LWN.net Logo

Ubuntu Dapper and the distribution business

Ubuntu's "Dapper Drake" release - more prosaically known as "6.06 LTS" - is due on June 1, and may well be available by the time you read this article. A distribution release is not a particularly rare occurrence in the Linux community, but there are a couple of things about Dapper which are just a little bit unusual and worthy of note.

The "LTS" in this release's name stands for "long term support"; this distribution comes with a promise of security updates for five years (on server systems) or three years (on desktop systems). Exactly how that distinction will be made is not entirely clear; one assumes that, for example, graphical mail clients will go unsupported in June, 2009, while mail transfer agents will continue to get updates into 2011. That is the longest credible support promise ever made for a free distribution, and it may change the commercial landscape in interesting ways.

There are many situations where the deployment of a Linux system makes a great deal of sense. In many of those, one wishes to start with reasonably current software, but to not have to worry much about upgrades for a long time thereafter. Web servers, print servers, database servers, kiosks, point of sale systems, and more all fall into this category. Once the system works, any sort of software change offers downtime and the risk of problems, but little in the way of advantages - except, of course, for security fixes. Anybody planning such a deployment must consider how the system will be supported and kept secure through its operating life. In recent years, the available choices have fallen into these categories:

  • An entirely free distribution (Fedora, Debian, OpenSUSE, etc.) can be used. The price is right, and the quality of the software tends to be high. The support window for these distributions tends to be short, and, for some of them, unpredictable. Keeping a Fedora Core system secure can involve upgrades twice a year - not an appealing option for a system which is supposed to be stable and "just work."

  • The "Enterprise" offerings from Red Hat and Novell come with long support promises; there are, undoubtedly, still plenty of systems running 2.4.9 kernels on RHEL 2 with uninterrupted support. These services can be expensive, however. For many customers, a support subscription is easily justified and worth every penny. But others will find that cost hard to swallow.

    Some try to get the best of both worlds through enterprise clone distributions like CentOS. By all accounts, the CentOS team has done a top-quality job with its distribution, but anybody contemplating a long-term deployment will have to be convinced of the project's long-term future and be able to overcome qualms (if any) about free-riding on the enterprise distributions.

  • Security support can be managed in-house. This approach requires a significant investment of time by a skilled administrator or developer, however, and is thus far from being free.

Ubuntu's five-year guarantee provides another choice: install Dapper, and obtain updates until 2011 with no costs at all. The existence of the Ubuntu Foundation, with its $10 million nest egg, helps to make that five-year promise credible, and Ubuntu's record with security updates has been, so far, quite good. So it would not be surprising to see significant uptake on Ubuntu's promise. Whether those new Ubuntu users will come at the cost of the enterprise distributions, or whether they are mostly people getting away from the (relative) upgrade treadmill of the free distributions, remains to be seen.

That leads to the other interesting aspect of this release: the increasing friendliness between Ubuntu/Canonical and Sun Microsystems. The two have just announced that the Dapper release will include a version for Sun's new Niagara SPARC architecture, and Sun executives are issuing quotes on how important a distribution Ubuntu is. Clearly something is going on here.

Sun's troubles in recent years have been well documented; to a great extent, Sun's customers have been steadily turning into customers of the enterprise distributions. To Sun, Ubuntu may well look like an opportunity to poke holes in the revenue streams of its main competitors. Ubuntu, in turn, may see Sun's support (and the Niagara port) as a way to gain a foothold in the server market. If Sun's new servers find customers, Ubuntu will be the obvious distribution for any of those customers who wish to run Linux.

How all of this plays out will be interesting to watch. Ubuntu's past releases have certainly been popular; if Dapper holds together well enough (and the initial signs are good), it may be the best-received Ubuntu release yet. If so, Ubuntu may well change the shape of the Linux distribution landscape.

(For those who are interested in what's actually in the 6.06 LTS release, the "testing Dapper" page has a lot of information and screenshots).


(Log in to post comments)

Ubuntu Dapper and the distribution business

Posted Jun 1, 2006 7:35 UTC (Thu) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link]

It doesn't hurt that Ubuntu is a very nice distribution too.

I don't think I am alone in wanting a cheap (or gratis) distribution that gets obsolete next week ;) Dapper is modern enough to last for a long time.

Tom

Ubuntu Dapper and the distribution business

Posted Jun 1, 2006 8:07 UTC (Thu) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link]

I meant to say:

I don't think I am alone in wanting a cheap (or gratis) distribution that doesn't gets obsolete next week.

Ubuntu Dapper and the distribution business

Posted Jun 1, 2006 7:52 UTC (Thu) by bni (subscriber, #27103) [Link]

I think it is unfair to put Fedora, Debian and OpenSUSE in the same category like this.

Debian releases are supported for several years and are very stable. Also when upgrading from old stable to new stable, the compability is generally very good. And we all know a new Debian release is a rare occurance, and I personally think this is good.

Fedora and OpenSUSE are cutting edge wich is fun, but not on "production" systems.

Ubuntu Dapper and the distribution business

Posted Jun 1, 2006 11:32 UTC (Thu) by dougm (subscriber, #4615) [Link]

Yeah, describing using Debian as being on an "upgrade treadmill" is pretty rich. It would be a
treadmill that goes very very slowly... :)

[I'm a very satisfied Debian and Ubuntu user.]

The Debian treadmill

Posted Jun 1, 2006 13:12 UTC (Thu) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

Debian releases are supported for a while because, as you say, the releases are infrequent - though the project is trying to change that somewhat. However, once a Debian release happens, the support period for the previous release is (1) indeterminate, and (2) sometimes quite short. So Debian users who wish to continue being supported will have to upgrade to the current release whether they want to or not. It may be a slower treadmill, but the core issue is the same.

The Debian treadmill

Posted Jun 1, 2006 17:56 UTC (Thu) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link]

As far as fact goes:

Debian 2.2 was released on August 14th, 2000 and supported until June 30th, 2003. This is close to 3 years of support.

Debian 3.0 was released on 19th of July, 2002 and will be supported until June 30th, 2006. This is close to 4 years of support.

The support cover the whole Debian distribution.

In contrast Ubuntu 6.06 offer 5 years on 'server systems' and 3 years on 'desktop systems'.

So Debian 3.0 so has provided a longer support on 'desktop systems' than what Ubuntu 6.06 is promising.

The Debian treadmill

Posted Jun 2, 2006 0:21 UTC (Fri) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

the better thing to look at is how long a given release is supported after the next release is out.

the debian team is trying very hard to get etch released this year, so debian 3.1 would loose support by the end of 2007. This increased release rate in is recognition that very few people want to make new installs with old software (which is very different from the long support option where an old install doesn't have to be reworked for a long time)

the fact that Ubuntu is planning to continue to support this release for 6 releases (desktop) or 10 releases (server) is a huge difference from other free distros. debian by comparison is supporting a release through 1.25-1.5 releases, depending on schedule, redhat is supporting a release through 2 releases.

The Debian treadmill

Posted Jun 3, 2006 19:16 UTC (Sat) by pimlott (subscriber, #1535) [Link]

So Debian 3.0 so has provided a longer support on 'desktop systems' than what Ubuntu 6.06 is promising.
And how well is mozilla 1.0 supported in woody? In fact, supporting mozilla 1.0 in 2006 is a major effort, one Debian does not make.

Ubuntu Dapper and the distribution business

Posted Jun 8, 2006 14:18 UTC (Thu) by sobdk (subscriber, #38278) [Link]

OpenSUSE is supported for a period of two years. Probably not long enough for a server, but acceptable for the desktop.

Take a look at: SuSE Linux Lifetime

Ubuntu Dapper and the distribution business

Posted Jun 1, 2006 12:13 UTC (Thu) by pcampe (subscriber, #28223) [Link]

CentOS is not the only rebuilt of RHEL completely free; another real important one is Scientific Linux, named after being developed at Fermi National Lab and Cern. It also has a lot of extra features (AFS, XFS file system, apt-get), a live version (which came shortly before CentOS Live-CD) and a quality team: the do not simply rebuilt the sources from Red Hat, they test it on their system.

"server" definition

Posted Jun 1, 2006 12:15 UTC (Thu) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]

The "LTS" in this release's name stands for "long term support"; this distribution comes with a promise of security updates for five years (on server systems) or three years (on desktop systems). Exactly how that distinction will be made is not entirely clear; one assumes that [...]
One can assume that the "server" packages are those in the "dapper server" install, and the "desktop" packages are the others -- those in the "[kx]?ubuntu" desktop install.

Ubuntu on a server, eh?

Posted Jun 1, 2006 15:52 UTC (Thu) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

This is slightly off-topic, but with the release of Dapper I'm wondering
how good Ubuntu measures up in the server department. Anyone care to
comment?

Personally I'm a fan of Gentoo on the desktop, but Gentoo seems a little
wild to me for future server deployments (though it is functioning well
on a server cluster I'm currently manning).

I decided to give Debian a whirl recently (before Gentoo, I was holding
out in the Slackware camp from years ago).

Would I be better off with Debian or Ubuntu? I will say that Debian
officially drove me crazy when I downloaded the April stable release and
discovered the only way to get 2.6 was through testing (etch).

Debian 3.1 (sarge) has the 2.6.8 kernel available

Posted Jun 1, 2006 16:31 UTC (Thu) by cortana (subscriber, #24596) [Link]

I would base a decision about whether to pick Debian or Ubuntu based on two factors.

1. The support status of the software I wanted to run. Software in Ubuntu 6.06 (dapper)'s 'main' section will be supported for 3-5 years. Updates for software in 'universe' are not guaranteed. By contrast, all of Debian's packages will be supported for one stable release cycle + 18 months.

2. Ease of installation. Sarge was released 18 months ago, and it sometimes tricky to install it on recent hardware. Booting the installer with 'linux26' will help; this causes a 2.6.8 kernel to be installed instead of the default 2.4.27[0]. If you need something more recent than 2.6.8, you could try the image available from http://kmuto.jp/b.cgi/debian/d-i-2615.htm; this is the sarge installer with a 2.6.15 kernel.

[0] To install the kernel on a running system, install one of kernel-image-2.6-686 or kernel-image-2.6-k7 depending on whether you have an Intel or AMD processor. 'apt-cache search' is your friend. ;) Packages of more recent kernels are available from http://backports.org/.

Ubuntu on a server, eh?

Posted Jun 1, 2006 20:20 UTC (Thu) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]

I decided to give Debian a whirl recently (before Gentoo, I was holding out in the Slackware camp from years ago).
Just curious as to why your switched away from Slackware..

Ubuntu on a server, eh?

Posted Jun 2, 2006 4:33 UTC (Fri) by cventers (subscriber, #31465) [Link]

As time went by, Slackware served me well... but it was a few years back,
during the time when I was still using Windows on the desktop, and I
didn't keep my server as clean as I should have. I'd want to upgrade
stuff, and I'd end up building it by hand, so I'd end up with a system
half filled with Slackware packages and half filled with stuff I've
hand-compiled.

After I got a new job as a software engineer, I tried Slackware on the
desktop, but after a month or so I gave Gentoo my first try ever (at
home). I loved it so much that I immediately moved my work desktop over,
and when it came time to set up a cluster at work, Gentoo was the
choice...

Switch from Slackware

Posted Jun 9, 2006 16:40 UTC (Fri) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018) [Link]

I can tell why I did: apt-get install package instead of:-

  • - find dependencies
  • - download dependencies
  • - compile dependencies
  • - download package
  • - compile package
  • - find out how to configure it
  • - realise one dependency needs a special option
  • - compile dependencies again
  • - compile package again
  • - etc...

2.6 in Debian sarge

Posted Jun 8, 2006 11:58 UTC (Thu) by robbe (guest, #16131) [Link]

> the only way to get 2.6 was through testing (etch).

cortana already mentioned that 2.6.8 is in sarge. Or maybe you run a non-i386 architecture?

One could also be thrown off by the fact that the sarge packages are kernel-image-X.Y.Z while the newer (etch) packages are more sensibly named linux-image-X.Y.Z

Ubuntu Dapper and the distribution business

Posted Jun 1, 2006 16:22 UTC (Thu) by wilck (subscriber, #29844) [Link]

The new maintenance policy is a step in the right direction.

To really challenge the enterprise distributions, Ubuntu must also get supported by the enterprise ISVs such as Oracle, SAP et al., prove to be rock-solid stable, and offer enterprise-level support (24/7, fixed reaction times, escalation paths, etc.). The ISV thing may turn out most problematic.

A similar argument holds for Sun, I suppose.

Another reason to upgrade

Posted Jun 1, 2006 17:41 UTC (Thu) by jenro (subscriber, #7024) [Link]

Once the system works, any sort of software change offers downtime and the risk of problems, but little in the way of advantages - except, of course, for security fixes.

This is not always true.

If you have more than one "copy" of your system, and must install new "copies" over a longer period of time, even your long-time-support-distro won't help you, because as time goes by it will be difficult to buy new hardware to run the than aged distro on it. At that point you have three choices:

  1. Switch to a newer distro for the new systems only.
  2. Upgrade the old systems to the distro, you use on the new systems.
  3. Whenever you must switch distros, buy new hardware for all installed systems.
#1 leads to a maintainence nightmare, #3 is probably far to expensive, so #2 is the only way to go.

The company I work for, made the mistake not to make any plans for option #2. Now we are stuck with 5 different distros ranging from S.u.S.E. 4.2 to SUSE 9.2 and the need for another newer distro clearly in sight. The oldest hardware is about 10 years old, and - alas - still is not showing any signs of falling apart.

"long-term" support starts...when?

Posted Jun 3, 2006 1:14 UTC (Sat) by roelofs (subscriber, #2599) [Link]

I suppose installation technically doesn't fall into the same support category as maintenance of already installed packages. Nevertheless, I was surprised to learn today that Ubuntu's ~year-old bug with respect to "W95 extended" partitions appears to remain as unsquashed as ever:

Just downloaded Ubuntu dapper drake last night, and it still has this same problem. I have been a mandrake user for years, but wanted to try out Ubuntu due to all the good press. I tried hoary hedgehog a while back and gave up for this same reason. You would think by now they would have addressed this issue. I guess they expect you to blow away a whole hard drive on an install.

The bug apparently was reported last September, and possibly before that in January 2005. Nor does it appear to be due to an actual error on the drive or partition table; as noted in the first link above, fdisk has never had any trouble--only partman is broken.

Oh well. I personally have no problem going back to Slackware on the system in question (and probably Gentoo on my main box), so it's no longer a major concern for me. I was just a little surprised, given all the "easy to install" (Breezy) and "long-term support" (Dapper) hype. (FWIW, I never had any problems with the Ubuntu 5.10 live CD, aside from the fact that it's a lot slower than booting from disk.)

Greg

Fedora Legacy

Posted Jun 14, 2006 10:21 UTC (Wed) by dannyyee (guest, #10147) [Link]

Fedora support runs for a year, so at worst you'd have to update annually. And Fedora Legacy supports some versions for much longer than that. I have a Fedora Core 1 server that's still getting security updates. Heck, I have a Redhat 7.3 server that's still getting security updates!

That's a proven record of long-term support.

Copyright © 2006, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds
Powered by Rackspace Managed Hosting.