Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Considering Switch To Rolling-Release Model

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    It is good idea. Non-rolling distros have always outdated software.

    Comment


    • #12
      I think it's a good idea... when done correctly... This just solves a rather big problem (remember gimp 2.8 that was released for all (all who added an additional repository, used a rolling release distro or used Windows, Mac).

      However, this has to be done right. Even a single (pretty serious) bug that is introduced after updating is unacceptable.

      Comment


      • #13
        They are already doing a rolling release for Firefox.

        Comment


        • #14
          Definitely great!

          Of course, it has to be done with care, but I think it's doable, even if it's not fully rolling release.

          As others said, canonical already does rolling release for Firefox. It could do it for many other non-core packages, basically things that didn't have (many?) other things that depended on them.

          Then in 6-months or whatever intervals, they could do major kernel and Xorg updates. Combine that with keeping a few older versions in the repository (so if Firefox 18 breaks my font hinting I don't have to go hunting for computers where my /var/cache/apt/archives still has a copy of FF17), and it's definitely doable.

          Comment


          • #15
            I'm all for it but I doubt they will do it, finally.

            Comment


            • #16
              There's a bunch of people saying they should go down to 1 release a year.
              There's also a bunch of people saying rolling release is great.

              I agree with both.

              There are some stable, important plumbing in the system that always needs to work and doesn't need to be updated all the time. Things like X.org, PulseAudio, Unity features (bugfixes are another matter), Compiz and so on. They need to be kept the same for a year so people can settle in. I've seen so often that I install Ubuntu on a new PC at my friend's house and he's super happy with it, and the next time he turns the PC on he gets a black screen because Canonical decided it would be a great idea to rev X.org or something retarded like that; or all of a sudden sound doesn't work because they revved the drivers - and so on. This should go on a 1-year release cycle and, safe for the occasional forced security update, should NEVER EVER update more often. NEVER update for new features.

              On the other hand, I'd always like to have bleeding-edge builds of apps like Firefox, GNOME, Eclipse, GIMP, and so on. This should go rolling release.

              Comment


              • #17
                Ubuntu Patches

                A problem will be there patches cause their packages are often heavy patched.
                They shoud push their changes to upstream or remove them or they will get big problems.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by Nille View Post
                  I see an big drama is comming. I hope Canonical and Valve can make enough pressure on AMD that they change there Linux Plan and start Supporting new Kernel and x-server releases like nvidia.

                  i bet Valve will not so amused if their steambox customers get only a black screen because there update the system.
                  They typically try to. What you typically get are releases that are being beta tested months in advance of even the "beta" drivers on their website which do support said kernels and x-servers. Although, I do agree, nvidia tends to be much better about that. I think the thing that would help the most would be to focus on that sort of compatibility first and foremost and worry about quality later.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Makes sense

                    This would completely make sense in my opinion :

                    - regular / non-tech users should use LTS anyway ; to a greater extent, now that important apps & even updated drivers are backported in the LTS (in 12.04.2 if I understood properly)

                    - regular versions are NEVER tested enough and are beta-quality anyway. It may sound harsh but, being an Ubuntu user since 2005, and still loving it, I think I'm entitled to some criticms .

                    Overall, IF done properly, it would be better :

                    - for the Joe user who would use a LTS which would be more widely used and would have more backports
                    - for the enthusiast tester who would be always up to date. Fixes would be available more quickly. Maybe the rolling release wouldn't be that "breakable" as Canonical (I mean : the community) would have fewer distros to support at a time !

                    Canonical, please do it !

                    (BTW, I wonder what it would imply regarding the sync with the Debian base & Debian testing)
                    Last edited by torturedutopian; 01-23-2013, 05:04 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by Ishayu View Post
                      There's a bunch of people saying they should go down to 1 release a year.
                      There's also a bunch of people saying rolling release is great.

                      I agree with both.

                      There are some stable, important plumbing in the system that always needs to work and doesn't need to be updated all the time. Things like X.org, PulseAudio, Unity features (bugfixes are another matter), Compiz and so on. They need to be kept the same for a year so people can settle in. I've seen so often that I install Ubuntu on a new PC at my friend's house and he's super happy with it, and the next time he turns the PC on he gets a black screen because Canonical decided it would be a great idea to rev X.org or something retarded like that; or all of a sudden sound doesn't work because they revved the drivers - and so on. This should go on a 1-year release cycle and, safe for the occasional forced security update, should NEVER EVER update more often. NEVER update for new features.

                      On the other hand, I'd always like to have bleeding-edge builds of apps like Firefox, GNOME, Eclipse, GIMP, and so on. This should go rolling release.
                      Sounds a bit like the Half-Rolling Release Model of the Chakra-Project
                      I defenitly enjoy this Release Model

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X