11–20 of 92 posts
Yes Please! I'm sick of PPA-ing for updated packages.
I definitely support this. Having a rolling release was the primary reason why I decided to go with debian (unstable) vs (x)ubuntu a few weeks ago. My previous install (oneiric; non-LTS) was about to become unsupported, and the last time I decided to ignore the official support status (years ago... I think it was dapper?), the main repository upped and vanished one day. That was not a fun morning.
I definitely support this. Having a rolling release was the primary reason why I decided to go with debian (unstable) vs (x)ubuntu a few weeks ago. My previous install (oneiric; non-LTS) was about to become unsupported, and the last time I decided to ignore the official support status (years ago... I think it was dapper?), the main repository upped and vanished one day. That was not a fun morning.
The problem is that Debian can be faster or slower whilst Ubuntu LTS releases are on a schedule. For example I believe the currently stable Debian release includes Python 2.6 because 2.7 just missed it. I prefer Ubuntu's LTS releases to Debian because they are predictable.
As I see it, software has to change. The question for distros is just when? A rolling distro sees such changes continuously, and each package may in principle change at any point independently of any other package. Doesn't that mean that at any point, my workflow-critical programs may change their behavior or even stop working together? Sure, I can do upgrades more seldomly, but then I'm left without security updates. The main benefit I feel that non-rolling distros offer is predefined breakage points. I know that Ubuntu Quantal will work the way it works now until I upgrade to the next release. Even simply knowing in what way software is (and will remain) broken is useful.
Now of course, one can stay with LTS and get the same behavior. I guess I'm simply complaining because the 6 month cycle was perfect for me.
At any rate, I would guess that most users only really desire rolling behavior for a few (dozens?) of packages. Ubuntu has that nicely covered with PPAs (and also "special status" rolling packages like Firefox).
I'm sure the decision wasn't taken lightly, and I'm sure Canonical has concluded that an 18 month LTS + rolling makes the most sense for the project. As a user, I am a bit worried about rolling releases though. Maybe someone here can alleviate my worries? As I see it, software has to change. The question for distros is just when? A rolling distro sees such changes continuously, and each package may in principle chang…
The way it's set up now is there is a -proposed pocket where major transitions are being held, so the old notion of having a library upgrade breaking $foo applications doesn't really happen anymore. From my view, I've been running 13.04 everyday and about half way through the development cycle it was better than 12.10. EDIT: There is also a ton of active QA happening in Ubuntu now, we have nice things we never had before like daily builds firing off and having tests run, prerelease pocket test, and (soonish) phased updates.
As far as what you're going to do when your user apps upgrade, you've been doing it on Firefox/Chrome/your phone for ages now, it's about time our desktops caught up!
I'll miss the bi-yearly fun with trying out a new release, and the name alliteration, but I think overall it's a smart move for Ubuntu. Does anyone have any reasons why they shouldn't move toward this? I'm curious.
Within the proposal, it states that packages would be released when ready, and when stable. This doesn't mean that you are going to live on the bleeding edge like an Arch or Gentoo user may. You're going to get the updates after Ubuntu has done QA on them, and the maintainer will probably be peeking at bug trackers on other distros for tips on issues (Arch and Gentoo effectively expand their QA process).
It is true that there will probably be periodic UI changes in some of the applications. It is not necessarily true that these changes will happen any more frequently than they do now (since each application has different life cycles). What will happen is you will potentially not need to wait 6+ months to get a new version of a package with a fix or improvement that is important to you.
If it lets them spend more time on QA and development rather than arbitrary deadlines and bundling, this sounds like a win-win to me. If and when problems happen, they'll get it figured out and hopefully not repeat their mistakes.
I'll miss the bi-yearly fun with trying out a new release, and the name alliteration, but I think overall it's a smart move for Ubuntu. Does anyone have any reasons why they shouldn't move toward this? I'm curious.
1. They could underestimate the effort needed. Continously integrating the packages from sid and upstream and the own development effort, all without breaking for the user, without having targeted maintainers per package, is quite an effort.
The mechanisms Gentoo has in place to manage this don't seem fitting for Ubuntu.
2. The half-year release circle gives users a sense of the progress made. Even while using a LTS-release, observing the new releases i can see where Ubuntu is heading to, what is changing and what to expect for the next LTS. The releases give Ubuntu opportunity to talk about their changes.
Not saying it can't work or it is a bad idea (I don't have enough experience maintaining, especially not a distro, to judge). I see the positive aspects and the proposal sounds reasonable.