Rolling Release?...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Jeff91 Sep 09, 2011 5:00 PM EDT |
Why not just move to a rolling release base? ~Jeff |
| DrGeoffrey Sep 09, 2011 5:23 PM EDT |
Because a rolling release demands some attention to stability. Let's not encourage them down a path for which they appear ill-prepared. |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 09, 2011 7:02 PM EDT |
I'm done worrying about Ubuntu's release cycle. All I want now is more focus on out-of-the-box stability in the LTS. |
| jdixon Sep 09, 2011 7:36 PM EDT |
> All I want now is more focus on out-of-the-box stability... Is Debian or Slackware. :) |
| Jeff91 Sep 09, 2011 10:15 PM EDT |
Sure, Debian is rock solid with their "stable" release. But to give credit where credit is due, Ubuntu (Unity not withstanding) does a decent job of keeping a good mix of stable+current software. Using Debian stable feels dated the day releases as a desktop OS. Don't get be wrong - I want tried and true for a server, on the desktop I need current packages though generally. At least as far as end user applications go. ~Jeff |
| Steven_Rosenber Sep 10, 2011 10:57 AM EDT |
There are excellent use cases for both, but with Backports, the Mozilla Debian APT archive and a few other sources, Debian Stable doesn't feel so old. I still prefer Ubuntu for some installs, but I want the LTS and don't want it to be an afterthought to the developers that's just another six-month release with longer support. |
| Fettoosh Sep 10, 2011 11:16 AM EDT |
I have been running Kubuntu since 8.04 and I never did a single fresh install after that. There were major biannual updates and numerous occasional ones. Did I have issues? Sure, but nothing that wasn't fixable by removing and re-installing packages. APT/Aptitude is very streamlined and reliable and I consider it to be the best package manager around. I think it makes a distro behave as close to rolling distro as it could be and it is not that bad at all. |
| mbaehrlxer Sep 10, 2011 12:11 PM EDT |
the way i read the article the real problem is not the release cycle, but canonicals payment structure.
i consider it a sad sign for canonical if it would take a change in the release cycle to improve the payment structure. but then, even if the payment structure is improved, having a shorter release cycle makes it easier to develop a feature until it is really ready. i think the linux kernel gives a good example of that which i understand has a release cycle of roughly 3 months. i believe it is much easier to tell if a feature can be ready within 3 month than telling if it can be done in 6 months. if 3 months is not enough, adding another 3 months is less painful than adding 6. the kernel model has been successful for 40 releases now... greetings, eMBee. |
| kikinovak Sep 10, 2011 3:42 PM EDT |
Monthly releases?!? Nah, daily releases are way better. I suggest Canonical publishes an Alpha every day at about ten o'clock, then a Beta around a quarter to twelve. This leaves the developers plenty of time to bring out a stable and polished product at around three o'clock in the afternoon. Of course, don't forget the press releases for each and every branch and version. Cheers, KN (Slackware 13.37) |
| montezuma Sep 10, 2011 7:44 PM EDT |
Seems like the main bitch here is that new features do not have sufficient development time because of the current release treadmill. I used to report bugs to launchpad but do not bother much anymore because I have noticed the devs are not as engaged as they used to be there. Perhaps these two things are connected. I hope Ubuntu has a proper in depth debate and discussion over this issue. It used to be a good distro and has slipped because the devs have become burnt out and isolated from users. The unity debacle being the latest example of top down bs. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!