Proposed: A Monthly Ubuntu Release Cycle

[Otus]

The important part of Scott James Remnant's proposal is not the monthly releases, but the process for keeping the development archive always in a working state. If the proposal was modified to have the releases still happen every six months (but betas every two weeks), I think most opposed to it would agree. I'd be fine with that variation.

[AnonymousCoward]

+ 1 for the "update the core once every one-two years, and keep the apps up to date" solution. Like it's on every other non-linux operating system. You still get updated apps for win xp, come on.

The same way you can manually update your app in WinXP, you can do the same thing YOURSELF in Ubuntu I don't see the difference.

[Alejandro Nova]

I don't get why distros don't copy the Chakra model.

1. Kernel, X, boot scripts and STRICTLY CORE stuff: they stick to STABLE versions, hammered until the end, working with everything. The versions you see of those packages in Chakra are not current, even old (GCC is at 4.5.3 with Chakra, Fedora 15 is at 4.6.1)
2. Apps: they are updated, literally, TO THE MINUTE. Actually, if I enable the Testing repo, I can have a KDE release hours BEFORE the official announcement.
3. Package Manager. The Chakra package manager, Appset-Qt, does not only manages packages; it manages INSTRUCTIONS TO MAKE THOSE PACKAGES WORK. So, you always see a channel with those instructions when you open your package manager. That is PRICELESS and MUST BE COPIED BY EVERY DISTRO.

[not.sure]

How about a daily release and calling it "ubuntu sid". Why do people keep re-inventing wheels?

[linuxforall]

I for one am very happy with LTS cycle and for latest software, I just add the relevant PPAs, also for cutting edge, one can always enable proposed backports as well.

[madjr]

The same way you can manually update your app in WinXP, you can do the same thing YOURSELF in Ubuntu I don't see the difference.

for some maybe you get lucky and find a ppa, but most of em you have to waste time trying to compile it yourself (if they actually compile) and there's no user friendliness in that..

see bug here:
Upgrading packaged Ubuntu application unreasonably involves upgrading entire OS

[Kivada]

YES!!! A MILLION TIMES YES!!!

Also, kill Unity, Gnome3 and KDE4!!!

[linuxforall]

I don't get why distros don't copy the Chakra model.

1. Kernel, X, boot scripts and STRICTLY CORE stuff: they stick to STABLE versions, hammered until the end, working with everything. The versions you see of those packages in Chakra are not current, even old (GCC is at 4.5.3 with Chakra, Fedora 15 is at 4.6.1)
2. Apps: they are updated, literally, TO THE MINUTE. Actually, if I enable the Testing repo, I can have a KDE release hours BEFORE the official announcement.
3. Package Manager. The Chakra package manager, Appset-Qt, does not only manages packages; it manages INSTRUCTIONS TO MAKE THOSE PACKAGES WORK. So, you always see a channel with those instructions when you open your package manager. That is PRICELESS and MUST BE COPIED BY EVERY DISTRO.

Actually the more I use Chakra on my laptop, the more I am beginning to like it. Its stable unlike other rolling releases, updates and even dist upgrades are flawless when done properly. It needs good old fashioned text file editing for certain features and that might intimidate some but nothing thats hard to achieve. As a veteran Linux user from early days of Gentoo, Debian and now Ubuntu, Chakra will turn out to be a superb KDE tribute now that Canonical has withdrawn support for Kubuntu project. The rolling release model of Chakra is idea for the daily, casual and even serious enterprise user.

[linuxforall]

for some maybe you get lucky and find a ppa, but most of em you have to waste time trying to compile it yourself (if they actually compile) and there's no user friendliness in that..

see bug here:
Upgrading packaged Ubuntu application unreasonably involves upgrading entire OS

All the relevant ppas get updated frequently, sometimes faster than so called rolling release distros.