4 ms·

> For desktop systems it might be different, but then again in our lab (~50 users) most of our Ubuntu's users shifted away to Mint over the course of 3 years. O

> For desktop systems it might be different, but then again in our lab (~50 users) most of our Ubuntu's users shifted away to Mint over the course of 3 years. Only one is still using Ubuntu. That is due to the awful UI decisions Ubuntu made. Then again I run Ubuntu Gnome instead of Mint. > This is not what "support" in "long term support" is. Predictable release cycle in these terms is not worth much. That isn't related to the OP's argument. The OP is basically saying that predictable support cycles of 5 years is something Debian should do in the interests of keeping big players in their ecosystem instead of them drifting into Ubuntu's orbit. The quality of Ubuntu's LTS is irrelevant if people switch purely because of marketing. https://www.debian.org/News/2014/20140424 https://www.debian.org/News/2014/20140424 It was done for Debian 6 and I'm pretty sure the OP is trying to encourage Debian to continue that on Debian 7 & 8. However, with no guarantees, people will switch to Ubuntu since Ubuntu's quality is "good enough".

tenfingers 12y ago
Sure, I understood the logic behind that. And having a more tight release cycle will also intrinsically help Debian, since maintaining backports/patching a system for a longer time is also more demanding. My main problem with these sentiments though is that Ubuntu still has marketing for some reason. This means that it's actually more likely that you can find your $commercial package pre-built for Ubuntu, while there's no official support for Debian. Obsolete releases for commercial software are actually helpful (less support required). Not to mention that in most cases there's zero effort in making the package exactly the same....
- opendais 12y ago
  > My main problem with these sentiments though is that Ubuntu still has marketing for some reason. Yes, it tried to make Linux more "mainstream" and mostly succeeded. That is what happens when you have a ton of money you can throw at a problem. http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/ubuntu-maker-boosted-revenue-in-2013-but-doubled-loss-to-21-million/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/ubuntu-maker-boosted... It is still losing double digit millions a year. Debian can't match that kind of loss. I don't think Debian even has $20 million in a year in terms of donations? {not counting labor)

tenfingers 12y ago

Sure, I understood the logic behind that. And having a more tight release cycle will also intrinsically help Debian, since maintaining backports/patching a system for a longer time is also more demanding. My main problem with these sentiments though is that Ubuntu still has marketing for some reason. This means that it's actually more likely that you can find your $commercial package pre-built for Ubuntu, while there's no official support for Debian. Obsolete releases for commercial software are actually helpful (less support required). Not to mention that in most cases there's zero effort in making the package exactly the same....

opendais 12y ago
> My main problem with these sentiments though is that Ubuntu still has marketing for some reason. Yes, it tried to make Linux more "mainstream" and mostly succeeded. That is what happens when you have a ton of money you can throw at a problem. http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/ubuntu-maker-boosted-revenue-in-2013-but-doubled-loss-to-21-million/ http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/01/ubuntu-maker-boosted... It is still losing double digit millions a year. Debian can't match that kind of loss. I don't think Debian even has $20 million in a year in terms of donations? {not counting labor)