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 451203
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Symptom of a Wider Problem
by NxStY on Fri 26th Nov 2010 12:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Symptom of a Wider Problem"
NxStY
Member since:
2005-11-12

Well actually OpenOffice 3 runs on Win2k SP2 or greater. But yes just about everything runs on XP SP2 and SP2 came out in 2004.


2000 was unitl recently still being maintained and updated. XP still is, and it's still used a lot. 9 year old Linux distributions aren't in most cases. That's the difference. But technically you could probably make OO 3 run on an old Linux system but there is no point doing so.

You can have a single installation and updating service without having a bunch OS/application interdependencies. See the iphone as an example.


You could have that in Linux too. Compile static binaries or bundle required libraries. Or use something like java. The .tar.gz distributet by mozilla runs on pretty much any Linux system with no need to install dependencies.

so it is the fault of developers now. Is it the fault of developers when a distro breaks a program with a system update? Leaving it distro package managers is how (open source) developers deal with the mess. Some don't have the time and others simply don't want to waste it testing and packaging.


Did I say that? Where?

Anyway, if you're targeting a stable release series chances are slim that an update will break the application.

Reply Parent Score: 2

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


2000 was unitl recently still being maintained and updated. XP still is, and it's still used a lot. 9 year old Linux distributions aren't in most cases. That's the difference. But technically you could probably make OO 3 run on an old Linux system but there is no point doing so.

It has nothing to do with being maintained and updated, it's called a stable interface. Of course you can get OO 3 to run on an older system but it requires far more steps than just going click-click-click. Why does everyone have a hard time admitting this is a problem? Forget even comparing Linux to Windows. Both FreeBSD and OSX are much better at maintaining binary compatibility.


You could have that in Linux too. Compile static binaries or bundle required libraries.

It's a PITA compared to Windows and OSX and there are unstable components of the system that cannot be added to the package. Ubuntu broke some statically compiled games by screwing with the sound API. What were developers supposed to do in that case? Distributing software outside the package management system is a major annoyance and has held Linux back.


Anyway, if you're targeting a stable release series chances are slim that an update will break the application.


Someone in this thread already pointed out how you can't install Postgresql 9 on 8.04 through the packaging system. 8.04 LTS came out in 2008. Is this acceptable to you? Requiring a major system update to install a freaking command line database program?

Note that this was filed on 2008-10-14:
Please backport OpenOffice.org 3 to Hardy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/hardy-backports/+bug/283137

Reply Parent Score: 2

NxStY Member since:
2005-11-12

It has nothing to do with being maintained and updated, it's called a stable interface. Of course you can get OO 3 to run on an older system but it requires far more steps than just going click-click-click. Why does everyone have a hard time admitting this is a problem? Forget even comparing Linux to Windows. Both FreeBSD and OSX are much better at maintaining binary compatibility.

It's a PITA compared to Windows and OSX and there are unstable components of the system that cannot be added to the package. Ubuntu broke some statically compiled games by screwing with the sound API. What were developers supposed to do in that case? Distributing software outside the package management system is a major annoyance and has held Linux back.

Someone in this thread already pointed out how you can't install Postgresql 9 on 8.04 through the packaging system. 8.04 LTS came out in 2008. Is this acceptable to you? Requiring a major system update to install a freaking command line database program?

Note that this was filed on 2008-10-14:
Please backport OpenOffice.org 3 to Hardy
https://bugs.launchpad.net/hardy-backports/+bug/283137


I didn't say the situation today is great. Only that a central package management system is better than 100 different installer and updater apps. And of course this would work better if Linux distros would provide stable interfaces but that's beside the point.

Developers could provide packages that works across diffrent versions and fix them for the changes but in most cases they leave it up to the distros to make their own packages. Hence the current situation is not because the way linux distros handle software installations.

Reply Parent Score: 2