View Poll Results: Yes or No?

Voters
161. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    94 58.39%
  • No

    67 41.61%
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 70 of 70

Thread: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?

  1. #61
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    STL, MO
    Beans
    1,283
    Distro
    Kubuntu Karmic Koala (testing)

    Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?

    Quote Originally Posted by beew View Post
    Don't try to patronize me. I understand how it works, but first there is a price to pay for it so don't pretend that it is cost free. One of the price being that the softwares can be crappy because they are out of date. So the question is where do we strike the balance. PPA, which you seem to agree is a good idea,--and so do I and a main reason that I am sticking with Ubuntu instead of going Debian testing or something,--is a compromise because the security checking and patchings are not as through and there are some risks (which I am willing to take), but it can be done and so are rolling releases, albeit in a larger scale.




    Yeah but I am not a business environment and how many users here do you think are running enteprise grade open source softwares on a regular basis? How many pieces of softwares in the repos fit that profile?

    Ubuntu is "Linux for humans" not "Linux for corporations". If it is basically a business operating system then why not just put a few things like Apache, MYSQL, OpenOffice in the repo and be done with it?

    And do you think businesses install their whole OS whene they need to say upgrade from MS Windows 2007 to 2010?
    My company has 10,000 Linux servers deployed. I manage about 350 of them.
    There are two reasons why Ubuntu includes so much software. First, they basically get it all for "free" from Debian. It's all packaged, and Debian does at least basic QA on all packages. Second, Ubuntu wants to allow users to run a lot of software. It is important to realize that support contracts for Ubuntu only cover a small percentage of the available software.

    The reason why I keep bringing up business use is because that is the group that pays Canonical for support. Ubuntu has a great user community (these forums are a tribute to that), but the development community could not support Ubuntu alone. That means if Canonical cannot support Ubuntu, then it goes away. There has to be a revenue stream for Canonical, and that means selling to businesses, which would not tolerate a rolling release.
    From a financial point, a rolling release would bankrupt Canonical, and turn Ubuntu into a package repository. The only improvements would come from upstream, which is exactly where Arch is.
    David Ahern from Cisco had a wonderful presentation at LinuxCon last month about the difficulties of standardized software. Most customers look for five year platforms. That means no software changes (security patches might be acceptable) for that entire time. Most Linux deployments are commercial, and over their lifetime will not be current.

    Debian is a tremendous successfully community-developed distro. They don't sell software or support, so they differ substantially from Red Hat and Novell. Canonical lies in the middle, but I don't think that Ubuntu could survive (in the same manner) as a community distro; and that is precisely what a rolling release would do to it.

  2. #62
    beew is offline I Ubuntu, Therefore, I Am
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Beans
    2,783

    Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?

    Well the question is whether Ubuntu should have a rolling release, not whether it should be a rolling release only. If business doesn't want rolling release they don't have to, moreover you can always choose what to update. If you so desire you can always disable most updates except for the ones you choose. It is probably not difficult to incorporate an option to update only system security patches and disable everything else for business (like putting security updates which is what we have now, in a different repository and since business only use a small number of software such a repo would be a lot smaller than what we currently have). Canonical sells support to business right? So they can even charge business if this kind of tweaking involves extra cost in the packaging end. So the fact that businesses are reluctant to update a non issue.

    It is a lame argument for forcing everyone adopt to the conservative way of big business because they pay the bills. It is also morally unacceptable. What happens to Linux means freedom? Let me repeat, Ubuntu's slogan is "Linux for humans", not "Linux for business" and humans are not business. If Business wants certain features they should pay for those customize features instead of shoving them down everyone's throat so that they becomes the free default. Canonical wisely doesn't use that line of argument to justify its updating structure at all.
    Last edited by beew; September 10th, 2010 at 05:21 PM.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Beans
    7,745

    Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?

    I've said it before and I'll say it again:

    Ubuntu is based on Debian Unstable.

    Debian Unstable is rolling release.

    See the problem?

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Beans
    712

    Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?

    Yes, there are things in 10.10 and beyond I'd want in 10.04 but won't get b/c development is based on making those cycles better than 10.04... i'm seeing coverflow in 10.10 that won't come to 10.04...i like 10.04 finally got it how i want so upgrading to 10.10 doesn't really appeal to me...I'm new to ubuntu somewhat but I didn't know everything in future models won't work with recent past models...seems somewhat unfair. Making Ubuntu rolling would help...

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    STL, MO
    Beans
    1,283
    Distro
    Kubuntu Karmic Koala (testing)

    Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?

    Quote Originally Posted by beew View Post
    Well the question is whether Ubuntu should have a rolling release, not whether it should be a rolling release only. If business doesn't want rolling release they don't have to, moreover you can always choose what to update. If you so desire you can always disable most updates except for the ones you choose. It is probably not difficult to incorporate an option to update only system security patches and disable everything else for business (like putting security updates which is what we have now, in a different repository and since business only use a small number of software such a repo would be a lot smaller than what we currently have). Canonical sells support to business right? So they can even charge business if this kind of tweaking involves extra cost in the packaging end. So the fact that businesses are reluctant to update a non issue.

    It is a lame argument for forcing everyone adopt to the conservative way of big business because they pay the bills. It is also morally unacceptable. What happens to Linux means freedom? Let me repeat, Ubuntu's slogan is "Linux for humans", not "Linux for business" and humans are not business. If Business wants certain features they should pay for those customize features instead of shoving them down everyone's throat so that they becomes the free default. Canonical wisely doesn't use that line of argument to justify its updating structure at all.
    Then why don't these "humans" have to pay for customization. Canonical doesn't have the resources to put out two distributions.
    If Canonical is going to start charging money for their "business" version (i.e. the version that gets any QA), then businesses will just move to something like RHEL that is much more highly regarded because the cost would be the same.

    Mark Shuttleworth started Ubuntu as this great new free distribution. However, he has made it very clear that Ubuntu is not a philanthropic project. He expects Canonical to be profitable, so far that hasn't been true. However, Canonical has hired several people to enhance their business offerings (i.e. products that make money).

    Beew, I don't understand how you can't grasp that development resources are always scarce, and combined with the need to bring in revenue, there is no possibility of releasing two distributions. Even doing the minimal development work that the Arch maintainers do, Canonical would have to dedicate about a dozen people to the task. And, it wouldn't help bring in a single dollar in revenue.

    Businesses don't want to have to choose repositories and updates. They want a platform that has stable, supported packages. They would prefer a platform where you can't even install unsupported updates.

    Rolling releases are clearly a niche market. I think that between Gentoo and Arch (the most prominent rolling release distros that I know of) adequately fill that market. Look at the organization of each; they are community distros with very small user bases. They don't offer support contracts. It seems pretty clear why no business would want to get into that market: there's zero revenue to be made.

    I really hate "what if" questions because they treat the question like it exists in a vacuum. Ubuntu cannot be a rolling release because it is created by a corporation, Canonical. And, Canonical cannot exist without revenue. Rolling releases cannot support a revenue stream. Canonical cannot produce two distributions because development resources are already scarce. Therefore, it doesn't matter what some (nonpaying) users prefer because it is a logical impossibility.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Beans
    7,745

    Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?

    Let's do the math.

    Debian Unstable's repositories are huge (thousands of packages). With their current resources, Canonical is able to take a "snapshot" of these repositories two times a year. It takes roughly six months to move these snapshots through the alpha-beta-RC process to create stable Ubuntu releases.

    In order to make rolling release Ubuntu, Canonical would have to take a Debian Unstable snapshot every day of the year and quickly turn it around into that day's Ubuntu release. Essentially you are talking about increasing the number of Ubuntu releases per year from 2 to 367 (2 stable releases plus 365 rolling releases) while simultaneously eliminating the months of development/testing/QA/tweaking that makes Ubuntu unique.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Beans
    58
    Distro
    Kubuntu 13.04 Raring Ringtail

    Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?

    Ubuntu will NEVER be a rolling release.

    /thread

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Beans
    1,166
    Distro
    Xubuntu

    Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a version that was a rolling release model?

    Quote Originally Posted by smellyman View Post
    Ubuntu will NEVER be a rolling release.

    /thread
    Ubuntu IS rolling release... during the testing phase of the distro at least.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Here, There, Everywhere
    Beans
    1,166
    Distro
    Xubuntu

    Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a ve

    Quote Originally Posted by snowpine View Post
    Let's do the math.

    Debian Unstable's repositories are huge (thousands of packages). With their current resources, Canonical is able to take a "snapshot" of these repositories two times a year. It takes roughly six months to move these snapshots through the alpha-beta-RC process to create stable Ubuntu releases.

    In order to make rolling release Ubuntu, Canonical would have to take a Debian Unstable snapshot every day of the year and quickly turn it around into that day's Ubuntu release. Essentially you are talking about increasing the number of Ubuntu releases per year from 2 to 367 (2 stable releases plus 365 rolling releases) while simultaneously eliminating the months of development/testing/QA/tweaking that makes Ubuntu unique.
    1. Canonical already do daily releases of the testing branch: http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/daily-live/current/
    2. A rolling distro don't really need to have a new release everyday. It just needs to keep the repos updated, exactly how Canonical do for the testing branch.
    Last edited by Tibuda; September 11th, 2010 at 09:05 PM.

  10. #70
    beew is offline I Ubuntu, Therefore, I Am
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Beans
    2,783

    Re: Would you prefer Ubuntu have a ve

    jbrown96

    Businesses don't want to have to choose repositories and updates. They want a platform that has stable, supported packages. They would prefer a platform where you can't even install unsupported updates.
    Then just disble all the updates. What is the fuzz? No, you don't even have to do that. This is Linux and things won't get updated unless you give explicit permissions. If a company wants targeted supported updates and it admin is too lazy or clueless to configure it himself then pay for it. Business charges you for just flicking a switch so let's apply the same philosophy on them.

    At work we have windows machines without any program updates for years. They are still running XP and most of them still have MS Office 2003 (with a few installed with Office 2007) Nothing get updated, not even FireFox, except for annual license renewal and MS security updates. I certainly don't maintain my own machines that way.

    If Ubuntu is trying to be a business OS then it can go the redhat route and be open about it instead of marketing Ubuntu as "Linux for humans". I am frankly sick of this attitude you are pushing here by insisting that business should dictate everyone else' need
    Last edited by beew; September 11th, 2010 at 08:06 PM.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •