

Canonical might switch Ubuntu to rolling releases for 14.04 - mindstab
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/146442-canonical-might-dump-interim-releases-by-14-04-switching-to-rolling-releases

======
zanny
It seems silly to have any modern Linux distro be anything but a well
implemented rolling release, because people aren't getting physical dvds to
install this stuff anymore. If you run a server, get the latest stable
packages, run with it, and if something needs upgrading manually upgrade the
select packages you want to update. Keep security updates. If you are a normal
user, you can probably just let rolling updates upgrade everything.

The greatest problem I have with my relatives who I have running Ubuntu or
Fedora is that major version increments will almost always critically break
the system because they are often 4 - 6 kernels or other package versions
behind. If you were to step through the update process in order, you might get
a minor snag, but often it updates flawlessly. I have never had an issue in
over a year running an Arch box (besides porting my init scripts to systemd,
but that was a unique case, and that wasn't a _problem_ , it just required
effort) whereas on two separate machines going from 11.04 to 12.04 broke the
kernel or graphics drivers respectively.

I do think most distros could do better with 3 tiers of packages in a rolling
release, though - new releases for the actual developers of the package to run
through the ropes and find and _fix_ major bugs they specifically encounter,
which then pass into a testing branch where enthusiasts can run bleeding edge
software and submit errors they encounter to be fixed before it enters
mainstream core repos. A lot of the current problems with rolling releases are
that you don't have a big enough pool running in testing to catch the majority
of slip-through-the-cracks integration problems that pop up after the release
itself is solid, so you need to properly incentivize people to use the testing
branch, and the main reason people don't do that is that updates often just
outright break the software entirely rather than have integration issues,
hence 3 tiers.

~~~
BruceIV
Sounds like Debian sid/testing/stable...

~~~
imrehg
Or ArchLinux testing/stable.... though sometimes even stable feels like
"testing", but with the occasional breakages I had less problem with
Archlinux, then I had with the Ubuntu updates release by release....

------
dimitar
Rolling releases and the 6 month-release cycle the worst thing about Linux. I
hate it when I have reinstall and upgrade because of compatibility so often -
there is zero new functionality and rather that reducing bugs, the
distributions replaces the old ones with new ones. Or it randomly breaks your
fixes. Or after the update your system locale is switched to Chinese (happened
to me, and no I have nothing in common with China).

~~~
Auguste
This has been my experience too. In the end, I found myself more comfortable
with slower-moving distributions like Slackware.

------
overgun77
Linux Mint does this on their LMDE version. A rolling release will mean that
Canonical must provide an easy way to rollback to previous package versions or
to save snapshots of the user's machine before upgrading. You can't expect
that an Ubuntu end-user to have the same technical knowledge as someone with
experience with Debian, Gentoo or the BSDs to troubleshoot when suddenly their
computer is not booting and that they need to change run levels or disable
their display manager to figure out what's wrong with Xorg. Shit happens, and
happens often.

Also, I've used Archlinux (now Debian sid recently with their systemd
"upgrade" and other desicions that deviate away from their KISS principle) and
haven't experienced any problem, then again I tend to run a maximalist[1]
desktop. Stuff starts to break when you have a lot of applications installed
with their own dependencies and their own team of people working on that
application, I've always felt that the whole desktop environment on Linux is
like building a tower with cubes, it's solid when you have a few applications,
but as you start adding stuff on top, the whole things starts trembling away
and it takes a really small problem to bring everything down.

If this is going to be done, they better provide ways to their users to easily
recover from an upgrade gone wrong.

[1] - Maximailism is a better word:
[http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/maximalism-is-a-
bett...](http://kmandla.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/maximalism-is-a-better-word/)

------
BruceIV
I think it's a win, as long as they make rolling releases between LTS releases
optional. That way the LTS users keep their current status quo, and the
6-month release users get a more even distribution of new features and OS
updates (they can be released when they're done, not when the release cycle
hits, and you can always have the latest web browser).

(For what it's worth, my current Linux distro of choice is Linux Mint Debian
Edition, but I used Ubuntu on my primary machine for a couple years around the
end of the oughts.)

~~~
ComputerGuru
6 months of "rolling releases" isn't a rolling release at all (i.e. if the
rolling releases are only between LTS and LTS). LTS would have to be separate
from the rolling releases entirely.

~~~
BruceIV
I meant that the users that currently upgrade every 6 months would move over
to the rolling release system.

Also, I don't think LTS would have to be completely separate from the rolling
release. IIRC Debian stable is basically just a freeze of the Debian testing
rolling release somewhere that makes sense.

------
fusiongyro
I guess the idea here is to bring the joy of running Arch and Gentoo to the
unwashed masses?

~~~
saosebastiao
If it weren't for pacman's weird user interface (not functionality, just the
UI), I might have already switched to Arch. As Ubuntu gets worse (it seems
like every day there is a new anouncement that sucks), pacman looks better and
better.

~~~
arthulia
What UI are you talking about? pacman is a relatively simple to use cli tool.
-S to install something, -Ss to search for something -y to update the package
list, and -Su to upgrade packages; that's basically four flags to memorize. Or
do it all at once with -Syu.

~~~
deelowe
It's simple, but the switches are rather odd. I get the point of S, Y, U
etc... and then the minor options of yu etc... but it's rather arbitrary in
practice.

Note: -S isn't "install," it's for syncing which does all manner of things
including installs, but not removals (oddly enough). It's little things like
this that bother me about pacman.

