That's a really bad idea!
Ubuntu development team has proven in the time not to be able to cope with real development, software integration and bug fixing.
The Ubuntu people have one thing in mind: profit opportunities.
That's not a bad thing, of course. It's bad when it's the only one thing you keep in mind.
A lot of work for marketing, colors, icons, themes and other eye candy.
But, as far as stability and effectiveness, they are far behind.
Most of the time they simply push bugs upstream to either Debian or to the (actual) application developers.
A few examples can help.
Ubuntu desktop doesn't use a desktop-grade kernel. I mean a kernel promoting the responsiveness. Something you'd expect on ... ehm ... desktop edition.
They instead use a server-grade kernel.
Not to talk when they decided to jump on the KDE v4 wagon and leave KDE users with no usable KDE at all.
That was a marketing decision. They didn't even tried the KDE v4 desktop or read the friendly documentation (stating that KDE v4 was not intended for end users).
Finally, when they really get to the solution to some issue, they fix it for the future release, not the current one or the latest LTS.
As if non-techie users were longing to make a complete distribution upgrade every six months. This is not the real use case.
A faster release cycle would simply emphasize this kind of attitude, thus leading to a fast suicide. Bugs would accumulate on older versions, while newer ones would show new bugs. With no time and resources to fix.
Ubuntu has had the merit to really push Linux to non-geek non-hackers desktop. Well they have not been the first ones nor the best ones.
But nowadays when you talk about desktop Linux, Ubuntu is among the two or three names that you can hear.
A suicide here would be a big loss to the Linux community.
Maybe a rolling distribution, already discussed in the past, would instead be a better idea. But also here, again, the quality assurance process should be much more important than eye candy.
So, please Ubuntu devs, don't do monthly release. Thanks.
imo its also a bad idea. not for the MAIN ubuntu
Maybe it's time for *BSD?
Those OSes have a major pro. They are an OS *and* a distribution.
This means that the kernel itself is shipped along with a (rather) complete operating environment.
Everything is under control. Customization can be done atop of them.
The major con is that they have very limited resources due to the extreme fragmentation in the open source arena.
Too many projects, each with too few resources to get to high quality releases, all making more or less the same thing.
There should be instead a different organization, with no (or very little) overlapping among projects.
But this is just a dream. I also have one.
Great idea, but it won't help Unity.
It has a tainted image.
New features and bugfixes each month would be more nauseating that Unity updates during the Oneiric cycle. Like watching paint that never dries.
Originally Posted by allquixotic
Interesting thought and I for myself would love to see Ubuntu in a more core oriented development model.
To often the packages are too old to be useful in a current Ubuntu release and one has to rely on PPAs - which is somewhat not practical as these will be disabled with the next major release, etc.
So yes, change in development cycle/model is needed.
Originally Posted by LLStarks
Except that instead of maintaining both main and various PPAs, Ubuntu staff will now have to deal with main only.
Originally Posted by cl333r
I'm all for "release it when it's ready" concept.
+1. But what about fixes? Would you prefer to wait until next release?
Originally Posted by bug77
IMHO, "release it when it's ready" is OK as far as bug fixes first go to the current one and only later to the next one.
Ubuntu is doing the other way around with a twist: there are fixes that won't ever reach the current.
I wonder where you draw this conclusion from, it is a proposal being made by someone outside Canonical. That said, I would like if either Debian or Ubuntu officially adopt a rolling release channel. I believe Debian is already discussing this.
Originally Posted by CTown
PPAs are fine and i very much appreciate them; but I'm curious why Debian hasn't implemented them.