On 03/07/2013 02:03 PM, Allison Randal wrote: > On 03/07/2013 09:40 AM, Steve Magoun wrote: >> > >> > Some observations from the big-OEM perspective: >> > 1) The support lifecycle of the OS is important; an 18 month support >> > lifecycle is too short for a product that may be manufactured for 3 years >> > 2) Switching OSes in the factory is expensive and large OEMs like to do it >> > infrequently >> > 3) Stability is critical and the quality standards are high. Functionality >> > like suspend/resume has to be rock-solid. To date, even the LTS releases >> > need tweaks before they're stable enough to be delivered to OEMs. >> > >> > From that point of view, standardizing on the LTS releases is a clear win, >> > and large OEMs are already pretty well insulated from the interim releases >> > - >> > we treat the interim releases as a series of technology previews. > Do you have a sense of what handset manufacturers will need, just in > general terms? I know that phones/tablets were mentioned as a motivation > for rolling releases. But, I haven't heard any mention so far of things > like the FCC approval process. The certification requirements on what > can be shipped as a phone are very, very different than those for > laptops/desktops. It seems likely that the OEMs for phones will also > prefer, or even be required by law, to stick to LTS + tightly controlled > updates to a few specific packages.
I don't have much data about what the handset manufacturers need from the Ubuntu cadence. I can speculate that they're far more interested in their own dates than ours. By extension, any changes that (a) allow us to build Ubuntu in a more efficient way and (b) increase the quality/reliability/marketability of Ubuntu will improve the chances of Ubuntu in the mobile marketplace. Steve -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel