
Ubuntu considers end of traditional release cycle - macco
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/01/ubuntu-considers-huge-change-that-would-end-traditional-release-cycle
======
acabal
Milestone release vs. rolling release is a red herring. The real problem is
the issue of shared libraries and shared dependencies. This is one thing
Windows got right--updating one program (usually) doesn't affect other
programs on the system. But in Linux, updating one library or program might
introduce bugs into all of the programs using it. Hence was born the milestone
concept, where we freeze a known stable state of the entire system and use
that, because all the interdependent clockwork seems to work ok at that point;
and then the rolling release concept, where we acknowledge the need for new
software, but update everything, top to bottom, so frequently that breakage is
common.

These approaches have the added side effect of making the distro the curator
of the galaxy of 3rd-party software running on it. I find this the most
surprising thing--why should the OS provider have to spend the energy curating
every single well-known program that runs on the OS?

What we really need is a reform in the way dependencies and packages are
managed so we can update one aspect of the system (Firefox, Pidgin, etc.) and
not drag in new versions of libraries that can introduce bugs in to other
parts of the system. Gobo Linux started edging towards this approach but it's
sadly no longer maintained.

An approach that combines a stable core--kernel, video/network drivers, etc.--
that is thoroughly tested and rarely updated, plus sandboxed apps that update
at their own pace and are not curated by the distro maintainer, would be the
ideal approach, I think. We could even keep the concept of centrally-sourced
packages.

Is this possible given that Ubuntu inherits Debian, or given the general
philosophy and practices of OSS? Maybe not. But it'd go a really long way
towards assuaging the constant and unforgivable breakage that happens with
every new Ubuntu release. (And before someone chimes in with "you're wrong, it
works perfectly for me", I have a single anecdotal data point to counter your
single anecdotal data point.)

~~~
vacri
I _really_ do not like that my windows machine takes longer and longer to log
in as every single software provider has to have their own 'phone home'
mechanism to see if there's an update. Windows did _not_ 'get it right'.

~~~
4ad
Updating software is orthogonal to software modularity.

------
oneandoneis2
I used to enjoy the "continuous release" aspect of Gentoo. But every now and
then it would go _horribly_ wrong and I'd have hours of sorting it out to do.

That was ok since I was a hobbyist who was trying to learn Linux better.. but
Ubuntu's always been about "Just Works" so they'll have to be _really_ careful
with this.

If they can make it work, it'll be awesome.

------
klrr
This might be of interest:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7pkyDUX5uM&feature=yout...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7pkyDUX5uM&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

Theo de Raadt(OpenBSD founder) explain the importance of "Release
Engineering".

------
greenonion
Just when I decided I'm only going to be using LTS releases in the future. If
they actually go through with this I hope there will be a general update
option like choosing between "conservative" and "cutting-edge" updates.

~~~
jbester
The proposal is to keep LTS releases - but lose the interim releases. I assume
after an LTS release you'd be given an option "upgrade" to the next LTS
testing branch which give you updates until it that LTS is released.

~~~
vacri
I propose they have three releases: Stable, for the bi-yearly freeze, Testing,
for the generally-okay rolling update, and Unstable, for the untested cutting
edge stuff.

------
secure
So, they would essentially adopt the Debian way of doing things? Have a stable
release every two years and updates (Debian testing) in between.

------
bgruber
one of the things keeping me on ubuntu right now is that 3rd party linux
software (be it proprietary or open source stuff that's not in the
repositories for some reason, or perhaps that canonical has screwed around
with) is today almost always packaged for ubuntu. i imagine that's going to be
much harder when there isn't a specific release that those 3rd parties can aim
for.

i actually thought ubuntu hit a nice sweet spot with their 6-month release
cycle. it was one of the many things they got right in the early years that
gave them the leadership position they still have today, even if a lot of us
are less fond of what it's become.

------
anonymouz
On my work machine (laptop) I've been on Debian sid (unstable) for a few years
now, which is probably close to what they have in mind. For somewhat
experienced users this works great: Occasionally there are a few hiccups, but
they are few and usually easy to fix or work around.

But I would not recommend this to inexperienced users, and I think there the
current Ubuntu rapid release cycle hits a sweet spot: It's reasonably well
tested to be able to recommend it to inexperienced users or set someone
(grandparents, ...) up with an Ubuntu box and just let them have a go at it,
while also being mostly up to date.

------
tobylane
Do they have reason to care less about enterprise use now? Either all the
enterprise use is on LTS with support contracts, or they all fizzled out and
went back to Windows?

~~~
meaty
We fizzled out and went back to Debian stable. LTS is far from supported, even
when you pay for it.

------
aangjie
Meh... It just means am even less likely to use ubuntu in the future.. I have
already moved out of it, due to the amount of fixing i need to do, just to
compensate for the problems introduced by apt-get update. Now it seems i'll
just end up using debian or even fedora. Well, that may actually be a good
result..

------
marcuskaz
This is similar to what Chrome and Firefox are both doing now, lots of smaller
incremental updates. Problem I'm experiencing now is both browsers are less
stable with all the updates.

------
meaty
Now it can incrementally suck more.

Seriously, after the shit ton of badness canonical have pumped into Ubuntu in
the last 3 years I couldn't trust them on this.

