Ubuntu considering rolling releases?

[NJC]

Maybe:
Quote:
In the nine-year history of Ubuntu Linux, a new version of the operating system has come out every six months. But Canonical, Ubuntu's developer, is considering ditching that model in favor of one that produces an entirely new version only once every two years—while speeding up the overall pace of development by adopting a "rolling release" cycle in between.

Ubuntu 12.10 (thus named because it came out in October 2012) has just arrived, and 13.04 and 13.10 will come in April and October of 2013. But 14.04 in April 2014 could be the last version released after just a six-month development period.

From a code development and implementation perspective, I'd have to defer to others ... from a "gee that seems like a good idea" vantage point - I'd say go for it.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Isn't this what Debian does?

 

[RiceCake]

Whats funny is people complained Debian didn't roll out releases promptly enough. The Linux effect happened so an entire fork/child of the operating system was developed - Ubuntu - so they could maintain a release cycle. Now they want to scale that back. Irony.

 

[Brons2]

There just aren't these huge things to roll into Ubuntu anymore. It can do pretty much anything that Windows can do, and it supports almost as much hardware as Windows does. So where do you go from there? How do you pack major changes into each 6 month window? Answer: you can't.

I agree, they should scale it back some.

(posted from Xubuntu 12.04)

 

[Hokiefyd]

I like the idea of naming releases with the year and month they were released.

I am more interested in Ubuntu every time I hear about it.

 

[97prizm]

They already do this to an extent. Ubuntu has 12.10 and 12.04 LTS. The LTS (Long term release) is a long term rolling release. This is why they typically offer two releases as one is long term constant updates the other quarterly.

 

[uc50ic4more]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Isn't this what Debian does?


No. A rolling release means that there are not any "versions" of your OS. You simply continue to update and upgrade and always remain abreast of the release. In that sense, Debian's "unstable" and "testing" branches are rolling; but "stable", their official and only supported release, is not "rolling". The most high profile rolling release Linux distro is Arch. They release up-to-date installation media every month, but there is no such thing as "Arch Linux version X". Debian (stable) is currently on version 6, with version 7 on the horizon. Ubuntu is currently on 12.10 with 13.04 out in April; and 12.04 being their LTS (Long Term Support) release.

The advantage of a rolling release is that it negates ever having to re-install a new OS (or do a risky dist-upgrade, which is a big deal) which is REALLY NICE for people like me who administer several boxen for friends/ family/ neighbours. The disadvantage is that one must remain up to date, which means you have less control over which versions of applications and libraries you use, which means it is less "stable" in the sense that your OS changes a lot. You can investigate the KDE 4.0.0 and GNOME 3 and Unity interface debacles to see how users may not appreciate new things being thrown at them.