PDA

View Full Version : Rolling Release option



magical2hobo
July 1st, 2011, 11:45 PM
I really like using Ubuntu but it can be a pain when it comes to new release and having to do a fresh install or do an upgrade and possibly have major trouble with it. I've tinkered with some distros that use a rolling release cycle and it seems like something that a good chunk of Ubuntu users would benefit from. However, instead of making all of Ubuntu a rolling release keep the 6-month cycle and LTS but add a rolling release repository for those who want it. It would basically be like OpenSUSE's tumbleweed idea. What are your guys' opinions on the idea? Do you think this is something that could be implimented and possibly make Ubuntu better for some of its users?

haqking
July 1st, 2011, 11:48 PM
http://ostatic.com/blog/ubuntu-to-become-a-rolling-release

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/11/ubuntu-to-become-a-rolling-release-distro/

http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/opensuse-and-ubuntu-rollercoasters

Not my thoughts on it, but some articles about it ;-)

I dont care either way, i update and upgrade what i want when i want it, the system is not a pain for me.

There is a possibility of things going wrong whatever you do ;-)

mamamia88
July 1st, 2011, 11:53 PM
Debian testing is my favorite. Took a little longer to get my wireless and video drivers working but once done not really harder to use than ubuntu.

Bachstelze
July 1st, 2011, 11:53 PM
However, instead of making all of Ubuntu a rolling release keep the 6-month cycle and LTS but add a rolling release repository for those who want it.



Will you volunteer to maintain it?

snowpine
July 2nd, 2011, 12:00 AM
Simply use the development release (currently 11.10 Ocelot). You get the very latest software, just like Arch, plus the benefit you can give something back to Ubuntu by being part of the testing effort. :)

When 11.10 is released, upgrade to 12.04 pre-alpha. Rinse and repeat. ;)

Bachstelze
July 2nd, 2011, 12:02 AM
Simply use the development release (currently 11.10 Ocelot). You get the very latest software, just like Arch, plus the benefit you can give something back to Ubuntu by being part of the testing effort. :)

Totally different things. Ubuntu development releases are experimental in nature, things can and will break. Though it's certainly nice to have more people involved in testing, implying that it will give a similar experience than Arch is just wrong.

And no, you do not get the latest software. You get what is in Debian testing or unstable, and that is certainly not always the latest.

snowpine
July 2nd, 2011, 12:16 AM
Totally different things. Ubuntu development releases are experimental in nature, things can and will break. Though it's certainly nice to have more people involved in testing, implying that it will give a similar experience than Arch is just wrong.

I am helping the OP achieve his/her desire of a rolling-release Ubuntu. I agree that upgrading to Oneric is not the perfect solution to this desire, but it is the best solution currently possible under the existing system. If he she/wants an identical experience to Arch, then the obvious solution is: "Use Arch." :)

On a side tangent, if Ubuntu can't make a decent Testing branch, then that's kind of sad. I have used Debian Testing extensively (and even Gentoo Testing briefly by way of Sabayon) and found them quite nice. Ubuntu is often criticized for being "too buggy/unstable" and getting more users involved proactively in the Testing branch (rather then complaining after the fact) is one solution. For example the "constantly usable testing" suggestion going around the Debian community.


And no, you do not get the latest software. You get what is in Debian testing or unstable, and that is certainly not always the latest.

Why do people insist on spreading this falsehood? Ubuntu development draws on packages from many sources, including but not limited to Debian testing/unstable. Simply compare these two lists and you'll see Ubuntu 11.10 is ahead of Debian Unstable in many important packages including the kernel, the Gnome desktop environment, and the web browser:

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian

smellyman
July 2nd, 2011, 12:18 AM
use Arch or PCLinuxOS

Bachstelze
July 2nd, 2011, 12:25 AM
Why do people insist on spreading this falsehood? Ubuntu development draws on packages from many sources, including but not limited to Debian testing/unstable. Simply compare these two lists and you'll see Ubuntu 11.10 is ahead of Debian Unstable in many important packages including the kernel, the Gnome desktop environment, and the web browser:

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ubuntu
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=debian

I am fully aware of how Ubuntu development works, thank you. Those packages where Ubuntu is ahead of Debian unstable are the exception, not the norm. In particular, almost all of them are packages in main because using another version than the one in Debian requires significantly more work or because they are core Ubuntu components, while a lot of the applications users typically complain about for being out of date are third-party apps in universe.

snowpine
July 2nd, 2011, 12:32 AM
I am fully aware of how Ubuntu development works, thank you. Those packages where Ubuntu is ahead of Debian unstable are the exception, not the norm. In particular, almost all of them are packages in main because using another version than the one in Debian requires significantly more work, while a lot of the applications users typically complain about for being out of date are in universe.

So your previous statement, "You get what is in Debian testing or unstable, and that is certainly not always the latest." is false! In fact, if you use Ubuntu Testing you do get the latest. (Unless I'm missing something and kernel 3.0, Gnome 3.1.2, and Firefox 5.0 are antiquated?)

Ubuntu is not solely "based on Debian testing/unstable" and hasn't been for a long time (for example I don't see the option to install Unity on my Debian box).

Bachstelze
July 2nd, 2011, 12:36 AM
(Unless I'm missing something and kernel 3.0, Gnome 3.1.2, and Firefox 5.0 are antiquated?)

Believe it or not, an Ubuntu system consists of a lot more than the kernel, Gnome and Firefox. You get the latest in a very marginal number of packages. As I said, it is the exception, not the norm. For the vast majority of packages, you get what is in Debian unstable, and it may not be the latest.

snowpine
July 2nd, 2011, 12:45 AM
Believe it or not, an Ubuntu system consists of a lot more than the kernel, Gnome and Firefox. You get the latest in a very marginal number of packages. As I said, it is the exception, not the norm. For the vast majority of packages, you get what is in Debian unstable, and it may not be the latest.

I understand and respect what you're saying, and I don't want to minimize the contribution Debian makes to Ubuntu! (Spoken as an everyday Debian user :))

That being said, I hang out on the forums a lot, I haven't seen anyone ask "How do I upgrade to bind 9.8.0-P2?" but I've seen a heck of a lot of "How do I upgrade to Firefox 5.0?"

Ubuntu doesn't get their "sexy" packages like kernel, desktop environment, web browser, etc. from Debian because, let's face it... Debian isn't sexy!

But these are exactly the packages people have in mind when they say "Ubuntu should be rolling release."

Bachstelze
July 2nd, 2011, 12:50 AM
It's not at all a matter of recognizing the contribution Debian makes (even though it's of course tremendous), it's just that if someones uses Ubuntu testing expecting to get the latest in everything, they may be disappointed.



That being said, I hang out on the forums a lot, I haven't seen anyone ask "How do I upgrade to bind 9.8.0-P2?" but I've seen a heck of a lot of "How do I upgrade to Firefox 5.0?"

In the Server forum, we don't get a lot of BIND indeed, but we do get a fair number of Apache and PHP.

snowpine
July 2nd, 2011, 12:55 AM
It's not at all a matter of recognizing the contribution Debian makes (even though it's of course tremendous), it's just that if someones uses Ubuntu testing expecting to get the latest in everything, they may be disappointed.

In the Server forum, we don't get a lot of BIND indeed, but we do get a fair number of Apache and PHP.

But doesn't Ubuntu Testing provide the latest Apache and PHP?

Bachstelze
July 2nd, 2011, 01:00 AM
Right now, yes, but it is still early in the development cycle. By the time it approaches release, new versions of Apache or PHP might be out, and they may or may not be updated in Oneiric (especially if it's past Feature Freeze).

snowpine
July 2nd, 2011, 01:17 AM
Right now, yes, but it is still early in the development cycle. By the time it approaches release, new versions of Apache or PHP might be out, and they may or may not be updated in Oneiric (especially if it's past Feature Freeze).

I agree with you that feature freeze is the #1 reason why Ubuntu Testing cannot be considered "true rolling release." But it's the best Ubuntu can offer at the present date.

To be clear, I don't advocate that Ubuntu should become rolling release. Just helping magical2hobo to take a step in that direction if that's what he/she really wants...

handy
July 2nd, 2011, 04:12 AM
I think Ubuntu should become rolling release.

There was talk last year at a big Ubuntu confab' that mentioned that a rolling release system (from memory I think the Arch rolling release system was referred to but I can't be sure now) was definitely something being looked at as a "possibility" that may manifest sometime in the future.

This was on a video of this conference that I saw. I don't know what it was called, or who was doing the talking, he was a Canonical employee. I do know that they were talking straight & pointing out big problems that Canonical was having in attempting to be profitable.

Perhaps someone has a link to this vid?