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

[eggbert]

So it looks like Ubuntu might be moving to a rolling release for Raring Ringtail, but I wonder what impact this is going to have on Kubuntu?

https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ub...ry/036537.html

From reading the mailing list, it's unclear what form the rolling release will take. From what I gather it will be more like a "developer only" release, and then the LTS is recommended for everyone else.

If this is the case, I think it's not too great for us Kubuntu users, because running the same version of KDE for 2 years would kind of suck. On the other hand, I don't want to lose any stability by using a half-baked dev only roling release.

[Simon]

Meh... I still stick what I have for 2 years. Meaning while everyone is talking about Kubuntu 14.10 I will still be in 12.04 When I do upgrade I load the 6 month old version. Meaning I wait until November 2014 and get 14.04 so a rolling release won't mean a thing to me.

It could get a bit messy for others...

[dibl]

Personal opinion -- rolling release is the only intelligent way forward, for the single-user desktop case. Today I'm running a Debian sid KDE system that was originally installed in early 2011. If I had installed Kubuntu 10.10 at that time, I would have had to go through 4 new-version reinstallations (and re-configurations), and would currently be facing my fifth new installation (13.04), to keep a current KDE desktop on my system. Installation only takes 10 minutes, but the custom configuration takes days, in my experience. So I'm totally advocating a rolling release.

[Snowhog]

Rolling releases are not without their 'risks'. One does/should be attentive to what will be done to ones system. For this reason, I always do my package management from the CLI. Rolling releases are, IMO, more suited to those who are technically inclined and very comfortable working from the CLI. Only my opinion, and not intended to dissuade anyone from the rolling release concept.

[pauly]

Well I'm using 13.04 and have not suffered from any bugs except the update manager crashing after checking for updates. Its solid. KDE is mature but with the move to Qt5 I would probably stay with the LTS until they get that worked out.

[claydoh]

If they do choose this model, the actual details would be important, as I highly doubt that Ubuntu will follow an Arch style 100%. A 2 year LTS, then everything else as a (somewhat) rolling release seems a feasible idea, considering how many of us out there keep as up to date as possible, while a good number stick to less change.

For us, I don't think it makes a big difference in the long run. We have a base Ubuntu we put KDE on, and keep the KDE-SC up to date, plus a number of other KDE based things such as Amarok in PPA's so in essence many of us are already using a quasi-rolling release anyway.

[bsniadajewski]

If they do choose this model, the actual details would be important, as I highly doubt that Ubuntu will follow an Arch style 100%. A 2 year LTS, then everything else as a (somewhat) rolling release seems a feasible idea, considering how many of us out there keep as up to date as possible, while a good number stick to less change.

For us, I don't think it makes a big difference in the long run. We have a base Ubuntu we put KDE on, and keep the KDE-SC up to date, plus a number of other KDE based things such as Amarok in PPA's so in essence many of us are already using a quasi-rolling release anyway.

Except for ther most part you wouldn't need to have the PPA's available unless you use the LTS or are into development releases of various programs.

[kubicle]

Personal opinion -- rolling release is the only intelligent way forward, for the single-user desktop case. Today I'm running a Debian sid KDE system that was originally installed in early 2011. If I had installed Kubuntu 10.10 at that time, I would have had to go through 4 new-version reinstallations (and re-configurations), and would currently be facing my fifth new installation (13.04), to keep a current KDE desktop on my system. Installation only takes 10 minutes, but the custom configuration takes days, in my experience. So I'm totally advocating a rolling release.

That's a somewhat subjective benefit, as I for one have never done a clean install because of an upgrade on any of my machines. Then again, I've been running mostly the devel versions for years now, so the experience is much like a rolling release.

I'll hold final judgement until I see the details, but there are a few things that I find troubling:
- The move seems rather hasty...the sane thing to do would IMO be to wait until after the next LTS (14.04) to make the transition rather than rushing into it mid-cycle (even mid-cycle for raring)
- Canonical seems to think they can get better results by doing (spending) less, and that equation just doesn't compute in my number-cruncher.
- My main concern is how this would affect the pre-release versions of kde (I'd think it's not written in stone that KDE pre-releases are viable canditates for a rolling release...like they are for devel releases...will they be available only from ppas).

But like I said, I'd like to get the details (that seem to be rather scarce ATM) before making up my mind.

Here's my favorite quote of late (from a friend)

"If it comes from Canonical...it's crap"

[dmeyer]

If they do choose this model, the actual details would be important, as I highly doubt that Ubuntu will follow an Arch style 100%. A 2 year LTS, then everything else as a (somewhat) rolling release seems a feasible idea, considering how many of us out there keep as up to date as possible, while a good number stick to less change.

For us, I don't think it makes a big difference in the long run. We have a base Ubuntu we put KDE on, and keep the KDE-SC up to date, plus a number of other KDE based things such as Amarok in PPA's so in essence many of us are already using a quasi-rolling release anyway.

Have you tried openSUSE with tumbleweed? Its quite fantastic really. Only issue I had was the proprietary drivers occasionally broke but apart from that it was rock solid.

[dibl]

The (legitimate) concern about rolling releases is the question of how much testing new software packages have had, and the fact that some of them will inevitably cause some breakage and disruption of "production" systems -- computers that people expect to use for their daily work*. Therefore, it behooves the distro and its community to maintain a "Update Warnings" type of forum site, in which alarms can be quickly raised when a package seems to be causing trouble. And it behooves the users to check that site before running updates/upgrades, to make sure that there is nothing going on that might trash their own system. It also behooves the distro to give clear guidance on how to "roll back" to prior versions, when a new package turns out to be problematic. And finally, it behooves the distro to give fair, upfront warning so that folks who are betting life and livelihood on the stability of their computer system understand that they need to install Mepis or Debian Stable or something like that -- new software is inherently less stable than mature software, and there really is not any way around that fundamental fact of (digital) life. IMHO.

* I don't see the "every 6 months" release policy of *buntu as any particular advantage on this point -- empirical evidence indicates there are many poorly-tested packages in a typical *buntu version release, which have to be fixed in the ensuing months, so it's not obvious to me that the Canonical policy is superior to an Arch or siduction rolling release, in that regard.

[claydoh]

Have you tried openSUSE with tumbleweed? Its quite fantastic really. Only issue I had was the proprietary drivers occasionally broke but apart from that it was rock solid.

No, I don't distro hop much these days. It's all about the KDE , the underlying tools do not matter to me it is the DE and the community that grabs me.

Anyway, proprietary drivers breaking are the usual culprits in Ubuntu pre-releases, and I generally run the pre-releases most of the time. The past couple of cycles have seen less and less breakages in the daily builds, so my quasi-rolling release setup (including KDE pre-releases) has been mostly trouble free the past year or more. I don't have any hardware needing proprietary things right now, though.

[claydoh]

The (legitimate) concern about rolling releases is the question of how much testing new software packages have had, and the fact that some of them will inevitably cause some breakage and disruption of "production" systems -- computers that people expect to use for their daily work*. Therefore, it behooves the distro and its community to maintain a "Update Warnings" type of forum site, in which alarms can be quickly raised when a package seems to be causing trouble. And it behooves the users to check that site before running updates/upgrades, to make sure that there is nothing going on that might trash their own system. It also behooves the distro to give clear guidance on how to "roll back" to prior versions, when a new package turns out to be problematic. And finally, it behooves the distro to give fair, upfront warning so that folks who are betting life and livelihood on the stability of their computer system understand that they need to install Mepis or Debian Stable or something like that -- new software is inherently less stable than mature software, and there really is not any way around that fundamental fact of (digital) life. IMHO.

* I don't see the "every 6 months" release policy of *buntu as any particular advantage on this point -- empirical evidence indicates there are many poorly-tested packages in a typical *buntu version release, which have to be fixed in the ensuing months, so it's not obvious to me that the Canonical policy is superior to an Arch or siduction rolling release, in that regard.

Now the rolling release type of thing is still a discussion thing, so the details on how it will be set up are not even set, of course. One of the theoretical outcomes of this (and I am not yet in favor or against it atm) is the removal of the 6 month cram to get software in, so it should allow for more testing before being pushed out. As Ubuntu make Unity themselves, they do not have to release that until it is 'ready', in comparison to Kubuntu, where we rely on KDE to make the software and we package it up as they release it, hoping that there has been good testing.

As to tested packages, a vast majority of the things available in the Ubuntu repos are not tested at all, mainly those in "universe" which are mainly ones directly and automatically imported from whatever Debian snapshot is being used. These sometimes get attention if there are bug reports and a so-called MOTU gets or creates a fix for it. I wonder how much of the 'crappy' packages out there are these sort? And how does that fit into a rolling release plan?

[Simon]

Personal opinion -- rolling release is the only intelligent way forward, for the single-user desktop case. Today I'm running a Debian sid KDE system that was originally installed in early 2011. If I had installed Kubuntu 10.10 at that time, I would have had to go through 4 new-version reinstallations (and re-configurations), and would currently be facing my fifth new installation (13.04), to keep a current KDE desktop on my system. Installation only takes 10 minutes, but the custom configuration takes days, in my experience. So I'm totally advocating a rolling release.

Not the way I upgrade, I realize opinions and equipment will vary.
When I did my last upgrade from 10.10 to 12.04 this is my method:

1. First I keep my OS on a separate 90GB partition and have 2 HHD 500GB each inside my machine.
2. I burn the new OS ISO to a disk.
3. Then I make a backup of the 90GB partition on the other drive.
4. I do the Live CD install reformat the 90GB partition only.
5. After full install, normally 30 minutes or less, I go back in and move my personal stuff back into the home, etc/fstab and the links to the programs on the other drives.
6. I take some time check my tweaks are in effect before wiping my backups.

Some programs I don't bother moving to the other drives are what I call "easy access" like Gimp ,Wine , or my choice of media player. But anything that runs a lot of download time or HD space I keep on the other drives.

As to how a rolling release can get messy, well I agree with what claydoh asked above, How much QFE updates (Quick Fix Engineering) are you going to end up with?

Windows called them "hot fixes". :eek:

[jlittle]

... It could get a bit messy for others...

An often expressed opinion in these forums is that a "clean" or "fresh" install of a new *ubuntu release is better than doing a release upgrade. Would the rolling release stop that? How often would new isos be made?

Regards, John Little

[bsniadajewski]

@jlittle

I'm guessing that it might. The only way to do a "fresh" install here would be for an upgrade in the DE used (KDE, XFCE, etc.)or a new version linux or apt. You could install once the next KDE comes out (4.11 or 5) or bite the bullet and upgrade in-place.