

Ubuntu 12.04 LTS to get extra-long desktop support cycle - divy
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2011/10/ubuntu-1204-lts-to-get-extra-long-desktop-support-cycle.ars

======
xutopia
Does this mean that their browser will not upgrade with the same speed as they
are released?

~~~
guard-of-terra
It's completely bizzare how distributions with long release cycles (think
debian) think they can lock on one version of browser and live with it
forever.

Absolutely makes sense for core libraries, makes less sense for server
software (bitrotten mysql, anyone?), makes no sense for desktop apps.

Ubuntu desktop LTS is meaningless if it won't update its browser. Why use a
desktop OS if the browser is outdated?

~~~
acabal
I've long argued that the entire Linux mentality of distros and packages is
broken, and one of the huge reasons why it'll never be widely adopted in the
desktop.

Linking versions of trivial software like photo organizers or music players--
or even more important software like browsers--to a specific version of the
entire system makes it impossible to ever have a stable, yet reasonably up-to-
date system. For example, what if you don't want Unity but do want Firefox 7?
Or do want updated indicator applets, but don't want broken wifi because of a
driver bug in 11.10? (Personal experience, that one.) Your only option is
adding PPAs, hoping there's a .deb, or compiling from source, all of which are
beyond an average desktop user. And even if you do that, if you wait long
enough the distro will have advanced so far away from your personal setup that
upgrading other things will become a nightmare.

Linux should move away from the monolithic distro paradigm and towards a
stable, rarely changing core of essentials like compositing, video, wifi,
hibernate, etc., with optional highly updatable packages of "smaller" software
like Banshee, Firefox, etc. That way you can have the best of both worlds:
stable core software that the user never sees, and individually updated
smaller software that the user wants to be fresh.

~~~
bct
There always been distros that work like that. There's no such thing as the
"Linux mentality" that you're talking about.

~~~
acabal
Rolling release isn't quite the same, because you still get frequent updates
to "core" software. For example I hear from many Arch users that it's great,
but it breaks even more frequently than Ubuntu. (Though I've never personally
used Arch.) It seems that Linux today is either ancient, stable, and frozen in
a bygone era like Debian Stable, or fresh but frequently broken, like Debian
Sid (or Arch). There's no inbetween.

And saying "my system works flawlessly, except that time when I had to Google
how to modprobe my temporarily broken wifi, or when I had to boot into rescue
mode to edit GRUB" doesn't count. You can't have a flawless system with
"except".

I'm suggesting that Linux needs something inbetween rolling release and
milestone release. Something that keeps invisible core software essential to
basic system functionality like wifi and video on stable milestones, but has
smaller user-facing software always up-to-date. I don't know if something like
that is possible given the current state of Linux package management. But it's
clear to me that both rolling and milestone based distros either 1) break too
frequently for mere mortals, or 2) cram unwanted changes down my throat for
the sake of just one or two new packages I want, or 3) have user-facing
software older than my grandma.

Windows has managed to do it. You can still run Firefox 7 on Windows XP, and I
can guarantee that upgrading to FF7 on XP won't suddenly change your desktop
to a shoddy OSX clone behind your back or break your wifi.

~~~
bct
> Rolling release isn't quite the same, because you still get frequent updates
> to "core" software.

You don't have to install updated versions unless you want to.

------
dignan
Makes sense to me, but do they have any/many corporate customers? I'd imagine
the expense of maintaining a distro branch over time grows super-linearly.

~~~
ootachi
It's right there in the article:

"The company's statement cites Qualcomm and the city of Munich as examples of
organizations that have conducted large-scale Ubuntu desktop rollouts."

~~~
dignan
Somehow missed that, thanks :)

As a side note, it's interesting to point out that Red Hat has long held that
they're not really interested in the desktop market [1], so it's good to see a
Linux distro make a play in the corporate desktop space.

[1] - [http://ostatic.com/blog/red-hat-still-doesnt-need-desktop-
li...](http://ostatic.com/blog/red-hat-still-doesnt-need-desktop-linux)

------
zokier
So basically they are extending their "server" support to desktops too. I
always found it funny that it was tiered like that, considering that they use
the same packages.

~~~
jwm
I don't know too much about how the Canonical maintenance process works, but I
imagine for all the server packages maintainers have to backport all new
security and bug patches that come out to the package versions in the LTS
releases.

It would follow that doing this for all the desktop packages would be extra
work.

------
pwpwp
5 years of Unity? <http://nooooooooooooooo.com/>

~~~
dpres
Pray there is a fix for Unity before the LTS release and like your link :)

