PDA

View Full Version : Edgy is NOT an LTS (Long Term Support) version!



handy
October 30th, 2006, 03:00 AM
I believe that Edgy is the first of four releases, the fourth being the replacement for Dapper the current LTS version of Ubuntu.

I don't know if this is well understood by the Ubuntu (nor possibly the rest of the Linux) community.

Dapper LTS is the stable one. Edgy is the start of developing the NEXT stable one due in approx' 18 months time.

I think that this development cycle should be made more apparent by the Ubuntu management team.

A lot of the problems that people are having are due to misconceptions about what Edgy actually is.

Edgy is NOT a replacement for Dapper it is 1/4 of THE replacement for Dapper LTS.

Knowing that, install & tinker at your own risk, & have fun knowing that you are on the Ubuntu cutting Edge :KS

Don't cry about it not working, be prepared to wait a while, or if that is not possible dual boot Dapper, if that's not effective for you then dual boot ******* or OS-X if you must.

Edgy is not for all hardware.

reyfer
October 30th, 2006, 03:46 AM
I think it is you who don't understand. The title to the thread is right, your explanation is not.

Yes, Edgy is not an LTS version. But it is a STABLE version. Only difference is the extension of the support.
From Edgy's release notes:


Ubuntu 6.10 will be supported for 18 months on both desktops and
servers. Note that the previous stable release (6.06 LTS) is a
long-term support release, and so users requiring a longer support
lifetime may choose to continue using that version rather than upgrade
to or install 6.10.

DarkN00b
October 30th, 2006, 04:48 AM
I thought this was evident in the name. Edgy Eft as opposed to Edgy Eft LTS.

goldenatom
October 30th, 2006, 04:56 AM
Are the LTS versions planned as suggested in the first post, the next one coming 18 months from now?

bobpaul
October 30th, 2006, 05:17 AM
Are the LTS versions planned as suggested in the first post, the next one coming 18 months from now?

LTS releases will probably be every 3 or 4 releases, but AFAIK no official announcement has been made. Normal releases are supported for 18 months, LTS releases are supported for 5 years. Once a new release comes out, "support" means security fixes. Every release is intended to be stable. The idea behind LTS is that some users (IE, Enterprise users with IT staff) don't want to be forced to upgrade the OS on all of their machines every 18 months.

As an IT guy, I appreciate this and use Dapper at work. My home machine is Edgy.

handy
October 30th, 2006, 05:20 AM
Edgy is the start of a new stream, culminating in an LTS. Then the same development cycle starts again.

davarino
October 30th, 2006, 05:27 AM
Yes, yes. It's not a long term support version... it's only going to be supported for 18 months. Wasn't that the general rule for all versions before 6.06?

handy: I agree with you that Ubuntu management should be much clearer about what they mean by long term support. It's clear that even we don't agree on the expectations: many of us expect the non-LTS not to be stabile, many of us do. (Ubuntu Central states Edgy is "stabile", but never really says what that means. Clearly, there are more than 400 would-be upgraders who would vocally deny any stability at all in Edgy.)

What I find most distressing about the present debacle (as I conceive it) is that Ubuntu Central released a clearly deficient package with words of pure light and joy, and nary a syllable of caveats (http://www.ubuntu.com/news/610released).

We expect Ubuntu to be honest, not just optimistically marketed.

MiThRaZoR
October 30th, 2006, 05:29 AM
Thanks for explaining that. I really wanted to get the bugs fixed on this 6.10 but I'll just stick with 6.06 for right now.

Neobuntu
October 30th, 2006, 05:51 AM
Oh come on guys. ](*,) If a "release" is not stable, then we'd might as well run Debian Testing. For me, the whole deal with Kubuntu is, new and real benefits; stabilized. Some post updates expected.

Why not stabilize each release and for that matter, stabilize the release and online upgrade BEFORE releasing it; as best we can? Is this not the goal?

We need to retain a level that JUST WORKS! I believe the population at large is rigidly propagandized into the idea that all things Linux doesn't just work. I think Dapper proves that wrong. Shouldn't the new releases improve this user ease (time saving) factor; no matter how aggressive/progressive?

P.S. Stabilize. Otherwise it is not a "release" but a release candidate in testing.

P.S.S Nothing just works perfectly but it's a standard of excellence that's a cut above the rest and known as the best. The competition stinks. Certainly we can stay ahead of that. Leave NO comparable benefit behind!

handy
October 30th, 2006, 08:05 AM
What I find most distressing about the present debacle (as I conceive it) is that Ubuntu Central released a clearly deficient package with words of pure light and joy, and nary a syllable of caveats (http://www.ubuntu.com/news/610released).

We expect Ubuntu to be honest, not just optimistically marketed.


Yes, I agree with you that the Edgy release blurb from Canonical, titled:

Canonical Launches New Ubuntu Release for Desktops and Servers (http://www.ubuntu.com/news/610released)

Is unrealistic marketing spin.

The release declaration should have honestly put Edgy in it's place, describing the development cycle & explaining what using all these cutting edge softwares means to stability across the wide range of hardware that exists today.

aysiu
October 30th, 2006, 08:09 AM
From Ubuntu.com's download page:
Choosing an Ubuntu Release

There are now two versions of Ubuntu, choose which is best for you:

*

Ubuntu 6.10, the newest Ubuntu release: If you would like to benefit from the latest Ubuntu features, this is the release for you
*

Ubuntu 6.06 LTS, Ubuntu with long-term support: Choose this to benefit from the long support life-cycle of the 6.06 LTS release. This version is supported for 3 years on the desktop and 5 years on servers. By the way, Edgy's working just fine for me--it's perfectly stable.

tenn
October 30th, 2006, 08:26 AM
How is it that they call one version LTS and now all the others are unstable?

yalding
October 30th, 2006, 08:36 AM
It is a release, I expect it is stable.

yalding
October 30th, 2006, 08:37 AM
From Ubuntu.com's download page: By the way, Edgy's working just fine for me--it's perfectly stable.
It works prefect for you does not mean it is STABLE. It means you are LUCKY.

handy
October 30th, 2006, 09:10 AM
Personally I am quite happy with Edgy, it works almost perfectly for me & is stable.

What I'm not happy about is the one sided (marketing) lack of technical information from Canonical in their release statement for Edgy. Many brand new users would google up Ubuntu & find that page (http://www.ubuntu.com/news/610released), before the very next one, which would be the download links.

I think that it would be very helpful to user's especially, (certainly not only) those new to Ubuntu, to get more than marketing talk when a new release is announced. To at least have an easily seen link to a page offering lots of honest details of the release, including; the Ubuntu development cycle, somewhat detailed suggestions on which release suits what type of usage & why, known problems & best guess prognosis...

Often unfortunately the marketing & technical departments of a project are isolated = poor communication.

I don't know if that is the cause of the one sided release statement or not?

Archmage
October 30th, 2006, 10:11 AM
How is it that they call one version LTS and now all the others are unstable?

LTS will provide you three years with patches for the desktop and five years with patches for the server.

All non-LTS-version will provide you only with 18 months of patches. You should upgrade before you wont get anymore patches.

LTS has been build with stability in mind, while the other version focus on new features.

Although Edgy is also stable most of the time. ;)

tenn
October 30th, 2006, 10:27 AM
"Ubuntu 6.10, the newest Ubuntu release: If you would like to benefit from the latest Ubuntu features, this is the release for you

Ubuntu 6.06 LTS, Ubuntu with long-term support: Choose this to benefit from the long support life-cycle of the 6.06 LTS release. This version is supported for 3 years on the desktop and 5 years on servers."

Show me where Ubuntu have said we built 6.06 with extra care and is more stable.
It simply has a longer support period that would be useful in certain situations.
6.10 has the latest which is also useful in certain situations, if people want to say that one is more stable than the other it is only there opinion and is not based on any real facts other than the fact that one is SUPPORTED for longer than the other SUPPORTED not built better.

handy
October 30th, 2006, 10:52 AM
Cutting edge often means software that is still in beta... Or so fresh a version like Firefox 2.0, that bugs are expected.

yalding
October 30th, 2006, 12:21 PM
Cutting edge often means software that is still in beta... Or so fresh a version like Firefox 2.0, that bugs are expected.
After months' of "beta" and "RC"s, finally we are presented with the release that "is still in beta".

Edgy should be not released like this in the first place. Just name it as "beta", I wont upgrade my production machine then.

PS: "Edgy" really means "cutting edge"?

nocturn
October 30th, 2006, 12:27 PM
After months' of "beta" and "RC"s, finally we are presented with the release that "is still in beta".

Edgy should be not released like this in the first place. Just name it as "beta", I wont upgrade my production machine then.

PS: "Edgy" really means "cutting edge"?

Yes, it means cutting edge.

Paul Dufresne
October 30th, 2006, 05:14 PM
Sure Edgy is stable, since it is not possible to update package
anymore for it. ;)

As I write this, there is 17832 open bugs for Ubuntu.
I have no easy way, to know which are for Dapper or Edgy, or before.
There was about 17500 at release time.
This number is without counting duplicates.

I guess, this only shows that there is not enough resources to work
on all the bugs. So they continue to accumulate. Only Critical ones,
being able to delay the release.

Mostly, only security issues will go back in 6.06 and 6.10 now.
For most people, this would not make it more 'stable'.
Just means the box is less likely to be 'contaminated' by a cracker.
<Edit on>I just realized that it is a bit more than security issues:

Bugs which may, under realistic circumstances, directly cause a security vulnerability
Bugs which represent severe regressions from the previous release of Ubuntu
Bugs which may, under realistic circumstances, directly cause a loss of user data

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/StableReleaseUpdates
<Edit off>


Point release, like 6.06.1, is probably more what we expect for adding
some 'stability', but it is considered very ressource-hungry, diverting
lots a good talented developpers from working on next release.

I almost would wish, we make a bug squashing release, without any new specifications. But for now, all the energy is at choosing which specifications will be chosen for next release.

handy
October 31st, 2006, 03:04 AM
The reason I started this thread is not about bugs in the software, it is about bugs in Canonical.

Marketing spin (http://www.ubuntu.com/news/610released), dramatically erodes confidence in the credibility of an organization, as perceived by those that see through the spin!

In the instance of Canonical, we have a practical technological product in Ubuntu, the performance of which is judged by every user from when they turn on their computer to when the user turns it off. There is no room for spin!

If Canonical, in their release statement had talked about Edgy's position in the development cycle in relation to the Dapper LTS release, making it clear that Edgy is cutting edge, incorporating beta & brand new .0 release software, explaining that bugs are inevitable, & that all hardware combinations won't work, bringing a little of the hardware manufacturer's closed source ******* centric bias into the topic. This would go a long way towards squashing a large percentage of unrealistic expectations for Edgy, or whatever version's release.

To my mind this honest, informative, helpful way of releasing an OS could only be good for Canonical, Ubuntu, the Forums & especially the user's.

Dashed expectations make unhappy users.

Spin begets spin.

[Edit:] I've said the same thing too many times, I'll be quiet now. :rolleyes:

handy
October 31st, 2006, 05:23 AM
"Ubuntu 6.10, the newest Ubuntu release: If you would like to benefit from the latest Ubuntu features, this is the release for you

Ubuntu 6.06 LTS, Ubuntu with long-term support: Choose this to benefit from the long support life-cycle of the 6.06 LTS release. This version is supported for 3 years on the desktop and 5 years on servers."

Show me where Ubuntu have said we built 6.06 with extra care and is more stable.
It simply has a longer support period that would be useful in certain situations.
6.10 has the latest which is also useful in certain situations, if people want to say that one is more stable than the other it is only there opinion and is not based on any real facts other than the fact that one is SUPPORTED for longer than the other SUPPORTED not built better.

Sorry for the delay, the following is from this page at ubuntu.com (http://www.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/releases) referring to the LTS version of Ubuntu (currently Dapper). The emphasis is mine:

Quote:

Enterprise releases

In addition to the regular six-monthly releases, the Ubuntu team may make an Enterprise Release (based on an existing time-based release) that has received additional stabilisation, polish and translation work. These Enterprise Releases will be supported for a longer period than the standard 18 month support of the time based releases. Upgrades will be supported from enterprise release to enterprise release.

/Quote

jgcamp99
October 31st, 2006, 06:17 AM
Linux by it's very nature is not LTS, Dapper out in June 2006, here it is 5 months later October/Novenber 2006 as Edgy with a new kernel, new gnome, new Evolution. My impression was that as Vista draws nearer, Edgy and it's updates are to get Ubuntu Linux to the 3d desktop level that can compete with Vista in that regard.

Edgy is turbulent for sure, I don't think the dust will ever settle on it and never will be Dapperesque in that regard. Besides, as I understand it Edgy will give way to Feisty Fawn Leibowitz or whatever the next name for Ubuntu is. From any indication from the wiki, April 2007 is it's release date.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DevelopmentCodeNames

BTW, some of these names are ridiculous, Ubuntu wants to take themselves seriously, some of this stupidity in codenames has got to be nipped in the bud. Don't encourage this silly nomenclature.

linuxnomad
October 31st, 2006, 06:20 AM
I find nothing wrong with Canonical's spin on there releases. They have always stated that the newest release is a stable release. As far as I know and as long as I have been using Ubuntu, since Hoary, at release we have always had the cutting edge software available before the software freeze stage of development. I find a few things annoying about Edgy but I have found no bugs or any issues after my upgrade from Dapper. I had some concerns about the upgrade messing up some programs not in the regular repositories, but everything worked out great. I will say Edgy for me was the easiest to upgrade to and the most trouble free. It took me 4 weeks to straighten out Dapper after it was released. Only thing I had to do in Edgy to get it working the way I wanted it was remove the Totem plugin for Firefox which also removed the Ubuntu-desktop. I don't like that Ubuntu is using the Totem plugin when gstreamer doesn't support all the codecs yet.

Ok I rambled a little, just wanted to let you know I see nothing wrong with Canoncial they are treating Edgy just like they have every other release. In my opinion Dapper had a lot more problems when it was released.

Matt

jgcamp99
October 31st, 2006, 06:39 AM
The more I look at it, the System Monitor for the cpu load has to be broken. Reason I say that, when the panel display is moused over, the graph for cpu usage is all over the place from 12-100 %. Several mouse overs and I get readings of:

14 %, 23 %, 88 %, 100 %, 50 %, 29 % and you get the picture, the thing is I'm typing this post with only Firefox open.

Now, go into the System monitor and watch all processes, there are really only 3 that are firing off with cpu usage and combined % ranges from 12-23 %.

handy
October 31st, 2006, 08:17 AM
@linuxnomad, I am grateful to Canonical, I love Ubuntu, & Edgy is fine by me. :KS

I can see that more information available on Ubuntu Central's web site, would be of great benefit to new users, up-graders & old hands alike. This information would save a great deal of stress & wasted time for user's that would have made different choices had they had access to more detailed information than the glossy unrealistic all positive marketing spin.

Having been more fully informed & still going ahead with the installation or upgrade & then finding that it is not satisfactory due to a hardware incompatibility or whatever; you can try Dapper, or go back to it, or something else, BUT not go feeling like you have been a victim, because it was your informed choice.

Even if a user leaves after trying an installation, or a potential user after reading details that make it clear that there probably isn't a version for them yet. Those people are far more likely to leave with respect for Ubuntu, for Canonical, due to having been shown respect themselves. They don't leave feeling frustrated & that they have been taken advantage of & tricked by marketroids again! (http://www.ubuntu.com/news/610released) Everyone dislikes having their time wasted & computers have that ability in spades.

So, these potential Ubuntu community members, will very likely keep an eye on the 6 month timed releases, looking forward to the day when they too can use this magnificent OS.

There would be a much smaller chance that these people will go out bad mouthing something that they don't really know about. Quite the contrary I would think! :)

davarino
October 31st, 2006, 06:22 PM
(especially to handy)

Your concerns about Ubuntu (and Canonical?) having "oversold" Edgy are precisely mine.

I really like *buntu (K, Edu, X, or vanilla)! It's an exciting and useful alternative not only to the Window$ "we know what you need" approach, but also to the übertechie approach so common in the *n*x world.

What I'm finding "picyoolyar" though is that


I haven't seen anyone from the high-ups coming out with a statement (especially on the fora) such as "We have seen that there is quite a bit of dissatisfation..." - although there have been some higher-ups saying "please don't bother us with anything other than bug reports"
There has not been any change in the promotion on the "marketing spin" page (http://www.ubuntu.com/news/610released)


Are the high-ups listening? I imagine so. But I have no proof.

So far there has been no official acknowledgement at all that the marketing of this release has been nothing less than a botched boob job. There is too much hype in the marketing of the "great release in its own right"... without a word of mention that "if you don't want to take a chance on gorking your computer you should stick with Dapper". Not a word was said in the news release about 6.06.

This is lamentable, especially when we get the other message that "Ubuntu means community, respect, candor..."

Because there is no official response to the widespread dissatisfation of the "oversold" users (especially the new users - the prize plum!), it appears that there is no effort underway to fix the technical concerns.

After all, acknowledging a marketing mistake retains credibility and explains the existance of tech problems ("this was really supposed to be a beta" can dispell a lot of dissatisfaction)... whilst being quiet is, simply, hiding.

The appearance that "nothing is going on" is faulty, but cowardice (yes, I mean that word) from Ubuntu marketing is going to perpetuate the appearance.

Let someone step up to the plate and say, "We hear you! We messed up by implying that this release is 'ready for primetime'." And let the oversell cease.

Neobuntu
November 1st, 2006, 05:37 PM
I do not want to hear that I'm just being negative; because I know I'm one of the biggest Kubuntu supporters on the planet else I wouldn't even try to write this.

I do not want to here how "Edgy" is supposed to be broken and I should have known by the name. Don't tell me(us) to stay with Dapper! Why? Because THAT is what has been holding open software back in the eyes of computer users at large. This is Debian's problem. "We have great new stuff but it's broken." Thus, no mater how you present it, unless fixed right now, this is a MAJOR open software set back. People simply do not have the time for this troublesome crap. Time being THE most important issue.

When I heard about Edgy and pushing the envelop, I thought well of it and said it will be nice to see expected progression but stabilized under Ubuntu before release. Minor and fixable problems were somewhat expected. BUT NOT LIKE THIS! Well now I think we have completely turned our collective backs on new users, converts and our non-technical users. I now see that I'm not alone in my struggles with Edgy.

Let me attempt to cut to the chase. Even with much to say.

If Ubuntu (and official derivatives namely Kubuntu) can not stand as mainly stable or at least extreamly and quickly repaired then it has lost it's place in open software history.

Excuse me but even though I have managed to get Edgy up on one box (another still working) it is strikingly clear to me that newbies are toast. I know they will not stand for this.

I recommend Kubuntu to "real people" daily and now I am embarrassed.

So on a positive note. MAJOR damage control and much honest clarification must be job one and this in an attempt to get somewhat back where we were with Dapper. I mean Dapper wasn't perfect (nothing is) but at least it was overall better than XP.

Don't get me wrong. Faster booting (which is still not hitting the mark) is EXCELLENT and I realize this was a major change. THAT seems to be working and it could have been a nightmare. Kudos on that but what happened to the basics?

Why isn't the "official" upgrade method working? Why was this "released" and not called a pre-release? Why are we hidding behind the "edgy" name? Where is the clarification about the goal of stable or not? Why doesn't the recommended upgrade, off-line from the alternate CD work? Why has all this download bandwidth been wasted because people are having to try multiple ways (downloading) and trying other methods?

What has happened to my Kubuntu? Someone asleep at the wheel had better wake up and react quickly. I hate to say it but this is management issue.

How and why would we go this way?

Klaidas
November 1st, 2006, 06:11 PM
I myself did have problems upgrading, but he's got a point...
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/28/239258

DoctorMO
November 1st, 2006, 06:15 PM
Excuse me

Nope, your a user not a doer. wrong os.

handy
November 1st, 2006, 06:25 PM
Ah! There is of course that thing that we all forgot to look at:

THE BIG PICTURE

This is not as silly as it may sound. Those that do have the weighty responsibility of steering the good ship Ubuntu, have to deal with the chop, rips, tides & dumpers, & still manage to keep to the course that they have plotted.

I don't envy them their task...

Once again I do give thanks to the captain & crew.

[Edit:] Ok, I have to say that I do believe that there is an absolutely HUGE amount of work going on right now, 24 hours a day on the wireless networking problem, & what ever other primary problems that have been a feed back to the developers.

No way in the world do I see, or would I ever expect complacency from the wonderful team that brings us the OS that many of us spend all our waking ours involved in.

sloggerkhan
November 1st, 2006, 06:41 PM
I'm sorry, but Edgy is a mess, even for a beta release.
Point number 1: The install CD DOES NOT SEEM TO WORK on any computer running an ATI card. Stupid.
Point number 2: If it's meant to be unstable, WHY is it advertised on the main site?

der_joachim
November 1st, 2006, 07:22 PM
I do not want to here how "Edgy" is supposed to be broken and I should have known by the name. Don't tell me(us) to stay with Dapper! Why? Because THAT is what has been holding open software back in the eyes of computer users at large.

I still recommend Dapper to newbies. How is recommending a four month old distro holding open software back? You do have some points about the broken upgrade cycle, but I do not understand your point above...

aysiu
November 1st, 2006, 07:42 PM
No reason to have two of these threads running around at the same time--merged and moved to the Cafe.

NiceGuy
November 1st, 2006, 07:57 PM
****Originally at Neobuntu's post - Aysui moved the thread from under me :P

Well I must say all this seems a little unfair on edgy. I was, and I thought everybody was, aware that edgy was going to be... well edgy. In other words not as stable and finished as dapper is/was. Major changes have happened 'under the hood' and to problems were anticipated.

That said, with a fresh install, edgy seems to be working great for the vast majority of users (well all the users I've spoken to and on all my machines). The ubuntu team have surpassed themselves there.

Upgrades are a different matter, but then they ARE a different matter. Upgrading ANY software is always a bit of a risk when compared to removing and reinstalling and when you consider how complicated an OS is... well it's something that I personally avoid at all costs. Ever tried 'upgrading' a Microsoft OS? Nightmare!](*,) I've even had problems with OSX (although they seem to be able to do it the best - *probably becuase checks are run before update is done to ensure that it will go properly, if not it just won't do it... which is a pain but I'd rather know it wasn't going to work than find out the hard way!).

From what I've heard, upgrading from breezy to dapper generally went smoothly (and kudos to the ubuntu team again) but I suspect this is a bit of an anomaly NOT the norm. For no one to have any problems upgrading then a lot more time would have to be put into testing (as it was on dapper) and the release cycle would have to be longer and which, I feel, is not in the best interests of ubuntu (One of the reasons ubuntu is so popular is becuase it has a much shorter release cycle than most other OS's).


In all honesty I would suggest that if you want to upgrade the OS as apposed to re-install then do it between stable (LTS) versions. But even then I would hasten to add that its better you wipe and re-install.;)


*this is a complete guess based on my limited experience of upgrading the OS on a Mac.

John.Michael.Kane
November 1st, 2006, 08:23 PM
Handy we do have post letting new users know that edgy is not for faint of heart.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=286209

sas
November 1st, 2006, 08:44 PM
Edgy is a stable, supportable release. It is not broken by design. It was called edgy because big ground breaking changes were to be made, not because ubuntu-devel expected it to be broken.

There are more update problems this time around because more and more people are using Ubuntu, and more and more people are using 3rd party repositories, self compiled programs and other unsupported customisations. The update-manager attempts to work around these as best it can, but it'll never be able to hit 100% of cases.

Funnily enough it'll probably be new users who have the least problems - they haven't got all of these customisations enabled.

Old Pink
November 1st, 2006, 08:47 PM
What is with the random bold words every now and then?

Anyway, why do you feel the need to make a thread about this? Everyone knows Edgy Eft isn't LTS. It's public knowledge, you're not exposing any big secrets here.

hkgonra
November 1st, 2006, 08:50 PM
imho 18 months is a LONG time for a desktop version. Most people I know format/re-install every 6-12 months on the desktop.
Now for a server you should get 3-5 years without having to do that.

dca
November 1st, 2006, 09:45 PM
Forget it, I need a play-by-play. What is the actual gripe? To the best of my knowledge 6.10 is *NOT* LTS and 6.06 *IS*... That and some of the packages on 6.10 are more 'edgy', other than that I don't see any stability differences or issues... If that wasn't the case I would think they'd still be listed as RCs or Betas or *insert name here*...

...and the names Edgy Eft, Dapper Drake, now that they have a release vers# we can drop the names, I think. It puzzles me when people gripe about the pre-release names, though, I'll still refer to them as 'edgy' or 'dapper' because prior to getting a released vers# that's how they're listed and how you can track their (Canonical/Ubuntu) progress... M$ has been doing it for years, a la 'LONGHORN', along with Mac and especially Intel...

sloggerkhan
November 1st, 2006, 10:13 PM
We all know edgy isn't LTS. We all know that it's supposed to be forward looking. But it should not be advertised as a "new" "major" "improved" release if a new convert can't download a live cd and expect it to work. It should be called a transitional, semistable, or something like that. LTS means something to institutional users, not home users. To home users, Edgy Eft will appear to be the latest release, when they see "LTS" on 6.06, they will think about how some businesses still use windows 2000. Then they will wonder why the cd can't finish booting on their ATI-carded comp and give up and go around saying Linux sucks. *Regardless* of whether us insiders know that edgy is semi-unstable, newbs CLEARLY do not, and that more or less confirms that there has been missmanagement of what edgy is to the "average" home user. I guess my biggest gripe is that a major release, stable or not, should have a live CD that at least boots in safe mode on pretty much every recent computer, at least if the OS is REALLY targeted at defeating bug #1.(IMO, anyhow)


see:
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=281111

see:
https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/67487

On a positive note, at least updgrading via update manager seems to work, more or less.

aysiu
November 1st, 2006, 10:18 PM
But it should not be advertised as a "new" "major" "improved" release if a new convert can't download a live cd and expect it to work. Who says a new convert can't expect it to work? What's your sample size? What are you basing this conclusion on?

telepheedian
November 1st, 2006, 10:38 PM
The main idea of the entire "LTS" version is that businesses don't have to perform a major upgrade every six months. Simply put, it allows a business to continue to have support for ubuntu while keeping it relatively up to date. Whether the OS is free or not, a new OS rollout still costs quite a bit of time and money. On the other hand, if you go with the LTS version, you can continue to purchase support from Canonical without needing to upgrade your entire computer fleet.

sloggerkhan
November 1st, 2006, 10:39 PM
OK. So I tested the disk on all my friends' comps, and it seems like it does it with AMD+ATI and MAYBE a one nVidia card(post, though I think the behaviour was different), so I may have been a little off, but that's still a pretty large group of users.
My basis for this is testing it on about 5 comps here in the dorm and looking over the posts on that thread and the bug reports again. I guess that's not big enough, and I didn't really do any DETAILED anlysis, so it's really speculation.

But it has been confirmed as a major bug.
https://launchpad.net/distros/ubuntu/+bug/67487

daynah
November 2nd, 2006, 12:23 AM
LTS, I thought I read this in its description when Dapper came out, is for people who manage many computers (networks, schools, ect.) and don't want to have to upgrade every 6 months. That's very quick and impractical for such things.

It's not that "this" is good enough to support for a long time and "this" is not. It's that "this" is what we ARE going to support for a long time and going to continue to make updates ect. for and you can keep it if you desire, while the rest of the community moves forward.

Ubuntu is definately not like, say, FlickrGamma where the product is most definately at a finished state (uh, if you're charging, it's finished), and someone's just holding back in name so that if something flubs up "well it was just gamma!" "Well it wasn't the LTS, it wasn't the most stable version!"

That is not Ubuntu.

puppy
November 2nd, 2006, 12:51 AM
OP reminds me of people who write to our Department in green pen and put RANDOM words in capital letters - everyone downloaded Edgy knowing it wasn't going to be an LTS version for goodness sake.

It's OK I'm back from the pub and quite frankly I'm a bit p*ssed... :rolleyes:

Neobuntu
November 2nd, 2006, 05:49 AM
You said

I still recommend Dapper to newbies. How is recommending a four month old distro holding open software back? You do have some points about the broken upgrade cycle, but I do not understand your point above...

Hey, don't take my stuff out of context. I was not saying Dapper was bad. I'm saying Dapper is now old and the RELEASED replacement is broken.
I said

I do not want to here how "Edgy" is supposed to be broken and I should have known by the name. Don't tell me(us) to stay with Dapper! Why? Because THAT is what has been holding open software back in the eyes of computer users at large.

My following sentence concluded my thought; after where you quoted me.


......This is Debian's problem. "We have great new stuff but it's broken."

So, I can't be happy with Dapper because dapper does not have the new advances and I can't be happy with Edgy because it's wasting time. This is why we are all not just running Debian testing.

Let me be clear. The promise was a new release regularly, with new features and STABILIZED. Now it looks like were are hiding behind the "Edgy" word and you know what? I think that is sad.

So time will tell and history will record if these frustrations will be corrected post haste, and if they are not. Ubuntu will be passed by. Passed by "real people" that is. It's a sad situation.

BTW, I read that it's the upgrades that are broken for many so I gave up and went for a clean install. It failed. Now (as with many) all the tweaking, codec adding and all manner of custom tweaks I did are GONE! I'm not happy about this one bit. In fact if clean installing becomes the only practical way to keep up, I may as well just copy over a live CD main file to my hard drive as they are released. One file with my files saved elsewhere. I'm running one that loads into memory(given enough) now, and it's faster!

Seriously now, if Ubuntu loses it's edge like this. Somethings rotten in Denmark.

Let me explain two things. First, the technical must very graciously code for people different than them. Else Linux is for geeks only. A idea I patently reject.

Second, Ubuntu's advantage was it worked, you could customize it to YOUR needs from the large managed pool (and Automatix), you could upgrade as open software progressed AND there are no strings attached.

Now today, with edgy. That's gone. What difference does it's open nature make when Edgy (currently) doesn't work, your customizations from the excellent pool (now "edgy") are largely lost if you do a clean install and you have to step back and wait for stability. Bad. Stupid. Sad. Embarrassing. Not collaborative.

So, can we fix the problems please? I say we because one person can't do it alone. This takes all of us. We need a new fixed release far more than we did for other minor problems in the past. I hope that's in the works. I can't tell you how this is being handled at the top but users need a way over this nightmare and they need it now. I'm just saying it in hopes to clarify.

Damage control BIG TIME or all may be lost.

Neobuntu
November 2nd, 2006, 06:28 AM
No, no no. Most of you are not getting it.

First of all, this is NOT just my rant (though it would be understandable.) If this idea is not getting out and to the top; somehow, well, that is a failing of Ubuntu. I'm rarely negative as I do not want to give newbies the wrong impression. I think this problem warrants it and as you know we do not hide problems, we fix them.

The point is we are all talking out our rear when we say "Hey, it's called Edgy, so it's not as stable" and then we also say "it's just newer changes meant to be stable, that's why it's called Edgy."

WELL WHICH IS IT?

You see, it does not matter. It's not stable for the end user. Why is there terrible and multiple time wasting instability in any Ubuntu release???? Why was this released at all? I'm NOT failing to give credit for all the good new things that may make up even more than 90% of the deal as a whole but HELLO! Newbies are running for the hills and you will not get many back.

One things for sure. Don't, PLEASE don't lower the bar. Hey, it's not easy. I know that but we need new real benefits (including ALL the competition has), and better. Then we must achieve an overall (better than competition, at least) STABILITY at all times; FOR A RELEASE (not talking about beta or RC testing).

You see, go on with the new progressive changes BUT better to progress a bit slower and keep RELEASES(and their time table, which may well be the problem) largely stable. Stable as defined by user ease and time savings.

I'm trying to be a middle man for new user and uber-geek alike as that's what I do.

This whole Edgy idea (in hind site) has divided our goals and this may well be the problem. I pray we NEVER again suggest it's OK to be broken. Not in a regular UBUNTU release. You see, people are feed up with computer problems that waste their TIME! The complexities are greatly multiplied for todays (swiss army knife) software systems. People think they want one thing but we want many. So and therefore, NEVER suggest stability can slide. Even Dapper (which is the best AND stable total new system) is FAR from finished. I hope you see what I mean. We can survive by being better than the rest (and without this minimum requirement we have failed), but ubuntu (nor any OS) has achieved a total system without many maintenance headaches. Let strive for that! If we can get close to that. Then we have truly succeeded and it is excellence. State of the art.

Why can't all releases be "long term'? You do understand that even super techies benefit from time savings too, right? The bottom line is you can spend a year rolling your own or you can start with Ubuntu and you're largely done. Edgy doesn't fit right now. That's what Sid is for.

It's simple really. Edgy needs to be redone. This includes (online and CD) upgrading to Edgy from Dapper. We need a new Edgy point release. As quickly as we can get it stable and with apologies and clarification about our never ending commitment to time saving user ease.

I'm going to tell you. If this doesn't happen. Ubuntu will lose support and fall from the very finicky graces of open software advocates. Then, stick a fork in it. It will fork and It's done.

United we stand. Divided we fall.

aysiu
November 2nd, 2006, 06:33 AM
WELL WHICH IS IT?
Easy.

It's both.

It works just fine for most people. And if it doesn't work fine for you, then use Dapper.

"On the edge," means it works but you shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't.

There are plenty of people for whom it works just fine. Same thing happened when Dapper came out. People were whining left and right, "How can they call it an LTS? Dapper isn't stable!" Well, now people consider Dapper stable.

Any time you upgrade right after a release, you're opening up a can of worms.

Iandefor
November 2nd, 2006, 07:16 AM
Handy, you seem to be missing the point of things you yourself are quoting.
In addition to the regular six-monthly releases, the Ubuntu team may make an Enterprise Release (based on an existing time-based release) that has received additional stabilisation, polish and translation work. These Enterprise Releases will be supported for a longer period than the standard 18 month support of the time based releases. Upgrades will be supported from enterprise release to enterprise release.Allow me to point out that the emphasis is yours.

The statement you bolded seems to very clearly say that Enterprise/LTS releases aren't the only stable ones, but that they recieve a much higher grade of QA prior to release. That doesn't mean that everything else is just a beta for the higher QA releases- just that the releases with higher levels of QA are, naturally, to be expected to be of an even higher grade than the normal releases.

That's not to say Edgy is perfect- The fact that this was the "Brave New World" release that was intended to be bold and on-the-edge and make some pretty deep changes and also be the release that had the shortest development time of any Ubuntu release thus far had a pretty negative impact on the quality of the release.

The general rough-around-the-edges-ness of Edgy isn't related to any plan to have it be part of a "development" release cycle that will last until Edgy+3.

Neobuntu
November 2nd, 2006, 07:21 AM
Agreed, let's make it "just work".

I'm thinking though, all those nice little repair tips (which are a pisser if your system is black screened) sure would be a lot nicer as the next upgrade rolling in (I pray).

Sorry if I've been a bit negative but I've been fighting with Edgy for days now. My notebook is toast but, least you think I'm stupid, everything seems OK with Edgy on my Desktop (but it was heck getting there.) The alternate CD hasn't worked and I see MANY other with the same problems. All my clients are advised to stay on Dapper for now. They are asking why.

You know, it's like this. The thing with Ubuntu's Firefox 2.0 crashing (very, VERY, annoying) is one thing. The fix was to paste in a line in a configuation file but X down, old kernel not able to fall back, new "generic" kernel not booting, wireless down. These are the things that scare away converts.

frup
November 2nd, 2006, 09:38 AM
I must be lucky because I've had no problems with edgy. Its really fast and I like it a lot better than dapper. When I was a kid and someone gave me lollies I always said thank you, I never complained if they didn't taste good, which they always did. Free stuff always tastes better.

handy
November 2nd, 2006, 10:46 AM
I have no problem with the development cycle, I have no problem with Edgy. I just wish that there was more information about the development cycle & whatever release very available before a user chooses to download & install whatever version.

It would be nice to have information about the LTS, & the LTS in relation to whatever is the current release. So that users & especially new users were more informed & know, or have more of an idea about what they are getting into when they choose to install whatever release they choose.

The above is the point or points that matter to me, as I've said too many times already in this thread. :)

I'm sorry if some of you don't like my highlighting, I will refrain from using it in the rest of this thread, I will use it in future threads because it means something to me, & I enjoy doing it!

SD-Plissken, thank you for this link! (http://http://ubuntuforums.org/showtdevelopment cycle & whatever release & it would be nice to have hread.php?t=286209) it goes someway towards fulfilling the need in my humble opinion. There needs to be more information as per the beginning of my post, & (sorry I couldn't help myself :) ) it or something of it's kind needs to be in the downloader's face before they choose a download.

kanpachi
November 2nd, 2006, 02:55 PM
I tried to install Edgy on my Desktop
(clean install, i never upgrade cuz my /home has it's own partition) and indeed it was quicker and nicer...

but FF 2 crashed a few times and after using it like a day or two it started slowing down on a few websites, so i had to re-install Dapper and now it's works fine for me.

I don't mean to complain or anything, but it seems to me that edgy was a bit rushed, and i guess i should wait till Feisty to try and upgrade again.

I tried linux a few years ago, and it wasn't as "nice and easy" as it is today
Ubuntu has been my ONLY and MAIN os for 4-5 months now and i'm very pleased, i hate to think that Feisty might take the same road as Edgy and then i'll have to switch a distro :(

der_joachim
November 2nd, 2006, 08:09 PM
Hey, don't take my stuff out of context. I was not saying Dapper was bad. I'm saying Dapper is now old and the RELEASED replacement is broken.

4 months is not that old. Even if it were, many new Kubuntu packages such as amaroK are still being updated for Dapper.

The reason why I still recommend Dapper to newbies, is that Dapper is better suited for new users. They won't mind it being four months old. They are used to XP, which is five whopping years old! If they want to be more bleeding edge, they can always try Gentoo. :)

awakatanka
November 2nd, 2006, 10:51 PM
Funny to see people defend the bugged release. Those same people that will burn down another OS for the same thing.

They said that the users get a stable release every 6 months and it looks like its released to soon again like dapper was. Dapper had also problems on release. No word from the dev people, like another OS also does. Just ignore the problems the users have and update till its silent again.

But just hide behind the word "edgy", that will solve the problems. Our hide behind the words "its free" don't complain.

It was a 50/50 for me 1 worked the other one had troubles.

jgcamp99
November 3rd, 2006, 03:01 AM
imho 18 months is a LONG time for a desktop version. Most people I know format/re-install every 6-12 months on the desktop.
Now for a server you should get 3-5 years without having to do that.

I agree, you see the response for jumping ship on 6.06 LTS to Edgy after 4 months. From what I saw in the code names upcoming, 704 is the next version, that would be 2007, April (beginning or end) ? So that's 5-6 months away. Watch the same jump occur. Some won't do it simply because it's chasing a new OS every 6 months or they got burned. I know I'll upgrade, but it'll be a clean install. Copy all data I need as backups. Blow what I have on the hdd away where the OS is and spend a day or two installing apps and getting it back to where it needs to be. I'd be surprised if anyone was downloading or using Edgy in 18 months ? If I went to Ubuntu's website and had a choice of 6.06 or 6.10, guess what, I want the latest Ubuntu offers.

I figure the cost of the upgrade is this, the dl time for the iso (1 hr 20 minutes for me), 5 minutes burn time and 1 cdr, 20 minutes install live cdrom. I'll give it another day of downloading and installing drivers and apps that I want from the repositories. It's not going to be as quick as Windows, then again, it won't cost $ 399 either.

handy
November 4th, 2006, 08:38 AM
Funny to see people defend the bugged release. Those same people that will burn down another OS for the same thing.

They said that the users get a stable release every 6 months and it looks like its released to soon again like dapper was. Dapper had also problems on release. No word from the dev people, like another OS also does. Just ignore the problems the users have and update till its silent again.

But just hide behind the word "edgy", that will solve the problems. Our hide behind the words "its free" don't complain.

It was a 50/50 for me 1 worked the other one had troubles.

You can generalize about what people do, & be both right & wrong because of the size of your sample...

As far as the stable goes, that's another big generalization that will be both correct & incorrect due to the size of the sample...

Hide?

Once again I say, a lack of official information about the development cycle has caused people to have unrealistic expectations.

Combined with the curiosity to see what this new release is like has caused many people to upgrade.

Some are very happy, some are not, big sample again.

Is it not acceptable to have OS releases that are on the way to a future result?

Especially if there is a supported version or 2 that are considered stable by the vast majority of users?

I appreciate that the use of that word stable, would certainly irk some users.

bullgr
November 4th, 2006, 11:27 AM
can i upgrade when from dapper to the new LTS release?
or must i make a fresh install?

handy
November 4th, 2006, 02:07 PM
can i upgrade when from dapper to the new LTS release?
or must i make a fresh install?

Dapper IS the LTS release!

Check out the Live-CD before installing Edgy, it may or may not be perfect for your hardware...

So, I suggest that you download the Edgy Live-CD, & see if it fits your system ok, if yes then go for it, if not, then you have lost only some time & download megabytes...

Neobuntu
November 4th, 2006, 10:00 PM
Is there really a problem?

There darn sure has been for me!

Am I the only one?

No. This is clear in the forums.

Is this just the "whining" and first days of trouble with Edgy just like Dapper?

NO!!! I was there for Dapper and it's was NOT such a problem with basic function. Not for me and not as much reported for others.

So let's get real. We screwed up because overall Win users get to point to this as factual evidence and say, open software headaches. This is used to deter regular people (the massive general population) from trying anything new. New users are going to want the LATEST RELEASE NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY!

The repairs are coming in quickly and I hope that someone moving to Edgy or choosing Edgy for the somewhat faster new boot up, will NOT NOW see the mess that we saw in these first days. A mess that again, was NOT of this same level of trouble, with the Dapper release.

I understand some would rather keep it hush, hush and and just fix it quietly but how did this happen and what are we going to do different; in the next release? Are we really helping new uses and not just pointing them to a long list of major repairs they must tackle? Uncool.

I am one who doesn't think highly of using "beta" names for "stable" releases or putting out unstable releases. Again, I'm speaking of the basics. Such as the fall back kernel working, booting(for heavens sake), X working, wireless working and the browser working. The Live CD needs to be free of install bugs. These are things a "real people" will run for the hills from.

Largely, I think we were not clear and should never lower the bar by EXPECTING an edgy, unstable, after testing "Release" nor should we call an official STABLE release a negative name nor should we make excuses about such mistakes. Nor still, should we ever plan an official Six month release that is not stable. Nor should we over use the "LTS" term to allow instability in other Six month releases without the blessing of an "LTS" name. What games are we playing?

It's real simple. If you can't produce largely stable (including the details) Six month releases (by any name) then move a little slower with the progressive stuff. We'll still get there "fast" and we'll do it faster than the rest AND without running off our users and thus developers who facilitate this faster progression and testing WITH our rare stability; at the same time.

Don't you think Ubuntu (etc.) should have a reputation of newer, more flexible AND be kept stable too; unlike anything else? I do! In fact without this, what's different about Ubuntu?

High Roller
November 10th, 2006, 08:19 AM
During the next release cycle (after the next LTS) the first release should be listed and marketed as a "beta" if it is going to step into such bold territory as edgy has. Call a spade a spade instead of an edgy.

Patrick K.
November 10th, 2006, 08:42 AM
I'm running Edgy, despite the LTS. So far I haven't needed any support for it. Dapper doesn't have OSS for SB 24 Live, Edgy does. Upgrades are always better.

davarino
November 10th, 2006, 06:49 PM
Oh my God.

Upgrades are always better.

Oh my God.

Didn't anyone ever tell you that "always" is very loaded word? It's almost "always" hyperbole. :)

Or do you know so much that you'll volunteer to fix all the broken systems out there because they are so much better now?

handy
November 20th, 2006, 06:04 AM
Today I succumbed & took my main machine back to Dapper, where I expect to keep it for another year...

Having had a persistant keyboard & intermittent mouse problem on my main machine since installing Edgy, & having just got back into programming, they are now problems (particularly that of the keyboard) that I can no longer live with.

I'll use my second machine for experimental work in future! ;)