The Hardy Heron's road divergs into two...

[verb3k]

Hi,

I think there is a big gap between what Canonical wants Hardy to be and what the community wants it to be.

Canonical wants Hardy to be extremely stable with less features because it will be an LTS release and thus should be suitable for large corporates and serious businesses.

The community wants Hardy to be the most feature-rich ubuntu release ever since its birth, but consequently it will have some sort of instability.

If you look at the outcome of the last UDS, you'll probably know what I mean.
You should absolutely see this post:
http://www.fsckin.com/2007/10/30/in-depth-roadmap-analysis-for-ubuntu-hardy-heron-804/

I personally think a decent blend between the two approaches will be perfect.
What do you think?

Thanks in advance for participating,
verb3k

[SomeGuyDude]

I think trying to juggle LTS and more cutting edge but unstable releases is going to be problematic because it'll always disappoint someone. As an end user, I'd find Hardy disappointing if it didn't give me the most up to date everything. If I was using it for business, I'd probably want the LTS.

I think it's never a great idea to try and blend two projects. Have an LTS line, have a user line, don't try and do both in the same releases.

[Lostincyberspace]

I think that they should do hardy heron as a super stable one and Ignacius ichthyosaur (8.10) should be a super rich feature full cutting edge Ubuntu. The LTS releases are fine but I think they need to release updates every year at least.

[SunnyRabbiera]

I think its a good idea, after all the last few buntus have been a roller coaster ride for me

[X40nick]

I don't know if they should follow the Microsoft route, by releasing a Corporate version, with Office & Business apps, no codecs so no patent problems! And a Home & Personal edition, with all the great things bursting with new things that Ubuntu has never seen before.

I know Microsoft went totally wrong with the 5 versions of Vista, but maybe a Business and a Home version might be what Ubuntu needs to take off, and then they can attract more business's as there is no patent violations.

What does everybody think?

Nick.

[kamaboko]

What good is feature rich if it's unstable? I'll take stable any day over bells and whistles.

[kevdog]

I vote for stability. Gutsy is an improvement, but I wouldnt say its extremely stable. And no multiple distributions. All those things are a joke. The next LTS should always be a super stable base for the next group of beta releases.

[rune0077]

Features can always be installed and/or added by the user. Gutsy has way more features than I ever use, and they aren't doing much other than take up space on my harddrive. I'll gladly trade them in for some extra stability (especially since it seems to really need it).

[terminal]

. I dont think ubuntu should really split up . they already have a server version . Concentrate more on making server version stable and less changing ( like centos ) .. Ubuntu as desktop should be cutting edge for me :D

[Lostincyberspace]

They only really need to release server for LTS releases.

[Ripfox]

What good is feature rich if it's unstable? I'll take stable any day over bells and whistles.

Totally agree. Gutsy was ridden with problems IMHO.

[graabein]

I think they should go super safe for the LTS and try to lure in big biz and corps. Discontent users can always try other distros for six months. Then the next Ubuntu LTS +1 should keep the stability from LTS and satisfy everyone!

That's the whole idea of LTS, right?

:popcorn:

[verb3k]

I think they should go super safe for the LTS and try to lure in big biz and corps. Discontent users can always try other distros for six months. Then the next Ubuntu LTS +1 should keep the stability from LTS and satisfy everyone!

That's the whole idea of LTS, right?

:popcorn:

I agree, but it would be difficult with all those enthusiastic users and ubuntuists.
Sometimes the community beats Canonical to what they want.

[Linuxratty]

Features can always be installed and/or added by the user. Gutsy has way more features than I ever use, and they aren't doing much other than take up space on my harddrive. I'll gladly trade them in for some extra stability (especially since it seems to really need it).

As would I..I'm definitely for stability.

[verb3k]

To moderators: please correct the typo in the topic's name from "divergs" to "diverges"
Thanks

[steveneddy]

I vote for stability.

I've done the cutting edge thing since the last LTS and I think I prefer stability.

My server is on 6.06 LTS and I want that stability on my laptop.

[23meg]

The community wants Hardy to be the most feature-rich ubuntu release ever since its birth, but consequently it will have some sort of instability.

In this thread titled "Hardy Heron Expectations, Ideas? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=579394), which has 716 posts, "stability" is a winner. I'll bet that at least two thirds of the posts are concerned with stability in some way, and in most of those, people have been saying "I want stability foremost".

That may not be a good indication of "what the community wants" in general, but then you don't provide any data to back your speculation either.

In any case, it's hard to reach a definitive judgment and say "this is what the community wants".

[Arathorn]

Making Hardy the most feature rich Ubuntu of date isn't that hard. That is unless features have been taken out in the past. If that's not the case, just adding one more feature should do the trick. That being said, I think it's good to do a mostly bugfixing release every now and then even when you don't plan on offering longer support.
Just to mop up old bugs that might otherwise be forgotten, but still manage to harass a number of users.

[verb3k]

In any case, it's hard to reach a definitive judgment and say "this is what the community wants".

True, but you can still infer "what the community wants" from the last UDS, in which too many great features and changes were proposed other than stability.

[Mr. Picklesworth]

All I want at the moment is up to date Wacom drivers...

What Ubuntu could do well with is a cleverer system of driver repositories, such that I do not have to wait for Hardy just so I can play with one of those Bamboo tablets. (Installing drivers manually happens to be a major pain). Alas, those drivers are not yet in Gutsy's repositories, either...

It would be cool to see a scattered system of stable releases for different chunks of Ubuntu, blurring the lines between these solid 6 month updates. I don't much like how release announcements make a big deal about having up to date software (in contrast to new software or Ubuntu-specific solutions), and I am particularly bothered by how every release of Ubuntu seems to have at least one release candidate program, replaced only by the next release candidate six months later. That tells me something is wrong and must be addressed sooner rather than later.

In terms of what new releases should bring, I think bug fixes are more important than just the blanket-statement "stability". For example, I just learned that I cannot connect to a Bluetooth mouse due to a known bug...
Coincidentally, it happens that final releases are, 99.9% of the time, containing fewer bugs than release candidates.

I like that Hardy is shaping up as a polishing release, with lots of little adjustments to make stuff smoother and more likely to work out of the box. (Eg: Multiple monitors). I'm crossing my fingers for the .install files, as well, since that idea will make for a really smooth platform as far as externally supported software is concerned...

[zcal]

I went to Debian Etch after I got sick of Ubuntu's overload of features and ever-buggier releases. If Canonical wants to continue with its push to make an easy to use distro for the average desktop user, then they should focus on stability rather than the shiny new. If a user wants Compiz, then he'll figure out how to download it from the repos and set it up. Just keep it out of the default installation until it's stable enough not to cause problems!

Really, there's no point in running bleeding edge software if it hinders stability. Sure, there are plenty of Gentoo and Debian Sid users who love to troubleshoot, but it doesn't seem that that's the user base Ubuntu is aiming for. Stability is more important for a crowd concerned with simplicity and ease of maintenance.

I might be persuaded to go back to Ubuntu if Hardy turns out to be as stable as Dapper was for me. Then again...maybe not... I like my stripped down, GDM-free Gnome. :D (I guess that's why I'm not running Dapper right now, eh?)

[Tundro Walker]

I like the way they're doing it now.

You have your regular releases that let the dev's focus on adding more bells and whistles, then the LTS that focuses on bugs and stability. I'm sure there's a certain amount of both activities going on regardless of the release, but it's good to know that every now and then, they focus more attention on just making the current features in Ubuntu work.

I sort of agree that maybe they need to break out into a "business" version and a "home" version, where the business would get things like games and such left out. But really, it's so hard to tell what a business would and would not need...it should be up to the IT dept of a company to take the regular distro, strip out what's not needed, add what is needed, and package that as a stand-alone Ubuntu distro for its own company, much like Google did.

And so far, I've found Gutsy to be extremely reliable. I haven't had any crashes or funkiness. Wireless was a pain to get going, but other than that, the whole upgrade process was smooth and haven't had major issues. Unlike my parents Windows machine, which decided yesterday to stop acknowledging the modem...

[Bungo Pony]

I vote for stability. Simply put, if anybody wants features, they can add them.

[vishzilla]

LTS releases should be super-stable, for Businesses and Corporates, while the releases between the LTS releases should be feature rich!

[Ocxic]

stay with the norm, make 8.10 a nice stable LTS with bug fixes and such without concentrating so much on new features, this will give us a better base for 8.10 and a more stable release

[t0p]

LTS releases should be super-stable, for Businesses and Corporates, while the releases between the LTS releases should be feature rich!

I don't think Ubuntu should concentrate too much on businesses being the intended users of the LTS release. There should never be a division of Ubuntu into a "business" version and a "home" version. Lots of "home"/"personal" users want the LTS version too.

But also, Ubuntu should not stray from the path of having an LTS release every now and then, with more feature-laden releases in between. Hardy Heron must not be permitted to succumb to featuritis! After all, it won't be very long before Idiot Iguana or whatever comes out - surely the "power users" can wait till then for the bells n whistles!!

[chris4585]

What I think they should do to the next release of Ubuntu should be:

New Look, its about time for 8.04
Also as much as new look focus on the stability
Have a choice to install Compiz at the installer of Ubuntu
Make it LTS

After 8.04, 8.10 should focus on:

Driver Support
Compiz installed by default and turned on by default or have a choice of both
Easy of Use emphasized
bug fixes

Release after that:

new features and stability


I'd really love to have the choice to choose what programs to install for Advanced users, and install everything for recommended
There are alot of things i dont use on Ubuntu, one thing i dont use is the bluetooth services

&

Improve the wireless internet interface!

[kripkenstein]

In this thread titled "Hardy Heron Expectations, Ideas? (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=579394), which has 716 posts, "stability" is a winner. I'll bet that at least two thirds of the posts are concerned with stability in some way, and in most of those, people have been saying "I want stability foremost".

That may not be a good indication of "what the community wants" in general, but then you don't provide any data to back your speculation either.

In any case, it's hard to reach a definitive judgment and say "this is what the community wants".

I second this. All my impressions based on ubuntuforums indicate that 'the community' wants a stable LTS release for Hardy. Perhaps at UDS things were different, I guess these aren't the same groups of people, but of course there is some overlap I would hope :)

So, it is very hard to say what 'the community' wants, and I see no reason to think that there is any conflict with what Canonical wants.

Personally, I would be happy for a focus on stability. But just as important is to release it on time - yes, waiting 2 months for Dapper was worth it, but this both (1) made Edgy kind of short on time, and (2) gave the impression Ubuntu isn't reliable in meeting deadlines. A stable LTS released according to schedule would be the best thing Canonical can do to get more people to use Ubuntu IMHO.

[mellowd]

My ubuntu runs on a server so my choice would be for stability.

[julian67]

Canonical doesn't suggest or state that an LTS release is more/extra stable or that a non-LTS release is unstable or less stable. The difference is in the long term availability of security fixes and paid support. I'm sure when 8.04 is released we'll see the usual upgrading problems and, as always with any OS, a few unwelcome new problems.

[kjb34]

I think they should try for more stability.

[zuzuzzzip]

LTS means stability, keep it that way.

The more rich version could be 8.10

[scizzo]

Stability of course.

[julian67]

Ubuntu is based on Debian Unstable. If you need more stability use Debian Stable (Etch) or even Testing. LTS means Long Term Support, not stability.

[vishzilla]

I don't think Ubuntu should concentrate too much on businesses being the intended users of the LTS release. There should never be a division of Ubuntu into a "business" version and a "home" version. Lots of "home"/"personal" users want the LTS version too.

But also, Ubuntu should not stray from the path of having an LTS release every now and then, with more feature-laden releases in between. Hardy Heron must not be permitted to succumb to featuritis! After all, it won't be very long before Idiot Iguana or whatever comes out - surely the "power users" can wait till then for the bells n whistles!!

I wasn't taking it to that lengths. On the whole, it should be well suited for normal Desktop use with pleasing features!

[smartboyathome]

I would say the current system is good, but it could be refined more to bring in some stable updates to programs.

[rune0077]

Ubuntu is based on Debian Unstable. If you need more stability use Debian Stable (Etch) or even Testing. LTS means Long Term Support, not stability.

Ah, but couldn't they just change that to Long Term Stability? :)

[lswest]

i think what you could do would be give it 3 install options from the liveCD, "business" --> really stable selection of things for business uses (LTS), "full" -->feature-rich LTS with all the packages we've come to know and love, and then a "custom" install option for people who want to choose what exactly is installed. just my 2 cents. probably wouldnt be too hard to implement either...any ubuntu developers who read this, give it some thought ;)

[LowSky]

As someone using Hardy Heron (alpha 2), all it seems to be is gusty with some better stability with graphics drivers. Very little has change as of yet, and I am seeing some issues with Compiz and Firefox (both are newer betas) but other than those everything seems very stable. I think the goal of all the .04 releases is to be more stable versions of the last .10 release.

BTW the people over at Compiz have realized that Beryl's menu system was much better and the new menu is starting to look much easier to use. Also some old beryl features are creeping back.

I'm on the fence about the new Firefox, but it does seem to be picking up a bit more polish than before. I havent check it for memory leaks but I dont really worry about it when I have 2Gigs of RAM.

[Mad_Dawg]

If you want to expand the community, you should be asking what it is that turns people off from Ubuntu/Linux and concentrate on those items. What I find most frustrating is getting peripherals to work and installing programs that have the .tar.gz thing going. Fix these and I will erase the dual boot XP. More stability and eye candy are useless if you can't even get the stupid thing to do as you wish in the first place.

[kamaboko]

If you want to expand the community, you should be asking what it is that turns people off from Ubuntu/Linux and concentrate on those items. What I find most frustrating is getting peripherals to work and installing programs that have the .tar.biz thing going. Fix these and I will erase the dual boot XP. More stability and eye candy are useless if you can't even get the stupid thing to do as you wish in the first place.

I think you're right. Increased growth will follow on the tails of greater peripheral compatibility (at installation) and more "Windows-like" application install methods.

[gmc]

Truth be told, I've not read this entire thread, but it seems to me that the idea situation is to feature expand on the non-lts releases and focus on stability/bugs for the lts versions.

I also think that if I were in a position of authority at Canonical, I'd use the shipit option for only the LTS versions, none LTS versions would only be available via downloading.

Just my .02 cents

Gord

[getaboat]

I'm with the stable for LTS and whizzy stuff between camp. But there needs to be an awareness of how personal computing is changing:

wireless is now almost the norm (gutsy was better but I was still into ndis wrappers for wireless that worked at dapper)
multi-home computers = more networking - must be easier
the proliferation of generic USB/bluetooth devices

Some of these are I'm pleased to see are on the list.

[zcal]

Ubuntu is based on Debian Unstable. If you need more stability use Debian Stable (Etch) or even Testing. LTS means Long Term Support, not stability.

Yes, but Canonical touts Ubuntu as being a simple to use, secure, and stable desktop OS. "Ubuntu is designed with security in mind." (http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu) Debian Sid is not. It doesn't even get security updates because it's such a mess of moving targets. Ubuntu takes a snapshot of Sid's repos because it contains more bleeding edge software than Etch, and the devs then try to refine things from there.

If the distribution is meant to be "for human beings," then it has to be much more stable than Debian Sid. The average user doesn't want their system to break every other week, they just want it to work. Debian Etch has the advantage of being extremely stable, but no matter whether you're using it, Testing (currently Lenny), or Unstable (Sid), Debian's still too much of a DIY distro for the average user.

[kragen]

I havent read the whole thread either, but my oppinon is that Canonical already has an excellent strategy for dealing with the traditional functionality / stability prioritisation. At some point any project has to take a hit on features to focus on stability - at least with Ubuntu we get the latest features as soon as possible 3/4 of the time.
On the flip side, anyone interested in LTS won't be prepared to upgrade their OS every 6 months. Everyone is happy - in particular, LTS users get all the features regular users get once every 2 years, and regular Ubuntu is kept more stable at the same time.

The only way to change things would end up either with too little development time spent on improving stability, or pretty much all new features being delivered slightly later as developers try to make new features stable as they are released (which would be completely unneccessary for most LTS users anyway - if your interested in stability, why risk breaking everything by updating more than absolutely necessary?)

[a12ctic]

They should make Ubuntu Home and Ubuntu Pro/Busniess =P

[toupeiro]

I personally very much like Canonical's release schedule and strategy. the LTS branded release should focus on whats tried and true, and the 6 month releases should focus on bleeding edge. If you do not like the LTS release, wait another 6 months. Keep Running 7.10 . You will still get kernel updates and application patches for that version. Then, put 8.10, which should be considered a "cutting edge" release at the potential sacrifice of some stability.

They NEED to have an LTS model, for server AND workstation, if they want to be a serious player in the business world. Joe User is likely not going to buy a support contract from canonical, and thats where Canonical is going to get a good deal of their $$$.


Coincidentally, Redhat does something similar to this. RHEL5's development is built on fedora at about core 5 or 6 if I remember correctly. When the scope RHEL6, they will likely choose a core 1 or 2 generations previous to the current fedora core at that time and harden it until they feel its enterprise ready.

[verb3k]

There seems to be consensus that Hardy should focus on extreme stability.
I also second that, let's see how the heron does it :)

[Demz]

What good is feature rich if it's unstable? I'll take stable any day over bells and whistles.
having said that, i assume your dual-booting windows Vista with Ubuntu? you are using a windows Vista Avatar on a Linux forum, i find that odd,.. but then you go on to say " i'll take Stable anyday" correct me if im wrong here but i dont tend to recall Vista being stable

[cwej]

I think a bifurcated approach is a good idea, but I do hope that, regardless of approach, there are no more "dumming down" of applications such as Firefox.

For example, in 7.04 the bundled Firefox incorporated JavaScript 1.5, which I need for functional access to my grad school web site (WebTycho). For some reason 7.10 bundled a dummed down Firefox which retrograded to JavaScript 1.4, even though the version in the wild incorporated 1.5 since 2.0.0.8 at least. The best workaround is Opera, which does incorporate Javascript 1.5, but still doesn't work as well as Firefox in the Ubuntu 7.04 release.

The bottom line is that first tenet of the Hippocratic Oath should always apply: "First, do no harm!"

[mellowd]

I know this probably isn't the correct thread to post to, but if I wanted to ask the developers to include a package in a default install where would I go for that?

[23meg]

but if I wanted to ask the developers to include a package in a default install where would I go for that?

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/MainInclusionProcess

[mhenry35]

I think Cannonical is right.

First of all, I couldn't use Gutsy, I had to fallback to Fiesty due to increased networking problems that proved to be just too frustrating to deal with.

We need a very stable OS, and the time to strike is now, with Vista highly unpopular, we've got a real opportunity to gain users, and if we do that, especially some corporate users, then vendors will be more motivated to provide better Linux support, and life gets easier for us.

I'm all for keeping new features to a minimum and making this the best working, least buggy version ever. I'm hoping when Hardy is released that I'll be able to switch over and keep it for a long time.

[Incense]

LTS = Long Term Support, meaning that I do not have to upgrade my OS every six months, or even every year to still receive bug fixes. Great for my server, but most desktop users want updated software, and something pretty and new to look at in their release. I think regardless of the LTS badge, Ubuntu needs to put up stables releases every time. Let Debian SID (unstable) do the testing, and Ubuntu put the polish on to make the release stable. While the last few releases have been very nice, I would not call them stable. I loved how they took the extra two months to make Dapper a stable release. Edgy, Feisty, and Gutsy did not receive that same love. Yeah, there were all great, but not as rock solid as I believe they could have been. Maybe they need to quit following the gnome release cycle and go their own way. I would gladly take an 8 month release cycle to see more stable releases. That's just my .02 though.

[phenest]

I think Cannonical is right....We need a very stable OS, and the time to strike is now, with Vista highly unpopular, we've got a real opportunity to gain users, and if we do that, especially some corporate users, then vendors will be more motivated to provide better Linux support, and life gets easier for us.

I'm all for keeping new features to a minimum and making this the best working, least buggy version ever. I'm hoping when Hardy is released that I'll be able to switch over and keep it for a long time.

I completely agree.

[~LoKe]

It's simple, really. More features = more bugs. For an LTS this is not acceptable. I'd rather they give us a stable release with a few missing features (which we could probably install ourselves) and then give us a more feature rich release afterwards, like they did with Dapper and Edgy.

[Sporkman]

My ubuntu runs on a server so my choice would be for stability.

Ditto.

...and solid bulletproof security with the default installation.

[Ozor Mox]

Another vote for stability here. I figure that the names make it obvious what Canonical are thinking of doing. "Gutsy" tried out new, possibly unstable features like Compiz with the aim of advancing the desktop, whereas "Hardy" will aim to be a rock solid release mostly consisting of bug fixes. I haven't had a lot of trouble with instability in Gutsy, but improvements to some of the slightly more problematic applications such as Firefox and Compiz would be great.

[Ultra Magnus]

I suppose if you really want extra cutting edge apps then they could always make an extra repository that you can enable to update everything to newer versions?

[NJC]

The devs know what they are doing, and stability is imperative for any widespread acceptance.

[dlegend]

I'm for stability and optimization. As for extra features -- I love them a lot, but I can wait, find applications, or write my own applications that will give me more features.

If Ubuntu ever becomes really stable (maybe a few years down the road) with great support for almost all drivers, etc.. then I say add more features, eye candy, etc.. and possibly create two versions (one without all the fluff for people who just want something solid, and one for users to have fun playin with).

[koleoptero]

I hope hardy will be super stable cause my already 3yo laptop won't be running easily the even more feature-rich future versions of ubuntu so I'll probably stay with hardy till I get a new laptop (which won't happen anytime soon). And in general I also think that stability is what the LTS releases are for, so they are doing well focusing on that.

[Knyven]

I would go with stable LTS.

Then just add the bells and whistles in the add-on or Add/Remove easily.

We already have 3rd party distro like Mint, Gos, Elive, Linspire, Ubuntustudio to meet everyones need.

[Hobbsee]

I would have thought those who actually did the programming work on the distro should have the most say in where it goes - and a lot of those people are working for Canonical.

As for the "community" at large, they can do what they like, and get their packages in. Those specs list what the canonical people are going to be doing.

Of course, the forum user community, who only (really) contributes via ideas and support, really doesn't have the power to influence the issue, as the problem is a lack of manpower (otherwise we could have both, for every release), rather than a lack of ideas.

[hellion0]

An unstable LTS sounds like a contradiction to me, personally. I think it would be better if Hardy was as stable as possible by default. If people want bleeding-edge top-of-the-line stuff, they can always add a repo for that and apt-get install eyecandy and such to their heart's content. Or wait for 8.10. Or code a derivative. Either or.

[hkgonra]

LTS, should be stable.
I could care less if they add new features or not but it should be stable software not Beta type stuff.

[bufsabre666]

LTS, should be stable.
I could care less if they add new features or not but it should be stable software not Beta type stuff.

exactly what i was thinking

[sweenes]

Two points:

1) Compiz and associated bells and whistles are just that - icing on the cake - most major OSes have been succesful without the eye candy for a long time now - I'd like to see more actual innovation rather than focussing on making a window melt off the screen...

2) I believe that canonical etc. definitely had big businesses in mind when LTS's were decided upon - think about it - when businesses 'buy' into Ubuntu, they're more likely to fork out for the support contracts and addiitional products i.e. the new Landscape system

LTS's are a good thing - and I haven't found anything yet that can't be installed until the next release of Ubuntu - its just a matter of how much one is prepared to upgrade their current config to achieve it... so feature enthusiasts are not limited by the LTS focus on stability. (IMHO)

S.
:guitar: