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/11/ubuntu-to-become-a-rolling-release-distro/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+d0od+(Omg!+Ubuntu!)

[matt_symes]

If you’re using an operating system that you need to reinstall every six months, I suggest you try Ubuntu instead. I’ve been upgrading since 8.04, and never had to reinstall.Insider knowledge. How is it going to work? What's the plan?

[oobuntoo]

They should have done this from the beginning. Every time they released a completely new version, they introduced new bugs and, sometimes, old bugs and users had to refile same bug reports against new version as if the developers don't remember how they had fixed them before.

[mpt]

If you’re using an operating system that you need to reinstall every six months, I suggest you try Ubuntu instead. I’ve been upgrading since 8.04, and never had to reinstall. Insider knowledge. How is it going to work?

It’s fairly simple. I started out with Ubuntu 8.04 Secret Upgradeable Edition. Whenever a new version of Ubuntu SUE was available, Update Manager told me, and I just clicked the “Upgrade” button. It’s pretty nifty.


What's the plan?

Windicators everywhere.

EVERYWHERE.

[matt_symes]

It’s fairly simple. I started out with Ubuntu 8.04 Secret Upgradeable Edition. Whenever a new version of Ubuntu SUE was available, Update Manager told me, and I just clicked the “Upgrade” button. It’s pretty nifty.



Windicators everywhere.

EVERYWHERE.

:) You guys are doing the right things. But we are interested in the way things are going. After all, we are your core audience.

[zer010]

I agree. If this happens, it actually renders Ubuntu useless for the business clients I've migrated to Ubuntu since it will violate one of the principle characteristics we were looking for in a desktop linux. We wanted to ensure that our platform did remain relatively static to minimize the chance of downtime.
There's always Debian....

[matt_symes]

There's always Debian....Yes, but i'm still interested in Ubuntu. Where is it going?

[mpt]

:) You guys are doing the right things. But we are interested in the way things are going. After all, we are your core audience.

It’s no secret that for more than five years, Mark has wanted a daily build of Ubuntu, codenamed Grumpy Groundhog (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDownUnder/BOFs/GrumpyGroundhog). However, that would only ever be for testing, not for release.

It’s easy for Arch and Gentoo to have rolling releases, because pretty much nobody uses Arch or Gentoo. With Ubuntu, though, we have actual support customers (http://www.ubuntu.com/support/services), and actual factories pressing CDs (https://shipit.ubuntu.com/), and actual training courses (http://www.ubuntu.com/support/training), and actual book publishers (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_n_0?rh=n:283155,n:5&keywords=ubuntu&qid=1290570987), and most of all, actual OEMs, who find it hard enough keeping up with a release every six months. Releasing more often than that would be hopeless.

Among other things, I do much of the design for Ubuntu Software Center, which Mark mentioned in his quote. By design, though, USC has pretty much nothing to do with the Ubuntu upgrade process. What some of us would like to do, however, is make it possible for application developers to issue updates for their applications on whatever day they feel like, rather than having to wait for people to upgrade their entire operating system. For an overview of that topic, see the talks that I and Evan Dandrea gave (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT5fUcMUfYg) at UDS last month.

So, now you’re more informed than the people who read The Register, or OMG Ubuntu (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/11/ubuntu-to-become-a-rolling-release-distro/), or OStatic (http://ostatic.com/blog/ubuntu-to-become-a-rolling-release), or WebUpd8 (http://www.webupd8.org/2010/11/ubuntu-becoming-rolling-release-distro.html). Not because I’m telling you any secrets, but because the writers for those sites are just bad.

[darrenn]

It’s easy for Arch and Gentoo to have rolling releases, because pretty much nobody uses Arch or Gentoo. With Ubuntu, though, we have actual support customers, and actual factories pressing CDs, and actual training courses, and actual book publishers, and most of all, actual OEMs, who find it hard enough keeping up with a release every six months. Releasing more often than that would be hopeless.

Thank you for explaining why Ubuntu isn't currently a rolling release.

[czr114]

It’s no secret that for more than five years, Mark has wanted a daily build of Ubuntu, codenamed Grumpy Groundhog (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDownUnder/BOFs/GrumpyGroundhog). However, that would only ever be for testing, not for release.

It’s easy for Arch and Gentoo to have rolling releases, because pretty much nobody uses Arch or Gentoo. With Ubuntu, though, we have actual support customers (http://www.ubuntu.com/support/services), and actual factories pressing CDs (https://shipit.ubuntu.com/), and actual training courses (http://www.ubuntu.com/support/training), and actual book publishers (http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=sr_nr_n_0?rh=n:283155,n:5&keywords=ubuntu&qid=1290570987), and most of all, actual OEMs, who find it hard enough keeping up with a release every six months. Releasing more often than that would be hopeless.

Among other things, I do much of the design for Ubuntu Software Center, which Mark mentioned in his quote. By design, though, USC has pretty much nothing to do with the Ubuntu upgrade process. What some of us would like to do, however, is make it possible for application developers to issue updates for their applications on whatever day they feel like, rather than having to wait for people to upgrade their entire operating system. For an overview of that topic, see the talks that I and Evan Dandrea gave (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GT5fUcMUfYg) at UDS last month.

So, now you’re more informed than the people who read The Register, or OMG Ubuntu (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/11/ubuntu-to-become-a-rolling-release-distro/), or OStatic (http://ostatic.com/blog/ubuntu-to-become-a-rolling-release), or WebUpd8 (http://www.webupd8.org/2010/11/ubuntu-becoming-rolling-release-distro.html). Not because I’m telling you any secrets, but because the writers for those sites are just bad.

If I may ask, what's the team's opinion or vision on apps which are either exceptionally well-behaved when it comes to upgrades, or are overwhelmingly used in a home context?

Having had done enterprise support, I can appreciate the value of a stable base, and having been a home user I can see the need for fast access to new functionality.

I'm curious whether there is room for a balance between the two. Something like a GUI torrent client would only rarely ever enter into an enterprise context, so there is no problem in pushing latest stable there. It's also well isolated from the rest of the system, and limited in scope, so it's unlikely to break anything.

Something like an office suite or a DE, on the other hand, definitely shouldn't be tracking the latest stable as soon as it's released but for critical security or stability patches.

I can see situations in which certain apps on a rolling release wouldn't interfere with system stability for either the basic home user or the change-sensitive enterprise.

Is there any vision for a middle ground between the two?

[hhh]

So, now you’re more informed than the people who read The Register, or OMG Ubuntu (http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/11/ubuntu-to-become-a-rolling-release-distro/), or OStatic (http://ostatic.com/blog/ubuntu-to-become-a-rolling-release), or WebUpd8 (http://www.webupd8.org/2010/11/ubuntu-becoming-rolling-release-distro.html). Not because I’m telling you any secrets, but because the writers for those sites are just bad.

I hate this kind of reporting, too. The Register quotes Shuttleworth as talking to "the press"? Where? When? In what context?

That being said, Andrew at Webupd8 does a damn fine job staying on top of things and sorting fact from fiction. Did you miss Andrew's paragraph in bold type just below his quote of The Register?
However, the above quote is all Ostatic and The Register give us regarding this (and I for one won't believe it until I actually see the words "rolling release" used by Mark Shuttleworth).

And while we're at fact checking, where do you get the stat that "pretty much nobody" uses Arch?

Finally, to suggest that a user moves to Ubuntu if they don't need to reinstall every 6 months is a huge stretch. I'm glad it's worked great for you, but I have never had a successful upgrade to the next Ubuntu release in 5 years. Hell, there are plenty of Ubuntu users who have problems with regular upgrades, let alone dist-upgrades. There are hundreds of users in the same situation, just check these forums.

[johntaylor1887]

I agree. If this happens, it actually renders Ubuntu useless for the business clients I've migrated to Ubuntu since it will violate one of the principle characteristics we were looking for in a desktop linux. We wanted to ensure that our platform did remain relatively static to minimize the chance of downtime.

In that scenario, you would want to lock down the system except for security updates.

[handy]

I agree. If this happens, it actually renders Ubuntu useless for the business clients I've migrated to Ubuntu since it will violate one of the principle characteristics we were looking for in a desktop linux. We wanted to ensure that our platform did remain relatively static to minimize the chance of downtime.

Perhaps they will have two upgrade systems running simultaneously; one for the LTS, Server & such, & the other the rolling release model.

As an Arch user I like it. Though I do think that Canonical really need to make a GUI that will make it as easy as possible to both upgrade & to downgrade packages. This will need to show in a very simple fashion what packages you just upgraded & if possible suggest which ones you need to downgrade when trouble comes, as it of course will.

If people land in a situation where they need to boot a LiveCD so they can chroot so as to be able to get into the system on their HDD so that they can edit config files or reinstall an earlier version of a package, then Ubuntu will have gone backwards by going to a RR system.

There will need to be, "again" the easiest system possible situated on the desktop of the LiveCD that removes the need for people to have to do what I mentioned in the previous paragraph. It needs to have a GUI interface too.

[edit:] It could be as easy as which repos you enable in Synaptic or whatever... Those that want rolling release can have it, those that don't can carry on as before. Canonical will see how popular RR is & decide over a period of time if it is worth the trouble/expense to maintain.

[handy]

...
It’s easy for Arch and Gentoo to have rolling releases, because pretty much nobody uses Arch or Gentoo.

That's a bit harsh! My ISP is consistently the most popular in user polls at whirlpool.net.au. It uses Gentoo as the base system on its servers, on top of which they run multiple VMs.

[handy]

I watched the videos, & read the raps.

In the end it comes down to Canonical seeing that they are in a fight to save Ubuntu from death. The figures showing the growth of the opposition (Google, Apple) when compared to the growth of Ubuntu, shows that if Ubuntu doesn't make some serious changes NOW, it will fade away over the coming decade as it won't be able to support a paid administrative team.

[asasoft]

It’s easy for Arch and Gentoo to have rolling releases, because pretty much nobody uses Arch or Gentoo.

Trolling is not allowed on the forums.

[RiceMonster]

It’s easy for Arch and Gentoo to have rolling releases, because pretty much nobody uses Arch or Gentoo.

When looking at the big picture though, pretty much nobody uses Ubuntu either :).

[frt975]

Yeah they couldn't do it exactly the same way as arch because of breakage. I guess they would have to slowly roll out updates. First to the most experienced users and keep going until it breaks.

Or maybe im completely wrong in what they are trying to do.

Thats a good idea. Experienced users get it right when its made and regular users get it a two weeks later.

[fancy_ninja]

A step in the right direction.

I'm a baby Archer myself (swapped from Xubuntu)...I appreciate your sig and avatar :) I concur with your comment :)

[earthpigg]

Ubuntu's LTS releases will not be replaced with an RR release in the same fashion as Gentoo and Arch.

[frankbooth]

Great news!

[nlsthzn]

Used to think that a Rolling Release was the best model, however the potential for breakage is so high... now a stable release cycle with reliable upgrade possibilities for individual applications and the core system separately once stable would be nice :)

[jppr]

http://ostatic.com/blog/ubuntu-to-become-a-rolling-release

[int]

I wait long time for this.

[jppr]

i wait long time for this.

+ 1

[int]

At this time are 5 "known" True Rolling release distros
Gentoo Linux
Arch Linux
PCLinuxOS
aptosid
Foresight Linux

And are Fake Rolling releases:
Mandriva Cooker
openSUSE Factory
Fedora Rawhide
Debian's testing and unstable branches

Fake because, unlike a rolling release, these branches are intended to be the next release, and will be frozen and tested prior to such a release.

This will be a True Rolling release or a fake one?

[rajeev1204]

There is a discussion going on in the cafe http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1629479

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1629479


But the idea is, if i got this right , to allow software developers to push updates to the users when they want and not when ubuntu updates every six months .

Much of the core OS wont change, but for example VLC or Firefox or Banshee changes can trickle in for the better .

[MacUntu]

I'm already using Ubuntu+1 all the time, so what? :P

[chrisccoulson]

rajeev1204 is right, I think what Mark is talking about is the ability for software developers to push out new applications and updates through software center without having to wait 6 months for the next stable Ubuntu release to appear, and some of the groundwork for this has already been done in Maverick. The base Ubuntu system and applications in the archive would still be bound by the current 6 month release process.

Mark doesn't really say that Ubuntu will be adopting a rolling release process, but the article (possibly wrongly) seems to imply that.

Of course, if I'm wrong, then I'll eat my words.

[tghe-retford]

Good move, as long as non-critical updates are pushed through immediately or tested quickly before release to the wider audience (applications such as Firefox, VLC for two examples), whilst critical updates like X, the kernel, Grub, Pulseaudio and so forth are at least tested and won't bring down the system before being rolled out to a wider audience.

One of my bug bears and one regular complaint I see is the fact if I want to run the latest applications, I have to either compile them or dabble in the development version, with all the breakage that brings (not a bad thing, I love testing). A rolling release (or a near rolling release after some limited testing) will be far better for the community and help quash those complaints.

Good move.

[Harry33]

Then again, how about the desktop.
Gnome is released every 6th month, KDE is not rolling either.
That would mean a big desktop upgrade anyway.

[chrisccoulson]

Then again, how about the desktop.
Gnome is released every 6th month, KDE is not rolling either.
That would mean a big desktop upgrade anyway.

I don't think we would update the core desktop components every 6 months in a supported release. I'm sure what this is really talking about is the ability for application developers to push their cool apps out via software-center without being bound by our current 6 month release process.

Of course, I could be wrong about that, but I don't think I am

[ibizatunes]

I think that it would work, my only concern is need to make sure that the cra* that 'can' be left behind from constant upgrade etc (kernels, packages, library files etc)
as long as they can be removed easily (without the need for command line stuff)
ie a computer janitor that does work well, and that intelligent enough to know what to remove etc, and doesn't remove things like the iplayer, and other 3party stuff etc

I would be happy

[alan404]

Yes and when PCLinuxOS moved from KDE3 to KDE4, they had to issue a fresh install disc, so the rolling release was interrupted. I have to admit, I didn't upgrade as I wasn't used to it and so it seemed like a massive scary job all of a sudden. And the rolling release has its dangers too - things could break at any time. For instance Amarok stopped working with album covers several times and wasn't fixed for months. So although it seems a nice idea, the disadvantages shouldn't be ignored - but freeing up versions of certain applications in the software centre is surely a good idea.

[handy]

In Arch, new versions or new packages aren't just released straight from the dev's into the repos & therefore directly into the hands of the users. There is a testing phase beforehand.

I do think that Ubuntu could have a rolling release repo as well as the 6 monthly cycle & look after the LTS as well. Doing it all quite successfully too.

I do hope it turns out that way.

[getaceres]

The problem with this approach is that it's difficult to introduce big changes like upstart or wayland without breaking everything. You can do it in the Alpha releases and then stabilize it to get a release every X time, but updating on an almost daily basis will certainly cause a lot of troubles.
Maybe Ubuntu should implement the Debian release system but with a much more frequent release speed so you have a new stable every 6 months, a testing branch which is a rolling release and a unstable branch to test all this kind of big changes and migrations.

[chrisccoulson]

I think that it would work, my only concern is need to make sure that the cra* that 'can' be left behind from constant upgrade etc (kernels, packages, library files etc)
as long as they can be removed easily (without the need for command line stuff)
ie a computer janitor that does work well, and that intelligent enough to know what to remove etc, and doesn't remove things like the iplayer, and other 3party stuff etc

I would be happy

*You* would be happy, but anybody who wanted a stable desktop, netbook or server would be pretty unhappy with a rolling release. Imagine, for example, the transition from SysV style init scripts to Upstart jobs that happened a few cycles ago, and then imagine that happening in a rolling release that everybody from developers to my nan is running.

A rolling release would either mean:


Users have to endure breakage on their "stable" systems from time-to-time when we go through the usual transitions that would normally happen in a development release
We'd be afraid of doing any sort of major transition, for fear of breaking users computers

[Oxwivi]

Does this mean we'll need to come up with new funny animal names on almost a daily basis?
Only for LTS, methinks.

[Harry33]

So not a true rolling release then.
Desktops and kernell ought to be updated too.
After all, this is what we testers are doing all the time:
alfa => beta => rc => release => alfa ...

We are already in the middle of some big transitions in Natty:
- Gnome 2.32 => Gnome 3.00
- GTK+2 => GTK+3

There will be a release anyway where gnome-panel and GTK+2 is left off.

[Harry33]

And we are in the middle of possible breakages.

[Iksf]

I would love this personally but i think its a bad move. Ubuntu isnt Arch or Gentoo, not aimed at the kind of people who dont really care if X commits suicide with a new graphics driver release, after all you can just drop into command line and repair everything in a few hours. Ubuntu needs a bigger bug and regression testing period imo

[Oxwivi]

I would love this personally but i think its a bad move. Ubuntu isnt Arch or Gentoo, not aimed at the kind of people who dont really care if X commits suicide with a new graphics driver release, after all you can just drop into command line and repair everything in a few hours. Ubuntu needs a bigger bug and regression testing period imo
I understand your concerns, but rolling release doesn't necessarily mean less testing for the packages.

[Spice Weasel]

WHY? When I install Ubuntu on a computer illiterates computer, I don't want to have to go back to them once every (how long) to update their system so it remains secure. :(

I guess I could use CentOS, but I usually have an Ubuntu CD handy..

[handy]

The problem with this approach is that it's difficult to introduce big changes like upstart or wayland without breaking everything. You can do it in the Alpha releases and then stabilize it to get a release every X time, but updating on an almost daily basis will certainly cause a lot of troubles.
Maybe Ubuntu should implement the Debian release system but with a much more frequent release speed so you have a new stable every 6 months, a testing branch which is a rolling release and a unstable branch to test all this kind of big changes and migrations.

It doesn't cause daily troubles on Arch. When a BIG change or a change that requires changes to your config is available for Arch, there is info' on the News page & instructions. If a major change hits a certain "group" of hardware users for instance then as soon as it is known, a workaround is available on the forum; if a workaround is not available due to the problem having been fed back upstream it usually takes only a short time for a resolution to come downstream.

What is critical under these circumstances, especially for less than intermediate users, is that there exist a VERY simple & easy way to downgrade packages to escape the newly upgraded package's inherent problems.

This means that if there is trouble it can be removed inside of 10 minutes or so without the user having to know much about what they are doing.

This is why I said previously that IF Ubuntu goes to a RR upgrade system they MUST have an extremely simple GUI package management system that will work on the installed desktop & directly from the LiveCD, in a foolproof manner that is perfectly suitable for brand new Linux users who haven't got a clue about what they are doing. (This sounds easy when you say it fast!)

If not, forget about it, a RR for Ubuntu will just become a nightmare for beginners & they will either go to Fedora or somewhere else, or of course back to Windows.

[NightwishFan]

Anyone who wants to use Ubuntu I set up with the current LTS, the Ubuntu Manual, automatic weekly updates, and upgrade instructions for when the next lts rolls around. I have never had any problems. One of my fellows learned how to set it to upgrade to non-lts releases and upgraded himself.

[getaceres]

It doesn't cause daily troubles on Arch. When a BIG change or a change that requires changes to your config is available for Arch, there is info' on the News page & instructions. If a major change hits a certain "group" of hardware users for instance then as soon as it is known, a workaround is available on the forum; if a workaround is not available due to the problem having been fed back upstream it usually takes only a short time for a resolution to come downstream.

What is critical under these circumstances, especially for less than intermediate users, is that there exist a VERY simple & easy way to downgrade packages to escape the newly upgraded package's inherent problems.

This means that if there is trouble it can be removed inside of 10 minutes or so without the user having to know much about what they are doing.

This is why I said previously that IF Ubuntu goes to a RR upgrade system they MUST have an extremely simple GUI package management system that will work on the installed desktop & directly from the LiveCD, in a foolproof manner that is perfectly suitable for brand new Linux users who haven't got a clue about what they are doing. (This sounds easy when you say it fast!)

If not, forget about it, a RR for Ubuntu will just become a nightmare for beginners & they will either go to Fedora or somewhere else, or of course back to Windows.

It's not that simple. For us, power users, is easy to find a workaround in the forums or whatever but for newbies it will be a complete nightmare to downgrade a package once they loose the ability to get into GUI or even to boot their systems. Look at a change from System V to Upstart, it could prevent you from even booting. As Upstart is not the definitive boot system, it will be repaced eventually, once this happens and the change affects to every single Ubuntu user, How can a unexperienced user recover from this? Does he know that he has to boot with a live CD, chroot into the system and then downgrade the affected package through the command line? There has to be a stable environment for unexperienced users and then a bleeding edge environment for power users and for that, a division like Debian has is perfect.

[handy]

It's not that simple. For us, power users, is easy to find a workaround in the forums or whatever but for newbies it will be a complete nightmare to downgrade a package once they loose the ability to get into GUI or even to boot their systems.

You obviously didn't understand what I wrote?



Look at a change from System V to Upstart, it could prevent you from even booting. As Upstart is not the definitive boot system, it will be repaced eventually, once this happens and the change affects to every single Ubuntu user, How can a unexperienced user recover from this? Does he know that he has to boot with a live CD, chroot into the system and then downgrade the affected package through the command line? There has to be a stable environment for unexperienced users and then a bleeding edge environment for power users and for that, a division like Debian has is perfect.

As I said, you obviously didn't understand what I wrote. I addressed all of what you are saying previously. (at least once)

[getaceres]

It doesn't cause daily troubles on Arch. When a BIG change or a change that requires changes to your config is available for Arch, there is info' on the News page & instructions.

Ok, let's assume that every user reads the news page of Ubuntu previous to any update. Even showing a big alert message in front of them would trigger the automatic "I agree" response without even reading the message.


If a major change hits a certain "group" of hardware users for instance then as soon as it is known, a workaround is available on the forum; if a workaround is not available due to the problem having been fed back upstream it usually takes only a short time for a resolution to come downstream.

That is supposing that you have access to the forums which is not the case when you cannot even boot your system.


What is critical under these circumstances, especially for less than intermediate users, is that there exist a VERY simple & easy way to downgrade packages to escape the newly upgraded package's inherent problems.

I agree here and it's a good mechanism for downgrading non critical parts like OpenOffice or even GNOME itself, but not for critical parts like X, Kernel or boot scripts.


This means that if there is trouble it can be removed inside of 10 minutes or so without the user having to know much about what they are doing.

Sometimes you notice the problem in the next boot, not immediately and in this case it's too late to downgrade, at least in an easy way which does not involve a Live CD.


This is why I said previously that IF Ubuntu goes to a RR upgrade system they MUST have an extremely simple GUI package management system that will work on the installed desktop & directly from the LiveCD, in a foolproof manner that is perfectly suitable for brand new Linux users who haven't got a clue about what they are doing. (This sounds easy when you say it fast!)

That involves using an external element (Live CD) to recover a broken system which shouldn't have been broken in the first place.


If not, forget about it, a RR for Ubuntu will just become a nightmare for beginners & they will either go to Fedora or somewhere else, or of course back to Windows.

That's the point, a RR is NEVER a good idea for beginners. They need a stable system, something that works the same way as they installed it but having the opportunity to correct some bugs and security issues that are not big enough to cause a breakage.
Then there are the power users which can cope with an ocasional bug that may be repaired by a Live CD or a similar mechanism. In that case, great, is always good to have better recovery tools but my point is that it's not for everyone and it's not for the target audience of Ubuntu, which seems to be aimed at unexperienced users.

[RiceMonster]

What is critical under these circumstances, especially for less than intermediate users, is that there exist a VERY simple & easy way to downgrade packages to escape the newly upgraded package's inherent problems.

The solution would be to have an upgrade process that DOESN'T require large groups of users to downgrade packages, ie. not Arch's approach. New/non-advanced users shouldn't have to deal with breakage after an update ever. In my opinion, the fact that users need to check the news site or forums on how to fixed breakage after updates shows that Arch/rolling distros really are not reliable. Thus why I don't use it anymore.

[forrestcupp]

Does this mean we'll need to come up with new funny animal names on almost a daily basis?


Yeah, they would release LiveCDs as snapshots of what is in the repositories, so you would not have too many updates after installing.Maybe they'll still release snapshots every 6 months and name them some crazy thing. This is a huge change in the Ubuntu culture. I really can't believe they're doing this.



That's the point, a RR is NEVER a good idea for beginners. They need a stable system, something that works the same way as they installed it but having the opportunity to correct some bugs and security issues that are not big enough to cause a breakage.I think most rolling release distros give you the choice of whether to update or not. Just because updates are continually available doesn't mean that you have to take them.

[RiceMonster]

I think most rolling release distros give you the choice of whether to update or not. Just because updates are continually available doesn't mean that you have to take them.

True, you don't have to update, but then you don't get any bug or security fixes. Then if you do decide to keep updating, as things get fixed, others break again. You can attempt to solve this problem by holding packages, but in many cases, other packages will eventually require of a newer version of said package.

[qamelian]

In that scenario, you would want to lock down the system except for security updates.
I am aware that I can do that. It doesn't change the fact that I consider a move to anything resembling a rolling release to be a mistake.

[Spice Weasel]

In Fedora updates are split in to feature additions, security updates and bug fixes. You can set it to only install bug fixes and security updates.

I wonder if they will do something like this.

[qamelian]

I understand your concerns, but rolling release doesn't necessarily mean less testing for the packages.
Maybe not, but I've used enough linux distros over the last 13 years to be certain that breakage happens far more often on rolling release distros. I can't gamble on rolling release in an income earning scenario.

[Oxwivi]

True that. Let's wait for the official statement, it will be addressed to Canonical's customers as well. Let's see what steps they're taking to justify this move.

[Johnsie]

So now maybe my software wont be 6 months behind? This has got to be a good thing, however I expect many buggy things being released early.

[snowpine]

Terrible idea. Canonical has enough trouble making 2 stable Ubuntu releases per year; how will moving toward 365 releases per year make things better?

There goes their last chance at ever becoming a serious "enterprise" distro (if these rumors are true).

[Oxwivi]

Rolling release does not literally mean a new release everyday, just small upgrades every other day instead of doing it all at once every six months.

I think the true overhaul and release will take place at every LTS, if it remains.

[handy]

Ok, let's assume that every user reads the news page of Ubuntu previous to any update. Even showing a big alert message in front of them would trigger the automatic "I agree" response without even reading the message.

I rarely ever use the Arch News page. I have found it necessary to look at about 4 times since March 2008.



That is supposing that you have access to the forums which is not the case when you cannot even boot your system.

If you don't know how to stick a LiveCD in that accesses the forums, then you probably ought to be using a Mac.



I agree here and it's a good mechanism for downgrading non critical parts like OpenOffice or even GNOME itself, but not for critical parts like X, Kernel or boot scripts.

Downgrading all of those things are quick & easy with Arch if you know how. Knowing how means that you have to use the command line (in Arch but hopefully not in Ubuntu).



Sometimes you notice the problem in the next boot, not immediately and in this case it's too late to downgrade, at least in an easy way which does not involve a Live CD.

What I'm saying is that I think it is a requirement that if Canonical brings in a RR option they MUST make it simple & easy to use the Ubuntu LiveCD to get out of trouble. Which is not going to be an easy task.



That involves using an external element (Live CD) to recover a broken system which shouldn't have been broken in the first place.

Yeh, well shouldn't & reality surely aren't talking to each other. They don't compromise.

Bugs come down from upstream sometimes. They get past the creators, the testers & anybody else who is trying to catch them & they land in the new users lap.

So, Canonical, if they want Ubuntu to go RR need to do a mile of work to create a huge safety net that next to no one falls through. Which means, as previously stated a number of times, a simple, efficient GUI interface that allows people to understand & do everything regarding their package management, forwards, backwards & in between & it needs to be easily available on both the installation & the LiveCD.



That's the point, a RR is NEVER a good idea for beginners. They need a stable system, something that works the same way as they installed it but having the opportunity to correct some bugs and security issues that are not big enough to cause a breakage.
Then there are the power users which can cope with an ocasional bug that may be repaired by a Live CD or a similar mechanism. In that case, great, is always good to have better recovery tools but my point is that it's not for everyone and it's not for the target audience of Ubuntu, which seems to be aimed at unexperienced users.

Very few bugs come through on Arch. People think that RR is a big gamble. It is not.

Canonical just needs to make the simple (to use - hard to create) GUI safety net.

If they succeed then they just might save themselves from failing before the decade is out &, most importantly, they just might lift Linux in general to a new height, way above where it is now.

A very interesting situation I think.

[autocrosser]

What I've always wanted to see is a rolling testing release somewhat similar to Sid...

[handy]

The solution would be to have an upgrade process that DOESN'T require large groups of users to downgrade packages, ie. not Arch's approach. New/non-advanced users shouldn't have to deal with breakage after an update ever. In my opinion, the fact that users need to check the news site or forums on how to fixed breakage after updates shows that Arch/rolling distros really are not reliable. Thus why I don't use it anymore.

As I've mentioned above. It is really incredibly rare that Arch users have to downgrade.

As far as users never ever having to deal with a breakage after an upgrade is concerned. That is just an unrealistic ideal. Every single Ubuntu 6 monthly upgrade brings breakages, sometimes massive breakages, but not for everyone of course.

Rarely do Arch users need to check the news site or forum due to breakages. As previously stated breakages in Arch are rare, from my experience.

No matter who, & what the distro they are using, there will be people like yourself & Arch, that just have problems trying to get together.

I have had continual problems with Ubuntu, since Edgy. I dumped Ubuntu after that. I briefly tried a release or two after Edgy, there was still no fix. Not that it worried me really, I was just checking.

Sabayon worked brilliantly for me on a very difficult for Linux hardware configuration. Then Sabayon made a new release that gave me a very quick black screen of death from the LiveDVD or CD.

No problem, move on. :)

[Starks]

I'm surprised that nobody has created a Sidbuntu yet.

[qamelian]

rajeev1204 is right, I think what Mark is talking about is the ability for software developers to push out new applications and updates through software center without having to wait 6 months for the next stable Ubuntu release to appear, and some of the groundwork for this has already been done in Maverick. The base Ubuntu system and applications in the archive would still be bound by the current 6 month release process.

Mark doesn't really say that Ubuntu will be adopting a rolling release process, but the article (possibly wrongly) seems to imply that.

Of course, if I'm wrong, then I'll eat my words.
I hope your intepretation is correct. This would be a lot more palatable to me than a genuine rolling release distro.

[handy]

Terrible idea. Canonical has enough trouble making 2 stable Ubuntu releases per year; how will moving toward 365 releases per year make things better?

There goes their last chance at ever becoming a serious "enterprise" distro (if these rumors are true).

Why can't Ubuntu come in a variety of flavours, flavours dictated by the choice the user makes in the repos that they enable?

Can't it just be that simple?

Ubuntu can be what it is now for those that like it like that.

Ubuntu can be RR for those that like it like that.

Ubuntu can still provide as stable as possible LTS versions & whatever else it wants.

All governed by the choices that the user makes regarding which repos they want to use.

I think that this is a simple & beautiful system.

I hope that it is what Canonical choose to do as everybody wins, nobody loses as Ubuntu stays the same & moves closer to the cutting edge on a day by day basis, all at the same time.

[edit:] You ask how will making releases 365 days of the year make it better? What I see Canonical trying to do, is get out of the way of the developers as much as they can, & make it as easy as possible for the circle of creation (from the dev's) to the feedback from the users to exist. They are looking to guide the process, to communicate with all involved & enhance & expedite the creative process.

Canonical want LOTS of FOSS software available for Ubuntu users. They see Apple, Google & MS, with over 100,000 app's, whereas Ubuntu might be lucky to have 3,500. Canonical have watched the accelerating numbers of their opposition & see nothing basically changing here in Linux land.

This is why Canonical are looking at RR, they are desperately trying to catch up. They want to be taken seriously in the business world in the server market & the desktop market. To do this they must compete.

Canonical IS a business.

[baizon]

That would be great! I hope we will get more informations soon \\:D/

[getaceres]

I'm not going to quote everything because I agree with some statements but:


If you don't know how to stick a LiveCD in that accesses the forums, then you probably ought to be using a Mac.

Are you suggesting that Ubuntu should never be as easy to use and as trouble free as a Mac? I thought the main objective was to be the best operating system.


Very few bugs come through on Arch. People think that RR is a big gamble. It is not.

I had been using Debian Unstable for a long time before switching to Ubuntu and I lived with it. It didn't break every day but when it did, I knew how to fix things. But again, I'm not the average user. I switched to Ubuntu because of the predictable 6 months release cycle. With a pure RR I had the latest software but it broke sometimes and also (specific to Debian) it was harder to make things work. If I had to wait for a stable Debian release I would have waited for years, so I found in Ubuntu the perfect fit to have a trouble-free Operating System with the latest software.


Canonical just needs to make the simple (to use - hard to create) GUI safety net.

If they succeed then they just might save themselves from failing before the decade is out &, most importantly, they just might lift Linux in general to a new hight, way above where it is now.

A very interesting situation I think.

I don't think Canonical can do that. There have been RR distros for years and they haven't taken Linux to any new level. Maybe Canonical can advance the lame situation of the graphic stack by forcing a change to Wayland but that won't benefit from a RR cycle more than a fixed release cycle.

[smellyman]

Debian unstable is worlds different than Arch.

[Paqman]

If you read the article carefully nowhere does he say they'd drop the six monthly release. All he says is that updates would be pushed out to stable releases more, instead of being held back for the next release like they are currently. That's not really news, they've been saying they were going to do that for stuff like Chromium as part of considering it as the default browser.

[kaldor]

I hope your intepretation is correct. This would be a lot more palatable to me than a genuine rolling release distro.

Yes.

A true rolling release Ubuntu would be a disaster for new users. Nobody'd be able to say for sure how stable Ubuntu is, either. It'd be bad for a new user.

Ubuntu is meant to be an easy OS that anyone can use, but also remain powerful. A "fake" rolling method will be best; leave the core upgrades for a 6-12 month snapshot and keep updating software that actually needs it.

I was confused to all hell when I first came to Ubuntu and used Hardy for nearly a year and was still using Firefox 3 Beta something and couldn't upgrade to 3.x.

[mpt]

If I may ask, what's the team's opinion or vision on apps which are either exceptionally well-behaved when it comes to upgrades, or are overwhelmingly used in a home context?

I don’t understand the distinction you’re making. My own opinion is that application developers should be able to publish updates whenever they think it’s a good idea. And that for applications, users should easily be able to see and choose which updates they want. If a developer publishes an update before it’s ready, they should pay the price for that in the marketplace, by users lowering their ratings for the application in Ubuntu Software Center.


That being said, Andrew at Webupd8 does a damn fine job staying on top of things and sorting fact from fiction. Did you miss Andrew's paragraph in bold type just below his quote of The Register?

I did not miss it, but that’s all reporting and no research. He didn’t even reference his own story from June, “Ubuntu won’t become a rolling release distro (http://www.webupd8.org/2010/06/ubuntu-wont-become-rolling-release.html)”.


And while we're at fact checking, where do you get the stat that "pretty much nobody" uses Arch?


Trolling is not allowed on the forums.


When looking at the big picture though, pretty much nobody uses Ubuntu either :).

It’s not trolling if it’s true. For example, see Wikimedia’s visitor statistics (http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm) (covering Wikipedia and related sites), which show that while Ubuntu users make 0.75 percent of requests (more than iPad users, less than iPhone users), Gentoo users account for only 0.02 percent, and Arch doesn’t show up at all.

Arch and Gentoo are impressive technical achievements, but we fool ourselves if we think they’re relevant to what Ubuntu is trying to achieve.


One of my bug bears and one regular complaint I see is the fact if I want to run the latest applications, I have to either compile them or dabble in the development version, with all the breakage that brings (not a bad thing, I love testing). A rolling release (or a near rolling release after some limited testing) will be far better for the community and help quash those complaints.

I think this is the same basic mistake that The Register made. Implicitly treating what we have now, and a rolling release, as the only two options. They are not.


It doesn't cause daily troubles on Arch. When a BIG change or a change that requires changes to your config is available for Arch, there is info' on the News page & instructions. If a major change hits a certain "group" of hardware users for instance then as soon as it is known, a workaround is available on the forum; if a workaround is not available due to the problem having been fed back upstream it usually takes only a short time for a resolution to come downstream.

What is critical under these circumstances, especially for less than intermediate users, is that there exist a VERY simple & easy way to downgrade packages to escape the newly upgraded package's inherent problems.

I admire your logic. But have you talked much with other people who use computers? Not just members of a LoCo or LUG, I mean, but people like dentists and fashion designers and mechanics and retirees and council workers and preschoolers and film editors and others who treat computers as a tool rather than a hobby?

I think if you did, you might discover that things like “Info on the News page and instructions”, “workaround … on the forum”, and “downgrade packages”, make no sense to them at all. None. And they never will, no matter how easy any live CD troubleshooting utility is to use. Because those people have far better things to do. If their computer stops working, they’ll take it to the shop to return it.

Or, what getaceres (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=10157122&postcount=63) and RiceMonster (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=10157150&postcount=64) said.

[matt_symes]

It's also being discussed here.

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1629725

[philinux]

Threads Merged.

[Gremlinzzz]

I like the idea of rolling release.that 6 month release was getting stale.
Change is good.

[JDShu]

Thanks to the Ubuntu developers for clarifying. A way to easily update Firefox when a new version comes out, for example, would be great.

It would be horrific if Ubuntu became a true rolling release. It just does not suit lazy users like me, and I'd wager we make up the majority.

[handy]

...
Are you suggesting that Ubuntu should never be as easy to use and as trouble free as a Mac? I thought the main objective was to be the best operating system.

I'd love for Ubuntu to be the best operating system for the average user. But at this stage it still has a long way to go to get there.

The last thing I'm suggesting is that Ubuntu should never be the easiest system for people to use.



I had been using Debian Unstable for a long time before switching to Ubuntu and I lived with it. It didn't break every day but when it did, I knew how to fix things. But again, I'm not the average user. I switched to Ubuntu because of the predictable 6 months release cycle. With a pure RR I had the latest software but it broke sometimes and also (specific to Debian) it was harder to make things work. If I had to wait for a stable Debian release I would have waited for years, so I found in Ubuntu the perfect fit to have a trouble-free Operating System with the latest software.

Cool. :)



I don't think Canonical can do that. There have been RR distros for years and they haven't taken Linux to any new level. Maybe Canonical can advance the lame situation of the graphic stack by forcing a change to Wayland but that won't benefit from a RR cycle more than a fixed release cycle.

I'm talking about a variety of ways to easily setup & use Ubuntu, that include RR, but are not limited to RR, & that REQUIRE a brilliant GUI based package management system that handles all options, all types of repos (meaning RR & the current type at the least) & works very easily off of the LiveCD.

[handy]

I admire your logic. But have you talked much with other people who use computers? Not just members of a LoCo or LUG, I mean, but people like dentists and fashion designers and mechanics and retirees and council workers and preschoolers and film editors and others who treat computers as a tool rather than a hobby?

I think if you did, you might discover that things like “Info on the News page and instructions”, “workaround … on the forum”, and “downgrade packages”, make no sense to them at all. None. And they never will, no matter how easy any live CD troubleshooting utility is to use. Because those people have far better things to do. If their computer stops working, they’ll take it to the shop to return it.

Most of those users you mention would have their computers fixed by a service technician. The technician would be happy to be able to use a well made simple, logical, easy to understand & use GUI interface to solve the problem for his customer.

Whether it is Windows, OS X, or a distro matters not. Those people would get a tech' to solve their problem.

[Frogs Hair]

I will wait and see , it may take some time before this happens and the current vision may change. When I became a Ubuntu user people were writing about the Gnome Shell and then the curve ball called Unity was thrown.

[handy]

Thanks to the Ubuntu developers for clarifying. A way to easily update Firefox when a new version comes out, for example, would be great.

It would be horrific if Ubuntu became a true rolling release. It just does not suit lazy users like me, and I'd wager we make up the majority.

I consider myself the laziest distro user around. That's why I use Arch. After it is initially setup it stays set up. Whatever changes you make stay there unless you change them some more.

I don't have to go through BIG upgrades, or total reinstalls anymore. My computer life is so much more stable without those interruptions.

As the years go by & you learn a little more about your system you tweak it here & modify it there, add this tool, delete that one & all the time this long term installation is continually becoming more & more just the way you like it.

All of this happens in a relaxed manner. About 4 times since March 2008 I have had trouble. Each time the solution was on the Arch forum.

In the past, the biggest problem was an incompatibility between the then current version of Catalyst & the version of xorg.sever that Arch was using.

After rolling back certain files they were then blocked from upgrading until Catalyst finally got its act together.

In Arch this was done in a config file. In Ubuntu, if it goes RR, it should be a GUI.

The way I see it is that the further we go in any direction with our IT philosophies & plans, the more opposition will be created by those who don't like change for whatever reason (those reasons are often valid). That is just how it is. :)

[Oxwivi]

I second handy in this topic!

[_outlawed_]

I like this.

+1

[mpt]

Most of those users you mention would have their computers fixed by a service technician. The technician would be happy to be able to use a well made simple, logical, easy to understand & use GUI interface to solve the problem for his customer.

Whether it is Windows, OS X, or a distro matters not. Those people would get a tech' to solve their problem.

Or they’d just get an iPad instead, where they don’t have to put up with any of that nonsense.

[snkiz]

Isn't this what kinda happening already with PPAs? Many projects now have "Official" PPAs some even offer a few branches ranging from stable to daily. Software Center's support for PPAs is improving, there is rollback support in the form of the ppa-purge package.

All Ubuntu needs now is a set of standards for these project PPAs to get some sort of Ubuntu certificate. Then they could be included in "Whats New" in software Center. Choosing to install a package could automatically add the certified PPA. or in the case of many non-critical applications, the certificate could ease inclusion into the official repos as updates.

This seems to me like the natural progression of the PPA system and Software Center.

[handy]

Or they’d just get an iPad instead, where they don’t have to put up with any of that nonsense.

I don't think that, that is a truly valid response.

If you had of put a ;) or other suitable smilie after it I would have found it a lot easier to accept. :)

@snkiz: I agree with you. Repos are where its at, in combination with a brilliant GUI package manager.

[castrojo]

This seems to me like the natural progression of the PPA system and Software Center.

We've been working on getting apps updated in stable releases for a while now.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PostReleaseApps/Process
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/PostReleaseApps/Implementation

[JDShu]

I consider myself the laziest distro user around. That's why I use Arch. After it is initially setup it stays set up. Whatever changes you make stay there unless you change them some more.

I don't have to go through BIG upgrades, or total reinstalls anymore. My computer life is so much more stable without those interruptions.

As the years go by & you learn a little more about your system you tweak it here & modify it there, add this tool, delete that one & all the time this long term installation is continually becoming more & more just the way you like it.

All of this happens in a relaxed manner. About 4 times since March 2008 I have had trouble. Each time the solution was on the Arch forum.

...



Its just that I would prefer to not have to be constantly vigilant about what goes on in my system. Having to keep up to date and understand the latest packages, what to install/not to install etc. is annoying for a production machine.

In addition, I believe rolling makes it harder for proprietary companies to support Linux :(

[BrokenKingpin]

This is awesome. I really hate the 6 month release cycle.

[snkiz]

We've been working on getting apps updated in stable releases for a while now
Seems to mostly apply to new apps and specifically excludes applications in the main and universe repository. (That would include Firefox.) It would seem that with many projects recommending users add their PPA That the current model need a second look.

[castrojo]

Seems to mostly apply to new apps and specifically excludes applications in the main and universe repository. (That would include Firefox.)

The browser policy has already been updated to include Firefox coming in post-release.

The desktop components (Unity and GNOME) already follow 6 month release cycles so we have "a stable base".

For the rest of applications we need to see how the extras repository works out, for example will application authors want to be removed from the archive, etc. All those kind of questions are still unanswered.

[czr114]

Its just that I would prefer to not have to be constantly vigilant about what goes on in my system. Having to keep up to date and understand the latest packages, what to install/not to install etc. is annoying for a production machine.

In addition, I believe rolling makes it harder for proprietary companies to support Linux :(
Don't forget that Arch still doesn't sign its packages, which makes an update schedule of that frequency even more risky.

[czr114]

I don’t understand the distinction you’re making. My own opinion is that application developers should be able to publish updates whenever they think it’s a good idea. And that for applications, users should easily be able to see and choose which updates they want. If a developer publishes an update before it’s ready, they should pay the price for that in the marketplace, by users lowering their ratings for the application in Ubuntu Software Center.

It was said that RR can be somewhat of a problem due to enterprise and newbie users. That statement is not inaccurate.

My point is that an all-or-nothing approach is misguided.

Certain things, like GNOME, shouldn't be rolling. That's asking for trouble.

Certain things, like Deluge, should be rolling, as they're rather well-behaved, and not tightly integrated with the system.

Certain things, like Wireshark, can afford to be somewhere in the middle, because it can be assumed that only capable, technically-proficient users have them installed.

Rather than continue a discussion in which some people want bleeding edge, and some want stability, I was pointing out that it's possible to get a bit of both without completely sacrificing either.

Discussing this issue solely on the release cycle leaves out important differences between the applications themselves.

Letting developers publish updates is a bad idea, though. It will impact on stability by removing the peer review element. It also allows for a more readily executed attack against the install base should a developer's system and signing key be compromised.

Having a popularity count on the packages in the Software Center will be a big help in providing the Canonical team with metrics showing where attention need be directed.

[madjr]

They should have done this from the beginning. Every time they released a completely new version, they introduced new bugs and, sometimes, old bugs and users had to refile same bug reports against new version as if the developers don't remember how they had fixed them before.

a long time ago they were looking at something similar
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDownUnder/BOFs/GrumpyGroundhog

But they're in much healthier condition to make something better now and improve upon

[KiwiNZ]

For this to be successful there needs to be a robust failsafe Development, testing and release management Regimen in place at a far higher level than is apparent at present.

If not failure will occur thick and fast and compound. The negative affects on the Product image obvious.

[aysiu]

For the less technically knowledgeable among us (e.g., me), can someone explain if this means Ubuntu will be more like Mac OS X and Windows in that the core system files will remain more or less the same and just the application files will be updated daily?

In other words, if you have Mac OS X Leopard, you always have Leopard, even if Firefox updates, even if Safari updates, even if Cyberduck updates... until you decide to upgrade to Snow Leopard.

So would Ubuntu basically have a fairly static base system and then only GUI applications would be updated regularly?

[mr clark25]

sorry for not reading all the replies, but i have got to get my word in there...


i think this would be great for those that can keep getting modern computer hardware. for those of us that can't, they would be stuck not getting any updates. (or switching to a different distro)

i would like to have a choice to keep updating how i have in the past, or to update this new way. i have computers that would benefit from both ways.

[Perfect Storm]

Rolling release + Unity + Wayland = Awesomeness :p

:popcorn:



My thought exactly. I welcome these changes.

[NightwishFan]

Jono confirms no rolling release:
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/at-home-with-jono-bacon

The technology referred to is something to do with daily builds on launchpad.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

A comment for those that mention enterprise users. I work for a large company. Large companies do not operate like individuals. When Microsoft or Red Hat update their OS we test it first before putting the updates on our own WSUS and YUM servers that then provide the updates to the other computers in the company. If we used Ubuntu we would test the updates before putting them on our own .deb servers. If Ubuntu went to a true rolling release, we would take an update to our test machines every three or four months, test it, evaluate it, then decide to roll it to our own .deb servers. That would in effect create a fixed release cycle.

[tghe-retford]

Yep, official rebuttal of The Register's story from Ubuntu.

You know the old saying - "too good to be true"..?

Shame really, a near rolling release system would have been better in my view as I expressed before. It will be interesting to see how the problems of updating packages in stable releases will be handled though, and whether it'll work this time round.

[handy]

Its just that I would prefer to not have to be constantly vigilant about what goes on in my system. Having to keep up to date and understand the latest packages, what to install/not to install etc. is annoying for a production machine.

In addition, I believe rolling makes it harder for proprietary companies to support Linux :(

If you are using a RR system you don't have to upgrade your entire system if you don't want to. You can chose to upgrade whatever packages you like, which will make any upgrades required on the dependencies. I guess that there could occasionally be trouble due to that, but it would be fairly rare I think.

Upgrading from the [core] repo should be the most reliable thing you can do & will be good for those that worry about security I think.

I've been using & upgrading NeroLinux since version 2.** across various distros, mostly on Arch & I've never had a problem with it. Any other proprietary packages I use are via Wine, so they probably don't count. Not that they give me any trouble.

[handy]

Don't forget that Arch still doesn't sign its packages, which makes an update schedule of that frequency even more risky.

Can you point out some of the failures due to this for me?

As I am unaware of any, not that I have gone looking.

[handy]

It was said that RR can be somewhat of a problem due to enterprise and newbie users. That statement is not inaccurate.

My point is that an all-or-nothing approach is misguided.

Certain things, like GNOME, shouldn't be rolling. That's asking for trouble.

Certain things, like Deluge, should be rolling, as they're rather well-behaved, and not tightly integrated with the system.

Certain things, like Wireshark, can afford to be somewhere in the middle, because it can be assumed that only capable, technically-proficient users have them installed.

Rather than continue a discussion in which some people want bleeding edge, and some want stability, I was pointing out that it's possible to get a bit of both without completely sacrificing either.

Discussing this issue solely on the release cycle leaves out important differences between the applications themselves.

Letting developers publish updates is a bad idea, though. It will impact on stability by removing the peer review element. It also allows for a more readily executed attack against the install base should a developer's system and signing key be compromised.

Having a popularity count on the packages in the Software Center will be a big help in providing the Canonical team with metrics showing where attention need be directed.

I think that you are making the RR system far more complicated & seemingly more unreliable than it is in reality.

I think that the those who are involved in researching & potentially implementing an RR system for Ubuntu, should have a talk to the right people over at Arch, as they have been refining the RR system since before Ubuntu was invented.

[czr114]

Can you point out some of the failures due to this for me?

As I am unaware of any, not that I have gone looking.

Anyone who can inject network packets can root your system, as can anyone who can overwrite packages on Arch update servers.

It's an accident waiting to happen, if it hasn't happened already.

Arch's relatively small and obscure userbase is the only reason this isn't a common, prepacked exploit.

Can you imagine the number of compromised Windows, Apple, or Ubuntu systems which would exist if this could happen on those systems?

I don't believe in security through obscurity, which is exactly what Arch is doing.

My elderly grandmother is using Gpg4Win. I would think Arch could manage to put signatures on updates.

That mess of a design is waiting to fail, and it will fail badly when the time comes.

It pains me to have to point out this problem, because Arch was one of the distros I seriously considered. I might be running it if it weren't for their horrible update security.

[handy]

For the less technically knowledgeable among us (e.g., me), can someone explain if this means Ubuntu will be more like Mac OS X and Windows in that the core system files will remain more or less the same and just the application files will be updated daily?

That is not how it works in Arch. Everything is upgraded. When it comes to a kernel upgrade, or any other upgrade for that matter, all dependencies that are required to be upgraded at that time, are.



In other words, if you have Mac OS X Leopard, you always have Leopard, even if Firefox updates, even if Safari updates, even if Cyberduck updates... until you decide to upgrade to Snow Leopard.

No. You would upgrade to Snow Leopard to when it has been deemed fit for release to the user base.

Just a side note aysiu, the Mac OS does get core system upgrades. It can change the last number as in 10.5* with upgrades, but the 10.* number is one that you have to pay for. (I think I got that right) :)



So would Ubuntu basically have a fairly static base system and then only GUI applications would be updated regularly?

We don't know at this time what is going to happen, it is all conjecture (& stuff) at this point. :)

Quite stimulating though.

[nothingspecial]

Thank 'whoever' that a Ubuntu developer came along and explained what was actually happening.

Ubuntu as rolling release would be madness.

I`m glad I read the whole thread.

[czr114]

I think that you are making the RR system far more complicated & seemingly more unreliable than it is in reality.

I think that the those who are involved in researching & potentially implementing an RR system for Ubuntu, should have a talk to the right people over at Arch, as they have been refining the RR system since before Ubuntu was invented.
How so?

Major, integrated packages shouldn't be RR'ed on a system used prominently in enterprise environments, or by newbies with little knowledge of the GNU/Linux environment.

I'm trying to embrace it for those packages which are well-behaved by nature and unlikely to destruct anything but themselves, in the event something does go wrong, however unlikely that might be.

Likewise, packages used only by advanced users can be held to a different standard than those fundamental to every desktop installation.

Whether that's accomplished by different repos, or assigning a machine profile is an issue of logistics. Keeping the core rock solid while the periphery stays current is a good, happy medium.

[handy]

Anyone who can inject network packets can root your system, as can anyone who can overwrite packages on Arch update servers.

It's an accident waiting to happen, if it hasn't happened already.

Arch's relatively small and obscure userbase is the only reason this hasn't happened already.

Can you imagine the number of compromised Windows, Apple, or Ubuntu systems which would exist if this could happen on those systems?

I don't believe in security through obscurity, which is exactly what Arch is doing.

My elderly grandmother is using Gpg4Win. I would think Arch could manage to put signatures on updates.

That mess of a design is waiting to fail, and it will fail badly when the time comes.

It pains me to have to point out this problem, because Arch was one of the distros I seriously considered. I might be running it if it weren't for their horrible update security.

So you don't know of any problems so far either.

I know that there have been people working on a solution to this potential problem for some time though.

[czr114]

So you don't know of any problems so far either.

I know that there have been people working on a solution to this potential problem for some time though.

It's insecure by design. That is, in and of itself, a problem.

Waiting for a criminal to exploit that problem is reactionary thinking.

By analogy, the risk of leaving one's home unlocked on any given night is relatively minute. That doesn't mean it should be done.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

This thread was interesting; however, I think I will unsubscripted to it now.

[nothingspecial]

handy mate :D

I have disagreed with you more times than I care to think of.

You love Arch and it`s RR, and it`s building from the ground up philosophy.

To apply that to ubuntu (if ubuntu continues to be the the linux distro for beginners/anyone) would be insane.

**** Not that you can`t customise ubuntu to your heart`s contenet ****

(bet you knew I was going to say that)

:D

[NightwishFan]

I like time based releases and one of my reasons for using ubuntu is the ease and flexibility of upgrades.

[handy]

How so?

Major, integrated packages shouldn't be RR'ed on a system used prominently in enterprise environments, or by newbies with little knowledge of the GNU/Linux environment.

I agree.

As I have stated more than once in this thread, there should be multiple repos available. From which people can chose those appropriate to their professional needs, level of competence or any other desire. This would give people the opportunity to choose from a standard Ubuntu install just how they want to use it. Which imho would truly set Ubuntu apart from the crowd of distros.



I'm trying to embrace it for those packages which are well-behaved by nature and unlikely to destruct anything but themselves, in the event something does go wrong, however unlikely that might be.

I see only a mess if people are trying to arbitrarily choose which packages should/shouldn't go out, when & to who. This is just an enormous waste of energy & that system would collapse pretty quickly I think.



Likewise, packages used only by advanced users can be held to a different standard than those fundamental to every desktop installation.

See above?



Whether that's accomplished by different repos, or assigning a machine profile is an issue of logistics. Keeping the core rock solid while the periphery stays current is a good, happy medium.

I definitely think that different repos is the way to go. As far as your concerns about keeping the core rock solid are concerned, it just comes down to not releasing packages until they have been truly tested. Businesses would stick with the LTS, or Server editions, desktop users have the choice of going 6 monthly or RR.

Where is the harm here? You choose your way of using Ubuntu via the repos you enable/disable.

Another side note: I've been using the -git packages & various pre-release kernels in an effort to get the best out of my AMD GPU via the FOSS driver stack for most of the last 15 months. I've only had a couple of problems which caused me to go back to a different kernel in that time.

This has been a really good lesson for me on just how stable the Linux kernel based systems really are.

[nothingspecial]

Handy, you are missing the point.

We are talking about people who are not interested in repos and git/svn etc

We are talking about people who just want a computer that works.

[Dex73]

Would this be like a massive update every day? It would be to much work for me to keep track of all the changes, if they made major changes affecting how you use your computer. I can just imagine the nightmare of my screen looking different or some random automated program hogging memory at random.

If that's the case then I say we need to go "back to the old drawing board". I take time and go over a lot of details to make my computer look and work just how I like it.

This wouldn't happen right?

[handy]

Handy, you are missing the point.

We are talking about people who are not interested in repos and git/svn etc

We are talking about people who just want a computer that works.

& that is the computer they get when they install Ubuntu.

IF they want to go RR, they have to opt in.

That is done by changing the repos you have enabled/disabled.

[nothingspecial]

& that is the computer they get when they install Ubuntu.

IF they want to go RR, they have to opt in.

That is done by changing the repos you have enabled/disabled.

Again, I think you miss the whole point of what Ubuntu is, why it exists, and what they are trying to achieve.

[handy]

Would this be like a massive update every day?

No. Someddays on Arch there is no update, other days 6 files, another 20 files. On Arch they are mostly binary, which makes them smaller & very quick to install. Packages from the Arch User Repo (AUR) need to be compiled, so they are slower, but most people don't have too many of those, if any.



It would be to much work for me to keep track of all the changes, if they made major changes affecting how you use your computer. I can just imagine the nightmare of my screen looking different or some random automated program hogging memory at random.

That's not what happens with rolling release. You rarely notice any changes at all. Strange as that may sound.



If that's the case then I say we need to go "back to the old drawing board". I take time and go over a lot of details to make my computer look and work just how I like it.

This wouldn't happen right?

My machine is how I made it, & anything that has changed is because I changed it. RR is not something that takes over your machine against your will. What it does is save you from the stress of big upgrades that make lots of changes all at once. Instead you get the occasional small noticeable change & then a large one will happen if your DE gets a new version release.

[handy]

Again, I think you miss the whole point of what Ubuntu is, why it exists, and what they are trying to achieve.

Well why don't you tell me then?

I'd be interested to hear your interpretation.

[nlsthzn]

http://theravingrick.blogspot.com/2010/11/ubuntu-is-not-moving-to-rolling-release.html

Glad the OP has already fixed the first thread...

[nothingspecial]

It was explained, about 100 pages ago, by a Ubuntu dev.

Canonical are trying to make a linux that anyone can use.

That doesn`t break.

That you don`t need to join forums or look at mailing lists to fix.

Whatever good experience you have had with Arch.......

........ even stuff in "stable" distros have bugs.

Even distros, with more paid devs than any others have breakage.

My granny doesn`t give a monkeys about FOSS, FLOSS blah, blah, blah

And she certainly isn`t going to join a forum.

Meet some real people :D

That is who Canonical is trying to target. You keep messing about with Arch, fine by me. Canonical are actually trying to get ordinary people (rather than computer geeks) to use linux.

[handy]

It was explained, about 100 pages ago, by a Ubuntu dev.

Canonical are trying to make a linux that anyone can use.

That doesn`t break.

That you don`t need to join forums or look at mailing lists to fix.

Whatever good experience you have had with Arch.......

........ even stuff in "stable" distros have bugs.

Even distros, with more paid devs than any others have breakage.

My granny doesn`t give a monkeys about FOSS, FLOSS blah, blah, blah

And she certainly isn`t going to join a forum.

Meet some real people :D

That is who Canonical is trying to target. You keep messing about with Arch, fine by me. Canonical are actually trying to get ordinary people (rather than computer geeks) to use linux.

You sound as though you are emotionally involved & cranky!

I'm not being personal, please don't misunderstand me? :)

I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything, I'm trying to brainstorm with anyone who wants to engage in the topic. I have found the topic to be quite stimulating & enjoyable. I hope at least one other person has as well!

I'll bail out of this thread now, I didn't mean to make anyone cranky.

Peace. :KS

[nothingspecial]

You are not making me cranky. :D

I`ve said what I wanted to say and have removed notification of this thread.

Please don`t leave on my account........ especially since I have gone.

;)

[cpmman]

http://theravingrick.blogspot.com/2010/11/ubuntu-is-not-moving-to-rolling-release.html

Glad the OP has already fixed the first thread...
/

[malspa]

http://theravingrick.blogspot.com/2010/11/ubuntu-is-not-moving-to-rolling-release.html

Glad the OP has already fixed the first thread...

Me, too.

[handy]

You are not making me cranky. :D

I`ve said what I wanted to say and have removed notification of this thread.

Please don`t leave on my account........ especially since I have gone.

;)

Cool :)

I've said all have to say (at least twice) too. :D

If I carry on here I'll start to sound like a nag, & people will deservedly get cranky.

Cheers nothingspecial,

handy

[handy]

Following is the Arch full system upgrade as of the time I called for it, I'm only posting it to help those that have never used a RR system an idea of how it works:


handy ~ $ aur
Password:
:: Synchronizing package databases...
radeon 2.7K 280.1K/s 00:00:00 [##################################] 100%
core 35.9K 97.8K/s 00:00:00 [##################################] 100%
extra 449.2K 93.7K/s 00:00:05 [##################################] 100%
multilib 21.8K 92.3K/s 00:00:00 [##################################] 100%
community 405.6K 88.6K/s 00:00:05 [##################################] 100%
archlinuxfr 23.0K 29.4K/s 00:00:01 [##################################] 100%
:: Starting full system upgrade...
resolving dependencies...
looking for inter-conflicts...

Targets (9): bluez-4.80-1 findutils-4.4.2-3 atkmm-2.22.1-1 gtkmm-2.22.0-1 hdparm-9.35-1
kernel26-drm-radeon-testing-20101124-1 mesa-full-20101124-1 mesa-demos-git-20101124-1
soprano-2.5.3-1

Total Download Size: 29.17 MB
Total Installed Size: 168.05 MB

Proceed with installation? [Y/n]

[Dex73]

No. Someddays on Arch there is no update, other days 6 files, another 20 files. On Arch they are mostly binary, which makes them smaller & very quick to install. Packages from the Arch User Repo (AUR) need to be compiled, so they are slower, but most people don't have too many of those, if any.



That's not what happens with rolling release. You rarely notice any changes at all. Strange as that may sound.



My machine is how I made it, & anything that has changed is because I changed it. RR is not something that takes over your machine against your will. What it does is save you from the stress of big upgrades that make lots of changes all at once. Instead you get the occasional small noticeable change & then a large one will happen if your DE gets a new version release.

Thanks for clearing that up!