8 ms·

Ubuntu considers end of traditional release cycle

49 points by macco 14y ago

greenonion 14y ago
Just when I decided I'm only going to be using LTS releases in the future. If they actually go through with this I hope there will be a general update option like choosing between "conservative" and "cutting-edge" updates.
- jbester 14y ago
  The proposal is to keep LTS releases - but lose the interim releases. I assume after an LTS release you'd be given an option "upgrade" to the next LTS testing branch which give you updates until it that LTS is released.
  - vacri 14y ago
    I propose they have three releases: Stable, for the bi-yearly freeze, Testing, for the generally-okay rolling update, and Unstable, for the untested cutting edge stuff.
tobylane 14y ago
Do they have reason to care less about enterprise use now? Either all the enterprise use is on LTS with support contracts, or they all fizzled out and went back to Windows?
- meaty 14y ago
  We fizzled out and went back to Debian stable. LTS is far from supported, even when you pay for it.
oneandoneis2 14y ago
I used to enjoy the "continuous release" aspect of Gentoo. But every now and then it would go horribly wrong and I'd have hours of sorting it out to do. That was ok since I was a hobbyist who was trying to learn Linux better.. but Ubuntu's always been about "Just Works" so they'll have to be really careful with this. If they can make it work, it'll be awesome.
secure 14y ago
So, they would essentially adopt the Debian way of doing things? Have a stable release every two years and updates (Debian testing) in between.
meaty 14y ago
Now it can incrementally suck more. Seriously, after the shit ton of badness canonical have pumped into Ubuntu in the last 3 years I couldn't trust them on this.
acabal 14y ago
Milestone release vs. rolling release is a red herring. The real problem is the issue of shared libraries and shared dependencies. This is one thing Windows got right--updating one program (usually) doesn't affect other programs on the system. But in Linux, updating one library or program might introduce bugs into all of the programs using it. Hence was born the milestone concept, where we freeze a known stable state of the entire system and use that, because all the interdependent clockwork seems to work ok at that point; and then the rolling release concept, where we acknowledge the need for new software, but update everything, top to bottom, so frequently that breakage is common. These approaches have the added side effect of making the distro the curator of the galaxy of 3rd-party software running on it. I find this the most surprising thing--why should the OS provider have to spend the energy curating every single well-known program that runs on the OS? What we really need is a reform in the way dependencies and packages are managed so we can update one aspect of the system (Firefox, Pidgin, etc.) and not drag in new versions of libraries that can introduce bugs in to other parts of the system. Gobo Linux started edging towards this approach but it's sadly no longer maintained. An approach that combines a stable core--kernel, video/network drivers, etc.--that is thoroughly tested and rarely updated, plus sandboxed apps that update at their own pace and are not curated by the distro maintainer, would be the ideal approach, I think. We could even keep the concept of centrally-sourced packages. Is this possible given that Ubuntu inherits Debian, or given the general philosophy and practices of OSS? Maybe not. But it'd go a really long way towards assuaging the constant and unforgivable breakage that happens with every new Ubuntu release. (And before someone chimes in with "you're wrong, it works perfectly for me", I have a single anecdotal data point to counter your single anecdotal data point.)
- lhnn 14y ago
  If the distros continue to have their "app store" feel, where you get apps from distro maintainers as a trusted provider, then vaildating the barest amount of security and usability for programs uploaded to their archives would be even more of a chore. It would also tax bandwidth and drive space, FWIW. Windows got/gets away with it because they provide the OS and a few apps, and says, "go to download.com for all your needs!".
  - 14y ago
klrr 14y ago
This might be of interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7pkyDUX5uM&feature=youtube_gdata_player https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7pkyDUX5uM&feature=yout... Theo de Raadt(OpenBSD founder) explain the importance of "Release Engineering".
aangjie 14y ago
Meh... It just means am even less likely to use ubuntu in the future.. I have already moved out of it, due to the amount of fixing i need to do, just to compensate for the problems introduced by apt-get update. Now it seems i'll just end up using debian or even fedora. Well, that may actually be a good result..
anonymouz 14y ago
On my work machine (laptop) I've been on Debian sid (unstable) for a few years now, which is probably close to what they have in mind. For somewhat experienced users this works great: Occasionally there are a few hiccups, but they are few and usually easy to fix or work around. But I would not recommend this to inexperienced users, and I think there the current Ubuntu rapid release cycle hits a sweet spot: It's reasonably well tested to be able to recommend it to inexperienced users or set someone (grandparents, ...) up with an Ubuntu box and just let them have a go at it, while also being mostly up to date.
marcuskaz 14y ago
This is similar to what Chrome and Firefox are both doing now, lots of smaller incremental updates. Problem I'm experiencing now is both browsers are less stable with all the updates.
bgruber 14y ago
one of the things keeping me on ubuntu right now is that 3rd party linux software (be it proprietary or open source stuff that's not in the repositories for some reason, or perhaps that canonical has screwed around with) is today almost always packaged for ubuntu. i imagine that's going to be much harder when there isn't a specific release that those 3rd parties can aim for. i actually thought ubuntu hit a nice sweet spot with their 6-month release cycle. it was one of the many things they got right in the early years that gave them the leadership position they still have today, even if a lot of us are less fond of what it's become.

49 points by macco 14y ago

Just when I decided I'm only going to be using LTS releases in the future. If they actually go through with this I hope there will be a general update option like choosing between "conservative" and "cutting-edge" updates.

jbester 14y ago
The proposal is to keep LTS releases - but lose the interim releases. I assume after an LTS release you'd be given an option "upgrade" to the next LTS testing branch which give you updates until it that LTS is released.
- vacri 14y ago
  I propose they have three releases: Stable, for the bi-yearly freeze, Testing, for the generally-okay rolling update, and Unstable, for the untested cutting edge stuff.

tobylane 14y ago

Do they have reason to care less about enterprise use now? Either all the enterprise use is on LTS with support contracts, or they all fizzled out and went back to Windows?

meaty 14y ago
We fizzled out and went back to Debian stable. LTS is far from supported, even when you pay for it.

oneandoneis2 14y ago

I used to enjoy the "continuous release" aspect of Gentoo. But every now and then it would go horribly wrong and I'd have hours of sorting it out to do. That was ok since I was a hobbyist who was trying to learn Linux better.. but Ubuntu's always been about "Just Works" so they'll have to be really careful with this. If they can make it work, it'll be awesome.

secure 14y ago

So, they would essentially adopt the Debian way of doing things? Have a stable release every two years and updates (Debian testing) in between.

meaty 14y ago

Now it can incrementally suck more. Seriously, after the shit ton of badness canonical have pumped into Ubuntu in the last 3 years I couldn't trust them on this.

acabal 14y ago

Milestone release vs. rolling release is a red herring. The real problem is the issue of shared libraries and shared dependencies. This is one thing Windows got right--updating one program (usually) doesn't affect other programs on the system. But in Linux, updating one library or program might introduce bugs into all of the programs using it. Hence was born the milestone concept, where we freeze a known stable state of the entire system and use that, because all the interdependent clockwork seems to work ok at that point; and then the rolling release concept, where we acknowledge the need for new software, but update everything, top to bottom, so frequently that breakage is common. These approaches have the added side effect of making the distro the curator of the galaxy of 3rd-party software running on it. I find this the most surprising thing--why should the OS provider have to spend the energy curating every single well-known program that runs on the OS? What we really need is a reform in the way dependencies and packages are managed so we can update one aspect of the system (Firefox, Pidgin, etc.) and not drag in new versions of libraries that can introduce bugs in to other parts of the system. Gobo Linux started edging towards this approach but it's sadly no longer maintained. An approach that combines a stable core--kernel, video/network drivers, etc.--that is thoroughly tested and rarely updated, plus sandboxed apps that update at their own pace and are not curated by the distro maintainer, would be the ideal approach, I think. We could even keep the concept of centrally-sourced packages. Is this possible given that Ubuntu inherits Debian, or given the general philosophy and practices of OSS? Maybe not. But it'd go a really long way towards assuaging the constant and unforgivable breakage that happens with every new Ubuntu release. (And before someone chimes in with "you're wrong, it works perfectly for me", I have a single anecdotal data point to counter your single anecdotal data point.)

lhnn 14y ago
If the distros continue to have their "app store" feel, where you get apps from distro maintainers as a trusted provider, then vaildating the barest amount of security and usability for programs uploaded to their archives would be even more of a chore. It would also tax bandwidth and drive space, FWIW. Windows got/gets away with it because they provide the OS and a few apps, and says, "go to download.com for all your needs!".
- 14y ago

klrr 14y ago

This might be of interest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7pkyDUX5uM&feature=youtube_gdata_player https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7pkyDUX5uM&feature=yout... Theo de Raadt(OpenBSD founder) explain the importance of "Release Engineering".

aangjie 14y ago

Meh... It just means am even less likely to use ubuntu in the future.. I have already moved out of it, due to the amount of fixing i need to do, just to compensate for the problems introduced by apt-get update. Now it seems i'll just end up using debian or even fedora. Well, that may actually be a good result..

anonymouz 14y ago

On my work machine (laptop) I've been on Debian sid (unstable) for a few years now, which is probably close to what they have in mind. For somewhat experienced users this works great: Occasionally there are a few hiccups, but they are few and usually easy to fix or work around. But I would not recommend this to inexperienced users, and I think there the current Ubuntu rapid release cycle hits a sweet spot: It's reasonably well tested to be able to recommend it to inexperienced users or set someone (grandparents, ...) up with an Ubuntu box and just let them have a go at it, while also being mostly up to date.

marcuskaz 14y ago

This is similar to what Chrome and Firefox are both doing now, lots of smaller incremental updates. Problem I'm experiencing now is both browsers are less stable with all the updates.

bgruber 14y ago

one of the things keeping me on ubuntu right now is that 3rd party linux software (be it proprietary or open source stuff that's not in the repositories for some reason, or perhaps that canonical has screwed around with) is today almost always packaged for ubuntu. i imagine that's going to be much harder when there isn't a specific release that those 3rd parties can aim for. i actually thought ubuntu hit a nice sweet spot with their 6-month release cycle. it was one of the many things they got right in the early years that gave them the leadership position they still have today, even if a lot of us are less fond of what it's become.