I'm fine with that. Usually I don't keep the non-LTS versions around for any longer than a few months after release of the next version. 3 months to upgrade sounds fair.
Ubuntu to halve support length for non-LTS releases
Archived thread 2127225 from Ubuntu, Linux and OS Chat. Markdown source: Ubuntu,_Linux_and_OS_Chat/thread_2127225_Ubuntu_to_halve_support_length_for_non-LTS_release.md
Does any know why nine months and not a nice fat round year?
deadflowr said: Does any know why nine months and not a nice fat round year?
From the IRC logs there are a few references to the length.
cjwatson OK. It sounds like 9 is a good common position, then
with some outliers
infinity mdz: From reviewing the thread, I think 9 would make most everyone happy. 8 would make almost everyone happy. 7 would make Mark happy, and the rest of us nervous.
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/technical-board/2013-March/001527.html is where the majority of discussion is I think
It would be ok provided the new releases are sufficiently stable so you don't have to wait two months + for bug fixes before installing. Otherwise you would be forced to go on a 6 month upgrade schedule if not shorter.
deadflowr said: Does any know why nine months and not a nice fat round year?
Nine months normally gives a nice fat round tummy ;)
I think the idea is perfectly fine. For people who prefer the stability of LTS releases (as I do), it won't make much difference — although I do like the idea of package updates being pushed forward. For people who prefer "cutting edge", well, they would probably prefer to upgrade regularly anyway.
A few newcomers don't check the difference between LTS and short-term, install the latest short-term release, and then wonder why their systems get so out-of-date so fast. But they seem to be a small minority.
On the download page, clear and obvious wording, and placing the LTS version above the short-term version, would help.
Paddy Landau said: Nine months normally gives a nice fat round tummy ;)
For people who prefer "cutting edge", well, they would probably prefer to upgrade regularly anyway.
Well I do prefer cutting edge but I an not upgrading every 6 months. Usually I keep a Ubuntu release for a year and upgrade with ppas or compiling. I find it the best of all worlds.
monkeybrain2012 said: Well I do prefer cutting edge but I an not upgrading every 6 months. Usually I keep a Ubuntu release for a year and upgrade with ppas or compiling. I find it the best of all worlds.
So, for you, a nine-month support life would be a nuisance. For security reasons, it's probably not a good idea to wait the final three months without support. I suppose you'd have to upgrade every six months with the new method.
Paddy Landau said: So, for you, a nine-month support life would be a nuisance. For security reasons, it's probably not a good idea to wait the final three months without support. I suppose you'd have to upgrade every six months with the new method.
If they want to steer people towards using LTS they had better make sure that they are kept up to date. 12.04 is already becoming old and many bug fixes and enhancements in 12.10 have not been backported. With thisrelease cycle I can see ppas for non LTS drying up too as people may not be bothered to maintain software just for 9 months.
[COLOR=#000000]Nine months normally gives a nice fat round tummy [/COLOR]:wink:
Best laugh today.:)
monkeybrain2012 said: Well I do prefer cutting edge but I an not upgrading every 6 months. Usually I keep a Ubuntu release for a year and upgrade with ppas or compiling. I find it the best of all worlds.
There's always Debian...
mips said: There's always Debian...
Debian doesn't have a rich ppa ecology like in Ubuntu. That is a main reason I stick to Ubuntu, another reason that I prefer Ubuntu is Unity. Some drivers are also a pain to install in Debian.
mips said: There's always Debian...With Debian Sid even a rolling release :-)
I've never had any desire to run a non-LTS release after the next one was rolled out. This only reinforces the importance of LTS for those who don't want to be on the upgrade train.
monkeybrain2012 said: If they want to steer people towards using LTS they had better make sure that they are kept up to date. 12.04 is already becoming old and many bug fixes and enhancements in 12.10 have not been backported. With thisrelease cycle I can see ppas for non LTS drying up too as people may not be bothered to maintain software just for 9 months.
Unless a change in version breaks some dependency, I think the PPAs are pretty much automated - you just upload the source code, and Canonical's servers generate a working .deb for a bunch of versions.
I may be mistaken, though.
monkeybrain2012 said: Debian doesn't have a rich ppa ecology like in Ubuntu. That is a main reason I stick to Ubuntu, another reason that I prefer Ubuntu is Unity. Some drivers are also a pain to install in Debian.
Also, we have the upcoming Ubuntu phone and Ubuntu tablet. I would like the Ubuntu phone!
monkeybrain2012 said: Debian doesn't have a rich ppa ecology like in Ubuntu. That is a main reason I stick to Ubuntu, another reason that I prefer Ubuntu is Unity. Some drivers are also a pain to install in Debian.
I used to like PPAs but they can become a pain to manage. I prefer Arch's AUR to PPAs in all honesty. I'm currently installing crunchbang waldorf on my laptop (which is wheezy) and I'm happy with not having PPAs. My laptop I want stable without hiccups. Desktop I run Manjaro for newer packages. I've also seen so many PPAs with the same stuff that you are not always sure which one to pick from a maintenance perspective.
lykwydchykyn said: I've never had any desire to run a non-LTS release after the next one was rolled out. This only reinforces the importance of LTS for those who don't want to be on the upgrade train.
[COLOR="#FF8C00"]*That would be me!:D*[/COLOR]
I am not sure if this will play out though, as why release packages for interim releases and such if they are not going to be supported as long?
There should be more done for the backports project if this is how things are going to roll, as why bother with a new release if its obsolete so soon?
In addition, Development is supposed to switch over to the rolling release style (no upgrade needed to continue to the next development release) although it's not going to be called "rolling".... That is the other decision that was made as stated in this article...and it starts with ubuntu 13.04 development and going forth from there... http://www.webupd8.org/2013/03/ubuntu-technical-board-meeting.html
I normally wait about a month before installing a new release. I don't mind finding bugs and reporting them, I just don't want that to be my whole experience. If this changes it so drastically where I would not even bother with a certain releases, why not just go to a "rolling-release" like Arch... I've been meaning to try Arch anyways... Heck, I just not long ago migrated to Lubuntu 12.10 and 13.04 is just around the corner. I'll probably be in it at around 13.05...
MadmanRB said: … why release packages for interim releases and such if they are not going to be supported as long? … why bother with a new release if its obsolete so soon?
The interim releases have always been a sort of test bed for new ideas. The LTS releases are for those people who prefer stable releases, and for businesses, governments and other organisations, which need stable releases.
I think that this change makes it more obvious that the interim releases are for testing. Many people prefer this "cutting-edge", so the process appeals to both sides.
zer010 said: … why not just go to a "rolling-release" like Arch…
Because Canonical aims to get businesses, governments and other organisations to switch to Linux (Canonical has successfully done this in a number of cases). Those organisations require the LTS model; a rolling release would be rejected by the majority of them.
[COLOR=#000000]12.04 is already becoming old[/COLOR]
True. But so is the hardware that it is running on. For hardware that has come on the market in the last 12 months we have 2 point releases 12.04.1 and 12.04.2 with another two point releases before we get 14.04 LTS. In this way Ubuntu LTS releases keep up with Linux firmware developments.
The question to be considered regarding business users of the 12.04 LTS is, will they like the user interface that they are used to being upgraded? There are differences between Unity in 12.04 and Unity in 12.10 and again differences between Unity in 12.10 and Unity in 13.04. Soon 13.04 will get Unity 7 and in future Ubuntu will have Unity Next. In the space of little more than a year there will be a convergence in the look and way of working of Unity between the desktop and the planned mobile devices. Will LTS users be happy that they are being kept update, even if that means learning new ways of doing things?
Seems like a good idea, the releases between LTS have looked increasingly like *testing* releases for the next LTS anyway. Not in a bleeding-edge alpha release sort of a way but definitely lacking a little bit of polish at times.
12 months is not "old." ;)
snowpine in the world of Linux it is.
Lots of people still using Windows XP (released 2001).
snowpine said: 12 months is not "old."
It is for a non-LTS version of Ubuntu. Version 11.10 is already ancient!
But your comment does make me smile. As a kid, an "old" car meant one that had lasted 20 years or more. How technology has changed things!
ManamiVixen said: snowpine in the world of _Ubuntu_ it is.
Fixed that for you. Go have a look at RedHat/Centos or Debian stable (both quite popular in production environments).
Grrrr. Everyone wants new and shiny. Stability is an afterthouight. *They* say "old." *I* say, "Proven. Reliable. Stable."
For *true* long term support when all this takes effect, users will be switching to Debian and other Debian derivatives, or CentOS, or Slackware (*really* long-term support) or whatever else. I don't want to deal with all the breakage and bugs and stuff that seems to always go along with "new and shiny."
Peripheral Visionary said:
For *true* long term support when all this takes effect, users will be switching to Debian and other Debian derivatives, or CentOS, or Slackware (*really* long-term support) or whatever else. I don't want to deal with all the breakage and bugs and stuff that seems to always go along with "new and shiny."
Really? I am typing on Debian Whizzy now. It is a pain to have to compile updated versions of something simple like Smplayer (say with Youtube support) at every turn and this is not even Lenny! I am not afraid of compiling but just saying, I have better things to do than to compile many apps just to be reasonably up to date. Next thing: to get Firefox and get rid of icewesel.
I would rather take some risks (and I doubt that it would be more risky than running Fedora, which I also like) than be stuck with Debian "stability" (It can be worse, like Cenos, which is good for servers but not on the desktop especially if you need anything remotely workable in terms of multimedia). I am not an "entreprise" and I am not running a server, I like to get new features and bug fixes rather than something "stable" in the sense of predictably broken or predictably limited.
monkeybrain2012 said: Really? I am typing on Debian Whizzy now. It is a pain to have to compile updated versions of something simple like Smplayer (say with Youtube support) at every turn and this is not even Lenny! I am not afraid of compiling but just saying, I have better things to do than to compile many apps just to be reasonably up to date. Next thing: to get Firefox and get rid of icewesel.
I would rather take some risks (and I doubt that it would be more risky than running Fedora, which I also like) than be stuck with Debian "stability" (It can be worse, like Cenos, which is good for servers but not on the desktop especially if you need anything remotely workable in terms of multimedia). I am not an "entreprise" and I am not running a server, I like to get new features and bug fixes rather than something "stable" in the sense of predictably broken or predictably limited.
Iceweasel=Firefox
In the enterprise environment "users can't easily play Youtube" might be seen as a pro, not a con. ;)
Anyway, Ubuntu blows Debian away as a multimedia platform.
Icewisel = Firefox crippled. I have been having problems on some sites, e.g Facebook (probably some parts are missing) and the version is probably old too. But then not being able to go to FB is probably a good thing for "entreprises" too. I hate grey guys in suits and ties for a reason. :)
Agree with monkeybrain & snowpine: While I love Debian, and most Debian based distros, as I get older the challenge of beating a distro into submission to work on my hardware just doesn't have the allure anymore. While I still love experimenting with various thing (such as ACLs & LXC more recently), the time spent trying to get wireless, multiple displays, printers, multimedia support, special keyboard buttons, fonts, etc is just not that fun anymore (although not sure it ever was).
I have a several (I'm embarrassed to say how many) computers in my house, and one distro has consistently worked out of the box on nearly everything: Ubuntu. No doubt Linut Mint would be the same.
Ahhh Gentoo....how I don't miss thee!
I can access Facebook just fine on my Debian Wheezy computer.
Debian uses the "ESR" version of iceweasel/firefox, which according to Mozilla:
Mozilla will offer an Extended Support Release (ESR) based on an official release of Firefox for desktop for use by organizations including schools, universities, businesses and others who need extended support for mass deployments. You can read more about the plan here.
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/organizations/faq/
I think using ESR is a great choice for a Stable operating system such as Debian. Of course (and this simple detail is often overlooked) users have complete and total freedom to install/update any applications they wish to any versions they wish. A Linux "distribution" is merely a collection of "sane defaults" that gives the target users a starting base system, from which they can customize to their needs. :)
There is something that I hope this halving will help. By freeing essentially nine months' worth of resources, there may be significantly more resources available to handle the bugs.
I have noticed in the Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter, time and again, that the number of bugs has steadily increased to a frightening level. Take a look at the stats in the latest newsletter (Issue #310):
Ouch! That's nearly 105,000 confirmed bugs and over 51,000 unconfirmed bugs. They need addressing, and I hope that the Ubuntu teams will be able to address them once they have less pressure to support the in-between versions.
- Open (104914) +218 over last week
- Critical (76) +1 over last week
- Unconfirmed (51456) +62 over last week
Paddy Landau said: There is something that I hope this halving will help. By freeing essentially nine months' worth of resources, there may be significantly more resources available to handle the bugs.
I have noticed in the Ubuntu Weekly Newsletter, time and again, that the number of bugs has steadily increased to a frightening level. Take a look at the stats in the latest newsletter (Issue #310):
Ouch! That's nearly 105,000 confirmed bugs and over 51,000 unconfirmed bugs. They need addressing, and I hope that the Ubuntu teams will be able to address them once they have less pressure to support the in-between versions.
- Open (104914) +218 over last week
- Critical (76) +1 over last week
- Unconfirmed (51456) +62 over last week
Is that bugs for versions for release still in support or is that just a total of all the bugs on Launchpad? I'd guess it's all of them - it would be more productive to know how many there are for currently supported releases.
If it is *all* then I doubt if doing anything to the length of support will make any noticeable difference to the total.
Elfy said: Is that bugs for versions for release still in support or is that just a total of all the bugs on Launchpad?
That is an interesting question. I would hope that bugs are closed when they apply only to older, unsupported releases!
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/isdnutils/+bug/511988 bug in Lucid, which is supported - but I'd question anything being done with it or it being counted - give it 6 weeks and it's not be supported
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/35000 bug in Dapper - which appears to be live still. Marked as a duplicate, which received a fix - but is this but itself counted.
If I remember when I'm somewhere that it'd be useful to ask I will :)
Edit -
I did
"I believe it's only the open actve bugs, remember things can expire.. and I'm not sure what they do with bugs that are open after EOL for releases"
at which point someone else joined in
"most bugs expire if it's set to expire on a project, Ubuntu ones and LP ones dor for exxample, but some people who have their projects on there don't have expiring bugs"
I'm not sure that set of stats mean very much to be honest.
Thanks for all that information, Elfy. It seems mostly commonsense.
I know that the team needs help with triaging. Unfortunately, I'm not in a position to help with that right now.
Elfy said: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/isdnutils/+bug/511988 bug in Lucid, which is supported - but I'd question anything being done with it or it being counted - give it 6 weeks and it's not be supported
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/35000 bug in Dapper - which appears to be live still. Marked as a duplicate, which received a fix - but is this but itself counted.
If I remember when I'm somewhere that it'd be useful to ask I will :)
Edit -
I did
"I believe it's only the open actve bugs, remember things can expire.. and I'm not sure what they do with bugs that are open after EOL for releases"
at which point someone else joined in
"most bugs expire if it's set to expire on a project, Ubuntu ones and LP ones dor for exxample, but some people who have their projects on there don't have expiring bugs"
I'm not sure that set of stats mean very much to be honest.
Active bugs become inactive after you have waited for too long so the releases they were originally reported on expire. It just means that bugs are not fixed in a timely fashion and eventually become irrelevant, it is not a good thing if releases have a lot of outstanding bugs and the fact that eventually they will go away when the release expire is like sweeping garbage under the rug IMO.
monkeybrain2012 said: Really? I am typing on Debian Whizzy now. It is a pain to have to compile updated versions of something simple like Smplayer (say with Youtube support) at every turn and this is not even Lenny! I am not afraid of compiling but just saying, I have better things to do than to compile many apps just to be reasonably up to date. Next thing: to get Firefox and get rid of icewesel.
I would rather take some risks (and I doubt that it would be more risky than running Fedora, which I also like) than be stuck with Debian "stability" (It can be worse, like Cenos, which is good for servers but not on the desktop especially if you need anything remotely workable in terms of multimedia). I am not an "entreprise" and I am not running a server, I like to get new features and bug fixes rather than something "stable" in the sense of predictably broken or predictably limited.
Such stable platforms are not indented for home users - requested support times for enterprise system is more as 5+ years. RH offer 10 + 3 years ELP. If you need more up to date Debian you should use Debian Sid.
Gyokuro said: Such stable platforms are not indented for home users - requested support times for enterprise system is more as 5+ years. RH offer 10 + 3 years ELP. If you need more up to date Debian you should use Debian Sid.
Well I don't really see the advantage of Debian Sid. Why not just use Ubuntu??
I have been playing with Sid on a spared harddrive for more than a week now. It is less up to date than Ubuntu + ppas and a lot more buggy and unstable, it was a pain to get wifi working (Ubuntu works out of the box with my wifi card but not Debian, have to install some modules but how to do it without wifi? I don't have ethernet so have to use a usb wifi card which just happens to be laying around) Still no youtube player for Smplayer, updating ffmpeg from wheezy to sid removed all my libvaxxxx-extra files and replaced with the crippled ones without extras so conversions to some formats with ffmpeg don't work anymore (so it looks like I need to compile ffmpeg) Kernels were installed without headers and trying to upgrade kernel would remove the old one (so no option to log into the previous kernel if the new one doesn't work) Also Iceweasel is not the same as Firefox, some plugins wouldn't work, can't access some sites which told me I need an updated version of Firefox. Of course I can install Firefox from Mozilla but updating is tedious..
I can manage all this with some time, but why should I?
kungfupete said: Agree with monkeybrain & snowpine: While I love Debian, and most Debian based distros, as I get older the challenge of beating a distro into submission to work on my hardware just doesn't have the allure anymore. While I still love experimenting with various thing (such as ACLs & LXC more recently), the time spent trying to get wireless, multiple displays, printers, multimedia support, special keyboard buttons, fonts, etc is just not that fun anymore (although not sure it ever was).
I have a several (I'm embarrassed to say how many) computers in my house, and one distro has consistently worked out of the box on nearly everything: Ubuntu. No doubt Linut Mint would be the same.
Ahhh Gentoo....how I don't miss thee!
Man I never would have agreed with something like this in college. I still like to tinker (good thing we can set up mulltiple partitions and oh grub how I love thee!) but for my main partition? I want stability. I think Ubuntu has the right idea though with the mix of LTSes and six month refreshes. That way they can sort of cater to both crowds.
9 mos is fine I think. Maybe it will throw newbies off that their new OS is now no longer supported but for people who have been around the block awhile...how long do they actually keep their non LTS releases?