Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33

Thread: Ubuntu Considering Switch To Rolling-Release Model

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    17

    Thumbs up I like it!

    I like it!!! LTS for normal users, and rolling for nerds!
    I hope they can works more on hardware tweaks, optimization, etc before release the LTS!
    With a better focus on LTS, it's an overall improvement.
    At the moment, they don't focus enough on LTS and they have short-term goals...

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Rolling release would be suicide for server installs - you can't deploy stable code on a rolling platform. It's insane.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdffs View Post
    Rolling release would be suicide for server installs - you can't deploy stable code on a rolling platform. It's insane.
    Didn't read I see?
    They will have an LTS every 2 years, just like normal. Instead of all the 6month release in between, they have a rolling release which will become the next LTS.

    The LTS releases every 2 years are not rolling. Just the releases in between are.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pdffs View Post
    Rolling release would be suicide for server installs - you can't deploy stable code on a rolling platform. It's insane.
    What is DEFINITELY INSANE, is to expect to use the same software on desktop and on server installs. Do you install Windows Server on your gaming pcs?

    On the news now, the main reason i refuse to use Ubuntu as my Desktop OS is exactly its release model. I hate it when even minimal minor updates don't happen, and you end up with bugs too. And of course you are required to wait for months to acquire the latest functionality.

    For example, Libreoffice: I do not know what is the official version at the moment, but Ubuntu 12.10 shipped with version 3.6.2, and to my knowledge hadn't updated it until 3.6.4 was out(i switched back to ArchLinux after that time). Now from what i recall 3.6.3 and 3.6.4 solved hundreds of bugs and where drop-in replacements of 3.6.2: No need for new configuration or anything extreme. So, why Ubuntu didn't update them? Is it because "they need the stability"? Don't make me laugh...

    Another example is Netbeans. On Ubuntu repos there is Netbeans 7.0.1(a 2 year old version) from what i remember. But the latest version was 7.2.1 (which is reasonably improved).

    Another example is Transmission torrent client. I don't remember its exact version but was several versions behind. And newer versions solve bugs too except introducing new features.

    Of course i could add ppas to keep up-to-date and/or install manually. I tried actually. Installed a ppa for Transmission. Couldn't find an updated ppa for Libreoffice or i didn't try hard enough. For Netbeans i didn't find a ppa but actually installed it manually.

    Now, what is the point of using a "just works" distro if in order to install bug-fixing updates and newer than 2 years software you have to create a repo-hell and maintain manually some of your packages?

    So i switched to ArchLinux (again) and voila: An up-to-date distro, actually more stable than Ubuntu, and for my use cases actually less maintainance than Ubuntu...

    Ubuntu should have changed -at least for the Desktop and Application Software- to a rolling release model YESTERDAY! It seems those people at Canonical maintain some actual common sense after all for thinking about it. I had lost faith in them...

  5. #25
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Ubuntu should defiantly use Rolling Release.. if not for the Kernel and Core software, at least for the User-Software.. The reason I I switched from Ubuntu/Fedora distro's to Arch Linux (which I love) is because I'd have to:

    a) Use outdated versions of software.. Blender, Gimp, Inkscape, etc. Or have to hunt down hard-to-find PPAs. On Arch, I get the latest versions of these software automatically.. just like on Windows or Mac, I can go download a simple installer the day they're released. EVERY user wants this, don't be in denial.

    b) I'd have to upgrade my entire system every six months (backup.. reformat.. install.. reload data..) OR brave the often buggy "auto-updater". That simply isn't an option for casual users.

    I think Ubuntu should still have some Major releases... only do it every 2-4 years (like Windows) which have updates to major components that would otherwise take a lot of effort to upgrade users to. For instance, when Arch switched from InitV to systemd, there was a lot of files and settings that needed to be switched over. However, during those 2-4 years the project is active, all the user-application software and packages should be on a rolling-release cycle. Even the kernel and friends could mostly be upgraded without issues (albeit much slower).

    If Ubuntu was rolling-release, I would seriously consider switching back (there's a lot to maintain on Arch that Ubuntu just makes easy), but I'll never switch to a system where the main software I use is months behind.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Sunshine State
    Posts
    307

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvilTwin View Post
    Sounds a bit like the Half-Rolling Release Model of the Chakra-Project
    I defenitly enjoy this Release Model
    ^^^ This! This is EXACTLY what Ubuntu (and every pc-focused distro) should be doing.

    - Stable core (but still slowly-rolling)
    - Bleeding-edge applications

    If Chakra wasn't soley KDE based, I would seriously consider switching to it (even though I love my Arch)

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    945

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by n3wu53r View Post
    Didn't read I see?
    They will have an LTS every 2 years, just like normal. Instead of all the 6month release in between, they have a rolling release which will become the next LTS.

    The LTS releases every 2 years are not rolling. Just the releases in between are.
    Nah, but Debian do that already. You can roll with sid + experimental + whatever very succesfully all the time - except in freeze period.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    France
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Part of the success of ArchLinux is based on AUR : never found the same in Ubuntu

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cyring View Post
    Part of the success of ArchLinux is based on AUR : never found the same in Ubuntu
    The Ubuntu equivalent is the PPA, though both PPA's and AUR vary wildly in quality IMO.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    37

    Default

    This should definitely be the way to go. When the LTS is released, fork the LTS into a rolling distro and keep it rolling till the freeze period 1,5 year later or so. Then every developer should enter bug-fix mode and release the LTS. Rinse and repeat. The only tricky part is upgrading core-components.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •