Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu moving to rolling release, how will this affect Kubuntu?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    I'm the founder & CEO over at ThinkPenguin and I thought I would just fill in my two bits on this.

    I believe the rolling release is likely a mistake. There are lots of unfixed bugs in Ubuntu already and things are moving needlessly fast. If it is going to be more than a toy for hackers it'll have to become easier to use and more consistent.

    Here is what I think and why:

    1. New LTS releases every two years is probably a decent target. This means consistency, printed books, and other education materials for new adopters.

    2. LTS releases should have an integrated backports system with versions of critical components such as: HPLIP, kernel, libreoffice, firefox, pidgin/empathy, and other similar components. Some of these components should be maintained side-by-side with security updates to the originals. For instance this list probably would include the kernel & libreoffice.

    3. Consistency of basic user interface components such as Unity over a number of years gives people the opportunity to learn Ubuntu. Unity was released too early and many users have jumped ship. I'm sure many in the Kubuntu community here would agree with that in particular.

    Now I'll also point out some other problems in general. While a rolling release is not a problem with the right hardware most “Ubuntu shops” don't ship that. They are shipping hardware that is dependent on proprietary pieces. This creates all sorts of problems that most users don't see or don't want to recognize. In some cases these proprietary components are essential for certain use cases although the overall picture is more along the lines of use what looks like it is working today, not something we can support tomorrow, or that the free software development community can support at least.

    This issue alone keeps ThinkPenguin in business. People switch to Ubuntu and end up having to replace hardware because it doesn't work from one release to the next or support is extremely poor (from an inability to integrate proprietary features/components with core free software components to drivers that don't get updated).

    I believe I read somewhere that Carl Richell was concerned about the lack of naming due to the move. I laughed at that. It's not huge issue although there is a good reason to continue to have point releases for publicity reasons as well as psychological ones. While the majority of people do not easily adapt to new user interfaces there is a significant group of technical users who dominate. Most of these users just play with Ubuntu. They don't actually use it for real work. This group is attracted by these numbers. They are a decent part of the current user base.

    If Ubuntu is going to move from a niche OS on the desktop to a mainstream one there needs to be more of a focus on consistency between releases. Hardware also needs to be available that works with the release model. If you ship regular releases (even LTS) there needs to be at least two versions that work on the hardware shipped. At least if the releases are supported for about 3 years each.

    At ThinkPenguin we are trying to fix the hardware availability / sales outs / consumer support problems. I think we are doing a decent job of that given the size of the company. It needs to grow significantly though to really make a difference (although not too fast). We haven't done as much marketing to our core customer base as I'd like although we have a very good idea of what it'll take based on sample areas that have been tested. In any case we are coming out with a brand new web site and there will be much better support for additional languages, currencies, and localization of certain products (laptops with region specific keyboards and AC adapters for instance).

    If anybody is interested in seeing what an LTS + backports system will look like check out the Trisquel distribution in a year. It is moving to the design I've described above. Be aware though that Trisquel is a 100% free distribution so if your hardware isn't terribly well supported in Ubuntu it probably won't be supported at all with Trisquel. That has its benefits and drawbacks although with the right hardware most users should find the distribution works surprisingly well. It does not have all the kinks worked out due to funding issues. Some of that might be fixed with the new design. I also would hold back on the criticisms of excluding non-free pieces. If you don't understand the advantages of free software it'll probably only seem like a disadvantage to you. ThinkPenguin deals with those disadvantages on a daily basis though. One day we may put out a video that better communicates the problem (and I'm not talking about the ethical issue here even if it is related).

    Comment


      #32
      @chris000

      How would you handle upgrades of KDE (4.10 to 4.11, or even 4.X to 5) or the other DE's and WM's? Would they be in the backports?
      It sounds like you're going for a semi-rolling release (a "stable" base plus other components/applications upgraded as you go along, if you so desire).
      The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers. -- Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires (now Pope Francis)

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by eggbert View Post
        Why not have a "core system" with the kernel, libs, all the plumbing etc, and then 3rd party projects target THAT core base system. The way its currently done seems so counter productive with all the upstream/downstream coordination. Look, if someone provides a "sytem" and I want my app to run on that system, I'll make damn sure it works with whatever dependencies it provides. Cannonical should be setting the rules here, and 3rd party app developers should be ensuring their apps work with it, packaging their apps for it, and updating it themselves.

        Why is this not workable in desktop linux land?
        The reason is simple. The app developers develop applications. The distros package those applications to add value to their distro. To do what you are suggesting would mean that the *buntus, Redhat/Fedora, Suse/Opensuse, Mint and all of the other distros would have to use the same libraries or the apps in question won't work.

        That is why the distros take the applications and compile them for their distro. One of the "selling" points of say Ubuntu is the 10s of thousands of packages available in the repositories. A lot of people choose it because of the notion of if there is an app you want/need, it will be available under Ubuntu.

        The other option would be to do like Apple does with Mac OS X and each app just bundles it's own version of its required libraries in it's own directories. Traditionally, this has been frowned upon in Linux because you end up wasting a lot of disk space because you have a lot of duplicated files on your system, but it does work well for Apple.

        In the end, though, the app developers just develop apps and give you source code. You can compile it yourself, like Gentoo, or you can rely on your distro to compile it for you and package it to make it easy to install. Regardless, though, it isn't the job of the app developers to make packages to work on all the various distros for all the various releases of their product AND the distros. If they did that, they wouldn't have any time to develop apps.

        If people want newer versions of apps for their older, still supported distro releases, they need to complain to the distros.

        Comment


          #34
          No. The desktop components wouldn't be upgraded. It would only be critical components like the kernel, hplip (hp printer drivers), firefox, etc. The goal is a consistent user interface over a period of years. This way books and other documentation can be written and improved upon.

          Non-security updates (newer versions, not just security updates) to these components would be released as part of point releases to replace the Ubuntu STS derived versions. Those older Ubuntu STS releases contained newer versions of the desktop environment and these new point releases would not.

          Less critical packages such as LibreOffice would probably also be available. My thinking is to release these less critical packages alongside the older ones. There would not be many of these though. The benefit to doing it this way is that users who were uncomfortable with upgrading (because of user interface changes) could stick with the older version of LibreOffice (which would even continue to be shipped with these point releases). The newer LibreOffice point release would simply be available as an installable program from the repository.

          We are actually having an ongoing discussion right now in the forums similar to this one. Can't link it as I have not posted here before.

          I'm a little more involved with Trisquel than some of the other distributions that we ship with. It is by far the best distribution for testing components because of the strict FSF rules they follow and the distribution being based on Ubuntu.

          Comment


            #35
            @chris000
            No offense intended, but I would much rather have KDE get upgraded than printer drivers or firefox. What one person calls critical components might not be to another person (case in point, I don't even use printing on my systems, but I do a whole lot that involves/utilizes KDE).


            As for the topic of the thread, I can't really comment since I am in the same boat as GreyGeek. I am running 12.04 LTS fully updated to the latest & greatest and have had no issues what so ever. So until that changes I will be sticking with Precise. I have to say I have been extremely please that 12.04 is still getting KDE updates (it makes Precise all that much better to use).
            Nowadays I'm mostly Mac, but...
            tron: KDE neon User | MacPro5,1 | 3.2GHz Xeon | 48GB RAM | 250GB, 1TB, & 500GB Samsung SSDs | Nvidia GTX 980 Ti

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by benny_fletch View Post
              @chris000
              No offense intended, but I would much rather have KDE get upgraded than printer drivers or firefox. What one person calls critical components might not be to another person (case in point, I don't even use printing on my systems, but I do a whole lot that involves/utilizes KDE).


              As for the topic of the thread, I can't really comment since I am in the same boat as GreyGeek. I am running 12.04 LTS fully updated to the latest & greatest and have had no issues what so ever. So until that changes I will be sticking with Precise. I have to say I have been extremely please that 12.04 is still getting KDE updates (it makes Precise all that much better to use).
              Oddly enough, even though I found 12.04 decent, I found 12.10 leaps better. I did use all the latest KDE and packages where I could on 12.04 but I just had some weird issues.

              Comment


                #37
                Just found a great article. Worth a read. Maybe Ubuntu is just going through some growing pains:

                http://www.sysrich.co.uk/?p=150

                Comment


                  #38
                  I agree with benny_fletch mostly. I'd like to see the kernel and base system (what you get with ubuntu-minimal and ubuntu-standard meta-packages be stable (only upgradable for bugs and security) in main and restricted, while the GUI's and applications (especially those tied to but not part of said DE, like Amarok e.g.)and everything in universe and multiverse can either go rolling (through a version-agnostic backports repo) or not. That way you can have a stable base OS being able to be kept up to date on apps like Firefox or LO or the DE's like KDE or XFCE. IT can allow for smaller base system upgrades as the new version comes along.
                  The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers. -- Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires (now Pope Francis)

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Begin

                    No offense intended, but I would much rather have KDE get upgraded than printer drivers or firefox. What one person calls critical components might not be to another person (case in point, I don't even use printing on my systems, but I do a whole lot that involves utilizes KDE).


                    As for the topic of the thread, I can't really comment since I am in the same boat as GreyGeek. I am running 12.04 LTS fully updated to the latest & greatest and have had no issues what so ever. So until that changes I will be sticking with Precise. I have to say I have been extremely please that 12.04 is still getting KDE updates (it makes Precise all that much better to use).

                    My response:

                    First of all I'm not trying to tell Kubuntu or its users what to do or think. Each distribution has its own unique needs. If the main thing Kubuntu users are after is the latest and greatest KDE then so be it- this is not the model to clone.

                    Hardware support is critical because it effects all users. If your system dies and you have to purchase a new system, upgrade a component, etc your going to need support. That is why newer kernels, hplip, etc are critical. It may not be critical to you right now and I can't say which hardware might be critical to you personally. I can say in general all computer users need support for newer hardware at some point though. It would be difficult to find a user that this statement isn't true for. We try and support older LTS distributions at ThinkPenguin and doing so is *really* hard because the hardware that is supported needs to be stocked up on in many instances to avoid running out before the LTS release is discontinued.

                    Trisquel is aimed at the masses with the core objective being to free users of proprietary software. For its core user base the majority need stability and ease of use. Change isn't a necessary component. There are advantages to having some updates. Newer versions of LibreOffice for example may be needed to exchange files with others if formats change. There are other free software distributions based on a rolling release model that are much more up to date than Trisquel. Parabola GNU Linux for instance is a distribution based on Arch. Its goal is to be as up to date as feasible. This comes at the cost of more frequently breaking.

                    Are the updates your getting for KDE security updates or are they actually newer versions of KDE? Ubuntu doesn't generally release anything other than security updates for Ubuntu (LTS or STS). I don't know Kubuntus policy although I'd imagine it is similar to Ubuntu. Ubuntu is starting to backport newer kernels to the LTS releases. I haven't really read up on it although I'd assume that is because somebody realized the problem of desktop users running an aging kernel (older hardware doesn't work with the LTS release).

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Trisquel sounds a lot like Debian to me. Which makes me ask why?

                      Comment


                        #41
                        In the end, though, the app developers just develop apps and give you source code. You can compile it yourself, like Gentoo, or you can rely on your distro to compile it for you and package it to make it easy to install. Regardless, though, it isn't the job of the app developers to make packages to work on all the various distros for all the various releases of their product AND the distros. If they did that, they wouldn't have any time to develop apps.
                        Not sure I buy this, and certainly not nowadays with all the automated build and CI tools. Look at how many PPAs there are, just with updated versions of software already in the repos. Why not give developers/projects the option to build, package and update their apps for the Ubuntu repos. It seems like insanity for debian to package all that. Again, for a server and server type apps this is all well a and good, and is a wonderful thing, but a desktop computer is an ENTIRELY different use case, and this model just does not work - Hence all this hulabalo about rolling releases vs LTS. No one wants to use 3 year old versions of desktop apps.

                        A few years back I used to develop a Java application. In my ant build, I had it create a windows installer, an RPM file, a .deb, and a mac installer. I viewed this as my job, and part of the development process - I did this myself because I wanted people to use my program. I would have loved to the ability to add my app to the repos of a bunch of distros.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by chris000 View Post
                          Begin

                          Are the updates your getting for KDE security updates or are they actually newer versions of KDE? Ubuntu doesn't generally release anything other than security updates for Ubuntu (LTS or STS). I don't know Kubuntus policy although I'd imagine it is similar to Ubuntu. Ubuntu is starting to backport newer kernels to the LTS releases. I haven't really read up on it although I'd assume that is because somebody realized the problem of desktop users running an aging kernel (older hardware doesn't work with the LTS release).
                          For KDE it's point releases (4.10.2, 4.10.3 and so on) not full releases (4.10, 4.11, 5.X when we get to it).
                          The unjust distribution of goods persists, creating a situation of social sin that cries out to Heaven and limits the possibilities of a fuller life for so many of our brothers. -- Archbishop Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Buenos Aires (now Pope Francis)

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by eggbert View Post
                            Not sure I buy this, and certainly not nowadays with all the automated build and CI tools. Look at how many PPAs there are, just with updated versions of software already in the repos. Why not give developers/projects the option to build, package and update their apps for the Ubuntu repos. It seems like insanity for debian to package all that. Again, for a server and server type apps this is all well a and good, and is a wonderful thing, but a desktop computer is an ENTIRELY different use case, and this model just does not work - Hence all this hulabalo about rolling releases vs LTS. No one wants to use 3 year old versions of desktop apps.

                            A few years back I used to develop a Java application. In my ant build, I had it create a windows installer, an RPM file, a .deb, and a mac installer. I viewed this as my job, and part of the development process - I did this myself because I wanted people to use my program. I would have loved to the ability to add my app to the repos of a bunch of distros.
                            You actually can become a maintainer for your own app. There isn't anything stopping you. For Debian it does take the sign off of at least two other developers mind you. Someone has to vouch for you. This is one of the advantages to such a system for desktop users.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Trisquel 6 was released today and here is the summary about the new LTS release schedule:

                              This release is a Long Term Support one, meaning that bugfix and
                              security updates will be published until 2017. Along with this we have
                              decided to change our release schedule from this point on: we will no
                              longer publish short term support versions every 6 months, but focus on
                              giving the best possible support to the LTS release, providing
                              backported improvements to core packages like the kernel, the browser
                              and the xorg server among others. We will also make it easier for
                              volunteers to provide newer versions of extra packages through an
                              optional community-backports repository.

                              We will publish point releases every 6 months including all improvements
                              done to the system in that time.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by sixonetonoffun View Post
                                Trisquel sounds a lot like Debian to me. Which makes me ask why?
                                No. Debian's definition of free differs. Debian is better than most other distributions though where freedom is concerned. One of the major issues that Trisquel and the free software community have with Debian is that its documentation promotes non-free software. By promote that means it tells users to go download non-free software. This defeats the point of being free. The other problem is the non-free repository is Debian. It's not like its a third party repository which violates the Debian policy.

                                You don't have to be in agreement with the FSF or Debians policy to understand the benefits of free software. Obviously all distributions are base nearly entirely on free software already. There are many reasons avoiding non-free pieces benefits users. There are both technical reasons (the open source side is more about this) and ethical reasons. There are also other reasons of self-interest. The non-free pieces are hindering growth and development which benefit everybody. 95% of the code in any given distribution is free. It is 5% which is holding us back and causing lots of problems.

                                I'm not crusading here. I nor ThinkPenguin has taken an all or nothing stance. The same would apply to Debian. We explicitly provide support for many distributions that include non-free software. We don't support non-free pieces because our products never depend on them. It is unfortunate although all most users have to start somewhere.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X