Re: What's wrong with Ubuntu's policy?
Actually, it is not disappointing, it's just Dell as OEM shows us a way where we should be going to. Yes, we need to change release policy. We really need LTS every two years (and lot of small development releases between them), AND we need to overlook 'we don't release new software, just updates' policy. People already use gizillions of PPA reps and backport packages to get what they need. I know, people who love bloatin edge like me would be slightly disappointed because it would mean no more shiny, regular releases with newest stuff. But we need to acknowledge that we have outgrown our geeek roots and Ubuntu is not only for us anymore. So I actually support Dell decision. LTS must and should be aim we are going after and it must be hard stable and basic functionality working without a glitch. Just my two euro cents, Peter. 2009/5/21 Markus Hitter m...@jump-ing.de: Hello all, today it came to my attention Dell plans to do two things: a) Stick with Ubuntu 8.04 in favour of a more recent release for new machines. b) Fork the package repository to get updates out to their customers. http://www.betanews.com/article/Dell-Most-Linux-users-dont-really- need-the-latest-version/1242843704 In my opinion, this is disappointing. Very disappointing. What is wrong with Ubuntu's release/fix/backport strategy for such a thing to happen? Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: What's wrong with Ubuntu's policy?
I find Dell's policy to be logical and fitting for what they do. But I would stress that part of what FOSS does better than all those other guys is evolution rather than large revision. I'd be a wary of breaking the 6 month release heartbeat cycle, it keeps everyone on their toes and allows for new and interesting things to be tried out without breaking OEMs or large stable deployments. Although part of me also feels that we haven't yet reached the maturity with a number of key foundation systems to really be sure about deployment longevity. (i,e xorg, audio, hardware-handling, config-handling all of which are moving along) Although if LoCo experience is anything to go by, people are happy with their Ubuntu installations and some will ask for re-installation with a newer version. But most are happy. Regards, Martin Owens On Thu, 2009-05-21 at 14:12 +0300, Peteris Krisjanis wrote: Actually, it is not disappointing, it's just Dell as OEM shows us a way where we should be going to. Yes, we need to change release policy. We really need LTS every two years (and lot of small development releases between them), AND we need to overlook 'we don't release new software, just updates' policy. People already use gizillions of PPA reps and backport packages to get what they need. I know, people who love bloatin edge like me would be slightly disappointed because it would mean no more shiny, regular releases with newest stuff. But we need to acknowledge that we have outgrown our geeek roots and Ubuntu is not only for us anymore. So I actually support Dell decision. LTS must and should be aim we are going after and it must be hard stable and basic functionality working without a glitch. Just my two euro cents, Peter. 2009/5/21 Markus Hitter m...@jump-ing.de: Hello all, today it came to my attention Dell plans to do two things: a) Stick with Ubuntu 8.04 in favour of a more recent release for new machines. b) Fork the package repository to get updates out to their customers. http://www.betanews.com/article/Dell-Most-Linux-users-dont-really- need-the-latest-version/1242843704 In my opinion, this is disappointing. Very disappointing. What is wrong with Ubuntu's release/fix/backport strategy for such a thing to happen? Markus - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/ -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: What's wrong with Ubuntu's policy?
Hey Markus, Well, xorg is based on (or part of) X, which is about 20 years old. X was considered to be mature for some time, and severly behind a few years later. Do you really think there is something like a maturity which can be reached? If not after 20 years, how long does it take? 30 years, 50 years? Similar facts apply for the other packages you mentioned. It's true that xorg is old, but age is not maturity (not even in people). While the world moved on, the x window system saw reductions in it's maturity in modern systems because of project stagnation. It's not until very recently that xorg has been pushed to achieve the maturity it badly needed (thanks Bryce team). My strong feeling is, reaching maturity is almost like stopping development, which shouldn't happen. It looks like the key to success is to reach a good user experience in constant development, without ever reaching task done. Maturity isn't about releases, I feel it more about keeping up with integration, flexibility and bug fixes, all those none featured things that are so important to a nice stable system. Some parts of our systems have never been integrated very well (configs), some are just confusing as hell (audio) whilst others have bit rotted over time (xorg). So you don't need to stop development, you just need to make sure that every sub-system is keeping pace and developing more flexible, modular and easier designs over time. Perhaps others have a different view of maturity though. thoughts? Regards, Martin Owens -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: What's wrong with Ubuntu's policy?
Il giorno gio, 21/05/2009 alle 14.16 +0200, Markus Hitter ha scritto: Well, xorg is based on (or part of) X, which is about 20 years old. X was considered to be mature for some time, and severly behind a few years later. Do you really think there is something like a maturity which can be reached? If not after 20 years, how long does it take? 30 years, 50 years? Similar facts apply for the other packages you mentioned. My strong feeling is, reaching maturity is almost like stopping development, which shouldn't happen. It looks like the key to success is to reach a good user experience in constant development, without ever reaching task done. My view of maturity is related to reliability: I should be able to start (the latest stable release of) a new software and trust that it is going to work today, as it worked yesterday. Emacs in ubuntu is a mature program. Until now, it never had surprises for me. Xorg may be even older than emacs (I admit I dont know) but Xorg in ubuntu is far from being reliable from a release to another. Each time, surprises may come. This gives an impression of a young system and in fact it is, because it is often updated to introduce new features. Vincenzo -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Re: What's wrong with Ubuntu's policy?
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Markus Hitter m...@jump-ing.de wrote: Am 21.05.2009 um 19:11 schrieb Martin Pitt: Shipping a new machine with hardy plus some extra Dell repo for new stuff is just fine for them, if that's how they see they can benefit their customers best. Arguably they should ask us to do official backports and use those, but since we don't throw a lot of QA at them, they don't lose much with doing them themselves. From the article: We go the extra mile in double qualifying all updates (that one would see in stock 8.10 and 9.04) and only publish those that are rock-stable. To me, this sounds much like a fork of Ubuntu, just without a new name. Stick with 8.04 as a base, re-do all changes from there on. Have fun with people mixing up Canonical-Ubuntu with Dell-Ubuntu. AFAICT, they are simply taking the updates which Canonical releases and testing them on the specific hardware configurations which they sell with Ubuntu. There are few enough different hardware pieces that this is a good way for them to avoid the occasional accidental regression. Just my two cents, Evan -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
