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 451149
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Hence a lot of people still use XP. How many people do you think are still using a 9 year old Linux distro on a desktop?

People still use XP because there is a large, stagnant installed base, especially in businesses, who can't and won't upgrade as fast as some think they should. A nine year old Linux distribution should be so lucky, and the reason why people don't use one that old now is simply because few want to run Linux.

The rest of your comment are unrelated criticisms of XP and I don't see them as relevant.

I disagree. Having a central package management system is far superior to having 100 different installer and updater applications. How is that "as difficult as possible"?

Because people want to upgrade their applications, get new versions and actually keep their system relevant to the work that they want to do. Upgrading it every six months to do that is just plain stupid, hence why Ubuntu is looking at doing this.

Unfortunately, trying to do it through a central repository system is a gross duplication of manpower and resources where they will have to backport to each and every single release and there will inevitably be a delay until new applications appear. They'll also have to work out how long they will provide backports for. Most upstream developers refuse to support many distribution packages as well.

It's swings and roundabouts, pros and cons, and simply making a sweeping statement that a central repository system is the best way is just nonsense. It isn't. There are just glaring disadvantages that people paint over.

The problem is that a lot of developers leaves it to the distros to make packages rather than making their own.

Chicken and egg. There is no sane installation and configuration system for third-party software in any Linux distribution that doesn't interfere with the distribution itself. A package management system isn't enough. When someone has come up with one they have been consistently told that they're stupid.

Look at how easy it is to configure MySQL through a configuration wizard on Windows versus the hoops you jump through when you install on Linux. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

Reply Parent Score: 1

orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

If I met someone deliberately running a 9 year old Linux distro without a really damn good reason I do believe I'd slap them. Twice. There's really no rational excuse not to stay with a supported version of the OS.

Reply Parent Score: 3

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

You might think that but I'm afraid the sign of success is that you have a lot of people using a wide variety of older systems. The reason why no one runs a nine year old Linux system, on their desktop anyway, is because no one uses it.

I'm sure there are nine year old Linux server systems that haven't been upgraded simply because they'll be running applications quite happily, and there isn't the time or the urge to mess with them because someone on OSNews thinks they should be upgrading continually.

It doesn't work like that.

Reply Parent Score: 2

NxStY Member since:
2005-11-12

The rest of your comment are unrelated criticisms of XP and I don't see them as relevant.


How is mentioning the fact that MS has maintained and updated XP over the years "unrelated critisism"?

Most upstream developers refuse to support many distribution packages as well.


That's the actual problem.

It's swings and roundabouts, pros and cons, and simply making a sweeping statement that a central repository system is the best way is just nonsense. It isn't. There are just glaring disadvantages that people paint over.


I see more advantages than problems.

Chicken and egg. There is no sane installation and configuration system for third-party software in any Linux distribution that doesn't interfere with the distribution itself. A package management system isn't enough. When someone has come up with one they have been consistently told that they're stupid.

Look at how easy it is to configure MySQL through a configuration wizard on Windows versus the hoops you jump through when you install on Linux. That's just the tip of the iceberg.


Yes there is. Packages can trigger post installations processes, including starting a wizard or whatever. If you install the dropbox client on ubuntu for example it will ask you to restart nautilus and to start the client. When you do it detects that it runs for the first time and shows a wizard that lets the user configure it, just as in windows. MySQL could do the same thing. The technology is there, it's just up to developers to use it.

Edited 2010-11-26 17:44 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2