To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
A rolling release schedule means: when a new version of some app or library is released as a stable version and basically tested, provide it to the users of your distribution via updates. That means you never have 'new releases', or have to install or update new versions.
Arch for example has 'new releases': just a cd with the latest version of all packages, which they release when a new kernel comes out. But users never have to upgrade anything, ever, they are always up-to-date.
So I'm behind a package on average (average testing time)/2 months, Ubuntu is behind:
average testing time in Debian Testing + 6 months working and testing + 6 months using it/2
First sync; then 6 months development (and I ignore here the fact they sometimes DO upgrade to newer versions in this time, like they do with Gnome/KDE, X, the kernel and some other important stuff) then the release cycle/2. This gives an average of 10 or 11 months.
For stuff they DO upgrade until the last minute (eg RC1) you're just a little over 3 months behind on average (release schedule/2 + test period).
But that's 3 months more than on Arch still...
Not updating the libraries all the time is the point of fix release. This means you know that for some time, your system won't break because of incompatible libraries. If you don't care about that, just use debian unstable.
For many people, having a stable system is much more important than continuous update, though. As a relatively long time debian user, that's the whole point of ubuntu for me.
Actually you have some information incorrect here. Ubuntu synchronizes with Debian Unstable, not Debian Testing.
Debian Testing IS a rolling distribution. Granted much like with anything that you will run that is in continuous flux, you'll have some breakage, but it's exactly what you're asking for if you want to constantly have the newest software. The only downfall of Debian is if the program you're after doesn't have a good package maintainer, but then again you can always attempt to step up to the plate and help them out.
The main problem with that though is that becoming an official Debian Developer is a pain in the butt (well it used to be, I think it's a bit easier now). It's not as hard in Ubuntu, but then again you can also tell that it's not as hard by the quality of the packages in Ubuntu (read they're not quite as good at fixing dependencies and conflicts as Debian's usually are).
Debian Testing works like this; A new package goes into Unstable. Once it's in Unstable for 10 days, it gets put into Testing unless there is a release bug or something wrong with the package, then it gets updated. Well it's 10 days or a week, can't recall at the moment.
With Ubuntu, after a release, they sync with Debian Unstable for about 3 months. Then they spend the next three months patching and stabilizing it. So you're not 6 months behind, more like 3. Of course then if you wait until the next release of Ubuntu you'll be 9 months behind. But really that's not all that bad. Plus there is always www.getdeb.net which has newer versions of packages for the latest Ubuntu release.
Besides if you just want to compile all of your software, stick to a source based distribution. Hell, a lot of times backporting a program is as easy as using prevu.







Member since:
2006-06-26
I might be a bit retarded, but is this in favour or against Ubuntu??? I always thought Ubuntu has a rolling release schedule ...
And what does "stable" really mean? Once Gnome releases, say, Gnome 3.0, it's stable. And tho it's considered "stable", it takes weeks/months to appear in distributions like Gentoo or Arch. With Ubuntu you know it'll be released in 10 and 04 (well, mostly). And Debian releases when it's finished altho I see promising signs of a changed attitude.