Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 24th Nov 2010 17:58 UTC, submitted by visitor
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu After announcing the move to Unity, and the eventual move to Wayland further down the line (someday one day perhaps eventually maybe once when unicorns roam the earth), Ubuntu is announcing yet another major change, this time in its release policy. While they're not moving to a rolling release as some websites are claiming, they will update components and applications more often.
Thread beginning with comment 451012
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Symptom of a Wider Problem
by segedunum on Wed 24th Nov 2010 18:11 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

This is just treating the symptoms of a wider problem in that Linux distributions don't have a sane software installation method for non-core distribution applications.

The next question is how long you will keep providing 'backports' (because that's all this is) for, and for how many releases, and who is going to quality check them. It just isn't scalable.

This just sounds like rearranging some deckchairs to be honest.

Edited 2010-11-24 18:13 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: Symptom of a Wider Problem
by fretinator on Wed 24th Nov 2010 18:32 in reply to "Symptom of a Wider Problem"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

This is just treating the symptoms of a wider problem in that Linux distributions don't have a sane software installation method for non-core distribution applications.


So you're telling me the Windows way of maintaining 3rd party programs is BETTER than the repository method used by Suse, Redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, etc.

That sir is Moo - as in Udder Nonsense.

Reply Parent Score: 6

_Nine_ Member since:
2010-10-13

What's your definition of maintaining? I think he's referring to straight-up installation. You want the new Firefox? Go to firefox.org and download it. You don't have to wait for your flavor of distro to roll it out via the repo. And you don't often have to worry that any prereqs for the app are going to break your other apps, just as it's rare for a Windows Update to break things. Updates and service packs might break custom or in-house enterprise apps, but i don't think it's an issue most general users face.

Reply Parent Score: 9

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

So you're telling me the Windows way of maintaining 3rd party programs is BETTER than the repository method used by Suse, Redhat, Debian, Ubuntu, etc.

Well let's look at the amount of applications that you can install on Windows and the fact that you can install Open Office on a nine year old OS in Windows XP but not on a nine year old Linux distribution.

The only thing that Windows lacks is a means for applications to have their own update repositories and systems.

That sir is Moo - as in Udder Nonsense.

Well you can call me sir all you like, but no it isn't, unless of course your goal is to make it as difficult as possible for users to get updated versions of applications and for developers to get those applications to users.

The reason why Ubuntu is looking at this approach of providing continually updated applications is because the 'better' way you describe really isn't.

Edited 2010-11-25 13:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Symptom of a Wider Problem
by Soulbender on Thu 25th Nov 2010 00:22 in reply to "Symptom of a Wider Problem"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

This is just treating the symptoms of a wider problem in that Linux distributions don't have a sane software installation method for non-core distribution applications.


And what would be the better alternative? Lke Windows where there are 5 billion installer systems, few companies provide automatic updates and those who do all use their own update system?

Reply Parent Score: 6

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Read what Ubuntu is proposing here and you'll realise that the status quo is not acceptable. They know there is a massive problem where applications are tied to a particular distribution version, meaning that you need to upgrade every six months if you want to get a new application version. That is just plain stupid.

The Windows system at least provides the means to install a wide variety of applications, and you can install Open Office on a nine year old system in XP that you can't do with any Linux distribution. What it lacks is a sane update and remote installation mechanism, but that's because software installation on Windows has existed for a very long time.

Scale this up for Ubuntu and they're going to have to maintain an extremely long list of backports, the quality of which will inevitably be compromised. Where applications are concerned that just shows you that it's the developers and users who should be responsible for maintaining and installing the software that they want to use.

Eventually they will end up realising this after another ten years maybe, but until they do they'll have to jump throuhg hoops such as just where they will draw the line as to what they will update in a distribution and what should be kept static.

Edited 2010-11-25 13:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

silix Member since:
2006-03-01

And what would be the better alternative? Lke Windows where there are 5 billion installer systems
who cares whether different applications use different installers if:
- they vary in flexibility and functionality ( eg some operate via scripts, some can install the Application on a per component basis) but all of them basically do the same thing, extract the application files to the installation folder, and set some registry keys
- the underlying system (as applications and installers are concerned) is for all intents and purposes the very same (thus, a unified platform compatible with itself across releases) for over a decade - thus allowing nearly any combination of <<arbitrary application for "windows">> and <<arbitrary windows version>> to work

Reply Parent Score: 1

Neolander Member since:
2010-03-08

And what would be the better alternative? Lke Windows where there are 5 billion installer systems, few companies provide automatic updates and those who do all use their own update system?

The App bundles of Mac OS X is in my opinion the best compromise to date for installing new software easily and removing it without leaving junk in system folders.

Updating is an issue, though. Apple should provide a standard update procedure, allowing third-party software to be updated along with system packages through the Apple Software Updater tool.

But looking at how much they care about their users keeping their system up to date, I wonder if this is going to happen before the only way to install and update software on a mac is via a "Mac Store" using Apple's repositories, effectively making the replacement of ASU able to update all software.

Edited 2010-11-25 20:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Symptom of a Wider Problem
by sicofante on Fri 26th Nov 2010 05:15 in reply to "Symptom of a Wider Problem"
sicofante Member since:
2009-07-08

This is just one of the many emperor's clothes in Linux wardrobe. Nobody seems to understand that installing an OS every six months is a plain stupid proposal. Nobody will explain why a Windows or Mac user can upgrade his apps easily and a Linux user can't.

Just silly.

Reply Parent Score: 1

DeadFishMan Member since:
2006-01-09

This is just one of the many emperor's clothes in Linux wardrobe. Nobody seems to understand that installing an OS every six months is a plain stupid proposal. Nobody will explain why a Windows or Mac user can upgrade his apps easily and a Linux user can't.

Just silly.


Hold on a second. Nobody has to reinstall "Linux" every six months to have their applications upgraded. They have to reinstall Ubuntu and that's quite a difference.

My old desktop has Debian Sid running from the same install since 2004, survived several parts replacements and it keeps going without missing a beat. My laptop has been running Sid since 2007 without any problems either.

I am now running Sid on my newest quad core desktop since two months ago and it flies on it. Something tells me that it is going to be there forever, too!

And I am increasingly looking towards Arch to satisfy my urge to stay on top of the latest KDE improvements before everybody else knowing that I won't have to reinstall anything at all and the fact that Arch does not stray too far away from upstream - if at all - just sweetens the deal.

That people have to put up with Ubuntu's weaknesses because they don't know better is one thing. But do not lump all the Linuxes together with Ubuntu just because one does not want to look elsewhere.

I am really hopeful that Canonical can pull this off, though. They already have the blueprints (hint, hint, nudge, nudge) so it is just a matter of following them... ;)

Edited 2010-11-26 12:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Symptom of a Wider Problem
by whitemice on Mon 29th Nov 2010 16:37 in reply to "Symptom of a Wider Problem"
whitemice Member since:
2010-08-15

Bogus; the Linux software managment system is *amazing* and far better than any of the comparable alternatives. yum / apt / zypper are all good tools. More projects should use the OBS; then they can offer one-click installs that automatically add the repo and install the packages. This works VERY well. Check out installing Monodevelop and Banshee as good examples.

Of course Ubuntu is the worst for this because it is more of a fork than a distro - but it still works reasonably well. Switch to openSUSE for a distribution "for humans who need to get work done".

Reply Parent Score: 1