5 ms·

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

by xutopia 15y ago

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.
  - Meai 15y ago
    It's already like this. The core is called Redhat or Debian, and the fluff is called Fedora and Ubuntu.
  - bct 15y ago
    There always been distros that work like that. There's no such thing as the "Linux mentality" that you're talking about.
    - pchivers 15y ago
      Which distros work like that? (speaking as a Ubuntu user that has never tried any other distros)
      - bct 15y ago
        Gentoo and Arch are the ones that come immediately to mind. The term to look for is "rolling release".
        bostonvaulter2 15y ago
        I think I also read somewhere that Ubuntu is considering a rolling release model in the future.
        gasull 15y ago
        You made me search for it. Apparently it was a rumor: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/11/ubuntu-is-not-changing-to-a-rolling-release/ http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/11/ubuntu-is-not-changing-to...
        wisty 15y ago
        There were plans for a rolling release called "Grumpy Groundhog", which would exist alongside the stable releases. Here's an Ubuntu wiki article created by Mark Shuttleworth on it, but note it hasn't been modified since 2008 - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDownUnder/BOFs/GrumpyGroundhog https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDownUnder/BOFs/GrumpyGroundhog
- alrs 15y ago
  I'm happy with Firefox 3.5.16 in Debian stable. I have no problem visiting websites, and I don't have to sweat Vimperator breaking because of a browser rev. I think that caring about the latest browser version is the domain of webdevs and teenagers.
  - gasull 15y ago
    Except the difference in speed is really noticeable.
dimmuborgir 15y ago
No. Firefox stable updates are immediately pushed in both non-LTS and LTS.
zokier 15y ago
I don't think Ubuntu has as strict policy on releasing feature-updates as Debian. So I wouldn't rule out that browser would be kept up to date. And of course you have always the ability to use some other binaries than those provided by Canonical.
- LeafStorm 15y ago
  Once, in Ubuntu 9.04, the cherrypy3 package was completely broken due to the upgrade to Python 2.6 [1]. (The version they were shipping at the time was 3.0.2, which was released in 2007.) Literally nothing worked. At all. There was a new version of CherryPy that was Python 2.6 compatible, but they didn't upgrade to it. Instead, they had to go through the Stable Release Upgrade process, which took two months. Instead of upgrading the package from a version released in freaking 2007, they just added a patch that fixed the specific issue. And this was for software that was completely and totally broken. The chances that they would upgrade software that still worked fine but added some cool new features is just about zero. [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cherrypy3/+bug/368855 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cherrypy3/+bug/368...
  - sciurus 15y ago
    As dimmuborgir already pointed out, they do upgrade Firefox. It's the exception of the rule and my impression is that there was much gnashing of teeth when Mozilla's update policy forced Canonical to start doing this.

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

by xutopia 15y ago

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

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.
- Meai 15y ago
  It's already like this. The core is called Redhat or Debian, and the fluff is called Fedora and Ubuntu.
- bct 15y ago
  There always been distros that work like that. There's no such thing as the "Linux mentality" that you're talking about.
  - pchivers 15y ago
    Which distros work like that? (speaking as a Ubuntu user that has never tried any other distros)
    - bct 15y ago
      Gentoo and Arch are the ones that come immediately to mind. The term to look for is "rolling release".
      - bostonvaulter2 15y ago
        I think I also read somewhere that Ubuntu is considering a rolling release model in the future.
        gasull 15y ago
        You made me search for it. Apparently it was a rumor: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/11/ubuntu-is-not-changing-to-a-rolling-release/ http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2010/11/ubuntu-is-not-changing-to...
        wisty 15y ago
        There were plans for a rolling release called "Grumpy Groundhog", which would exist alongside the stable releases. Here's an Ubuntu wiki article created by Mark Shuttleworth on it, but note it hasn't been modified since 2008 - https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDownUnder/BOFs/GrumpyGroundhog https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDownUnder/BOFs/GrumpyGroundhog
alrs 15y ago
I'm happy with Firefox 3.5.16 in Debian stable. I have no problem visiting websites, and I don't have to sweat Vimperator breaking because of a browser rev. I think that caring about the latest browser version is the domain of webdevs and teenagers.
- gasull 15y ago
  Except the difference in speed is really noticeable.

dimmuborgir 15y ago

No. Firefox stable updates are immediately pushed in both non-LTS and LTS.

zokier 15y ago

I don't think Ubuntu has as strict policy on releasing feature-updates as Debian. So I wouldn't rule out that browser would be kept up to date. And of course you have always the ability to use some other binaries than those provided by Canonical.

LeafStorm 15y ago
Once, in Ubuntu 9.04, the cherrypy3 package was completely broken due to the upgrade to Python 2.6 [1]. (The version they were shipping at the time was 3.0.2, which was released in 2007.) Literally nothing worked. At all. There was a new version of CherryPy that was Python 2.6 compatible, but they didn't upgrade to it. Instead, they had to go through the Stable Release Upgrade process, which took two months. Instead of upgrading the package from a version released in freaking 2007, they just added a patch that fixed the specific issue. And this was for software that was completely and totally broken. The chances that they would upgrade software that still worked fine but added some cool new features is just about zero. [1]: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cherrypy3/+bug/368855 https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/cherrypy3/+bug/368...
- sciurus 15y ago
  As dimmuborgir already pointed out, they do upgrade Firefox. It's the exception of the rule and my impression is that there was much gnashing of teeth when Mozilla's update policy forced Canonical to start doing this.