Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?
Would you prefer if there was another version of Ubuntu that used a rolling release model rather than the 6 month release period? If so, why?
Personally, I would prefer it because software evolves very rapidly over a period of 6 months, and although the 6th month period is for stability, I think that a system can be just as stable on a rolling release model because, well, look at Arch. It hardly ever breaks, but even Ubuntu breaks with it's 6 month release period. Anyone else remember the NVidia driver and Xserver fiasco a couple years ago in Ubuntu?
IMHO, an Ubuntu version that uses the Debian Sid repositories by default and has a minimal option would be just fine for me.
Please suggest a name, as well. :)
If I had to pick a name I would pick UbuntuE (Ubuntu, Evolved).
Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?
It would have to be named with a ZZ, Zippy Zebra, I guess, and they never get to Zebra. When Yakkity Yak (or whatever) comes out they'd have to go back to AA and start over.
But yeah, I like the idea personally. Keep the 6 month but have a sid-like beast.
Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?
It would be cool if Ubuntu had a Debian-style "when it's done, it's done" release system, but more cutting edge.
Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?
I wouldn't mind this, but then what would be the big difference between Debian and Ubuntu?
Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grant A.
Would you prefer if there was another version of Ubuntu that used a rolling release model rather than the 6 month release period? If so, why?
Personally, I would prefer it because software evolves very rapidly over a period of 6 months, and although the 6th month period is for stability, I think that a system can be just as stable on a rolling release model because, well, look at Arch. It hardly ever breaks, but even Ubuntu breaks with it's 6 month release period. Anyone else remember the NVidia driver and Xserver fiasco a couple years ago in Ubuntu?
IMHO, an Ubuntu version that uses the Debian Sid repositories by default and has a minimal option would be just fine for me.
Please suggest a name, as well. :)
If I had to pick a name I would pick UbuntuE (Ubuntu, Evolved).
Anyone remember the Xorg fiasco of this last year on Arch? ;)
There's a give and take with stability and newness. Arch users know how to help themselves and get themselves out of problems with packaging, should they arise. Many Ubuntu users don't.
For example:
KDE4.2 was still somewhat buggy and slow under Kubuntu 8.10, but useable
Kdemod4.2 on Arch is fast and great (far better than Kubuntu)...but a few days ago an update was pushed out accidentally that b0rked KDE and renered it unusable due to plasma crashing every 15 seconds. Fortunately within 12 hours a revised package was released that fixed it.
They both have their ups and downs. It is all in who uses it, and what rules govern how and when things released-all those salient details.
I will say-the process of upgrading to the latest and greatest monolithic release on ANY platform sucks. I love my Arch, but it is definitely not for everyone.
Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
T2manner
I wouldn't mind this, but then what would be the big difference between Debian and Ubuntu?
Well, one could say that now, but the Ubuntu developers have always been much fonder towards proprietary software than the Debian devs have. If you try to install NVidia drivers in debian it will throw a fit. It doesn't even recommend them to you through the system notification area like Ubuntu does.
Ubuntu is essentially Debian + GNOME with a customized theme, some different default installed apps, and more proprietary blobs.
Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Grant A.
Well, one could say that now, but the Ubuntu developers have always been much fonder towards proprietary software than the Debian devs have. If you try to install NVidia drivers in debian it will throw a fit. It doesn't even recommend them to you through the system notification area like Ubuntu does.
Ubuntu is essentially Debian + GNOME with a customized theme, some different default installed apps, and more proprietary blobs.
They also have very different release philosophies as to when something can be put out the door and called "stable".
Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ghindo
It would be cool if Ubuntu had a Debian-style "when it's done, it's done" release system, but more cutting edge.
You can't have cutting edge and released "when it's done". Besides Debian performs that task rather well of ultra stable releases when ready, no point in Ubuntu following the same path, they'd be fighting each other for the same reasons.
Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?
Depends on what you call a "rolling release". No way should Ubuntu upgrade to new major versions of core packages like the kernel, X, GNOME, KDE, etc. during a release cycle because that would result in instability, since everything depends on them. On the other hand, I would really like to see updated versions of end-user applications like OpenOffice, Firefox, etc. during a release cycle. I don't think this would result in significant instability given that third-party repositories are already widely used.
Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?
Ubuntu is aimed at new users, the rolling releases are a break waiting to happen, and a new user might loose his/her mind if this happened. Can't you just enable proposed for this effect?
