4 ms·
I disagree with you. It doesn't go agains release early, release often, as all geeks and early adopters will continue upgrading every six months, detecting bug
by pqs 17y ago
I disagree with you.
It doesn't go agains release early, release often, as all geeks and early adopters will continue upgrading every six months, detecting bugs and improving the distro.
In fact, Ubuntu already does what the article says, the article just advocates a change in emphasis.
De article is not advocating turning Ubuntu into Debian. There are no PPA in Debian, so staying with an old distro really means using old software. With Ubuntu LTS+PPA, people would use solid software for everything except for thos programs that need to be upgraded more often.
- hussong 17y agoI second your point, it's about running to strategies in parallel: release every six months for early adopters, but limit mainstream efforts to every to years. Which would make a lot of sense IMHO. From what I can tell, mainstream users don't care about having the latest software, they just want it to work. I've helped people migrate to Ubuntu who were still using Win98... I wish they kept the applications more up to date in the LTS version though, I keep adding new sources and installing .debs to get newer versions, for instance of OpenOffice, LifeRea or Pidgin.
- steveklabnik 17y agoBut often, people _do_ want the latest versions of software. Remember when Firefox 3 came out a month or so after Ubuntu did? Everyone was stuck on FX2 for 5 months. Forums were filled with "omg I type apt-get upgrade firefox and I still don't have FX3, wtf???/"
- noste 17y agoThere are no PPA in Debian, so staying with an old distro really means using old software. Debian has http://backports.org/ http://backports.org/ ("Backports are recompiled packages from testing (mostly) and unstable (in a few cases only, e.g. security updates), so they will run without new libraries (wherever it is possible) on a stable Debian distribution.")