Ubuntu switching to a monthly release cycle?????

[inittux]

It's all over the web, rumors about Ubuntu switching over to a monthly release cycle. Seems like Ubuntu is following up

Firefox's example(copying Firefox?!). A reason behind it, because people like to explore. There would be no more code

names and updates would go through /etc/apt/sources.list just like Debian's testing repository(copying Debian?!). Problem

with this is same as the problems with Firefox moving too fast. Developers not being able to keep up and having alot less

time to develop decent applications for the OS. Applications would have more bugs making ubuntu even less stable Other

problems would be users losing confidence in the Operating system. Who wants to upgrade their OS every month? or

re-install every month?I know I don't, a 6 month release cycle I already find short. That's why I switched from Ubuntu to

Debian and same reason why I never liked fedora. But one month release cycle is insane!!Any Ubuntu users here?!I'm glad

I'm not [img]<___base_url___>//public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.png[/img] What are your opinions on this? I sure hope for the Ubuntu users they don't make this mistake of switching to a monthly

release cycle.

 

source

[hybrid]

Personally I feel like I'm rapidly coming to the opinion that the 'traditional' way of doing it is preferred for me. Being at the bleeding edge all the time has its uses, and in a test environment, it's great if you want to see what's coming next. But the systems I'm putting together, using and am responsible for need to be stable and I'd like to keep them the same and upgrade them relatively infrequently. I'd be really concerned if this ceased to become an option with Ubuntu. The proposal here is interesting -- it feels a bit like the way Fedora works. The way Fedora works is great if that's what you want, but I don't think it is, for me personally.

 

(Presumably, Ubuntu's Long Term Support releases wouldn't be affected by this change. Perhaps that's what people like me would have to stick to, rather than each six-monthly release!)

[Dungeon-Dave]

I'm not convinced "monthly release cycle" means "a different OS every month", more "new updates released every month".

 

Firefox is a slightly different situation: with firefox, you need to download the entire package and install it - just like you do with the flash plugin (except it seems to be every day). With a Linux distro, you only download updates (updated packages) and also you don't need to download them all - only the ones you are using (so a sendmail update won't affect me, for instance).

 

Let's not forget that Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint etc are intended to be desktop OSes and will have faster change cycles than Debian/CentOS that are regarded as Server OSes, given the speed that desktop applications change. Having longer periods between updates means having to wait longer for newer technology and/or bugfixes.

 

And there's the bottom line of: you're not *forced* to update. I'm still running Ubuntu10.10 and not upgraded to 11 yet. Apart from flash being a hog from time to time, the rest of it is fairly stable and hasn't really given me a reason to upgrade.

[inittux]

That I do have to agree with Dave, but on the other hand thought it would be a good/fun discussion point :);)

But I really would encourage you to try running CentOS6 desktop in a virtualbox ;). I'm still running it as desktop

and I can do everything I need to do without any problems and I find it very stable and like it even more than Debian.

[Dungeon-Dave]

I'm actually going to do a network install on a box here next to me in preparation for (potentially) upgrading a friend's server this weekend!

[Bevior]

I too agree with Dave. I am a self professed Linux Noob, even still I dislike the current trend of pushing a version of software to market that may or may not be completely tested, because if something breaks we will just release a patch. Release something that will hold up for a couple of months. I belive that those of us who want to be cutting edge are the same people who will go out and find out the "latest and greatest" versions and install them personally. Don't really see the need for monthly releases.

[Dungeon-Dave]

There was always this notion that Fedora was the testing ground for RHEL, that any stuff rolled out to the "free" RH version would be beta-tested by a large audience and if there were no major bug reports showing up in forums then it was considered suited for inclusion into the RHEL repos.

 

Again, I'm not convinced that ubuntu is going that way, but any frequent update cycle will have a greater business impact with organisational changes and require significant investment in testing. There's something to be said for languid release cycles, but I suppose the flipside of taking advantage of cutting-edge technology is also the bugfix and security patch side of things.

 

I'm more in favour of more frequent release cycles, since it means changes become available more quickly. Again, this doesn't mean an organisation or individual is *forced* to implement those updates, just that those changes aren't being held back on a repo somewhere, consuming storage and not returning any value on investment. Choice still remains with the individual, after all.

 

I suspect the increased frequency is in response to a much more agile marketplace, as well as Microsoft's "patch tuesday" syndrome. It's our response to this news that is more curious, though.