OSNews

I should imagine it would be to make the desktop user experience more easier and build on a already excellent feature set, 2.6.24 dont come with Fedora 8 btw.

> 2.6.24 dont come with Fedora 8 btw
But 2.6.24 will be in Fedora 8 when it's released (as 2.6.23 is in Fedora 7 when it was released)

You mean Fedora 9, 8 uses 2.6.23. In the end they all have different development cycles and with Ubuntu on a 6 month one you can only cram so much in.

2.6.24 is still a development snapshot of the Linux kernel which is why it is only in Fedora 9 development tree. When 2.6.24 is available as a stable release, it will be available as an update for Fedora 8 and possibly for Fedora 7 too. Fedora pushes new kernel revisions fairly regularly as updates and stays close to upstream releases.

Wrong, I mean Fedora 8!

Fedora 7 uses 2.6.22 or 2.6.21 first and does have 2.6.23 now.
Fedora 8 uses 2.6.23 now and get 2.6.24 when it's released.

Please read Fedoras changelog if you're unsure.

Thats not the point, Fedora 8's default kernel is 2.6.23 when it was released, so I was right in the first place.

Please tell me what your point is and whats the big deal?

Where most Ubuntu releases ship with some pretty big bugs that get fixed over the first few weeks (and some which amazingly do not), the LTS releases are conservative in comparison. Debian and RH are more conservative yet.

A 'last version' (7.10) with upstream updates and lots of bug fixes is what you should expect from any LTS.

8.04 is a LTS release:

From wikipedia: Ubuntu releases new versions every six months, and supports those releases for 18 months with daily security fixes and patches to critical bugs. There are also Long Term Support (LTS) releases, which have three years support for the desktop version and five years for the server version.

It isn't common for them to push bleeding edge stuff into the LTS release, but at the same time it goes through more testing, should have fewer bugs, and will have available packages and updates for a longer period of time.

I like the way they do their LTS cycle. I almost wish the company I work for would start using Ubuntu server for more stuff instead of always selecting Red Hat. I can tell you that at least haft the people in the group that work on the *nix stuff use Debian and Ubuntu on their own workstations (Windows and Solaris 10 make up the rest).

Well the main point of LTS is to provide support without having to upgrade to new release and its mainly geared towards servers. Most desktop users will upgrade anyway apart from maybe enterprize workstation deployments.

So no Kubuntu LTS is not a big deal. People running LTS servers probably don't even install X.

You are quite wrong here. People running the Linux Terminal Server Project care a great deal about KDE being offered and supported as part of Ubuntu's LTS.

We tried to get Windows users to like Gnome, but most did not, whereas they seem to accept KDE quite naturally.

As a result of this move by the Canonical folks, we will be moving our LTSP servers/desktops (since they are both) to Suse or Novell's Desktop. Novell seems to understand that when you commit to supporting a piece of software for a long time, people expect you to do just that.

The government of the Canary islands in Spain just release Meduxa, which is based on Kubuntu. I think now they are left holding the ship on their own, since Canonical will not be providing an easy upgrade path from one LTS to the next one.

Big strategic mistake if you ask me.

Edited 2007-12-23 21:08

Timing.

KDE right now is at a major point of transition.

KDE 3.5 series in the long term will be phased out.

KDE 4.0 just isn't ready yet, and isn't a suitable candidate for LTS. Wait for at least KDE 4.1.

It therefore makes far more sense for the next LTS version of Kubuntu to be either 8.10 or 9.04 rather than 8.04.

But - in all honesty, there's nothing wrong with KDE 3.5.x, it's well and truly good enough for a LTS.

The real issue is favouritism of one particular desktop environment by Ubuntu. In this day and age, I'd rather see Ubuntu release a DVD (much like Knoppix did a few years ago) that features *both* Gnome and KDE, and keeps the rest of the applications small, with little duplication.

Yes, I know other distributions favour KDE, and I dislike that as well, so, I'm not picking on Ubuntu just for the sake of it. Gnome & KDE are the two big desktop environments in Linux, and it makes sense to offer both of them imho, especially for newbies. Newbies go to Ubuntu, use Gnome from day 1 and know nothing else, then then become embroiled in the Gnome propaganda (i.e. that KDE is crap, KDE is bloated, KDE has poor UI and so on and so forth). Is Ubuntu (and Gnome ultimately) so scared of KDE that it doesn't want to give it even footing to compete? And yes, the same applies to KDE only environments. The issue here is that Ubuntu has fast become the Microsoft of Linuxes, and it's majority install base gives an unfair advantage to the Gnome desktop environment that is NOT based on true competition, but on favouritism.

That's my 2.2c worth. Ubuntu does Linux a disservice by not offering both desktop environments. Period. Until Ubuntu grows up, I won't use it, nor will I recommend it. I'll stick with Debian proper where a choice is offered at time of installation. That's how it should be. Choice by omission is NOT choice.

Dave

Are you serious with this post?! For the f--king 100 millionth time, the reason Mark went with gnome is because the gnome project has a set 6 month timetable that the Ubuntu project uses itself for releases. KDE doesn't and even though KDE releases regularly they don't do it often enough within the year to accommodate Ubuntu's schedule. This bullshit about KDE comes up in every f--king Ubuntu post. Had KDE had a six month release cycle, then they would be default and you would be complaining that Gnome isn't getting a fair shot. Gnome has consistent releases, and for a project as big as Ubuntu with so many different applications juggling in the air they need to have a something to aim for and six month releases ensures that things stay current but not overly bleeding edge.

They actually do provide a DVD release. http://nginyang.uvt.nl/

Also the reason why Ubuntu has done it this way is because sometimes people don't want a full DVD of stuff. Personally I love the fact that Ubuntu provides the different desktop environments on separate CDs. It's one of the reasons it's become so popular. Unlike Fedora and Suse who up until recently only had their distribution on multiple CDs or DVDs, but never a single CD install.

Besides, there isn't a choice of installation for Debian. It shows the task list and allows Desktop environment (and installs Gnome), Web Server, Print Server, etc. I know this, because I've installed Debian enough times to know. There is a Debian KDE that you can download as well, but again it's on a separate CD.

If you look at all the different distributions, the ones who are trying for the corporate desktop usually prefer Gnome, whereas the ones who are going for the Home desktop, prefer KDE. That's pretty much the way it's always been. Even Novell's OpenSuSe is now favoring Gnome, when they used to be THE KDE distribution to use.

Right, a well known bug in the installer for Etch.

Since this has been the first release to use this new installer, it had a couple of unfortunate bugs, like skipping question.

Lenny will most likely ship a generic installer CD (basically same configuration as the Net-Inst CD but with more packages) and one specially customized for each of the three common DEs.

The generic CD is mainly interesting for people installing Debian on a server or appliance, e.g. not needing a DE, but I think it will still include the desktop task with the additional second level question for people who want to have all option as usual.

Quote: "Besides, there isn't a choice of installation for Debian. It shows the task list and allows Desktop environment (and installs Gnome), Web Server, Print Server, etc. I know this, because I've installed Debian enough times to know. There is a Debian KDE that you can download as well, but again it's on a separate CD."

You better go look at the Debian installer again. You can actually pass a command to the Debian installer for Etch to install KDE as the default desktop environment. Have a look at the installer help the next time you install Debian Etch. I can't remember the exact command, but it's something like default-desktop-kde.

Dave

Well isn't that pretty much the same as choosing to download Kubuntu instead of Ubuntu? Or using apt-get install kde?

If you install off of just the first Debian CD, it only has Gnome packages on it. Though I usually install off of a netinst. As I said before, there is a KDE cd that you can download from Debian. Of course there are also a multitude of DVDs and CDs that Debian covers if you want it all on disk.

I've just never bothered, since I prefer Gnome anyhow. I have played with KDE since pre-1.0 release, and every time I use it, I'm reminded of Windows. So I go back to Gnome.

Yet you can install KDE from synaptic in just a few clicks. Remember this line if you ever want to try Ubuntu,

sudo apt-get install kubuntu-desktop

Problem solved.

No, the problem isn't solved - most people will not bother with it. Let's look at a similar example - IE on the Windows platform. Most people don't bother to install FireFox, cos IE is there and it's "good enough". The same thing happens with WMP and MSN Messenger (WMP is basically killing competing audio/video players, i.e. realplayer, winamp; whilst MSN messenger has all but killed ICQ). The same problems apply to Ubuntu/Gnome, for the same reason. People will rarely try something different if it takes time/effort, they'll just stick with whatever the CD/DVD provides.

And please don't insult my intelligence - I know how to use apt etc, I've probably been using Linux a lot longer than you have (circa 97 for this lad). I've used Debian since Woody came out as well, so my knowledge of Debian is reasonably good.

Dave

The user your talking about couldn't care less about what DE they are using. It's really simple, they have three choices,

1. Download Kubutu,(OMG it only has KDE that sucks)

2. Install KDE from the package via the very good wiki, links to support provided in side Firefox to Ubuntu website.

3. Get another distro.

It therefore makes far more sense for the next LTS version of Kubuntu to be either 8.10 or 9.04 rather than 8.04.

Yes, it makes sense from the geek point of view because geeks always want the latest and the greatest. But LTS releases are not for geeks only. The main idea of the LTS releases is to offer stability and reliability with a predictable release schedule, and now it looks like Kubuntu has failed to meet these LTS goals.

Kubuntu still appears to be a step-child in the *buntu family where all the love goes to Ubuntu and GNOME. Canonical is clearly worried that Ubuntu LTS will have similar upgrade problems that the six-month releases have shown, and all the developer efforts seem to be concentrated to avoid an upgrade fiasco with Ubuntu LTS. So the support for predictable Kubuntu LTS releases was dropped in favour of Ubuntu.

This might turn out to be a sound decision based on a realistic evaluation of the available resources, but it's certainly a big disappointment for users who believed that Canonical could offer equal support for both GNOME and KDE. From now on, Kubuntu will be considered as a for-geeks-only distro, not as an enterprise-quality distro.

Yet Novell Linux Desktop supports KDE 3.5.x until 2012, just like Kubuntu would have to. No problem there. Really, it's an excuse.

It's the same old moan, KDE dont get love, GNOME dont get love, cry, cry.

If distros want to support a DE to suit their needs then why not, is there really need to make it into a war every time?

well, this sucks for everyone who installed Kubuntu 6.06 because it had LTS support, and wanted to upgrade when the next one came out... It hurts quite a few ppl, that's why I bother.

I don't care if it's LTS or not - why would I, I just run the latest stuff anyway. But it doesn't hurt to look over your own fence.

Yet Microsoft can talk about how small Windows 7 will be and offer no more information than a demo of it in a terminal running(no more interesting then me booting linux and watching the verbose). Ubuntu is the most popular distro, it makes sense to report it's status.

That's just, like, your opinion, man...

Don't like it, don't click it. I don't see how creating some de facto standard for worthiness is feasible or desirable on the Web. This medium's main attraction is that publishing is so cheap and accessible that innumerable niche interests can each be served with an endless torrent of information that almost nobody cares about.

But there are people that really would like to read a dozen reviews of each Ubuntu alpha. Should they broaden their interests and maybe try a new hobby? Perhaps. However, if people keep clicking, people will keep posting. If it turns out somewhere down the line that there is a natural saturation point to the demand for information about Ubuntu, I'm sure some clever individuals will find some creative ways of manufacturing more demand.

Supply-side economics: because it's easier to sell stuff that people don't need to those who already have enough than to sell stuff that people need to those who don't have any.

The only way to break this cycle is for the consumers to stop consuming. Don't hold your breath waiting for the producers to stop producing or for the distributors to stop distributing.

"""

"""

I've noticed that posts here from user 'cmost' complaining about the number of Ubuntu articles seem to outnumber the articles themselves about 3 to 1.

Just use your eye muscles to deflect your eyes slightly down the page, and skip the articles which do not interest you. I do it all the time and it works quite well.

Really? 3:1? You don't say. Too bad your statistic is fictional. The reason I keep posting against the Ubuntu hype is that I've become concerned that too many people think that Linux IS Ubuntu. Ubuntu users are legion but they tend to ignore Ubuntu's faults and focus too much on its promise. Many which are never delivered. Ubuntu is like the iPod. It's popular, but not the best of breed. It's not just about averting my eyes as you put it. I feel the need to comment and it's my right to do so. And I'll continue doing so. If you don't like it, too bad.

Hype?, thats for things that are not released, Ubuntu is being used on the desktop more than any other distro because it is popular, works well and has sane desktop features.

Ubuntu dont keep on the number one distro spot just for being hype, it's just a damn good linux distro that people like to use, it's really that simple.

Why dont you then also feel the need to not comment?

You are just as bas as < insert ubuntu / mac/ windows fanboy > here except in reverse...

nobody likes the fundamentalist Christian or Muslim... but then nobody likes the fundamentalist atheist either!

Personally I think you should just be glad Linux in general is getting some publicity. You are like the goth that dresses so different just to be 'different' and then ends up looking like all other goths looking 'different'

(no offense to the real alternatives out there its not you I'm talking about)

Another analogy, you're like the coloured man that demands special rights because you've been persecuted against for 200 years.... STFU already - you are human just like everybody else.

In summary you are an elitist anti-popularism fanboy that constantly trolls these boards looking for any topic with 'ubuntu' in it just so you can slam it for any grasp of negativity you can. Replace the 'ubuntu' in what you said above with 'windows', Linux with 'PC' and you'll fit right in with any of the digg 'hail steve jobs' bill gates is the devil, worshipers.

Phew, I needed that rant =P dont tempt me to follow you around OSnews and reply with macintosh is god statements to every anti-ubuntu-for-the-sake-of-it posts you've been racking up.

You might want to consider that on a site called 'osnews', the users might actually know something about operating systems. I know it must be counterintuitive for you, but give it a fair hearing.

Since you don't appear to actually have read the comments section, you might be interested to know that the comments have largely been about problems with ubuntu, and about gnome-versus-kde, and about ubuntu-versus-other-distros. What are missing, interestingly enough, are the crowds of ignorant zealots that you claim to be targeting.


In regard to your first post, I would like to again point out that this is a side called 'osnews' and is about operating systems. I think that I can safely say that it makes sense for a site about operating systems to keep up to date on news about operating systems, including future relases.

If you think you can present a reasonable argument for future relases not being reported upon, then please make it. In doing so, you might want to consider that news about longhorn was reported on this site years before vista's release, and that there has already been at least one article about windows 7; and that in contrast to them (at the time of the articles' publishing, in the case of longhorn), 8.04 has a known feature set and release date.

You're right, OSNEWS is meant to report on operating systems. Ubuntu is an operating system. My only gripe with Ubuntu is that its community seems to focus too much on the next release at the expense of the current release. Once Gutsy hit the streets, all the hype turned to Hardy. It goes on and on. Ubuntu is like the iPod: it's not popular because its the best. It just has good marketing. I don't need to read an in-depth review on someone's self-important blog; about an early alpha whose change log indicates that only a few libraries have been updated or maybe a couple of applications bumped a version number. (And by the way, I use an Ubuntu based system myself (Mint) and I'm a longtime Debian, AmigaOS, DOS, and Windows user as well) I'm not just spouting off for the hell of it.

I am running windows xp inside vmware v 6.0.1 Build 55017 which is installed on Ubuntu 7.10 with kernel 2.6.22 and I can tell you its rock solid and no crashes at all.

Are you trying to say that you run linux emulated in vmware with windows being the host, or windows being the guest in a linux host?

I am running windows xp inside vmware v 6.0.1 Build 55017 which is installed on Ubuntu 7.10 with kernel 2.6.22 and I can tell you its rock solid and no crashes at all.

Windows 2000 inside of Workstation 6.0.2 on Ubuntu 7.10 host here. Similar problems with Server 1.0.4. It's not so much that it crashes outright (although that happens occasionally), it is that disk performance is really bad. The last post in the VMware forum thread I linked describes the problem, except for me it was not just suspend, but all disk IO. Best I can tell, it was continually swapping VM memory to disk even though I had perhaps 1 GB host ram free. Vmx file options fixed it, but it did not give me the warm fuzzies, and I have come to expect issues on most recent kernels.

I do like the fact that the kernel maintainers now designate periodic releases as "stable", though I have not noticed that the big distros are actually using those releases. Oh well.

"it is that disk performance is really bad."

True. I have noticed bad perfomance on my system with normal HDD; while noticed not a jaw dropping performance increase with Raptor HDD.
They must work on performance issues, but performance is luxury while stability is a must.

I know I would love those names as much as the next guy, but I believe they choose the name after an actual animal, not just some lame sick joke. Just type in hardy heron. It is a real bird, not some toy or weired name thought up out of the blue.

I didn't pay attention to that paragraph, until now (this statement was posted after my first comment).
What does this mean?
Apparently it means:
"Kubuntu will be suitable for an LTS when the KDE packages it contains are expected to be stable, maintained and supported for three years afterwards"
b y
o t h e r s
(in this case the KDE team or Debian).

I cannot understand why any company dares to talk of releasing a so-called "LTS release" years before that "8.04 date", although this company knows of its too little manpower so that any LTS release would be in danger, if this "LTS requirement zero" is not given.
I don't think that this is a Kubuntu-only "problem".
If this argument is valid for Kubuntu, it could also be valid for Ubuntu in the future, e.g. when Gnome 3.0 will be published one day.

Did you ever hear e.g. Red Hat talking this way with respect to its RHEL distributions?

In comparison to RHEL or SLES "(K)Ubuntu LTS" is another league, this is my opinion now.