6 ms·

Ubuntu 12.04 LTS to get extra-long desktop support cycle

70 points by divy 15y ago

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
dignan 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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 15y ago
    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-linux http://ostatic.com/blog/red-hat-still-doesnt-need-desktop-li...
- endeavor 15y ago
  No, but that's the point. The 3 year product support cycle scares away corporate customers. Most CIOs don't want to be forced to do a hardware refresh before it's absolutely necessary. I assume the majority of the corporate desktop users are developers who also use Ubuntu as a server platform. E.g. me.
- cpeterso 15y ago
  Google uses "Goobuntu" on its desktops, but I'm not sure if they pay for Ubuntu support or just do it themselves.
pwpwp 15y ago
5 years of Unity? http://nooooooooooooooo.com/ http://nooooooooooooooo.com/
- dpres 15y ago
  Pray there is a fix for Unity before the LTS release and like your link :)
xutopia 15y ago
Does this mean that their browser will not upgrade with the same speed as they are released?
- guard-of-terra 15y ago
  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?
  - dman 15y ago
    One use case I can think of where this makes sense - Big companies have policies where you have to get every version of an open source software approved by legal because the license might have changed. Having a frozen set of versions makes software an easy sell for such customers.
    - guard-of-terra 15y ago
      I would not do that if I was them. It's as productive as if they would run an unrolled tight nop loops. A lot of heat dissipates and nothing comes out. Anyway, I mostly talk about distros aimed at the desktop.
  - acabal 15y ago
    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.
thepointyhat 15y ago
Switch to CentOS and get extra long support for both desktop and server!
zokier 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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.

70 points by divy 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

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 15y ago
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 15y ago
  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-linux http://ostatic.com/blog/red-hat-still-doesnt-need-desktop-li...
endeavor 15y ago
No, but that's the point. The 3 year product support cycle scares away corporate customers. Most CIOs don't want to be forced to do a hardware refresh before it's absolutely necessary. I assume the majority of the corporate desktop users are developers who also use Ubuntu as a server platform. E.g. me.
cpeterso 15y ago
Google uses "Goobuntu" on its desktops, but I'm not sure if they pay for Ubuntu support or just do it themselves.

pwpwp 15y ago

5 years of Unity? http://nooooooooooooooo.com/ http://nooooooooooooooo.com/

dpres 15y ago
Pray there is a fix for Unity before the LTS release and like your link :)

xutopia 15y ago

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

guard-of-terra 15y ago
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?
- dman 15y ago
  One use case I can think of where this makes sense - Big companies have policies where you have to get every version of an open source software approved by legal because the license might have changed. Having a frozen set of versions makes software an easy sell for such customers.
  - guard-of-terra 15y ago
    I would not do that if I was them. It's as productive as if they would run an unrolled tight nop loops. A lot of heat dissipates and nothing comes out. Anyway, I mostly talk about distros aimed at the desktop.
- acabal 15y ago
  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.

thepointyhat 15y ago

Switch to CentOS and get extra long support for both desktop and server!

zokier 15y ago

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 15y ago
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.