PDA

View Full Version : Monthly Ubuntu Releases Proposed



polardude1983
September 9th, 2011, 11:18 AM
Found some interesting articles on slashdot.org whether it may get implemented or not.

An anonymous reader writes
"Scott James Remnant, the former Ubuntu Developer Manager at Canonical and current Ubuntu Technical Board leader, has proposed a new monthly release process for Ubuntu Linux. He acknowledges that with the six month releases there are features that end up landing way too soon, leaving them in a sour state for users. With his monthly proposal, Remnant hopes to relieve this by handling alpha, beta, and normal releases concurrently. It's unknown whether Canonical will accept the policy at this time."

A new release process for Ubuntu? (http://netsplit.com/2011/09/08/new-ubuntu-release-process/)

and

Proposed: A Monthly Ubuntu Release Cycle (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTg5MQ)

hakermania
September 9th, 2011, 11:20 AM
OMG, I think that's a bad idea!
What if somebody wants always to have the latest system?
And I think that Canonical's servers that share the ISOs should be possibly made in such a way so as to handle more bandwidth.

Vishal Agarwal
September 9th, 2011, 12:00 PM
Even presently i prefer using LTS only.

ninjaaron
September 9th, 2011, 12:06 PM
Fine with me, so long as they have this in addition to the LTS.


OMG, I think that's a bad idea!
What if somebody wants always to have the latest system?

What? the proposed system would make it easier to have the latests system. Just switch to beta repos.

3Miro
September 9th, 2011, 12:13 PM
This sounds like a huge non-sense. If they want, they can make Ubuntu a rolling release with an LTS every now and then, but monthly release is a non-sense.

Bachstelze
September 9th, 2011, 12:30 PM
Makes a lot of sense to me. If something just needs a couple more weeks of work, instead of rushing it to get it into the release so it does not have to wait six months, get it into next month's release.

I approve in principle, but the problem would of course be more work to handle several releases simultaneaously.

forrestcupp
September 9th, 2011, 12:48 PM
I don't necessarily believe this, but let's all just jump on the Firefox bandwagon.

If you're going to release every month, just make it a rolling release.

NightwishFan
September 9th, 2011, 01:17 PM
Mmmm.. two year release cycle with three years of support. Yummy. <---- I will have this. ^_^

snowpine
September 9th, 2011, 03:22 PM
They will run out of letters in the alphabet very quickly. :)

el_koraco
September 9th, 2011, 04:03 PM
If you're going to release every month, just make it a rolling release.

This essentially would be a rolling release, only with stabilized snapshots and a fixed cycle. Mint is doing a similar thing with LMDE and their new system of (optional) monthly updates, and if I'm not wrong, Foresight Linux (a rolling distro) has a very similar system. Also, openSUSE is doing their Tumbleweeds thing. It seems that the move to a rolling or semi-rolling cycle is the hit in the Linux world. Don't care about it myself, but this might be beneficial for Ubuntu.

mips
September 9th, 2011, 04:19 PM
What they're referring to has a name, Debian Testing, let it roll!

Seq
September 9th, 2011, 04:33 PM
What they're referring to has a name, Debian Testing, let it roll!

Thats just what I was thinking. Nobody would want to switch to something like upstart without notice overnight, likewise for xorg updates, etc. Which would mean that those would still be saved for periodic "big" updates.

All you'd be doing is moving backports into main and potentially opening development to more users (which means fewer major changes as the noise from "I can't boot" will be that much louder).

undecim
September 9th, 2011, 04:41 PM
Just do a rolling release, with major releases (i.e. replacing the DE) every 2 years, when we would be rolling out an LTS with the current system.

That way, we get to keep our cute alliterations, and we can even make the alphabet last 4 times as long.

sffvba[e0rt
September 9th, 2011, 05:07 PM
WHAT! Somebody wants to CHANGE something... I don't care what it is I don't like it...


404

madjr
September 9th, 2011, 05:29 PM
am all for this !

better implemented features, more testing, more bugs squashed.

el_koraco
September 9th, 2011, 05:32 PM
What they're referring to has a name, Debian Testing, let it roll!

The dude who proposed this says so himself.

Linuxratty
September 9th, 2011, 06:44 PM
Mmmm.. two year release cycle with three years of support. Yummy. <---- I will have this. ^_^

Five years of support and I'm in.

mips
September 9th, 2011, 08:01 PM
The dude who proposed this says so himself.

I never even read the article :biggrin:

sffvba[e0rt
September 9th, 2011, 08:03 PM
I never even read the article :biggrin:

This is not uncommon on forums...


404

el_koraco
September 9th, 2011, 08:13 PM
i never even read the article :biggrin:
:d

CharlesA
September 9th, 2011, 09:24 PM
This sounds like a huge non-sense. If they want, they can make Ubuntu a rolling release with an LTS every now and then, but monthly release is a non-sense.

Agreed. If I wanted to use rolling release, I'd move to Debian unstable (wheezy, I think).

koleoptero
September 9th, 2011, 09:46 PM
If that happens, I'm switching to windows 7. :P

cgroza
September 9th, 2011, 09:50 PM
If they do it, they better provide a very reliable update system. I don't feel like making a fresh install every month.

cariboo
September 9th, 2011, 10:19 PM
Isn't this old news from back in November?

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

sffvba[e0rt
September 9th, 2011, 10:21 PM
Isn't this old news from back in November?

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

Can't really be old news if someone just thought about it and blogged about it (doesn't mean somebody else didn't do it before them however)...


404

snowpine
September 10th, 2011, 12:42 AM
Debian Testing (currently "Wheezy") and Unstable (always "Sid") actually lag a bit behind Ubuntu in terms of certain key packages such as the Linux kernel.

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

Plus of course Debian does not have Ubuntu-specific features such as the Unity desktop environment.

Therefore (as much as I personally would not use it) I believe that "Ubuntu Rolling" would in fact fill a niche distinct from Debian Testing/Unstable.

That being said I think this niche is already being served, to an extent, by Ubuntu development (currently 11.10 O-O). I think users with a can-do "I want the very latest Ubuntu innovations and I'm willing to tolerate a little bit of breakage!" attitude should be encouraged to test and report bugs, to the benefit of the project.

CharlesA
September 10th, 2011, 01:16 AM
D'oh I got the codenames mixed up. Thanks for correcting me snowpine. :)

I'm probably going to stick with Lucid until the next LTS, and hope my RAID card's drivers will compile on the new 3x kernel.

Even if they did do a rolling release version, you don't have to upgrade. ;)

BrokenKingpin
September 10th, 2011, 04:55 AM
Would be nice if they kept a testing branch like Debian so you could have a rolling release if you wanted.

Khakilang
September 10th, 2011, 05:24 AM
That is a bad idea. I don't want to do fresh install every month since I have to install quite a lot of software that I use. Even every six month release give me headache. Why not Ubuntu just concentrate on LTS instead? That way the OS is much stable and bugs free.

NightwishFan
September 10th, 2011, 05:58 AM
That is a bad idea. I don't want to do fresh install every month since I have to install quite a lot of software that I use. Even every six month release give me headache. Why not Ubuntu just concentrate on LTS instead? That way the OS is much stable and bugs free.

I do not think a fresh install would be needed. With less huge changes the upgrade process would probably go much smoother. Sure this gives you features faster (when they are ready within the month). It might be a better cycle for Ubuntu's modern system.

However as you said I still prefer a machine that I know will work and have a consistent set of software for at least 3 years.

Bandit
September 10th, 2011, 06:03 AM
OMG, I think that's a bad idea!
What if somebody wants always to have the latest system?
And I think that Canonical's servers that share the ISOs should be possibly made in such a way so as to handle more bandwidth.

13 week release cycle is hell on the Devs. Seriously the OS isnt getting any simpler and Ubuntu is not just Debian with a fresh paint job, at least not anymore..

snip3r8
September 10th, 2011, 07:52 AM
I think they should let a person upgrade every month through the update manager but still only release an ISO every 6 months

madjr
September 10th, 2011, 05:32 PM
I think they should let a person upgrade every month through the update manager but still only release an ISO every 6 months

i think that's similar to what pclinuxOS does, puts snapshots up for download every X months

Primefalcon
September 10th, 2011, 05:56 PM
Ubuntu going to a rolling style release? Interesting...

Hope they still have the LTS's though since that's what I install for others

forrestcupp
September 10th, 2011, 06:31 PM
Don't forget that this is just a suggestion, not a decision.

8_Bit
September 10th, 2011, 07:32 PM
I don't really care if this release schedule is adopted as long as they don't let it affect backports, and the packages in the repos for previous releases.

I don't want to have to upgrade every month just to get an incremental update to Firefox, for example.

LowSky
September 10th, 2011, 07:38 PM
Maybe stop calling it upgrading, instead call it updating.

Easier pill for the worrisome to swallow.


But can I say Arch with it's rolling release structure is just as stable as any Ubuntu release I have ever used.

madjr
September 10th, 2011, 07:50 PM
Look at Windows XP the most used OS in the world to date. Perfect it, only release bugfixes. Quit releasing new updated OSes, 6 months is too fast, what in the name of my God makes you think I want a new OS every month?!? You think developers want the platform to change every month? Are you people on crack cocaine? You want developers? QUIT CHANGING THE PLATFORM YOU WANT US TO DEVELOP FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

monthly updates does not mean that is going to be a new or different OS every month...

in fact the proposal actually tries to delay big changes to the OS till they are truly ready and stable enough to substitute the old components, so things would actually be a lot less buggy and incomplete than what we have now.

be small stable updates once a month or bigger ones once a year they need to fix these problems.

and by the style of your comment, did you actually read the whole article or just the heading?

toupeiro
September 11th, 2011, 07:04 AM
... They're going to run out of letters for codenames in a real hurry...

I'm not completely against the idea. I think ubuntu has released a lot of cookie dough and made strategic decisions based on a lot of vapor in the last few versions. Maybe smaller, and more frequent batches will produce more cookies and less DOH!.

-T.

polardude1983
September 11th, 2011, 04:02 PM
In the article is says that codenames would be dropped.

madjr
September 11th, 2011, 04:38 PM
In the article is says that codenames would be dropped.

they would not be really necessary, but that doesnt mean that you cant take a snapshot every X months and give it a codename, number or something

dmoconnell
September 11th, 2011, 11:02 PM
Personally I like a 6 month release cycle, but i can see sense in a monthly release. What I think should happen is a compromise between the current plan and the proposed plan. have a "minor" release every month with and a "major" release every 6 months (standard and LTS releases every 6 months and 2 years respectfully)
The current proposed plan wouldn't work well (IMO) for companies like System76 (who use that time to test the next release on there hardware) The minor release would either have no name or a package name and the major release would continue with naming
so like 11.11 might be Oneiric Ocelot - Cub, 11.12 would be OO - Chaser, etc etc, and then 12.04 would be the Major release and called P.P and the cycle continues.
Thats my 2 cents
Dm

handy
September 12th, 2011, 02:43 AM
I like the Arch rolling release system. Some hate it, that's why all OSs don't use it.

I personally don't care what upgrade system Ubuntu uses, though I do think that Canonical need to find a way to handle projects that aren't ready in the roughly 13 weeks of dev' time between Ubuntu releases.

The dumping of unfinished projects in Ubuntu releases is costly as users go elsewhere & it is giving Ubuntu a bad name.

Canonical need to come up with another system for offering incentives to the dev's who need to spend longer than 13 weeks on a project to make it ready for general consumption.

Most Ubuntu users don't appreciate that between the LTS releases there is testing going on. This effects some users more than others. & I know, LTS aren't without troubles on their release though they are usually tidied up fairly quickly. Though regressions keep on happening.

This 10.10 UDS keynote by Mark Shuttleworth, puts the development of Unity in perspective. I'm not adding it here to bring up any discussion on Unity, please take it elsewhere. It is to show what the plan is, & it shows how the Ubuntu releases between LTS are for testing & that as far as Canonical's plans for Ubuntu go, Ubuntu is still in its very early stages of development:

http://www.archive.org/details/Mark_Shuttleworth_Keynote_Maverick_Meerkat_10.10_U buntu_Developer_Summit

Khakilang
September 12th, 2011, 05:52 AM
I do not think a fresh install would be needed. With less huge changes the upgrade process would probably go much smoother. Sure this gives you features faster (when they are ready within the month). It might be a better cycle for Ubuntu's modern system.

However as you said I still prefer a machine that I know will work and have a consistent set of software for at least 3 years.

Even with the upgrade, stability and bugs free is till a concern. I don't mind upgrading certain software to the latest version which I mostly use. But I am not so sure about the OS. I still think it is a bad idea.

NightwishFan
September 12th, 2011, 06:34 AM
An upgrade is not as much of a big deal as it is made out to be. Sure it is a lot of software and a lot can potentially go wrong, but packages from Debian are designed to upgrade smoothly and retain configuration files. I always have had success in Ubuntu/Debian upgrades.

Obviously problems do exist for folks though, but I know how to 'pre-upgrade' my system, cleaning potentially conflicting junk beforehand. Also I always upgrade running from a single user mode console, so no services are running to conflict with the upgrade.

Artemis3
September 12th, 2011, 08:05 AM
Rolling + LTS is a good idea imo. Canonical should only support LTS, and all the rolling releases could become community supported only.

ISOs for LTS only, those who want to enter rolling, should do so starting from an LTS installation, or perhaps just update the minimal install ISOs between LTS.

decoherence
September 13th, 2011, 12:11 AM
Well, I think a monthly release schedule would make providing support on this forum a bit harder. I also think the more interesting part of his blog post are the insights in to how bonuses and pay are tied to getting features in before the freeze. I think changing that policy would result in a system that is, overall, better for 'human beings' to use.

Also, a pedant moment.... Debian unstable is always called 'sid' -- the release will be called wheezy.

Porcini M.
September 13th, 2011, 12:33 AM
Even every six month release give me headache. Why not Ubuntu just concentrate on LTS instead? That way the OS is much stable and bugs free.

They could drop the 6 month release cycle, and switch to a yearly cycle, where each release would have LTS-level support. Then the releases could be encoded with the year of release (Ubuntu 12, Ubuntu 13, etc).

toupeiro
September 13th, 2011, 01:12 AM
In the article is says that codenames would be dropped.


:) That was intended to be a joke.):P

madjr
September 13th, 2011, 04:27 AM
They could drop the 6 month release cycle, and switch to a yearly cycle, where each release would have LTS-level support. Then the releases could be encoded with the year of release (Ubuntu 12, Ubuntu 13, etc).

mandriva has yearly releases now, but only every other release will be lts

DMGrier
September 13th, 2011, 06:51 AM
So I am hearing that Ubuntu is going to monthly releases which I was curious if anyone knows if it is official and how do you think is would affect Ubuntu as a OS and the development for it by program companies?

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/239804/will_ubuntu_linux_switch_to_a_monthly_release_cycl e.html

Sef
September 13th, 2011, 06:59 AM
Monthly releases
So I am hearing that Ubuntu is going to monthly releases which I was curious if anyone knows if it is official and how do you think is would affect Ubuntu as a OS and the development for it by program companies?

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...ase_cycle.html (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/239804/will_ubuntu_linux_switch_to_a_monthly_release_cycl e.html)


Merged with older thread on same subject.

JDShu
September 13th, 2011, 08:04 AM
It's a bold and innovative idea that I have no confidence in Canonical's ability to execute.

NightwishFan
September 13th, 2011, 08:39 AM
It's a bold and innovative idea that I have no confidence in Canonical's ability to execute.

Ouch.

3rdalbum
September 13th, 2011, 08:50 AM
There have been quite a few calls in the past for Ubuntu to become "rolling release". However, it always seemed like the people making the suggestion were just fans of other rolling distros. Armchair experts, like myself.

Now we've got an actual Ubuntu developer making this proposition, I feel that the idea could definitely have some merit. Can Canonical pull it off? Would it dare take this leap? Will enterprise customers and potential customers misunderstand it and get put off? I don't know, but now that the idea is supported by someone with some open-source credibility, I'm much more interested.

NightwishFan
September 13th, 2011, 09:07 AM
I am not in support of any sort of rolling release model. What matters for any reliable use is when you can guarantee that the software you have will continue to be available and continue to have security support. I would not deploy a rolling release to say my grandmother or at a workplace or on a server. It might be useful for folks who like reading about such and such new feature being added every month...

Now it as a model where they can be more relaxed in adding features it does make sense; Again it does not fix the fact that changes will be quite constant which is not good for almost any use case I can think of.

Debian Testing actually does this well. It is fairly usable for day-to-day use for developers and bug testers to work on making a solid next release, with constant innovation; yet no critical bugs are allowed to make it to the release. Packages also have an evaluation period before they are admitted.

What matters (and brings up a question) is that Debian Testing is NOT the final end product. Though many folk will recommend it's use, it should not be deployed for any serious use. Ubuntu's rolling release on the other hand is designed to be the end product?

KiwiNZ
September 13th, 2011, 10:04 AM
The six month release cycle has not been a blazing success, why make it monthly? ubuntu should adopt a release when ready policy if that is twelve or eighteen months then so be it.

koleoptero
September 13th, 2011, 10:35 AM
The six month release cycle has not been a blazing success, why make it monthly? ubuntu should adopt a release when ready policy if that is twelve or eighteen months then so be it.

Bless you, what I was thinking but couldn't put into words. It could even be ready for a release in 2 or 3 months if there are no major changes.

NightwishFan
September 13th, 2011, 10:35 AM
The six month release cycle has not been a blazing success, why make it monthly? ubuntu should adopt a release when ready policy if that is twelve or eighteen months then so be it.

Ubuntu was originally made because Debian did not release very often. (Well one of the reasons, I can not say I am aware of every reason and logically that is not the only one). Though now the longer more reliable release cycle is becoming more popular.

What are the release cycles like for Apple and Microsoft? A 'when it's ready' and long support (2-3 years+) for each release?

Edit: Well the monthly releases actually makes sense to me from a developer standpoint (and perhaps for a single application). However as I said the changes would be rapid enough to make it difficult to count on certain software being available or compatible. Say for example you are a business that runs a call centre and you use custom in-house software. You require version 0.5 of... webkit for this software to work. Upgrading to 0.6 would mean (hypothetically) you have to do more development on the application every time Ubuntu gets a new major version and roll it out to every piece of hardware. This is assuming your business follows the rolling model.

In contrast the Debian releases and the Ubuntu LTS both have 2 year release cycles and 3 years of desktop support. This means you will have to upgrade only once in every 3 years and that is only to take advantage of security and minor bug fixes. You could do in house security patching or hire support to extend the life of a certain version.

The main difference between Debian Stable and the Ubuntu LTS is how Debian slowly rolls its way into Stable from Testing. This means it is constantly developed and then frozen and fixed to certain standards. Ubuntu with it's 6 month cycle has a bit less of a period to bring in new features and is a bit less strict on what can make it.

If Ubuntu would use such a monthly release and then every two years have a LTS release I assume it would be a much better end product at those releases. The issue is with the rolling release being intended for home/business use. It has many disadvantages for users and the only main benefit is shiny and new. As I said for developers it would probably be much better.

Well I am not an expert of course but this is my take on it.

PaulW2U
September 13th, 2011, 10:41 AM
It could even be ready for a release in 2 or 3 months if there are no major changes.

That's exactly what I was going to say. :D

KiwiNZ
September 13th, 2011, 10:48 AM
Ubuntu was originally made because Debian did not release very often. (Well one of the reasons, I can not say I am aware of every reason and logically that is not the only one). Though now the longer more reliable release cycle is becoming more popular.

What are the release cycles like for Apple and Microsoft? A 'when it's ready' and long support (2-3 years+) for each release?

Apple amd MSFT release when ready as does Redhat the only enterprise standard OS.

KiwiNZ
September 13th, 2011, 10:53 AM
If a monthly release cycle is used then ubuntu becomes an always Alpha or Beta distribution and if all distributions were to follow that paradigm Linux will remain a <1% hobby OS.

NightwishFan
September 13th, 2011, 10:53 AM
Apple amd MSFT release when ready as does Redhat the only enterprise standard OS.

Thanks for the clarification. :)

A certain (I will use Mark Shuttleworth's word) cadence in releases I think is good as well than a pure 'when it is ready'. Though it also may lead to much more pressure and many features being dropped if they are not ready at the time. I know at least one LTS (6.06 considering it is not 6.04) was delayed a few months because it was not ready for launch. With a solid release schedule users and businesses can know exactly where they stand for future releases and plan accordingly.


If a monthly release cycle is used then ubuntu becomes an always Alpha or Beta distribution and if all distributions were to follow that paradigm Linux will remain a <1% hobby OS.

I agree, good sir.

sffvba[e0rt
September 13th, 2011, 12:12 PM
It is a good think the writer of the blog post didn't decide to make a case for a daily release schedule...


404

PS - Is it me or is there way to many people that seem to think that a monthly release of Ubuntu is something that has been proposed by Canonical?

madjr
September 13th, 2011, 12:41 PM
Thanks for the clarification. :)

A certain (I will use Mark Shuttleworth's word) cadence in releases I think is good as well than a pure 'when it is ready'. Though it also may lead to much more pressure and many features being dropped if they are not ready at the time. I know at least one LTS (6.06 considering it is not 6.04) was delayed a few months because it was not ready for launch. With a solid release schedule users and businesses can know exactly where they stand for future releases and plan accordingly.



i disagree in part with this.

normal users and serious business do not plan to use a "future release". Instead they will use what works best, is more stable and is recommended. Only geeks and beta testers "plan" on using the bleeding edge.

for example lets take PHP5, no hosting company in its right mind recommended it after release. A long time passed and people were still on PHP4 (was more reliable and less buggy) and now, years later, is that PHP5 is being widely adopted because it has matured.

You can also say the same for a desktop environment like lets say KDE4, i can only say it was ready not on release, but probably 2 years later (v4.4) to substitute its solid predecessor 3.5.x ... (did you really wanted normal users using buggy v4.0? i dont think so)

Heck my browser of choice right now is Not firefox 4,5,6,7, etc. but instead version 3, because some of the plugins i need work better there (the new versions may be nicer looking and a bit faster, but the plugins i need are buggy...).

Another example is GIMP. v 2.8 may have been delayed another year, but am sure it will be worth the wait.

Windows Vista was not a flop not because it released longer than expected, but because it wasnt really ready and once it was release (because they couldnt wait any longer and needed the $ fast of their OS/office combo), it was buggy, slow, incompatible and overall worse than its predecessor XP... They then learned from that mistake, released 7 and Bingo!

Now imagine a company like Sony or nintendo using the Ubuntu fixed schedule to release new consoles... Most of them would be some piece of cr*p (yea, probably worse than the virtual-boy!! ;/)

So, yea i agree with the "release when ready enough and is actually better than what you already have". Why bother upgrading if its not better ?

A "ship whatever (ready or not) on some fixed date" is NOT what we need. Instead depending on how testing goes and regressions are fixed, we can give users an approximate date (a few months before) so that now they can plan ahead.

el_koraco
September 13th, 2011, 01:06 PM
If a monthly release cycle is used then ubuntu becomes an always Alpha or Beta distribution and if all distributions were to follow that paradigm Linux will remain a <1% hobby OS.

You didn't read the article either, right?

NightwishFan
September 13th, 2011, 02:15 PM
normal users and serious business do not plan to use a "future release". Instead they will use what works best, is more stable and is recommended. Only geeks and beta testers "plan" on using the bleeding edge.
That is not what I meant. If you have an organization the requires reliable computers you want to make sure you are able to continually run that infrastructure at as little cost as possible. Upgrades are going to be required eventually though. It is much more reliable to know when a newer supported system will be released. By no means did I say they would upgrade to the bleeding edge. I am a Debian Stable user even I have no desire to look at this bleeding edge you speak of. I certainly would not argue in it's favour. :)


Now imagine a company like Sony or nintendo using the Ubuntu fixed schedule to release new consoles... Most of them would be some piece of cr*p (yea, probably worse than the virtual-boy!! ;/)
If I take your point in a software point of view; I suppose a 'when ready' does not have many disadvantages compared to a fixed release except for predictability. Though for developers and users it is good to know when things will happen.


A "ship whatever (ready or not) on some fixed date" is NOT what we need. Instead depending on how testing goes and regressions are fixed, we can give users an approximate date (a few months before) so that now they can plan ahead.
That is not how it works. If an unfinished piece of software is released it was a (bad) conscious decision by the developers. Any good product should have contingencies and priorities. The parts of the software that are not finished should not be released if they are not ready, and the core (high priority) software should be tested and frozen well before the release date.

The 'monthly' release would fix the problem of such features missing a deadline, as they would be frozen for the next small batch of upgrades (instead of being potentially broken in the exact same way after 6 months of development). I think this is similar to what Firefox is doing to promote innovation being ready for real use much faster. I just do not think that is the correct way as constant changes are more of a negative for most common examples of computer usage, such as OEM deployments, businesses, non-technical home users.

dmoconnell
September 13th, 2011, 04:22 PM
I think that we need a compromise plan. A month release cycle could both help and harm users (help devs and harm everyone else) My suggestion is like I said earlier. have the 6 month release cycle and during the in between months release a "services pack" that is similar to a minor upgrade. so for example it 11.11 would still be ocelot but ocelot SP1 with all the upgrades and new features (plus any updates) that didn't make it into 11.10.
Thats my 2 cents
Dm

aaaantoine
September 13th, 2011, 05:07 PM
Part of the reason I switched my laptop from Arch back to Ubuntu -- other than to have maintenance parity with my desktop -- was because from time to time there would be a big upgrade of some important piece of software which would break things. In order to avoid the risk of breaking my system during the work week, I would have to also forego security updates and bug fixes. To compound the issue, Arch packages are never labeled with any sort of changelog because changes are performed upstream. So, if I wanted to find out which were bugfixes and which were feature updates, I'd have to do research.

I like rolling release in principle. That said, I can only support the method if certain updates can be labeled as "feature releases", so that I can put those updates aside for the weekend.

koleoptero
September 13th, 2011, 06:15 PM
I doubt any suggestion posted here will have anything to do with what Canonical does. Also I doubt that guys (see OP) suggestion will be accepted. It's too radical.

We need more stability in Linux based operating systems more than we need more features or more glitter.

Porcini M.
September 13th, 2011, 06:22 PM
we need more stability in linux based operating systems more than we need more features or more glitter.

+1!

KiwiNZ
September 13th, 2011, 07:41 PM
You didn't read the article either, right?

Wrong

Zlatan
September 13th, 2011, 07:53 PM
Oh, it all depends on WHAT on you want to release... If you want a constantly updating stuff- you do a rolling release, if you want something that is ready- you do like Debian Stable;)

wolfen69
September 14th, 2011, 04:39 AM
I think they should let a person upgrade every month through the update manager but still only release an ISO every 6 months

Wouldn't it just be like a monthly build with all updates included? I would be in favor of that. So when someone decides to try ubuntu, they will have all the bug fixes up until that point.

Copper Bezel
September 14th, 2011, 11:06 AM
Wrong
The idea is to delay features until they're ready, not to push more things more quickly. The idea is to be less hobbyist, not more.

Honestly, I don't see that it's any different from what Google is doing with the Chromebook, pushing out updates automatically so that the user doesn't need to worry about "which version" he or she is on.

el_koraco
September 14th, 2011, 11:19 AM
Wrong

Yeah, excuse me for not believing you, but you got one of the leading Ubuntu developers saying that the current cycle of rushing features just because they're new is harmful, and it should be stopped, so features are only realased when ready, and without the fixed six month cycle timeframe, and your answer is: "Ubuntu should release when ready".

I'm not gonna commend on the other "Linux will reamain a hobbyist OS", cuz I really don't wanna bring to life the connection between the Ubuntu release cycle and the future of "Linux".

lucazade
September 14th, 2011, 11:43 AM
If a monthly release cycle is used then ubuntu becomes an always Alpha or Beta distribution and if all distributions were to follow that paradigm Linux will remain a <1% hobby OS.


A hobbyst OS? Come on!


Bill Gates tried to call Linux a hobbyst OS in 1976:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Letter_to_Hobbyists

"To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?"


But in 2009 he said Linux is the most potent competitor for Microsoft and Windows:
http://techrights.org/2009/06/23/bill-gates-afraid-of-gnu-linux/

"Our most potent Operating System competitor is Linux and the phenomena around Open Source and free software. The same phenomena fuels competitors to all of our products. The ease of picking up Linux to learn it or to modify some piece of it is very attractive. The academic community, start up companies, foreign governments and many other constituencies are putting their best work into Linux. "



Maybe it is time to stop this kind of statements if Gates himself stopped some years ago.

madjr
September 14th, 2011, 07:28 PM
just to be more clear guys, the proposal seems to be more like Debian CUT (Constantly Usable Testing), but more towards ubuntu's needs.

which should be a lot more stable than normal rolling releases where you throw everything in with almost no prior testing and let the community try to fix it for you if something goes wrong...

http://lwn.net/Articles/406301/
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2011/03/debian-cut-a-new-rolling-release/

http://cut.debian.net/

KiwiNZ
September 14th, 2011, 07:41 PM
Yeah, excuse me for not believing you, but you got one of the leading Ubuntu developers saying that the current cycle of rushing features just because they're new is harmful, and it should be stopped, so features are only realased when ready, and without the fixed six month cycle timeframe, and your answer is: "Ubuntu should release when ready".

I'm not gonna commend on the other "Linux will reamain a hobbyist OS", cuz I really don't wanna bring to life the connection between the Ubuntu release cycle and the future of "Linux".

*sigh*

My feelings are that we should only be releasing security and urgent fixes on a regular basis in the same way MSFT and Apple do.

Then do a new release when all features are properly developed,tested and the entire release is ready. The minimum time should be twelve months.

But of course you wont believe that is what I suggesting, which of course is in support of most of what the blog is proposing.

el_koraco
September 14th, 2011, 07:58 PM
My feelings are

I don't particularly care what your feelings are, if you're gonna criticize an article that the dude put a lot of effort into, then at least read what he wrote. Or say you didn't read the proposal, it's not such a big deal, we all make comments on stuff we haven't actually explored in any sort of detail.

KiwiNZ
September 14th, 2011, 08:05 PM
I don't particularly care what your feelings are, if you're gonna criticize an article that the dude put a lot of effort into, then at least read what he wrote. Or say you didn't read the proposal, it's not such a big deal, we all make comments on stuff we haven't actually explored in any sort of detail.

One last effort

I HAVE READ THE ARTICLE

Read the above and comprehend

madjr
September 14th, 2011, 08:11 PM
One last effort

I HAVE READ THE ARTICLE

Read the above and comprehend

hehe now it seems he's the one not reading

Copper Bezel
September 14th, 2011, 08:49 PM
My feelings are that we should only be releasing security and urgent fixes on a regular basis in the same way MSFT and Apple do.
I just don't think that's possible in the Linux world. The kernel needs to be much more current than that to ship with the appropriate drivers for newly released hardware, and the enduser software can't be held down to a year-old version, either. Whatever parts of what's left you'd like to pin down, it's still going to need a rolling or other release cycle for those.

madjr
September 14th, 2011, 09:59 PM
I just don't think that's possible in the Linux world. The kernel needs to be much more current than that to ship with the appropriate drivers for newly released hardware, and the enduser software can't be held down to a year-old version, either. Whatever parts of what's left you'd like to pin down, it's still going to need a rolling or other release cycle for those.

i believe cutting down on the number of releases to a yearly release, with an always updated repository of apps (like what getdeb does... in fact it would be nice if it became an official project), would be much better for the user.

we cant currently offer enough backports or keep an always updated repository because of some many different ubuntu versions that have to be supported.

right now look at how many different ubuntu versions need to be supported at all times: 4 or 5... (not to mention all bug reports for all of those, and all the other spins and the server releases too. Wow that's way too much stuff to handle for such a small team, so what do you get?)


Is also impossible to keep all those repos updated or bugs squashed. But if we cut down to half of that: 2 , then thats way more manageable for backports, testing and updated repos.

As for kernels, people dont need new ones if all their stuff is working fine. In fact upgrading can bring regressions (see latest kernels power regressions.). But if you have hardware that doesnt work, then you want to try a newer kernel, so the best thing that could be done is also provide SNAPSHOTS or PPA's with updated kernels. But 1 year between releases is not that long anyway..

Mandriva for example has just recently changed to yearly and has begun to cut down on support costs already, while dev has been better and even extra time for testing and polish.

el_koraco
September 14th, 2011, 10:07 PM
One last effort

I HAVE READ THE ARTICLE

Read the above and comprehend

You know what, I'm sorry.

FormatSeize
September 16th, 2011, 01:16 AM
I don't know how many times this has already been said, but I'll chime in and say that while the article and idea are well thought out, I believe that a monthly release will prove to be a massive error.

There are, at present, enough of the "EveryUsers" out there that install or upgrade to the latest releases every six months and have problems with them. As is, those that are the most helpful have to ask "Are you using version [11.04, 10.10, 10.04, 9.10 (sometimes)]", and then from there give a petty solid answer. How can people be reliably helped when one has to ask "Are you using the version from 28, 48, 60, 120, or 150 days ago?"

Things are going to be breaking every two weeks now? There are those of us that wouldn't mind that, sure. But things like that are what makes a distro into a Slackware, Gentoo, or Arch. It may appear user friendly in those there screen shots, but when you try to put it to the simplest of practical uses and customize it, everything is going to break in a matter of weeks when you do the upgrade.

And let's admit it, people. There is talk about Ubuntu being user friendly, and easy enough for the common user. And it is. But generally speaking, the only people that regularly have problem free installs on a regular basis are those don't notice that they are fixing something in the first place, but rather see it as "routine"... or something. Putting hobbyists through a routine all the time is one thing, but inflicting this on people that simply want to eventually have a working, mostly new OS for a couple of months are getting thrown under the bus (no pun intended) here.

Lastly, I have to say that I was much more disappointed than I proabably should have been after reading that first article. That hurt more than I thought it would have had a psychic told me that I would read that article last week. As much distro hopping as I do, and as much crap as I say about Ubuntu being as easy as it gets, and complaints about not being able to build LFS with Ubuntu "out of the box", it's something that I like. Without even noticing, I've been using 11.04/11.10 exclusively for almost a month now. That's a lot for a constant hopper.

To find that we are given knowingly broken packages, that will continue to be knowingly broken for the next few releases, while people writhe, complain, drop GNU/Linux altogether, say "Linux is hard", and everything else just doesn't sit well with me. Sure, I don't mind it. But I'm just a hobbyist. I'd be bored to death if something didn't occasionally break, but that's what alphas and betas are for.

I don't know. Just saying, I did not expect to read those sentences. So, maybe they might as well give us just a couple broken packages every month instead of tons of them every six months.