A basic question: 'How do we define "Stable Release" for Ubuntu?'

[davarino]

After Edgy was released, there was quite a bit of discussion in our fora about whether it was "stable".

Zipping by Wikipedia (the encyclopedia for the money-and-time-challenged), I see a definition of "stable release" vis à vis Debian:

The stable distribution of Debian is the latest version which was released for wide use. This means it was tested for a long time before enough problems were corrected to obtain what the Debian release process deems a stable operating system.

Debian releases stable when the release team is confident that fewer peculiar problems will occur with a new release than with the former one.

Wikipedia, "Stable (Debian)"

Now, obviously this definition has an implicit assumption: that the latest version released for wide use is tested for a long enough time to correct enough problems that the resulting OS is stable. I could rephrase it: 'Stable revision, in the Debian sense, means, "Latest revision, with fewer problems than the previous."'

Is our Ubuntu definition, by reason of it being implicitly tied to fixed 6 month release intervals, different? Surely, seeing the many problems experienced by different users, the Edgy release was not a "stable release" by this "Debian style" definition.

What exactly do we mean when we refer to an Ubuntu release as being "stable"? Can you define it in 15 words or less if ours is a different meaning from how other distros use the word? Can you use those 15 words or less in place of the word "stable"? Would you think it necessary?

Is the word "stable" meaningful and understood in our communications about Ubuntu, or is it simply fashionable as a Linux marketing buzz word?

I am interested in the response to these questions. I believe that clear communication of what Ubuntu has to offer will make it easier to satisfy new (and not so new) users.

[aysiu]

There's no way Ubuntu could use the same definition of stable that Debian uses.

Do you know how long it took for Debian Sarge to come out?

If you have a six-month release cycle, you will never be as rock-solid as Debian. That said, I have never found instability in Ubuntu official releases to ever hinder my daily use.

[davarino]

Good point.

But how do we define it? After all, we are using the word, so I assume we mean something when we use it.

[aysiu]

Good point.

But how do we define it? After all, we are using the word, so I assume we mean something when we use it.

I hate to say it, but since releases are time-based, "stable" really has no meaning except to say "What it's like on release day."

Even Dapper's two month delay didn't make it any stabler on release day than Edgy on release day or Breezy on release day. Now, the kinks in Dapper seem to be ironed out.

I'll tell you, though, when Dapper came out there was a much bigger uproar about its instability than when Edgy came out.

I don't think they should have delayed Dapper. I think it should have come out in April as a regular release and then the October release should have been LTS and then April 2007 "Edgy." Well, what's done is done.

My advice to people is that you refrain from upgrading to the newest version until a couple of months after it's come out. That doesn't mean that if we bumped the release cycle to be eight months that releases would necessarily be Debian-stable. But it does mean that even after release (once a wider audience has had a chance to test it), there will always be some bugs to fix.

[davarino]

No release is problem-free.

Certainly, changing release cycles would not improve anything (never does) - it would just reduce the number of cycles of discontent (a dubious advantage). There will always be a hardware configuration or a community idiosyncracy (or something else) missed that will have to be swept up. Kind of like juggling vases and pitchers of water.

So, getting back to the definition of "stable": the way I read you, if the word "stable" were omitted nothing would be lost?

Maybe we shouldn't use it in marketing (or anywhere else) if it's triggering people to think "Oh, gee! It's safe for me right now!"?

Calling Edgy a "release" (not "stable release") and mentioning the LTS version to be the "stable" (or "conservative user's"?) version in the text of all publicity probably would have averted a fair amount of the misunderstandings people had. (Yes, there's always the "leap first and read later" people, but they understand in their deepest of deepests that they acted foolishly, even if they shout a lot.)

From what I've seen, the message was not presented in a uniform way in Ubuntu publicity.

Sometimes caution in changing to Edgy was urged, sometimes suggested, sometimes not even mentioned, and sometimes omitted in the rush to say "look at this cool, new thing!"

Depending on one's channel of information, one could be completely unwarned that Edgy might not be his best way to go... until after downloading and the installation blowing up.

I would love to be in on coördinating the marketing of this stuff. The only problem I see is that sometimes people really do want to believe their own hype.

Have a good weekend.

[kuja]

Here is a revising of Debian's definition of stable: It takes an act of $DEITY to crash this system.

[.t.]

Remember, XP has had two "service packs".

[aysiu]

Remember, XP has had two "service packs".

And usually comes preinstlaled and preconfigured by Dell or HP or some other hardware vendor.

[davarino]

So the resolution to the question, dear reader, appears to be that the phrase "Stable release" in Ubuntu lingo simply means: "the latest version".

Remember that that is all that it means before you jump the gun and try to change your computer to the next "stable release". If you are not thoroughly confident that the next stable release is in a condition that you would like to have to recover from, don't let the phrase give you a false feeling of stability and security. Just wait until things are more truly "stable".

[steven8]

So the resolution to the question, dear reader, appears to be that the phrase "Stable release" in Ubuntu lingo simply means: "the latest version".

Remember that that is all that it means before you jump the gun and try to change your computer to the next "stable release". If you are not thoroughly confident that the next stable release is in a condition that you would like to have to recover from, don't let the phrase give you a false feeling of stability and security. Just wait until things are more truly "stable".

That is why you use the livecd to get a feel for it before taking the leap. I was going to 'just do it' with Edgy, but the livecd made me decide to stay with Dapper.