Originally posted by jo-erlend
View Post
Suse begs to differ. Both large, for profit, fast progress and large, for profit, slow progress releases. Leap & Tumbleweed.
iMHO, it's the release cycle model that needs to change. Both freeze and play catch up & freeze and play catch up for even longer (LTS) just sucks on a desktop where we damn-near require a decent amount of the system to be in a bleeding edge state just to account for Steam, AMDGPU, other misc. gaming reasons, media codecs, web security, security in general, and more.
It adds more burden on maintainers since they have to account for version 3 updating to version 5 from LTS to LTS and not getting some random file from program version 4 that program version 5 expects to be there but doesn't install and is planned to be fixed with program version 6 (which also now depends on application B version 2 but is froze at application B version 1 which means application B also needs backports to be compatible with program version 6). The maintainer gets stuck with buggy version 5 and has to backport fixes from new versions because the distribution freeze time didn't jive with the release cycle of that particular program and has to do the same thing for a dependency package. Multiply that scenario with an entire repository of software and then double it if the distribution is like Ubuntu with LTS and regular interval freezes and that's where all the increased burden comes from.
I'd be happy if LTS meant using an LTS kernel with the LTS Plasma desktop and other LTS versions of software that get both LTS and current/stable releases.
Leave a comment: