Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Jul 2009 09:50 UTC, submitted by kragil
Debian and its clones Most mainstream distributions, like Ubuntu, Fedora, and Mandriva, have already adopted a time-based release schedule, meaning that releases are not done on a feature basis, but according to a pre-determined time schedule. The Debian project has announced that it has adopted a time-based release schedule too.
Thread beginning with comment 375957
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Mark Shuttleworth to "blame"
by kenji on Wed 29th Jul 2009 15:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Mark Shuttleworth to "blame""
kenji
Member since:
2009-04-08

I think that desktop linux users are to 'blame', not Shuttleworth although placing blame seems too severe at this point. Fedora, Mandriva and Ubuntu all have 'regular' release intervals and that is what desktop users have come to expect. If anything this move is to bring some Ubuntu users (and other desktop users) to Debian, not to bow to Ubuntu.

Honestly the erratic release cycle of debian is the largest hurdle keeping me away from it.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Redeeman Member since:
2006-03-23

Honestly the erratic release cycle of debian is the largest hurdle keeping me away from it.

Yes.. because.. how would you EVER be able to sleep not knowing if you were to upgrade the software on your computers in april or july? oh teh horror!

Reply Parent Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Yes.. because.. how would you EVER be able to sleep not knowing if you were to upgrade the software on your computers in april or july? oh teh horror!

Or in Debian's case, *which* April or July. This matters for corporate desktops. I know. I administer them. And Debian's cavalier attitude toward release planning is the #1 reason that we don't even consider using it.

Edited 2009-07-29 15:37 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

kenji Member since:
2009-04-08

My point was perhaps not clear. I was more pointing towards the length of time between releases and the variability of that time from one release to another.

Although it's true that a large majority of desktop linux users care about having the latest apps, I am more concerned in the case of Debian with hardware support. Stable releases use old kernels right out of the gate and then 18 months later...they are even older.

I build my own computers so a fairly recent kernel is important to me but it comes down to personal preference. Hardware support IS important to me afterall....

Reply Parent Score: 1

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

For me, it's that most of the packages in stable are pretty old - and, if you want something new, maybe something that came out in the last six months (or a year), it might not be available at all. Unstable doesn't necessarily help much: it's, well, unstable, and while it's packages are a little newer, it may well not have what you want either.

Reply Parent Score: 1

kenji Member since:
2009-04-08

For me, it's that most of the packages in stable are pretty old - and, if you want something new, maybe something that came out in the last six months (or a year), it might not be available at all.....


Exactly. The FOSS world moves faster than Debian. Nothing wrong with that; just an observation. ;)

Reply Parent Score: 1