5 ms·

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. Absol

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.

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.