Strict release scedule or no?

[Fintan]

I think these guys have a point:
http://blog.ibeentoubuntu.com/2009/0...pers-pans.html

release when ready, especially for kubuntu sounds like a good plan to me

[kjjjjshab]

Re: Strict release scedule or no?

Been my argument ever since I started with kubuntu. Although not bothered by it personally, I really felt that non-functioning bluetooth release was a poor decision. And then to follow it up with a WPA-only-if-you-install-wicd release?!?

There seems to be some very differing opinions on exactly what a release (and for that matter, what a modern, functioning, operating system) is these days... I would have thought it was a rather simple definition. Essential peripherals should never be put in the same category as your standard apps, but that is what the kubuntu team seems to be doing lately.

And no, "you don't have to upgrade until the bugs are fixed" is not a valid point, because I am not really speaking for myself... I am more concerned with the thousands of livecds that get downloaded and immediately trashed. I want this distro to thrive; not become a coaster!

-Nothing but love for the kubuntu team and everyone here!!!

[freedom2009]

Re: Strict release scedule or no?

I agree that a release when ready or even a longer fixed release cycle would be an advantage to Ubuntu's image. Besides haveing a more stable OS, it woud give documentation a better chance to catchup. (The locale book store has a number of books on Ubuntu, but they are all version 8.04)

If Ubuntu is gong to attract users from the Windows world it is going have to prove that it is a superior product

[dibl]

Re: Strict release scedule or no?

There are valid opinions pro and con on the *buntu release philosophy. I think one of Shuttleworth's original "value propositions" with *buntu was "full version update every six months". They've stuck to that religiously. Every new release is accompanied by a chorus of "they shouldn't have released it this way" posts from the users -- I've been watching this happen for over three years, since the Edgy Eft release, and it's the same every time.

Here's the thing [personal philosophy] software is never actually finished. It merely progresses from very buggy to less buggy during its lifetime. Everyone has a different view of which point on that continuum is the place where it is "good enough" for release. History indicates Canonical has released some versions in better condition than other versions, but hey -- they're human too. [/personal philosophy]

I guess folks who are more concerned with reliability than currency are still running Debian Etch, right?

[kjjjjshab]

Re: Strict release scedule or no?

...Here's the thing [personal philosophy] software is never actually finished. It merely progresses from very buggy to less buggy during its lifetime...

Obviously I have to agree with that, but it is the choice of when to call something a release that is disturbing on kubuntu's part... especially when the bugs are hardware showstoppers. And regressions at that. And the fact that they aren't bugs on ubuntu makes it even more frustrating.

...I've been watching this happen for over three years, since the Edgy Eft release, and it's the same every time...

Oh yeah, I haven't been whining on here for that long, have I? :P

[blobfish]

Re: Strict release scedule or no?

interesting topic! I am sure if we could drink enough beer we could figure it out. even though I share in the frustrations of these problems, I don't think the release schedule should change. In parallel with Dibl, if we wait for the perfect time we will have seen the last release. Windows finally got a somewhat stable, and user friendly system and they didn't change for 7 years or whatever it was. After all vista was an intermittent release that missed and they have almost unlimited resources. I think one of the most important lessons I have learned with linux is understanding how close to the cutting edge I find acceptable. IMHO

[kjjjjshab]

Re: Strict release scedule or no?

...After all vista was an intermittent release that missed and they have almost unlimited resources...

I thought Vista was an evolution of the Windows Server 2003 kernel; and thus you get the NT (4), 2000 (5.0), XP (5.1), Vista (6.0), 7 (6.1) naming. Obviously more going on there than those version numbers relate, but still a good basis for discussion/comparison.

[dibl]

Re: Strict release scedule or no?

For a nostalgic trip through the "horrible" release decisions of the past ....

Feisty Fawn:

http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...opic=3082358.0

Gutsy Gibbon:

http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...opic=3088730.0

Hardy Heron:

http://kubuntuforums.net/forums/inde...opic=3093856.0


See what I mean?

[blobfish]

Re: Strict release scedule or no?

I thought Vista was an evolution of the Windows Server 2003 kernel; and thus you get the NT (4), 2000 (5.0), XP (5.1), Vista (6.0), 7 (6.1) naming. Obviously more going on there than those version numbers relate, but still a good basis for discussion/comparison.

sorry I wasn't very clear. I just meant it was a poor release and will be seen as transition release on the way to windows 7,8,9 or whatever.

[Fintan]

Re: Strict release scedule or no?

Quote from above link:

"Over the last few releases there have been a variety of bugs that weren't deemed to 'hold up' the release and could just be fixed in a Stable Release Update. I'm of the opinion if you have a fix for the bug that you know works, you shouldn't put off the fix just to meet a deadline for releasing a CD. It's better to include the fix sooner and give a better experience to the user out of the box."

Ubuntu began having serious release issues in 8.04, when the developers replaced the venerable Enlightenment Sound Daemon (ESD) with the newly minted Pulse Audio for the sound system. Flash and Pulse Audio didn't play well together, causing Firefox to hang or crash often. A commonly used wireless chipset (RaLink's RT series), which had worked for Ubuntu users for several releases, shipped without a working driver in 8.04. Many users complained that Hardy (8.04) was a step back from Gutsy (7.10).

The release of 8.10 came with more wireless bugs and a new Xorg (7.4) which broke 3D effects on NVidia and ATI chips for a time. NetworkManager also had its share of problems.

Jaunty (9.04) is now famous for the awful Intel chipset drivers which worked for years before the version rev. There was also a problem with the Brasero CD writer, which was exacerbated by its integration with the Nautilus file manager and the removal of the tried-and-true Nautilus CD Writer. Pulse Audio continued to cause problems for some people.

[kubicle]

Re: Strict release scedule or no?

Personally I don't think the release model is really the cause of the issues mentioned. If handled right, timed releases can be just as good as feature based releases.

Of course the key thing for successful timed releases is not uploading significant changes at the last minute (respecting the freeze period). I've noticed a couple of cases where the ubuntu devs have made 'last minute' changes to 'fix' ubuntu issues...which, unfortunately, completely broke something in kubuntu.

Another observation I've made is that more care is put (understandably) to the LTS releases (dapper release was in fact delayed for two months to make it ready), the in-between releases are where they mostly introduce new stuff...and seem to accept a certain level of breakage.

As far as different release models go, I think it's a good thing we have 'release-when-ready' distributions (like debian), 'timed-release' distributions (like *buntus) and 'rolling-release' distributions (like arch), as each release model has it's pros and cons, so people can choose a distribution that meets their needs and expectations. Having all distributions follow the same release model limits choice IMO.