I can't believe this "debate" is still a topic of discussion... obviously all consumer devices should have rolling-release for user-space software. The kernel & friends also need to be semi-rolling-release (read "when they're ready" NOT "when they're released"). Ideally, user-space software should be released as soon as it comes out, but the last few versions should be kept available (per-package) so people aren't forced to updated (or can roll-back) in situations where a bug was introduced, or core functionality was changed.
The only reason for non-rolling models is long-term server security and stability.. but that's a completely separate world, with it's own motives.
So why not use the Chrome/Firefox model? Have a LTS, Stable, Beta, Alpha version at the same time. Nerds can run Alpha and immediately report issues. Geeks can run Beta and have a system that works but still can have bugs that they report. Your mother can run Stable and have up2date software with almost no problems. Grandma and Enterprises can run the ancient LTS that has been tested for years by nerds, geeks and mother.
1. Switch to rolling release. Ubuntu installs NVIDIA 304.51 as "current". F*cking LOL!
2. Make Live CDs that use Net Installation. Having to install old packages just to up date them later on is retarded beyond belief.
3. Bring back Jockey and have it pop up in peoples face like it used to. Windows users trying out Ubuntu for TF2 often installed drivers from the vendors website and complained about how complicated it is only because Canonical thought it would be a good idea to hide the driver installation in the Software center in a Menu.
No one who has ever used a RR distro would switch back to the Ubuntu release model. RR doesn't mean things are just pushed through. Arch Linux uses the [testing] repo for everything that could potentially break your system. I have never had any problems after an update. Linux 3.8 is not out yet, because it causes some problems with the nvidia module for example.
Last edited by blackout23; 02-28-2013 at 01:33 PM.
Canonical should just wait for 14.04 LTE before putting it on mobiles, and then only use the 64 bit version on Cortex A57 and A53 chips, or other ARMv8 chips. It would make their life so much easier with upgrades later on, and they'd only need to focus on the 64 bit platform for mobile. I can't believe they are going to support both, just because they want to release the devices a few months earlier. But whatever. It's just not something I would've done.
There should only be two kind of repos for any RR distro. Testing and normal repos while testing doesn't mean it's the latest and is more bleeding edge. It is only a place to hold critical packages that can cause an unbootable system. No one is ever going to put the latest version of "nano" in testing for example. This is how you get a stable RR distro like Arch.
Let's just say I had used and gotten bored of gentoo BEFORE ubuntu & arch ever existed.
The thing is, I can't honestly recommend the rolling release to a friend or family member if it doesn't get testing. Have you met KDE .0 stable releases? I'm not talking 4.0 trolling here, but even running 4.10.0 I've ran into some issues already. Other packages might be better or worse. But users shouldn't be the ones to find out.
Just saying "if upstream kicks it out, it's ready" is not an acceptable form of testing. Of course ubuntu is free and I can't make them do what I want, but I'm commenting that I dislike this plan if there won't be steps taken so that stability is not affected compared to running a non-lts release now.
So you're basing your experience upon 1 distribution from 10+ years ago?
If KDE 4.10 is too new for you then maybe you should be using the LTS release rather than the rolling release. There is a reason why they will maintain both. A rolling release doesn't have to be unstable. In my opinion, if handled well a rolling release will be more stable than Ubuntu current 6 month cycle.
Arch Linux is a rolling release but they still have a testing repo to weed out bugs and regressions before its released to the stable repository. I've never had any issues with Arch updates unless its a huge change like a new init(Systemd) or the like. Surely Canonical with their huge resources can handle that better than a community distribution like Arch.