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 451036
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Multi-tier distributions
by phoenix on Wed 24th Nov 2010 20:38 UTC in reply to "Multi-tier distributions"
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

Exactly. You need to keep the core OS stable for several years. But allow user-level apps to be installed/upgraded at will, *without* upgrading the core OS.

Windows users can do this.
MacOS X users can do this.
*BSD users can do this.

But Linux users can't.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Multi-tier distributions
by Lennie on Wed 24th Nov 2010 22:04 in reply to "RE: Multi-tier distributions"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

What would also help if more distributions selected the same base each round.

Reply Parent Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Agreed. A step in the right direction would be a central "repository" for patches used by the different distributions. Today it's a true PITA to search for all the patches used by different distributions, comb them for "useless" (read: distribution specific) patches and apply those which one can use.

LSB is kind of a step in the right direction, but then again - it's really not.

Reply Parent Score: 2

dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

True. And it's quite annoying that API and ABI is constantly broken. ABI breakage can be fixed through recompiling and/or relinking. API breakage is much worse.

I've played a lot with LFS, BLFS and recently CLFS (and CBLFS) in an attempt to create a multi-tier distribution, but it's painful to maintain. Of course, with me deviating a lot from the Linus FSH, it's kind of my own fault.

I've tried applying different package management systems, but neither .deb nor .rpm seem to be adequate, and attempting to use Slapt-get creates a dependency on a rather old tar-package. I like the latter approach though, since the extended slackware format is less obnoxius than .deb or .rpm.

Reply Parent Score: 2

phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

True. And it's quite annoying that API and ABI is constantly broken. ABI breakage can be fixed through recompiling and/or relinking. API breakage is much worse.


Exactly.

Reply Parent Score: 2