Turnaround for new OS version

[Khakilang]

o 6 month
o 1 year
o 2 years
o 3 years

What do you think of a turnaround time for new version of the OS. I started with 8.10 at the begining of this year and thought its the latest. Bought a book and before I know it 9.04 came out and now 9.10 and I haven't finish reading the book. So in your opinion whats the best turnaround time for a new version. Pardon me, I still don't how to post a polls vote here. But you get the idea.

[hoppipolla]

hehe, I guess no-one told you how this works!

We are now on 9.10. The reason for this is because it was released in the 10th month (October) of 2009

Geddit?

So 9.04 is April 09, 9.10 is Oct 09, 10.04 is April 2010 etc etc

And they get their unique names as well which go alphabetically, such as Intrepid Ibex, Jaunty Jackalope and Karmic Koala

[SunnyRabbiera]

Ubuntu has a 6 month release cycle, both a good thing and a bad thing as sometimes bugs crop up.
But the thing is if you have a guide for 8.04 there is not much that changed between that and 9.10 other then a few apps here and there and one or two features in terms of user interface.
This isnt like a leap from XP to Win7

[SomeGuyDude]

Some love it, some don't.

To be honest, I think it's a poor idea in terms of making it widespread. Linux users might be cool with it, but imagine if Windows was putting out new versions before even the first service pack for the old one was released.

[SunnyRabbiera]

Some love it, some don't.

To be honest, I think it's a poor idea in terms of making it widespread. Linux users might be cool with it, but imagine if Windows was putting out new versions before even the first service pack for the old one was released.

Might be that way for windows 7 and up though, according to what we heard from Microsoft

[SomeGuyDude]

Might be that way for windows 7 and up though, according to what we heard from Microsoft

Every six months, though?

One reason I'm on Arch is that full OS upgrades are a thing of the past. Yeah I get updates a lot, but there's never a "oh god here's a 600MB update of absolutely everything I hope this works" moment. While I'm not suggesting Ubuntu should go rolling, I think what'd be best is if they did one annual update and then a six month "service pack" of sorts.

Like I said before, updating that often leaves the user never feeling secure. One of the great things about XP was it hung around forever. You installed it and you were good for YEARS. Look at OSX, they've been on the latest version for, what, two years now?

[jazzvibes]

thats why there are Long term support (LTS) versions though, if you don't want to stay completely brandspanking new, then stick to the 2year LTS cycle

[JDShu]

thats why there are Long term support (LTS) versions though, if you don't want to stay completely brandspanking new, then stick to the 2year LTS cycle

+1

In addition, if you want a stable OS, never use one that has just been released. That said, I am a fan of the "release early, release often" philosophy. It just makes sense to me.

[SomeGuyDude]

thats why there are Long term support (LTS) versions though, if you don't want to stay completely brandspanking new, then stick to the 2year LTS cycle

Sure, but let's not forget that if you stick with an LTS it also means you're not getting the latest version of many packages. For example, people sticking with Hardy for the LTS are stuck using Firefox 3.0. You're basically telling people who are leary of constant SYSTEM upgrades to forego APPLICATION updates.

[tc3000]

IMO, Ubuntu should move to a Tick/Tock style release (A.K.A.)
10.4 : Tick, Major Upgrade for functionality,
10.10 : Tock, Upgrade for speed and bugginess (LTS)
11.4 tick
11.10 tock (LTS)