PDA

View Full Version : "Rolling releases" instead of a new Ubuntu every 6 months?



Elfy
January 23rd, 2013, 08:38 AM
One of those 'anything could happen in the next half hour things perhaps'.

Canonical might dump interim releases by 14.04, switch to rolling releases (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/146442-canonical-might-dump-interim-releases-by-14-04-switching-to-rolling-releases)

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/01/ubuntu-considers-huge-change-that-would-end-traditional-release-cycle/

The hangout is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AQvOIExkCaw

sudodus
January 23rd, 2013, 09:07 AM
Yes please, I'd like that :-)

I skip the 'standard 18 months support' releases, and the LTS releases would not lag behind like now.

Of course, it is very important to have good testing, so that average users won't sit there with broken systems. I'm prepared to help testing, and if we are many enough, we'll manage it.

monkeybrain2012
January 23rd, 2013, 09:09 AM
I think it is a great idea. Since updates can be done gradually instead of being rushed in one fell swoop every 6 months to meet release deadline I think it will actually be less risky for the users if done properly.

addegsson
January 23rd, 2013, 09:13 AM
That would be great!

sffvba[e0rt
January 23rd, 2013, 09:28 AM
Nothing good can come of this.


404

mysteriousdarren
January 23rd, 2013, 09:48 AM
Why do you say that not found?

addegsson
January 23rd, 2013, 10:10 AM
It's actually a very nice idea. They will do LTS-releases (14.04, 16.04 etc) which will be useful for users/companies who wants a really stable system. The interim releases will be replaced by a stable rolling release and released daily, obviously this is quite a task to ensure that everything works but they already have a daily QA-team which does this today.
This will make LTS-releases more solid due to the better tested packages in the interim releases.

Btw, this is all speculation at this point and might not happen.

Warren Hill
January 23rd, 2013, 10:32 AM
We need to keep the fixed stable releases because in some applications you need the confidence that its "just going to work" and when new software it released sometimes things go wrong.

However, for a lot of users a rolling release makes sense. It would have to be seperate though.

There are a number of rolling release Linux distributions see here
http://reclusivegeek.wordpress.com/2010/11/21/rolling-release-linux-distributions/

exploder
January 23rd, 2013, 01:18 PM
I like the idea of a rolling release myself. This could make Ubuntu much more popular to the masses in my opinion.

Ubuntu is getting much better as far as software updates are concerned. A good example is the newer kernel that will be included in the LTS point release.

New users always ask about software updates and this would address this very well. With Ubuntu gaining popularity commercially this could only help things progress.

rrnbtter
January 23rd, 2013, 02:46 PM
Greetings,
I'm running the most up to date version that I can reasonably obtain. Raring 13.04 with the 3.8 RC4 kernel. Canonical is already trying to keep the testing versions tame. This makes for a fairly boring development version area. If the release is "rolling" I don't see how the lock down dates work for kernel, drivers, software, etc. For instance we have a report of Virtualbox not working with the 3.8 kernel in the repos. It most certainly will work at some point but I don't see how the software developers keep up with a rolling version. There will always be needed but broken packages with no way to know they exist until after installation. That mindset won't do IMO for commercial users that need dependability and crossover users that are not up to speed on the workings of the Linux machine. The current system has dependability in the LTS if it is needed and a good shot of adrenaline in the testing version if you need a daily jolt and don't drink coffee. That being said the current development version is a delight to use rolling or not.

ibjsb4
January 23rd, 2013, 02:57 PM
Sounds like a way to give the developers some stress relief.

jonedney
January 23rd, 2013, 03:07 PM
Considering I've only been working with Ubuntu since 11.10, and steadily since 12.04, I can only speculate on how this would possibly impact things.

My opinion on this, is it may provide more of a cushion for the developing of future releases, to not have to hit that 6-month release date. Alternatively, I kinda like the 6-month release cycle, leaves a consistent excitement about what's to come.

Dragonbite
January 23rd, 2013, 03:47 PM
Implemented right, it could be beneficial.

I would like to see the LTS getting point-releases (2 in 2 years or so) so it isn't "left in the dust", but at the same time is frozen and stable for servers, businesses and people not interested in a rolling release.

I just replaced my 10.04 with 12.04 on my family desktop. The 10.04 version was pretty long in the tooth and I am glad to get it upgraded. I am also glad that while it took me until just recently to get it done, the LTS will be supported for a while and I don't have to worry about updates until 2014 or even 2015 (if this upgrade is any indication).

A rolling-release in-between would remove some of the PR hype, unless they can spin it to generate excitement (such as when they re-spin the Images for the "new current" download which includes updates since the last current download).

I would throw it on my personal system, if it could handle it.

How would this handle things like dropping the non-PAE kernel and changing drivers? If you update and the drivers breaks something, could the previous version be available to revert back to and get back a working system? Could you black-list files so those that break the system won't be updated or installed and without having ot manually uncheck it every time?

Like I said, handled right this could be very beneficial.

Warren Hill
January 23rd, 2013, 04:18 PM
Agreed, we need to be careful and to keep rolling and non-rolling versions separate.

I would not let a rolling release anywhere near my server or my main PC which I use for work because downtime is just too expensive and we have to accept that with a rolling release things break more often. I have only just upgraded my server to 12.04 because I wanted to be sure it was stable first. But on the other hand new features get added more often too.

However, for my daughters laptop however I don't see any problem with a rolling release. She only uses it to do school home work, and spend too much time on the internet ;) so she could tolerate some downtime and would appreciate getting new features sooner.

Dragonbite
January 23rd, 2013, 04:39 PM
It could, though, help the adoption of Ubuntu One for storing files and settings as if the rolling release breaks your system, you can install from an older image and use Ubuntu One to put your files back.

castrojo
January 23rd, 2013, 04:40 PM
I would like to see the LTS getting point-releases (2 in 2 years or so) so it isn't "left in the dust", but at the same time is frozen and stable for servers, businesses and people not interested in a rolling release.


The current LTS point releases do exactly this already, there's even a hardware enablement stack so that you can still install the LTS even on new hardware.

Erik1984
January 23rd, 2013, 05:29 PM
It could, though, help the adoption of Ubuntu One for storing files and settings as if the rolling release breaks your system, you can install from an older image and use Ubuntu One to put your files back.

If you only have 5 GB worth of files that is (or if you buy more space).

MadmanRB
January 23rd, 2013, 05:49 PM
The biggest issue is that this may lead to the issue that Red Hat has as there is no real interum updates with that hus everything is out of date.
Actually why not switch to the openSUSE model that release a new version every 8 months?

addegsson
January 23rd, 2013, 06:02 PM
Jono Bacon writes:

"Just to be clear, for a while now we have been discussing 'the road to 14.04' which is a set of things we need to do to continue to improve the engineering and end user quality of Ubuntu, make things more efficient, empower our flavors better, and give us the flexibility for future decisions, such as if we did want to explore a rolling release.
Some of this work as part of 'the road to 14.04' includes application sandboxing and security, finishing the archive reorg, optimizing our release management process, automated testing and continuous integration, reducing freezes and freeze times, and helping flavors to drive their own release process.
To be clear, there is no final decision made about going to a rolling release, but the work going into these areas will at least give us the tools to switch to a rolling release if we choose to do so in the future while solving the problems that we have today."

"Speaking personally (and not from the perspective of Canonical), I would like to get rid of the interim releases and just focus on LTSs. I think the interim releases suck up more releases than they should, and we could focus these resources on a rolling release.
If we did do a rolling release, I agree that it would be better to simply offer LTS for stable releases and rolling for people who want newer software without the support period for SRUs."

http://www.reddit.com/r/Ubuntu/comments/172a9a/ubuntu_to_turn_into_a_rolling_release/

Lars Noodén
January 23rd, 2013, 07:07 PM
I hope that it does not come to rolling releases. That means, to me, that we'll constantly have to deal with updates that break the system. If the interim releases are too often, then they can be reduced in frequency to once every 8 or 12 months.

monkeybrain2012
January 23rd, 2013, 07:17 PM
I hope that it does not come to rolling releases. That means, to me, that we'll constantly have to deal with updates that break the system. If the interim releases are too often, then they can be reduced in frequency to once every 8 or 12 months.

I would think that if it is rolling the updates would be continuous and therefore more gradual so less chance of breaking things (and hopefully no artificial deadline to update even when things are not ready) On the other hand right now they are rushing to put out half baked new releases every 6 months with loads of updates and invites everyone to upgrade, which IMO is more prone to breakage (so I always stay a version behind, i.e will make 12.10 my main OS in March and now only for testing)

You can always turn off updates or pin certain packages if you don't want them updated.

There are Arch users here who testify that their systems are very stable. I am going to install Arch in a partition to find out when I get around to.

CharlesA
January 23rd, 2013, 07:24 PM
I'll just stick to LTS releases or head over to Debian or whatever else will work for me. :p

matt_symes
January 23rd, 2013, 07:25 PM
I hope that it does not come to rolling releases. That means, to me, that we'll constantly have to deal with updates that break the system. If the interim releases are too often, then they can be reduced in frequency to once every 8 or 12 months.

This is my experience of rolling releases.

Personally, i don't mind fixing the issues as they arise but as Ubuntu is a Linux distribution designed for less technical people then this could be problematic if breakage happens frequently.

eagleton
January 23rd, 2013, 07:33 PM
From my time with Arch, I remember having to manually compare old and new versions of text files, some of them system critical. This happened at least once a month.

Not sure if I want this with Ubuntu.

CharlesA
January 23rd, 2013, 07:37 PM
From my time with Arch, I remember having to manually compare old and new versions of text files, some of them system critical. This happened at least once a month.

Not sure if I want this with Ubuntu.

That sounds tedious.

If they do decide to go rolling release, they could push users to use LTS unless they want more up-to-date software.

Dragonbite
January 23rd, 2013, 07:42 PM
The biggest issue is that this may lead to the issue that Red Hat has as there is no real interum updates with that hus everything is out of date.
Actually why not switch to the openSUSE model that release a new version every 8 months?

Also openSUSE has Tumbleweed (https://en.opensuse.org/Tumbleweed) which makes openSUSE more like a rolling release.
The Tumbleweed project provides a rolling updates version of openSUSE containing the latest stable versions of all software instead of relying on rigid periodic release cycles. The project does this for users that want the newest, but stable software.

The difference to Factory is that Factory is bleeding edge, often experimental, not yet stabilized software that needs more work to become useful. Tumbleweed contains the latest stable applications and is ready for daily use.
And it has Evergreen (https://en.opensuse.org/Evergreen)which extends the life of a release to about 3 years total, bringing it the closest to LTS length.
n January 2011 the Novell sponsored maintenance for openSUSE 11.1 reached its end; this service is still provided for 18 months past release date (2 releases + 2 months) for openSUSE 11.2 and later.

"Evergreen" is a community effort to prolong maintenance of openSUSE after this period of time. For example version 11.4 is supported, with Evergreen, until July 2014!

OrangeCrate
January 23rd, 2013, 08:08 PM
I'll just stick to LTS releases or head over to Debian or whatever else will work for me. :p

This.

craig10x
January 23rd, 2013, 09:13 PM
I think it's a great idea and hope they do it by 14.04...i am getting tired on re-installing every 6 months to get the latest ubuntu stuff...:D

I am sure it will be well maintained so that we wouldn't have to worry about any breakages or set backs....and
it would probably reduce bugs and improve ubuntu quality since they would no longer have to rush on to the next 6 month development time table...

Windows seems to do fine with it's rolling nature of getting newer software and other system improvements....why shouldn't Ubuntu be able to do this just as well?

monkeybrain2012
January 23rd, 2013, 09:44 PM
I am already quasi rolling by enabling many ppas to get the latest software. This way I don't have to upgrade to a new release every 6 months to keep up to date, it is a (very) small risk to avoid a much bigger one (system wide reinstall), it is a good trade off. With some cautions like watching out when an update tries to remove something, I haven't really experienced any breakage except from xorg-edgers and compiz experimental (which I expect to break at some point anyway), but I expect that kind of updates would be held back until they are well tested.

Also updates can be introduced in stages like going to proposed first (or whatever it will be called) before going to official update like it is right now. I think the fear of breakage is probably exaggerated if the updating is well managed.

doorknob60
January 23rd, 2013, 10:32 PM
As long as they keep the LTS versions for stable, mostly unchanging releases for businesses and other places that don't want to worry about constant updates, I'm all for this. As long as they test the packages well enough that there won't be constant breakage, that's my only concern.

Lightning Dragon
January 23rd, 2013, 10:58 PM
If they made it a rolling release it wouldn't be very "newb" (sorry for the term) friendly. A lot of new users to Linux often use Ubuntu for how it is now, and is precisely why they reject the other distros like Linux Arch.

With my time on Manjaro, granted only a small amount of time, I have found myself having to make sure I sync the DB and update before I do anything, or else risk breaking something. Now personally I would not mind as long as the system wasn't constantly breaking because of updates, but I think Ubuntu should remain as it is.

fontis
January 23rd, 2013, 11:05 PM
I think it could be a great idea.
I mean, this would mean that there is even more focus on the LTS releases, and the rolling ones in between the LTS would just simply be for the ones who will be updating ttm anwyay.

If Canonical can manage to maintain proper testing of the updates reaching the rolling release then there shouldn't be any breakage of systems.

I mean, OSX and Windows are already "somewhat" in a rolling release scheme..

I'm kind of neutral here really. It's not until 12.04 that I've really decided to go LTS - since 12.10 kind of sucks for me atm with the whole linux-header ordeal. But well.. idk.
Like someone else said earlier, if it's done properly then this can be beneficial :)

KBD47
January 24th, 2013, 02:13 AM
I tend to think this is a horrible idea. Ubuntu is unstable enough even with the LTS mostly fixed releases. Last week a regular update broke my Unity desktop on 12.04, so what will continued, large updates do to an LTS? There is a reason why people use LTS releases rather than other distros that are rolling releases. Somehow the word "Android" and "Phone" come to mind. Ubuntu is not Android, and I suspect that even while continued, regular updates sometimes cause problems with Android, it would be worse for Ubuntu unless the distro seriously streamlines and pares down the distro by 14.04.

smellyman
January 24th, 2013, 04:03 AM
From my time with Arch, I remember having to manually compare old and new versions of text files, some of them system critical. This happened at least once a month.

Not sure if I want this with Ubuntu.

because that's the way arch chooses to do it. It absolutely does not have to be that way.

constant small rolling updates is sooooo much safer than doing the huge all encompassing upgrade after 6 months

Max Blyss
January 24th, 2013, 04:36 AM
I'd like it to stay as it is. Having the LTS option is something I have really come to appreciate.

Bandit
January 24th, 2013, 08:47 AM
I have been all for Rolling Release for many years. Release Ubuntu when its READY, not because the calendar said so.. However, we would need to keep a unstable out for constant beta testing.

And for goodness sake, release a new version ONLY when there is something to upgrade to. Just a few software stability updates are not a reason for a new release, those are for normal patches. A new release should only happen when a huge change has come to the next Ubuntu release that makes the next release stand out from the previous.

eagleton
January 24th, 2013, 09:09 AM
because that's the way arch chooses to do it. It absolutely does not have to be that way.

constant small rolling updates is sooooo much safer than doing the huge all encompassing upgrade after 6 months

What would be the alternative? Asking the user with each config file change if he wants to keep the old one, like Ubuntu does it with distribution upgrades? Automatically changing it for the user, risking that a Samba upgrade kills your local network?

newbie2
January 24th, 2013, 01:18 PM
Like clockwork, Ubuntu is released every six months, with a major LTS released every two years. Development priorities change over the cycles as well, and even if the LTS is in some way the flagship product, there’s always a desire for the cutting edge. In a broadcasted conversation today, Ubuntu Kernel Team Manager Leann Ogasawara mentioned how the kernel team were interested in switching to a rolling release for Ubuntu 14.04.

According to The H, this plan would involve Ubuntu releasing the LTS’s every two years as normal, however there’d be a bigger focus on maintaining the current LTS in the mean time. Ogasawara went on to speculate that users wouldn’t be happy with these changes.

What do you think? Are the LTS releases maintained fine as is, or would you prefer to have the LTS for two years with the latest software?
http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/news/ubuntu-possibly-moving-to-a-rolling-release-from-14-04

coffeecat
January 24th, 2013, 01:25 PM
Thread merged.

prodigy_
January 24th, 2013, 03:18 PM
You can't effectively sell a rolling release distro so not gonna happen. Just saying.

grahammechanical
January 24th, 2013, 04:01 PM
I am not sure about this


it would probably reduce bugs and improve ubuntu quality

In my experience in running the Quantal and Raring development branches is that Upstream code is more likely to break things than Canonical code.

During the Quantal cycle I was forced to revert back to using 12.04 because the Nvidia drivers broke the desktop. Then there was an issue with the Xserver.

During the Raring cycle the update from Linux 3.5 series to 3.7.0-0 worked fine but 3.7.0-1; 0-2; 0-3; 0-4 broke the OS. I had to boot into 3.7.0.0 to get a working OS. We are now on linux 3.8.0-1. It works fine for me but others have had problems.

I do not have a problem with Ubuntu being seen as the LTS version and anything in between being seen as a testing only version. We need more testing of stuff before it gets put into the LTS release.

Testing for updating 12.04 to the Quantal kernel 3.5.0 has already taken place. Quantal has Grub 2.0 which has sub-menus and 12.04 will get that also in a few weeks time.

I have no problem with there being no in between releases so long as what is in between is seen as a continuing development version and the community is used more and more for testing.

I do wonder how ISO images would be tested with this kind of 'rolling release.' At what point is an ISO image built and issued for download?

Regards.

Gremlinzzz
January 24th, 2013, 04:40 PM
:popcorn:No more 6 month release party's,bummer, but all things must change,just hope its for the better.

Dragonbite
January 24th, 2013, 05:46 PM
The down-side of a rolling release:
If it weren't for the last minute, nothing would ever get done.

llanitedave
January 24th, 2013, 07:23 PM
B-b-b-ut, then we wouldn't be able to keep the cute and clever naming system!

monkeybrain2012
January 24th, 2013, 10:33 PM
Where is the poll? I don't see any poll.

CharlesA
January 24th, 2013, 10:48 PM
Where is the poll? I don't see any poll.
I don't think we need a poll.

Ubuntu forums represent a tiny fraction of the entire Ubuntu community, and a poll of forum users who visit the cafe is an even smaller sample of that.

monkeybrain2012
January 24th, 2013, 11:38 PM
I mean I saw the tag "poll" earlier, probably because it was merged with another thread.

CharlesA
January 24th, 2013, 11:45 PM
I mean I saw the tag "poll" earlier, probably because it was merged with another thread.
Could be. I don't see any tags on this thread. :)

mikodo
January 25th, 2013, 08:16 AM
As a fan of stability while using a distro like Ubuntu, which is for technical growth "cutting edge" already with it's present release model, I appreciate the LTS's for my main machine. With the possibility of "bleeding edge", being incorporated in LTS's, scares me.

See grahammechanical's post 41.

How would this go over in the corporate world, if there is more breakage, in LTS's?

For me, if this happens with more breakage than I can tolerate, I will be looking elsewhere.

;p

castrojo
January 25th, 2013, 03:12 PM
How would this go over in the corporate world, if there is more breakage, in LTS's?

Is anyone actually watching the video? The LTS wouldn't go away, the discussion is about possibly replacing the interim releases with a rolling release.

grahammechanical
January 25th, 2013, 04:11 PM
Oh, I do understand. This should not be a discussion about the relative merits of rolling releases compared with Ubuntu's present schedule of releases. And it will not begin to happen (if it does happen) until after 14.04 LTS (5 years support) is released. It is better to discuss practical aspects of any change and of leaving things as they are.

I think

1) It would be good if Ubuntu LTS releases were seen as the standard Ubuntu release.

2) Interim/in-between (whatever you want to call it) releases should be seen as testing platforms and installed on that basis.

3) There is an issue with Quality Assurance and Quality Control regarding Upstream code that affects the perception of Ubuntu as being unstable even after release date. Canonical can do all it wants to test its own code but it has to take what comes downstream as it comes down.

4) With five year support an LTS is going to be very out of date by End of Life. Or will users be upgrading LTS releases every two years to keep up to date?

5) Thought has to be given to up-rating LTS releases during their support life. This up-rating has to be tested before it is pushed out. This has been done already with the Quantal kernel on 12.04 user space and with Grub 2.0 on 12.04. We will need more of this kind of testing.

6) As we have LTS releases every two years, could we not have an interim release in between LTS releases, or every year instead of every six months?

Regards.

sudodus
January 25th, 2013, 06:03 PM
...
1) It would be good if Ubuntu LTS releases were seen as the standard Ubuntu release.

2) Interim/in-between (whatever you want to call it) releases should be seen as testing platforms and installed on that basis.
...
5) Thought has to be given to up-rating LTS releases during their support life. This up-rating has to be tested before it is pushed out. This has been done already with the Quantal kernel on 12.04 user space and with Grub 2.0 on 12.04. We will need more of this kind of testing.
...

+1

I agree. I think many of the problems we see in the Ubuntu Forums occur because people without experience install the newest version before it is really ready for it.

The main download page looks like this now http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop (http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop)

It is good that the LTS version is 'a strong second choice', I think this has improved recently, but it should be the other way around, and the LTS version deserves a more positive description as the recommended choice 'if it is the first time you install Ubuntu' or 'if you don't know'

(I think these problems would decrease if the non-LTS versions are merged into a rolling release. But the important thing is to advertise the LTS releases as the first choice, and to up[dr]ate them after careful testing.)

snowpine
January 25th, 2013, 06:05 PM
Interesting, Mint tried this with LMDE, and as far as I know, non-rolling-release "regular" Mint continues to be more popular.

mikodo
January 25th, 2013, 06:14 PM
Is anyone actually watching the video? The LTS wouldn't go away, the discussion is about possibly replacing the interim releases with a rolling release.
Thanks. I didn't glean that from the video.

;p

sudodus
January 25th, 2013, 06:24 PM
Interesting, Mint tried this with LMDE, and as far as I know, non-rolling-release "regular" Mint continues to be more popular.
Yes, and this is as it should be.

http://www.linuxmint.com/download_lmde.php (http://www.linuxmint.com/download_lmde.php)

They even warn 'Expect some rough edges' at the end of the description of LMDE ;-)

Linuxisfast
January 25th, 2013, 06:26 PM
The Chakra and Manjaro model works out really well so it should work well on Ubuntu. In fact it would be better.

craig10x
January 28th, 2013, 03:54 AM
Reading this new article, i get the impression that the rolling release may not be happening by 14.04...i was kind of hoping it would happen by then...

It would be nice if they would make an official announcement on the ubuntu website as to what the time line on this would be and if they have actually decided on going ahead with this or is it still something they are just "bantering about" ;)

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/01/ubuntu-not-switching-to-rolling-release-model

mamamia88
January 28th, 2013, 05:44 AM
it's called debian sid ;)

deadflowr
January 28th, 2013, 07:42 AM
it's called debian sid ;)

Delete.
I was thinking testing.

santosh83
January 28th, 2013, 10:24 AM
I would think that if it is rolling the updates would be continuous and therefore more gradual so less chance of breaking things (and hopefully no artificial deadline to update even when things are not ready) On the other hand right now they are rushing to put out half baked new releases every 6 months with loads of updates and invites everyone to upgrade, which IMO is more prone to breakage (so I always stay a version behind, i.e will make 12.10 my main OS in March and now only for testing)

You can always turn off updates or pin certain packages if you don't want them updated.

As long as any package you do want updated doesn't depend on an updated version of your pinned package!

santosh83
January 28th, 2013, 10:49 AM
I do not have a problem with Ubuntu being seen as the LTS version and anything in between being seen as a testing only version. We need more testing of stuff before it gets put into the LTS release.


I have no problem with there being no in between releases so long as what is in between is seen as a continuing development version and the community is used more and more for testing.

I do wonder how ISO images would be tested with this kind of 'rolling release.' At what point is an ISO image built and issued for download?

Regards.

But wouldn't this result in a gradual reduction of the wider Ubuntu community as many users migrate to distributions that put out release versions more often?

If this model is adopted and only LTS releases are advertised as suitable for use by an ordinary user then they would probably need to be issued more often than the current 24 month period, say maybe 14-18 months.

But then that would mean that updates will be pushed to ordinary users after a fairly long period of testing, which would make it a slow rolling release from the user's point of view.

Just thinking aloud...

santosh83
January 28th, 2013, 11:07 AM
Is anyone actually watching the video? The LTS wouldn't go away, the discussion is about possibly replacing the interim releases with a rolling release.

Oh. So a new user to Ubuntu would be faced with a choice to either install the current LTS release and get security updates for it, but needing to wait a fairly long period till another LTS is released, for newer software versions, or, install a rolling release snapshot and become a testing user?

In other words, like the current situation in Debian I guess with the difference that there would only be sid and stable with no testing in between.

I do think the release version (LTS) in this scheme would have to be more frequent than once in 2 years, for Ubuntu to maintain it's position in the limelight.

santosh83
January 28th, 2013, 11:31 AM
Oh, I do understand. This should not be a discussion about the relative merits of rolling releases compared with Ubuntu's present schedule of releases. And it will not begin to happen (if it does happen) until after 14.04 LTS (5 years support) is released. It is better to discuss practical aspects of any change and of leaving things as they are.

I think

1) It would be good if Ubuntu LTS releases were seen as the standard Ubuntu release.

2) Interim/in-between (whatever you want to call it) releases should be seen as testing platforms and installed on that basis.

3) There is an issue with Quality Assurance and Quality Control regarding Upstream code that affects the perception of Ubuntu as being unstable even after release date. Canonical can do all it wants to test its own code but it has to take what comes downstream as it comes down.

It could apply patches for any serious upstream bugs, and I guess conversion of the current non-LTS releases to a rolling release model will result in a wider test base and longer duration of testing too for finding such incompatibilities.



4) With five year support an LTS is going to be very out of date by End of Life. Or will users be upgrading LTS releases every two years to keep up to date?This can be left as an user choice. While commercial users may prefer to milk an LTS for its full lifetime, ordinary home users would welcome a new version every so often I think. Eighteen months to 2 years between releases may be a good strategy.


5) Thought has to be given to up-rating LTS releases during their support life. This up-rating has to be tested before it is pushed out. This has been done already with the Quantal kernel on 12.04 user space and with Grub 2.0 on 12.04. We will need more of this kind of testing.This uprating (I guess you mean backporting some important software by this?) could be done for three of the five years of a release's life, with the final two years getting security updates alone.


6) As we have LTS releases every two years, could we not have an interim release in between LTS releases, or every year instead of every six months?

Regards.
That is another alternative to the current model I guess. But if the rolling release model for all non-LTS versions is adopted, then the rolling releases should probably be confined to the developer/volunteer section of the website and frequency of normal user releases cranked up a little bit (from current 2 years) and backporting of many more software to them over their lifetime so that Ubuntu releases are not perceived as outdated compared to other distributions, like how Debian stable and CentOS are viewed now.

The developer/volunteer based rolling stream can only exist if the actual public releases are reasonably upto-date and manage to retain the great mindshare that they currently enjoy.

kansasnoob
January 30th, 2013, 02:06 PM
I've been thinking about this a lot and I honestly think it could work well considering that 12.04.2 was delayed to allow proper testing of a new kernel and xorg-stack:

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI3MjY

It's also important to note somewhat recent changes in dev releases, like the elimination of most Alphas in lieu of cadence testing, and changes in the repos - specifically the use of proposed and backports.

It should be interesting to see what happens over the next few years :D

Umbra Diaboli
January 30th, 2013, 02:17 PM
I don't see the difference between the current 6 month cycle and rolling releases... We constantly get updates that improve the reliability of our sistems anyway and a big update that we always look forward to. Atleast now we know when the big update is coming, with the rolling releases we'll go nuts. In fact, I believe that having a stable release that you can then polish with smaller updates is better.

santosh83
January 30th, 2013, 03:15 PM
I don't see the difference between the current 6 month cycle and rolling releases...

I think the big difference for some users is the fact that with a rolling release you never have to reinstall your system, barring hardware failure or a serious software mess-up. Many people just don't want to reinstall every six months; it's just too frequent. And yes, one doesn't have to reinstall a non-LTS release for 18 months, but that's not the point. When people see that a new version of their system has been released, few will be able to hold back the temptation to reinstall. And Ubuntu especially targets home users and newbies from Windows, and both groups are known for wanting the latest and greatest software. :-)

With a rolling-release you'll know that you are automatically getting the latest without ever having to reinstall, at least in theory.


We constantly get updates that improve the reliability of our sistems anyway and a big update that we always look forward to. Atleast now we know when the big update is coming, with the rolling releases we'll go nuts.

Yes there are pros and cons for both models. Even with a well planned and well tested rolling release model I suspect systems will get more and more unstable and complex as time goes on and updates are added, and in a few years it might reach a state where a reinstall is better.

I don't know if outside of specialised domains like embedded systems, a very large and complex system like a full Linux OS install has actually been tested in a rolling release update model for a decade or more to assess it's stability over time. And I doubt anything over 5 years would be viable for typical desktop systems.


In fact, I believe that having a stable release that you can then polish with smaller updates is better.


That's the LTS. :-)

snowpine
January 30th, 2013, 03:47 PM
I think the big difference for some users is the fact that with a rolling release you never have to reinstall your system, barring hardware failure or a serious software mess-up. Many people just don't want to reinstall every six months; it's just too frequent. And yes, one doesn't have to reinstall a non-LTS release for 18 months, but that's not the point. When people see that a new version of their system has been released, few will be able to hold back the temptation to reinstall.

There is no need to reinstall Ubuntu, ever. Release upgrades are a 100% recommended and supported, easy 3-step process. See here: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/upgrade

monkeybrain2012
January 30th, 2013, 04:15 PM
There is no need to reinstall Ubuntu, ever. Release upgrades are a 100% recommended and supported, easy 3-step process. See here: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/upgrade


Thanks but no thanks, I would rather clean install as many people seem to have upgraded and ended up with a broken system or experiencing strange problems later which no one knows how to fix because something happened during upgrade but have not generated any warning sign. It is a complex process and is not very reliable apparently.

It assumes you have a very pristine system where you haven't installed third party software, ppas or proprietary drivers (if you do you are advised to return your system to a pristine state before upgrade) Moreover even if everything works the process takes hours during which other things may go wrong (say you lose internet connection or your dog kicks the power outlet and you end up with a broken system)

A clean install would take 20 minutes and maybe another half an hour to install all your software (will be faster if you have a script) If you have a /home partition all your settings will be saved.

"Upgrade" is a trap that I suggest one should avoid.

CharlesA
January 30th, 2013, 04:16 PM
There is no need to reinstall Ubuntu, ever. Release upgrades are a 100% recommended and supported, easy 3-step process. See here: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/upgrade

I know upgrading is the "recommended" method of moving to a new release, but sometimes it's easier/better to do a clean install (less breakage) :p

snowpine
January 30th, 2013, 04:28 PM
^ If there are bugs in the recommended upgrade procedure as bad as you say, then maybe Canonical should concentrate on fixing them? If these problems aren't addressed, then who's to say a "rolling release Ubuntu" wouldn't also struggle with third-party software, PPA's, proprietary drivers, etc.?

The statement "I would rather clean install... 'Upgrade' is a trap that I suggest one should avoid." can be used to argue against "rolling release" as well.

Dragonbite
January 30th, 2013, 04:36 PM
There is no need to reinstall Ubuntu, ever. Release upgrades are a 100% recommended and supported, easy 3-step process. See here: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/upgrade

I personally prefer the full install because
It removes programs that I don't necessarily want and any extra crud that uninstalling may have missed
I know the process and can predict what is going to happen. With an update I don't know if, when and where it is going to crash and when will it be detected. Consistency and predictability I get with clean installs.

CharlesA
January 30th, 2013, 04:36 PM
^ If there are bugs in the recommended upgrade procedure as bad as you say, then maybe Canonical should concentrate on fixing them? If these problems aren't addressed, then who's to say a "rolling release Ubuntu" wouldn't also struggle with third-party software, PPA's, proprietary drivers, etc.?

Indeed.

I think the majority of problems I've seen occur from upgrades are because of third-party stuff like PPA's and proprietary video drivers.

Doing an upgrade and then getting a blank screen isn't fun. :P

Gremlinzzz
January 30th, 2013, 05:49 PM
:popcorn:Doing an upgrade and then getting a blank screen isn't fun
been there, done that
I agree fresh install is the best way to go.

kansasnoob
January 31st, 2013, 12:21 AM
Ubuntu will not be switching to a ‘Rolling Release’ model anytime soon, despite recent reports to the contrary.

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/01/ubuntu-not-switching-to-rolling-release-model

Warprunner
January 31st, 2013, 12:47 AM
One of those 'anything could happen in the next half hour things perhaps'.

Canonical might dump interim releases by 14.04, switch to rolling releases (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/146442-canonical-might-dump-interim-releases-by-14-04-switching-to-rolling-releases)

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/01/ubuntu-considers-huge-change-that-would-end-traditional-release-cycle/

The hangout is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AQvOIExkCaw

Absolutely!!!! I support it!

santosh83
January 31st, 2013, 08:46 AM
There is no need to reinstall Ubuntu, ever. Release upgrades are a 100% recommended and supported, easy 3-step process. See here: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/upgrade

In theory that's true but still I'm much more uncomfortable with a massive all at once upgrade than the piecemeal, trickling one that a rolling release would represent.

As consider if someone has been with their non-LTS for a full 18 months or more like myself. Now to upgrade to the latest version I'd have to upgrade through all the intermediate versions as well (if i'm not mistaken), instead of directly jumping up to whatever is the latest one, and I can't see that process going down well with most users.

ZarathustraDK
January 31st, 2013, 09:26 AM
For better or worse, switching to a rolling release would remove the possibility of "dropping the bomb" with a new feature at every release. I think that'd be stupid PR-wise, there'd be nothing to talk about, no wow-factor, just a steady stream of inconsequential "we rounded this window-corner" and "we changed the shading of this button"-kind of proclamations.

And yes, sadly that kind of BS is important too, even though it shouldn't be necessary in a perfect world.

Also, I'd be a bit reluctant to do apt-get upgrade on a rolling release too. On the current model there's usually a lot of fanfare when new things(tm) are implemented, so you have an idea what you're getting into before you install. On a rolling release, dropping another "Unity-bomb" on the community would lead to...well...outrage and burning embassies :)

santosh83
January 31st, 2013, 09:51 AM
For better or worse, switching to a rolling release would remove the possibility of "dropping the bomb" with a new feature at every release. I think that'd be stupid PR-wise, there'd be nothing to talk about, no wow-factor, just a steady stream of inconsequential "we rounded this window-corner" and "we changed the shading of this button"-kind of proclamations.

And yes, sadly that kind of BS is important too, even though it shouldn't be necessary in a perfect world.

Also, I'd be a bit reluctant to do apt-get upgrade on a rolling release too. On the current model there's usually a lot of fanfare when new things(tm) are implemented, so you have an idea what you're getting into before you install. On a rolling release, dropping another "Unity-bomb" on the community would lead to...well...outrage and burning embassies :)

I believe Canonical aims to fully retain the 'release' model too, side-by-side with rolling releases, for the LTS versions. In fact in that case their releases would all be LTS, so need to label them as such.

And the rolling release would be a separate stream and kept away from the main download page and recommended only for testers and enthusiasts. :-)

Anyway we're all just speculating, who knows what Canonical folk are planning. As you say I too don't think they'll entirely drop the release model as it's needed in our PR dependent world. But the intermediate 6 monthly releases are just a tad bit too frequent for them to cope with the strain and ensure quality as well I think. Hence switching them over to a rolling release would allow them to develop more rapidly and give less attention to testing.

Very much like Debian sid and stable I guess. It's not a bad model provided stable gets updated versions of important software. No one wants a very old kernel or Firefox.

Flash858
January 31st, 2013, 09:57 AM
I vote no.

A rolling release would completely ruin the all of the install parties... :p

Artemis3
January 31st, 2013, 05:11 PM
I like it, keeping the LTS and the rest rolling. You'll have your parties every 2 years :P

snowpine
January 31st, 2013, 05:31 PM
No one wants a very old kernel or Firefox.

I'd have to half-disagree with that statement. If the kernel I'm using now has full support for my hardware, and my hardware hasn't changed, then why do I need a newer kernel that might, for example, break my video drivers? Distros that provide a very stable older kernel (Red Hat, CentOS, Debian, Ubuntu LTS) have a huge market share, contradicting the "no one" part of your statement.

(All supported Ubuntu releases get updated Firefox, so that's a non-issue.)

santosh83
January 31st, 2013, 05:51 PM
I'd have to half-disagree with that statement. If the kernel I'm using now has full support for my hardware, and my hardware hasn't changed, then why do I need a newer kernel that might, for example, break my video drivers? Distros that provide a very stable older kernel (Red Hat, CentOS, Debian, Ubuntu LTS) have a huge market share, contradicting the "no one" part of your statement.

(All supported Ubuntu releases get updated Firefox, so that's a non-issue.)

I see your point regarding the kernel. But just as there're people who run the same hardware for a long time, there're many who keep upgrading their systems in piecemeal fashion too, and they would benefit from a more modern kernel as time goes on. I don't know about the others in your list but RedHat apparently do heavily patch their kernel to keep pace with hardware evolution.

Regarding userland yes, Firefox may be kept updated on Ubuntu releases but plenty of other useful software isn't. For example I've added over twenty third-party repositories and PPAs to my 10.10 to keep some of the programs I use current. While this process is doable it's quite beyond a complete newbie user from Windows land to find all these repos, add them to his sources.list, periodically weed out dead PPAs and repos, resolve authentication errors and so on.

Anyway I'm getting carried away. My point is I believe at least a large section of the type of users Ubuntu is aiming to target (converts from Windows, dual-booters, home users, FOSS enthusiasts and developers) would really like to have all (or most) of their installed software automatically updated and in pace with their source, while at the same time not having to achieve this end by the process of tiresome biannual re-installs (or a problem-prone system-wide upgrade), and a rolling release model fits the bill. The LTS could satisfy those few who don't want newer software or hardware support, like businesses perhaps. :-)

EDIT: Just realised we have no disagreement at all. Sorry about restating things you probably already long knew. :-)

snowpine
January 31st, 2013, 05:59 PM
^ 10.10 has been "end of life" for almost a year, so (no offense) of course you are struggling to keep it up to date. :)

offgridguy
January 31st, 2013, 06:23 PM
Nothing good can come of this.


404
I concur, for the reason, my internet service plan makes it an expensive proposition as
i pay by the mb. plus my signal strength does not always work well with downloads in the
several hundred mb. range. I tried Sabayon, a rolling release and had to give it up for
that reason, { plus the the rigo pkg. manager is incredibly slow}.:)

santosh83
January 31st, 2013, 06:31 PM
^ 10.10 has been "end of life" for almost a year, so (no offense) of course you are struggling to keep it up to date. :)

Yea I know! But that's only because I'm really loathe to do a fresh install. There's a huge amount of docs that need sorting and backing up (had to get a new HDD just for this), and I need to take an inventory of the various 'extra' programs I've installed these few years and the various tweaks to them so that I can recreate the same environment under the new system. And oh yes, I probably need a Gb more of RAM before I can run 12.10 with enough left over to use all my apps without constant swapping. :-)

And this is why I for one would love a rolling release model. I realise that there are many distros offering that now, but I've become so familiar with Ubuntu that I don't want to hop distros now, especially not to non-deb based ones.

forrestcupp
January 31st, 2013, 09:05 PM
I concur, for the reason, my internet service plan makes it an expensive proposition as
i pay by the mb. plus my signal strength does not always work well with downloads in the
several hundred mb. range. I tried Sabayon, a rolling release and had to give it up for
that reason, { plus the the rigo pkg. manager is incredibly slow}.:)

Good point. That really sucks for you.

forrestcupp
January 31st, 2013, 09:09 PM
Ubuntu will not be switching to a ‘Rolling Release’ model anytime soon, despite recent reports to the contrary.http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/01/ubuntu-not-switching-to-rolling-release-model
I don't think anyone noticed this. They're not switching anytime soon.

They are putting the pieces in place so it will be easier to switch if they ever decide to, though. I kind of wish they'd go ahead and do it.

mamamia88
January 31st, 2013, 09:35 PM
I'd have to half-disagree with that statement. If the kernel I'm using now has full support for my hardware, and my hardware hasn't changed, then why do I need a newer kernel that might, for example, break my video drivers? Distros that provide a very stable older kernel (Red Hat, CentOS, Debian, Ubuntu LTS) have a huge market share, contradicting the "no one" part of your statement.

(All supported Ubuntu releases get updated Firefox, so that's a non-issue.)

I couldn't care less what kernel my computer is using as long as it works. As far as firefox goes yes i want the latest version. So I'm using debian stable and I just downloaded firefox extracted it to my home folder and and created a launcher to firefox-bin. There are 2 programs on my computer that I care to have the most recent version of. 1 is firefox and the other i use git for. All the dependencies are taken care of by apt so all i have to do is run git pull occasionally. And git provides me with an rss feed for recent commits so when i see one show up in google reader then i just run git pull. I want a stable base with relatively up to date end user apps. With wheezy i get exactly that.

kansasnoob
January 31st, 2013, 09:41 PM
One of those 'anything could happen in the next half hour things perhaps'.

Canonical might dump interim releases by 14.04, switch to rolling releases (http://www.extremetech.com/computing/146442-canonical-might-dump-interim-releases-by-14-04-switching-to-rolling-releases)

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/01/ubuntu-considers-huge-change-that-would-end-traditional-release-cycle/

The hangout is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AQvOIExkCaw

Hey Elfy, would you like to update your OP with this info:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=12483583&postcount=74

Tibuda
January 31st, 2013, 10:08 PM
I'm ok with "stable as in old" packages for the core system, but rolling release applications is a must imho.

santosh83
February 1st, 2013, 08:30 AM
I couldn't care less what kernel my computer is using as long as it works. As far as firefox goes yes i want the latest version. So I'm using debian stable and I just downloaded firefox extracted it to my home folder and and created a launcher to firefox-bin. There are 2 programs on my computer that I care to have the most recent version of. 1 is firefox and the other i use git for. All the dependencies are taken care of by apt so all i have to do is run git pull occasionally. And git provides me with an rss feed for recent commits so when i see one show up in google reader then i just run git pull. I want a stable base with relatively up to date end user apps. With wheezy i get exactly that.

Hi mamamia88, how good is the Debian backports repository for this, i.e., having the latest Firefox plus few other programs? Are they tracking upstream closely?

snowpine
February 1st, 2013, 03:08 PM
Hi mamamia88, how good is the Debian backports repository for this, i.e., having the latest Firefox plus few other programs? Are they tracking upstream closely?

For Debian, there is the Mozilla repository with your choice of several different Iceweasels (the Debian name for Firefox), ranging from ESR to release to latest beta, depending on your needs.

http://mozilla.debian.net/

santosh83
February 2nd, 2013, 02:26 PM
For Debian, there is the Mozilla repository with your choice of several different Iceweasels (the Debian name for Firefox), ranging from ESR to release to latest beta, depending on your needs.

http://mozilla.debian.net/

Thanks!

Hmm squeeze-backports lists IceWeasel at version 10.012, while we're now at 18.0. :-) But I guess the link you provided takes care of that.

In spite of the backports service I get the feeling that testing is the way to go for anyone who wants to keep up to date on Debian. :-)

snowpine
February 2nd, 2013, 02:56 PM
Thanks!

Hmm squeeze-backports lists IceWeasel at version 10.012, while we're now at 18.0. :-) But I guess the link you provided takes care of that.

In spite of the backports service I get the feeling that testing is the way to go for anyone who wants to keep up to date on Debian. :-)

Iceweasel 10 is the "extended support release," absolutely the perfect choice for a "stable" release.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/

Testing is the way to go for anyone who enjoys testing & reporting bugs to make Debian stable the most stable release in the land.

llanitedave
February 2nd, 2013, 06:37 PM
There is no need to reinstall Ubuntu, ever. Release upgrades are a 100% recommended and supported, easy 3-step process. See here: http://www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/upgrade

They simply aren't reliable. I've had horrible luck with release upgrades, the most recent being Ubuntu 21.10 which rendered my system inoperable. That's why I switched to Xubuntu, but even there, based on past experience, I'm unlikely to upgrade without doing a re-install. It's just too risky.

mamamia88
February 3rd, 2013, 02:42 PM
Hi mamamia88, how good is the Debian backports repository for this, i.e., having the latest Firefox plus few other programs? Are they tracking upstream closely?

Don't know don't use it. I just download the latest firefox from mozilla website and extract it to my home folder. There is a binary file included that runs firefox so no need to install it. I just create a menu entry for it in xfce. I just do help>about Firefox occasionally and it will check for updates. The only other 2 programs I want the latest version of the dependencies are taken care of in the repos and their home pages provide downloads of binary files that don't need to be installed just run. I place them somewhere like a hidden home folder folder and create menu entries in xfce. I'm notified by rss when a new version is available. It's really not that hard.

snowpine
February 3rd, 2013, 02:49 PM
They simply aren't reliable. I've had horrible luck with release upgrades, the most recent being Ubuntu 21.10 which rendered my system inoperable. That's why I switched to Xubuntu, but even there, based on past experience, I'm unlikely to upgrade without doing a re-install. It's just too risky.

For me, personally, if a mission-critical component of the distribution (the update manager) was as buggy as you say, that would be a sign it's time to switch distros. :)

mamamia88
February 3rd, 2013, 02:57 PM
For me, personally, if a mission-critical component of the distribution (the update manager) was as buggy as you say, that would be a sign it's time to switch distros. :)

It's just one mans opinion but when you have something that has massive changes once every 6 months versus continual changes constantly it's more is likely to go wrong and it's harder to diagnose what did go wrong since there is so much changing all at once.

mr john
February 3rd, 2013, 11:26 PM
Why update the whole OS on every machine every 6 months to get the latest applications?

santosh83
February 4th, 2013, 02:54 PM
Why update the whole OS on every machine every 6 months to get the latest applications?

Short answer is because that's how Canonical currently does their development.

Note that, practically speaking you don't need to normally update every six months. More like once a year will suffice to retain the latest versions of nearly all your applications.

Have a look at OpenSUSE Tumbleweed, LMDE, Arch, Debian testing/unstable, aptosid for examples of rolling-release distributions. There are many others.

Beardedturtle
February 5th, 2013, 12:30 AM
http://pcworld.co.nz/pcworld/pcw.nsf/news/ubuntu-may-abandon-six-monthly-release-cycle

TOMBSTONEV2
February 5th, 2013, 01:20 AM
I do believe that would be a splendid idea indeed.

kansasnoob
February 5th, 2013, 01:29 AM
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/01/ubuntu-not-switching-to-rolling-release-model

REPEAT (http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=12483583&postcount=74): not happening anytime soon:

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2013/01/ubuntu-not-switching-to-rolling-release-model

mamamia88
February 5th, 2013, 04:40 AM
Everybody wants rolling releases in theory. I personally would settle for longer release cycles with more noticeable changes between releases. And if I could always have the latest version of end user applications no matter what release i'm using that would be great. I don't see why you should have to upgrade the entire os just to have the latest version of applications. Keep mission critical stuff static but keep stuff like firefox always up to date. Heck it doesn't even have to be 100% up to date you can have a testing repo like in arch and if an application makes it two weeks or so without incident push it to everyone. And come up with an easy to use package rollback system and it's almost perfect. If my browser has a minor annoying bug i'll live with it but if xorg breaks there goes my entire day. I don't believe that there has to be a compromise between having a stable system and having new versions of end user applications.

llanitedave
February 5th, 2013, 06:24 AM
For me, personally, if a mission-critical component of the distribution (the update manager) was as buggy as you say, that would be a sign it's time to switch distros. :)

How do I know the other distros don't have the same problems? That would be chasing my tail.

For me, doing an occasional installation isn't that high a price to pay.

mikodo
February 5th, 2013, 06:44 AM
I like mamamia88's suggestions.

For now, I use LTS releases with backports and PPA's for the apps I want current, when I can. Ubuntu is great for that.


;p

Alex.Han
February 5th, 2013, 07:52 AM
Using windows OS most at work, didn't have any sense about rolling releases. Looking at the post through the links above, seems it has much more advantages over disadvantages.
Hope it to be applied.

BrokenKingpin
February 5th, 2013, 04:54 PM
I like the idea of having an yearly release, that still provides updates to user packages throughout the year, but the core system stays stable.

I have used a few rolling release distros, and it is great not having to re-install or do a huge upgrade every 6 months, but things tend to break, and you end up having to re-install anyways lol.

If they can keep it stable and be a rolling release that would be great, but I can't see it. They would end up having a rolling release on a separate branch, and still have to provide the 6 months release for people and companies that need a stable desktop OS.

snowpine
February 5th, 2013, 04:58 PM
People tend to over-estimate the demand for rolling-release distros, but the fact is that stable-release distros (Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Slackware, Red Hat, CentOS, etc.) are consistently more popular by a wide margin (especially at the "enterprise" level). Most users who think they want rolling release would in truth be better served by LTS plus a few PPA's for their most-used applications, IMNSHO.

Erik1984
February 5th, 2013, 05:16 PM
People tend to over-estimate the demand for rolling-release distros, but the fact is that stable-release distros (Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, Slackware, Red Hat, CentOS, etc.) are consistently more popular by a wide margin (especially at the "enterprise" level). Most users who think they want rolling release would in truth be better served by LTS plus a few PPA's for their most-used applications, IMNSHO.

+1

I don't think much people care for bleeding edge gedit, gnome-terminal and cowsay :p

linuxpcplus
February 13th, 2013, 01:04 AM
If you are truly interested in a Rolling Release Ubuntu Distro, check out our website at http://linuxpcplus.com. Read the new article that was just placed on the homepage, then join the related forum if you want to help shape this distro. http://linuxpcplus.com/forum/forum/worlds-first-ubuntu-based-rolling-release/

Yash Pal
February 20th, 2013, 04:38 PM
It is a capital idea to make Ubuntu a rolling release.

Now that Ubuntu for tablets is also announced, an Ubuntu user would naturally like to have seamless integration among her PC, Tablet, Smartphone, Ubuntu TV and any other gadgets running on Ubuntu. It would be the most unkindest cut of all to ask every user to download/ upgrade the version every 6 months to stay abreast of the distribution.

Almost 90% of people who read this will say that I should download the latest application from the site of the application and install it. I am a non IT fellow and have so far failed to install the applications (except from the repositores) or come to grief because the application either won't run or shutdown the OS or the OS and application behave in weird ways. If Ubuntu is to have a wider user base, the new users would be like me, non IT chaps and the OS and the applications would have to be tailored accordingly.

It would be far more sensible to upgrade the applications in the repositories/ Software centre so that the user can have the latest applications. By the way, the concept of repositories is now being implemented by other OSs.The OS can be revised at leisure (ie not in a tearing hurry) and a new version released after 2-3 years with substantial improvements and stability. Linux is inherently stable, has multiuser and multitasking ability.

Firefox 5 was released in June 2011; Firefox 18 was released in January 2013; Firefox 19 is just released. The browser was automatically upgraded to the latest versions by firefox. Something similar would have to be done for other applications like Libre Office, Gimp etc.

Microsoft also releases its version of OS after a considerable period generally. The applications released even after release of new version run on the earlier OS. For example, Photoshop CS5 can run on Windows XP. A similar compatibility may have to be built in. BSD release a new version only when there are substantial improvements and after thorough testing. (their user base is different)

A 6 month release cycle is arbitrarily fixed. Why not 9 months; why not 12 months? Just because some OSs have a 6 month release cycle, it does not mean that Ubuntu should also follow it, come hell or high water.

In short, I feel a rolling-release is what the doctor ordered for Ubuntu to become mainstream.