Next LTS

[argoz17]

So does anyone know if the next Ubuntu LTS release will be set up like Unity or GNOME?

[peter d]

Precise Pangolin 12.04 LTS will have Unity and will be supported for 5 years on the desktop.

[3Miro]

Precise Pangolin 12.04 LTS will have Unity and will be supported for 5 years on the desktop.

+1.

Next LTS comes next April with 5 years support. It will come with Unity + Gnome 3 by default and Gnome-shell and Gnome-fallback available in the Software Center. Basically 12.04 will be a more polished version of 11.10, I don't think there will be any major changes.

[argoz17]

So you can choose to have the GNOME setup like the current LTS....I really hate unity and dont want to change my LTS to unity

[kaldor]

So you can choose to have the GNOME setup like the current LTS....I really hate unity and dont want to change my LTS to unity

GNOME 2.32 is over, and will never come back. GNOME 3 has switched to Shell and Fallback mode. Ubuntu's Unity is a layer (a shell) over GNOME 3.

Most likely Unity will be much better than it is right now. It's still quite young, and so is GNOME Shell. I strongly recommend you get used to GNOME 3's Shell or Unity.

If you want a classic and long-term support for GNOME 2, then check the Scientific Linux link in my signature. It uses GNOME 2.28 and will be supported for at least another 5 years.

[Gremlinzzz]

Starting to think that 6 month release should be upped to a year:popcorn:

[dniMretsaM]

If by "GNOME" you mean GNOME 2, then no, it wont. It's dead an won't be brought back to life. 12.04 will use Unity on GTK 3.


Starting to think that 6 month release should be upped to a year:popcorn:
No, it shouldn't.

[Gremlinzzz]

If by "GNOME" you mean GNOME 2, then no, it wont. It's dead an won't be brought back to life. 12.04 will use Unity on GTK 3.


No, it shouldn't.

There would be a Lott less bugs making it a better system to release:popcorn:

[dniMretsaM]

There would be a Lott less bugs making it a better system to release:popcorn:
Not necessarily. A longer dev period would mean more new features (UI changes, program updates, new kernel versions, etc.), so there would just be more to debug. If you want less bugs, use the LTS release.

[IWantFroyo]

There would be a Lott less bugs making it a better system to release:popcorn:

Some changes would have to take place though. First of all, there should really be a netinstall version if that happens, because you're going to have a lot of updates, no matter how much they update the image on the servers.
Second of all, newer versions of everything should regularly be provided. Everything being maintained to the same level as Arch would be a dream. That obviously happens for the first few months a version is released, but it quickly goes out of regular maintenance after a new version is released (-cough- 10.10), and you have to resort to adding PPAs.

[beew]

Starting to think that 6 month release should be upped to a year:popcorn:
+1 to that. This 6 month release cycle leads to buggy releases and lack of quality control, it actually hurts Ubuntu's reputation.

Instead they could release a beta iso for testing every 6 months and announce it as such. I seriously don't think it is right to advertise something like 11.10 as "stable release" at this point., it is much more like a late beta in terms of quality now, in a few months it will be ready for sure.

[LowSky]

+1 to that. This 6 month release cycle leads to buggy releases and lack of quality control, it actually hurts Ubuntu's reputation.

Instead they could release a beta iso for testing every 6 months and announce it as such. I seriously don't think it is right to advertise something like 11.10 as "stable release" at this point., it is much more like a late beta in terms of quality now, in a few months it will be ready for sure.

I rarely have an issue running Arch and it's packages update almost as soon as the developer releases it into the wild. Ubuntu's problem is modifying the packages, combined with 6 month jumps, and developing a new UI by butchering code from another UI. You're going to have issues. So instead I run a release that keeps the packages vanilla and things work 99% of the time.

[cariboo]

@argoz17, I've just created a gnome classic megathread in the Precise testing and discussion (http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=412) sub-forum, it's my hope that we get enough hints and tips to make gnome classic work the same if not better than the older two panel interface that is no longer in development.

All you have to do is install gnome-session-fallback, then select if from the lightdm login screen. The only reall difference right now, besides it being in it's infancy, is that you need to Alt-right-click to add applets to the upper panel.

[sammiev]

Starting to think that 6 month release should be upped to a year:popcorn:

Agree and might make the newer releases more bug free as more users will likely test the beta's as they come out. :) Must add that I had little to no troubles with the newer versions. :popcorn:

[FuturePilot]

There's always KDE :D

[sffvba[e0rt]

Ubuntu has two modes... The stable and consistent LTS and the adventurous 6 month releases. No point in having a yearly release which would be smack in the middle of these two versions.

Just because Ubuntu releases a new version every six months doesn't mean one has to upgrade too ;)


404

[sanderd17]

GNOME 2.32 is over, and will never come back. GNOME 3 has switched to Shell and Fallback mode. Ubuntu's Unity is a layer (a shell) over GNOME 3.

Most likely Unity will be much better than it is right now. It's still quite young, and so is GNOME Shell. I strongly recommend you get used to GNOME 3's Shell or Unity.

If you want a classic and long-term support for GNOME 2, then check the Scientific Linux link in my signature. It uses GNOME 2.28 and will be supported for at least another 5 years.

There is a possibility they will include Mate (a Gnome 2.x fork), but that's only a small possibility.

And about the upgrade tempo, as LowSky said. Arch is upgraded every minute and I haven't had a lot of troubles (last week one conflicting file, I needed to delete the original one myself). The problem with Ubuntu is that they change the packages a lot (that's also why no other distro has Unity, it's just too difficult to fit it into the other standard packages).

Anyway, Ubuntu, Arch and all other distros have their own philosophy, and they should stick with it.

[snowpine]

Starting to think that 6 month release should be upped to a year:popcorn:

Switching from 6 months to 12 months development cycle is not going to bring back Gnome 2 and make Unity go away.

[Docaltmed]

Personally, I like a little drama every 6 months, while I hold my breath and wonder if I've totally fubar'ed my computer. "My computer" meaning the one I use every day for work.

Life on the edge, baby. It's the only way to live. :guitar:

[3Miro]

Going from 6 months to 12 will improve nothing. Longer release cycles would mean more features that need to be tested. The best testers are the community, I guarantee you that 11.10 works perfect on every computer used by the Canonical developers, many bugs don't appear until you go to a broader audience. Furthermore, longer delays between releases would mean overall older software, we could use Firefox 4+ or stable Intel Sandy Bridge CPUs since 11.04, it would have hurt Ubuntu if they those were only available now.

I don't understand people that complain about how painful upgrades are and yet upgrade every 6 months. If you want stable and no-upgrade, go for LTS. Next LTS will be supported for 5 years.

An argument can be made for Ubuntu getting a rolling version and LTS version (something like Debian). However, I think the current scheme works better for less experienced users. Rolling releases are also harder to maintain, since people have to constantly test newer configurations.

[BrokenKingpin]

I will be running the Xubuntu LTS, so Xfce for me.