Ubuntu Aims For Higher Quality LTS Point Releases

[Paradigm Shifter]

Lets summon the masses and try to push some rediculous distro just to push "I just switched to linux" youtubers makeing a "I'm using Red Star Linux as my daily driver since 6 month ...I will tell you why im loving it vid >

I've found YouTube is suddenly pushing "Garuda Linux" videos at me from channels I've never watched. Either their algorithm is magic (because I do very very little tech watching on YouTube, it's mostly guitar/bass/music stuff) or someone has spent a load of money on marketing.

If we do this, I vote TinyCore or MicroCore. Try getting techtubers to explain why a terminal-only, ultra-minimalist distro is their new daily driver.

[timrichardson]

Higher quality means more outdated software, right ?

The article discusses changes to point updates of the LTS version, so in this case, the versions of the packages are already fixed (and "out of date"): that's what an LTS means. Updates made in point releases don't introduce new versions of software: again, that's what an LTS means. So nothing is changing in that respect. You know what you're getting with an LTS distribution. (EDIT: except where is it part of the HWE "stack", kernel, mesa etc: the LTS update process for desktop users, but this stuff is tested by the latest six monthly release for months before getting to the LTS point release).
What they are talking about here is a formal process around releasing small fixes to Ubuntu LTS. The compromise and news behind the announcement seems to be that they will delay an LTS point release if needed, rather than rush fixes to meet a deadline. One part of Ubuntu's radical take on Debian was to release to a predictable schedule, so this sort of concession is culturally perhaps a bigger deal than it seems, even if it makes no practical difference (Fedora is quite happy to delay a bit when needed).

[CochainComplex]

I've found YouTube is suddenly pushing "Garuda Linux" videos at me from channels I've never watched. Either their algorithm is magic (because I do very very little tech watching on YouTube, it's mostly guitar/bass/music stuff) or someone has spent a load of money on marketing.

If we do this, I vote TinyCore or MicroCore. Try getting techtubers to explain why a terminal-only, ultra-minimalist distro is their new daily driver.

Good Ideas. My fav fun distros are the China/N.K. offiicial distros. Like Red Flag Linux or Red Star Linux ...the later one is now Argentinian one "rosa estrelle" but was/is the Northkorean official Distro? with OS X look and fell ...cough.

...btw....TinyCore/MicroCore justification ... mentaly closer to the hadware, lean and not overblown, pure the new digital Lent! Im sure it is vegan compatible.

Lets set a new trend ... lets purge our mind body and soul. terminal only for 2 weeks.

[ThoreauHD]

Looks like they are trying to fill the CentOS/RHEL stability void. Not a bad idea.

[Guest]

We had a few cases already where our last minute fixes, fast-tracked under time pressure, were not tested thoroughly enough and introduced regressions (or, similarly annoying, appeared to be only partial fixes)

Management problem. "I announced this date, so release on that date, no matter how crappy it is."

Stop setting release dates until the release is actually ready.

What happens in most cases is that management sets a date, and then whips the engineers : "Mush! Mush!"

[Guest]

"New restrictions will be in place beginning with Ubuntu 20.04.3 LTS this summer to try to enforce better quality releases with less regressions by enforcing better quality control."

"...better quality control" than what, and when, exactly?

Ubuntu's BETTER QUALITY CONTROL is precisely why Linux Mint lost its many-year-long ranking as the #1 distro (and will never recover), just as soon as Mint adopted Ubuntu LTS (starting with 16.04) as its base. Linux Mint now = Ubuntu Mint.

Or it could be because of their use of LTS. New hardware support (especially on AMD) needs newer kernels and software. LTS is only good for servers ans when hardware support is already mature and sufficiently feature complete. Not suitable for a widespread, general purpose Linux desktop distro.

[danmcgrew]

Management problem. "I announced this date, so release on that date, no matter how crappy it is."

Stop setting release dates until the release is actually ready.

What happens in most cases is that management sets a date, and then whips the engineers : "Mush! Mush!"

"Floggings will continue until morale improves!"

[danmcgrew]

Or it could be because of their use of LTS. New hardware support (especially on AMD) needs newer kernels and software. LTS is only good for servers ans when hardware support is already mature and sufficiently feature complete. Not suitable for a widespread, general purpose Linux desktop distro.

Thank you for your surgical, laser-focused assessment of what is wrong with Mint Linux, and has been since the introduction of Version 18.

Clement Lefebvre has lost sight of the fact that everything he did up to, and including Mint 17.3 was the epitome of a widespread, general purpose Linux distribution. Nothing since then has been, and Mint's--and Lefebvre's--lack of acceptance is proof of that fact, as his the latest--up-until-now uncharacteristic, but now-popular tactic of those with absolutely no other defense--"taking to the airwaves" (by Lefebvre) to deflect the blame of the shortcomings of Mint onto something else--and not taking any responsibility for the lack, now, of all those exceptional qualities which used to be the hallmark of Mint Linux.

Mint Linux is now irrelevant. And M. Lefebvre knows it.