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...
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?
Originally Posted by pdffs
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.
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?
Originally Posted by pdffs
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...
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.
^^^ This! This is EXACTLY what Ubuntu (and every pc-focused distro) should be doing.
Originally Posted by EvilTwin
- 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)
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.
Originally Posted by cyring
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.