Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions page
| |||||||||||||
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4
Ubuntu and its siblings are preparing
for the next Long Term Support (LTS) release, v8.04 (April 2008) - the
Hardy Heron. Ubuntu's first release was announced in September 2004, with a (then)
brand new GNOME 2.8 desktop. Since then Ubuntu releases have been tied
pretty closely to GNOME releases.
Now, of course, we have Kubuntu for KDE fans, and Xubuntu for Xfce fans. That's great, but Ubuntu releases aren't timed for new versions of those desktops. And that's why it seems that Kubuntu 8.04 will not be a LTS release after all. The final release of KDE 4.0 will be out in January and a Kubuntu 7.10 live CD with KDE 4 RC2 is getting plenty of downloads. Interest in KDE 4.0 is high. Jonathan Riddell, Kubuntu project lead, writes: "Since KDE 4 is a major change to the platform, it is not currently at one of these natural rest points so would not be suitable for long term support. Instead, due to the very high interest, development efforts will be directed towards KDE 4 and releasing Kubuntu 8.04 with the option of using either KDE 3.5 or KDE 4." Basically, it seems that Canonical, Kubuntu's parent company, thinks that KDE 3.5 is stable enough for a LTS release, but upstream support will be dropping off before the full three-year period promised for a LTS release. KDE 4.0 is currently popular, and will be supported upstream, but its not quite stable enough for a LTS release. Richard A. Johnson presents his viewpoint. "Kubuntu 8.04 will not be LTS, unless after all of this hoopla something changes. Honestly, I do not see why the KDE 3.5 release can't be LTS, but as Jonathan said, that is Canonical's calling." He continues, "If we were to continue to redirect 100% of our efforts to KDE 3.5, come this time next year, we will be so far behind the rest of the distributions pushing KDE 4. We, Kubuntu Development Team, do not have the resources to do both a KDE 3.5 LTS release as well as a KDE 4 release at the same time. We cannot afford to neglect KDE 4 as a distribution. If we were to neglect it now, we could never catch up to distributions such as Fedora, openSUSE, and others who are just swarming with developers." Kubuntu is sometimes seen a "second class citizen" compared to Ubuntu and if Kubuntu does not release a LTS version that perception will only be strengthened. But the developer pool is small and Canonical must decide what they can realistically support for a 3 year time period, as opposed to the usual 18 month period for most releases. In another post, Richard A. Johnson writes: "Don't get me wrong, I am torn between LTS and non-LTS for a multitude of reasons. I know people want LTS and just as many, if not more, want KDE 4. I am afraid that if we do the LTS way, we will miss out on KDE 4 and the hype behind it. At the same time I worry about those who were looking forward to an LTS release. At the same time, I also realize we do 6 month releases, and majority of our users follow our releases and typically upgrade on release day, the amount of noise created in the past about dist-upgrade breakage supports this." Krzysztof Lichota comments:
I think KDE 3.5 is not high-maintainance thing as it has been in Kubuntu
for many years and there are no changes after 3.5.8. It is just keeping
the state as it is...
I think putting much effort on KDE 4 i shooting yourself in the foot. It is very new code (it isn't released even yet!) and it will contain lots of bugs and cause a lot of problems. It also misses some features from KDE 3. IMO 8.04 should be LTS release with mainly 3.5 support and with option to try out KDE 4. Others agree that focusing on KDE 3.5 for a LTS release is the way to go. Unsupported live CDs with KDE 4 could be made available. And six months after the Hardy release comes Kubuntu 8.10, which will certainly feature KDE 4. Scott James Remnant notes: "The community's input was actually sought on several points, and many members of the Kubuntu community provided answers and insight that contributed to the decision. It is difficult for this decision to be made by the community because the community's stake in Kubuntu is one of personal achievement and pride, whereas Canonical's is financial and of commercial commitments. Had Canonical simply asked the community "should Kubuntu 8.04 be an LTS?", the answer would not be based on the same terms: instead more direct questions were asked such as "how long will upstream work on KDE 3.5?"" Version 8.04 is only the second LTS release (the first being 6.06, aka Dapper Drake), so this situation really hasn't come up before. It is bound to come up again though. There may be other times in the future when not all the Ubuntu siblings will have the same support cycle. It doesn't necessarily make them second class, it just makes them more supportable. (Log in to post comments)
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 28, 2007 18:47 UTC (Fri) by elanthis (guest, #6227) [Link] Proofread much?
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 28, 2007 20:18 UTC (Fri) by speedster1 (subscriber, #8143) [Link] This is an interesting article in a week when Linux tech news is pretty slow (as in almost non-existent). Best to cut the editor some slack in gratitude for getting it up now instead of next week when all the other editors and news sites get back to work. Actually, I don't even agree that the article looks rushed, but perhaps whatever problems you noticed have been fixed by now.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 28, 2007 20:38 UTC (Fri) by amikins (guest, #451) [Link] [citation needed]
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 28, 2007 22:23 UTC (Fri) by pointwood (guest, #2814) [Link] If you have any complaints in that regard then point them out and I'm sure the editor will fix them. You comment helps no one.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Jan 3, 2008 19:34 UTC (Thu) by lysse (guest, #3190) [Link] This is the internet. We're not supposed to help each other; that was the ideal of a bunch of beardy Birkenstock'd folk 15 years ago. We're supposed to make ourselves look good in front of the whole world at everyone else's expense. And since 99.9% of us don't actually do anything to justify our use of oxygen, we're pretty much left with tearing down those that do however we can - whether by seizing on their tiniest slips and building them into egregious transgressions, judging their actions by standards to which we don't even think to hold ourselves, intimidating and belittling anyone who scares us, or when all of that doesn't work, by outright libel.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 28, 2007 21:54 UTC (Fri) by oak (guest, #2786) [Link] > I think KDE 3.5 is not high-maintainance thing as it has been in Kubuntu for many years and there are no changes after 3.5.8. It is just keeping the state as it is... Which in Gutsy seems to be pretty buggy (Adept having problems with updates, Kcontrol not being able to go to administrator mode and Kmail since Feisty freezing/crashing with mails having empty charset setting)...
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 28, 2007 23:21 UTC (Fri) by mattmelton (subscriber, #34842) [Link] Synchronising the major and minor releases might be the problem here. Maybe looking to have a standarised Ubuntu base (ie: 8.10) with LTS, and then a desktop major minor - ie: "Ubuntu 8.10k4.0"... etc? What we really want is a stable core system we can restore easily - ie: aaabase/glibc/binutils etc. The neat stuff that progresses, such as the kernel, drivers and desktop don't have to coincide with the static stuff. The more I think about it, however, the more complicated it becomes. You quickly reach a point where the time/money spent on maintaining separation out-weighs the time/money and dependancy troubles in tracking beta apps as a whole. I think KDE is fairly complete; I hope we shall, sooner rather than later, see people warm to this completeness and realise that the wonderful new build system makes KDE much easier to maintain.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 28, 2007 23:26 UTC (Fri) by jeleinweber (subscriber, #8326) [Link] Does it really matter? Desktop users upgrade every 6 months anyway, so those Kubuntu 8.04 and 8.10 fans are in good shape, LTS or not. The main LTS users are on the server side, and they probably don't care what the GUI is! Most of my servers only boot to text consoles.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 28, 2007 23:39 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Desktop users upgrade every 6 months anyway Home desktop users upgrade every 6 months, you mean. My desktop at work is still 6.06 - because it's LTS and our admins will not support anything else. Thus I was pretty sad when Skype dropped support for 6.06. Note: I'll not have a chance to upgrade for LTS Kubuntu 8.04 release for two years - because we don't have "Ubuntu 6.06" vs "Kubuntu 6.06" choice here. It's "Ubuntu 6.06 plus optionally KDE and/or XFCE from *ubuntu 6.06". Thus the only sane way to handle this is to introduce intermediate "8.0x" LTS Kubuntu respin which will have the same base packages as Ubuntu "8.04" but KDE 4.0 instead of 3.5...
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 29, 2007 0:29 UTC (Sat) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link] Geeky home desktop users upgrade every six months, you mean. Everyone else stays with what they've got until they get a new computer.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 29, 2007 13:07 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] Or until their geeky son comes along and messes everything up, like my mother.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 30, 2007 21:42 UTC (Sun) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] Doesn't Ubuntu have some thingy that prompts you to upgrade when the new release is out?
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 31, 2007 14:04 UTC (Mon) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link] Sort of - the Update Manager in Ubuntu/Xubuntu tells you there is a new release available.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 29, 2007 7:59 UTC (Sat) by a_hippie (guest, #34) [Link] >Does it really matter? Desktop users upgrade every 6 months anyway, so those Kubuntu 8.04 and >8.10 fans are in good shape, LTS or not. The main LTS users are on the server side, and they >probably don't care what the GUI is! Most of my servers only boot to text consoles. Yikes. Nope. I put dapper on this (then brand new) laptop and it's been dapper all the time. Why muck up what works? I will upgrade (clean install) once the next LTS comes along. Then I'll probably leave it alone too! Life's too short to boink up the machine. regards
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 29, 2007 12:52 UTC (Sat) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] I'm currently thinking about switching our desktops from SUSE to Kubuntu. That no LTS is planned is a disappointment, it was a major factor in the selection of the distribution. Since we use much more KDE apps than GNOME apps, Ubuntu LTS has not been the 1st choice; now I have to evaluate if Ubuntu LTS + KDE packages might be the way to go. Updating my desktop every 6 months is a non-productive hassle -- I had fun in installing software when I was 20. Now, 26 years later, I did enough of that and I would like to commit my Copious Spare Time to more productive tasks like developing Open Source software. I prefer to leave my desktop in a stable state for 2-3 years, just with security updates, and then do the upgrade. (In fact, usually by buying a new computer and installing the new distro there.) Those few packages that I need more current for development reasons, I need development trees anyhow and compile them myself. This approach has not been possible with openSUSE, SUSE Desktop had not enough packages, and it seems as if it won't be possible with Kubuntu either. Too sad. Joachim
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 29, 2007 16:32 UTC (Sat) by jmm (subscriber, #34596) [Link] Just use Debian, then. It provides security support for about three years and covers a lot more packages than Ubuntu or any other distribution.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 29, 2007 16:50 UTC (Sat) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] We already use Debian, on our servers. But the out-of-the-box configuration of desktop parts (especially, for our laptops, e.g. suspend and hibernate) is better in Kubuntu and SUSE than it is on Debian. As I would like to use that, I started to investigate in the feasibility of Kubuntu LTS. Actually, one advantage of Kubuntu was that I can continue to use my normal apt-based processes for Kubuntu, whereas I would have to switch to smart with newer SUSE versions. (I still run the early SUSE 10.x releases, where apt works like a charm, too.) Btw, I'm speaking about 5 desktops and 3 laptops. It's not a big installation, but still enough that I'm not particularly fond of changes that need hand-holding or where I need to investigate why some application suddenly stops working or disappears in a new release.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 30, 2007 7:35 UTC (Sun) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link] There are many Ubuntu variants around, including Linux Mint KDE Edition (http://www.seopher.com/articles/review_of_linux_mint_bian...) - so if you must upgrade soon, why not use a (K)ubuntu variant until Kubuntu catches up with a stable KDE 4 version? It would be simpler and less hassle to just wait for an LTS version of Kubuntu. Since Kubuntu 6.06 LTS is still supported on the desktop until June 2009, I don't think there's any rush to upgrade.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Jan 1, 2008 14:23 UTC (Tue) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964) [Link] @jschrod "Actually, one advantage of Kubuntu was that I can continue to use my normal apt-based processes for Kubuntu, whereas I would have to switch to smart with newer SUSE versions. (I still run the early SUSE 10.x releases, where apt works like a charm, too.)" Actually OS-10.3 is worth a look, zypper improves the updating speed and flexibility with similar interface as apt for scripts. Your development stuff could pickup Build service repositaries, or be in such a repositary. You wouldn't need apt or SMART, but use the default distro tools. As it's possible to run both KDE3 & KDE4 on same OS10.3 system, if you're developing Desktop code, it's hard to see why you wouldn't have enough flexibility on packages, when you're compiling them and can choose their installation directory.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Jan 3, 2008 12:52 UTC (Thu) by jschrod (subscriber, #1646) [Link] Even in 10.3, zypper still has no dependency management that is on par with apt. I saw this recently at a customer where we upgraded from 10.2 to 10.3 and zypper asked lots of questions about conflict resolves -- with very annoying several-minute lapses inbetween -- where apt would have simply proposed to do the Right Thing(tm) in one step. In any case, either zypper or smart would need that I put work into the update process which is working now. I would have to investigate how one creates a cron job in the night that downloads all available updates and sends a notification email (interactive update notifiers in desktop panels are not acceptable -- my staff will have no need for that, updates are done by updates), i.e., the functionality of apticron. (And please don't even start to recommend automatic updates for desktops where work is done every day.) Forthermore, how one blocks updates of specific packages (e.g., kernel, glibc, X server) while installing the rest automatically in one sweep, i.e. without the need to turn off their installation in a GUI interactively for each update anew. (The equivalent to aptitude hold, respectively hold-configurations in apt4rpm.) Last, but not least, using a shared download cache for all my systems must be configured -- we have a metered Internet connection. I'm rather sure that this can all be done -- but it is probably several hours work until I have a new setup that just does the same thing as the apt-based setup that I have already, without any conceivable advantage in return for this work. And because that's not the only area with changes but no improvements, I think about moving from SUSE to another distribution. Btw, I'm a paying customer since SUSE 5.1 with a running subscription, I didn't just download OS, after all I wanted to support these folks. Thus, it's not just a short fling with SUSE, I use them since many years and really think they messed up with the 10.x series.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 29, 2007 2:31 UTC (Sat) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link] What does the above article actually _mean_? Does the above article mean that Kubuntu won't have an LTS for another 3 years, or that Kubuntu 8.10 will be the LTS, or what? 80% of the Kubuntu repository is shared with Ubuntu, you can turn Ubuntu into Kubuntu via "aptitude install kubuntu-desktop" to get the extra packages. I remember with 5.10, the repository went away entirely after the 6 month period and I couldn't even install new copies of the distro. If the 8.04 repository is still there, and just stops getting certain kde packages updated, that's a big difference from taking the repository down before the 3 year period is up...
Seems like a one-sided comparison... Posted Dec 29, 2007 4:15 UTC (Sat) by rsidd (subscriber, #2582) [Link] Sure, KDE 3.5 will be ancient in 2011, but so will GNOME 2.20. (By that time 2.32 should be out if the six-monthly schedule continues.) Though the major number stays the same, GNOME makes significant changes in releases. Of course, it is Canonical's call as a commercial business and if they decide they can support GNOME and not KDE, I can't question that.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 29, 2007 17:14 UTC (Sat) by stock (guest, #5849) [Link] It should be known that the top-tier US Software Corporations, who today apparently need to control the directions in which the Linux Desktop development is heading, have put KDE on their wanted for destruction target list long time ago : "Community: Why Is Novell Chopping Its SUSE Linux Workstation and Desktop Product Line?" http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2005-11-04... "Not SuSE but KDE got killed " http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2005-11-04... So who is behind Canonical Ltd. anyway? Is it only the remarkable outer space worthy Mark Shuttleworth? Or are some unknown fat cats from the Software Industry pulling the strings here? Shuttleworth is a capable man no-doubt, but is (from wikipedia: ) "Shuttleworth founded Thawte in 1995, which specialised in digital certificates and Internet security and then sold it to VeriSign in December 1999, earning R 3.5 billion (about 575 million US dollars at the time)." not really a too hyped-up fairy tale? Excuse for the conspiracy tone here, but when KDE is on the line, the old flame stories between KDE and the other Desktop environments like GNOME, _do_ revive their validity. Robert -- Robert M. Stockmann - RHCE Network Engineer - UNIX/Linux Specialist crashrecovery.org stock@stokkie.net
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 29, 2007 18:05 UTC (Sat) by pzb (subscriber, #656) [Link] The opinions on LinuxToday you linked to are more than two years old. Today, it is clear that SUSE has continued to release new products in the Linux desktop product line (rather than kill it as one story suggests). SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10, with KDE and GNOME, seems to be doing well, based on the news over the last few months about various hardware companies preloading it. As for your comment on LT, which you linked to, I would suggest that openSUSE has a top-notch KDE desktop. The openSUSE project manager is a KDE hacker: http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20070813#feature Lastly, if you follow Ubuntu at all, you know Mark truely runs it. He was involved with Debian before and is the SABDFL (Self-Appointed Benevolent Dictator For Life) for Ubuntu.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Dec 30, 2007 15:28 UTC (Sun) by Thue (subscriber, #14277) [Link] It should be known that the top-tier US Software Corporations, who today apparently need to control the directions in which the Linux Desktop development is heading, have put KDE on their wanted for destruction target list long time agoThat sounds too much as a conspiracy theory. As long as the KDE project don't commit to maintain their last stable branch for 3 years, I can understand that distros do not want to make long term releases based on it. So in my view the main responsibility for the absense of LTS Kubuntu is the KDE project, who can hardly be accused of being in a conspiracy against itself :P.
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Jan 5, 2008 11:19 UTC (Sat) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link] Point is, of course, that the excuse by Canonical to not support KDE because they won't maintain it for 3 years is rather lame. Novell will have an Enterprise Desktop supporting KDE 3.5.8 until 2011, so why can't Canonical? The KDE project will support KDE 3.5.x for quite a while still, we're gonna see a 3.5.9 release soon, and it will even have new features...
Kubuntu LTS and KDE4 Posted Jan 1, 2008 14:38 UTC (Tue) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964) [Link] @stock "Community: Why Is Novell Chopping Its SUSE Linux Workstation and Desktop Product Line?" http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2005-11-04... " The factual innaccuracies made in your talkback, really undermine your point. The version of history there, is perhaps slightly better researched than the ZDnet FUDicles that linuxtoday.com regularly link to.
LTS on Desktop Often an Illusion Posted Jan 1, 2008 15:28 UTC (Tue) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964) [Link] Frequently, 3rd party bianaries like Real Player aren't made available for older releases. Then other applications, require updates to libraries, whilst other old 'frozen' versions won't work with those same libraries. Then if you actually try to run very old, web browsers and such, you'll find they don't work on a lot of sites, which don't stick to the HTML basics. There just hasn't been the stable conditions, to make feature frozen software + security patches, a useful choice, unless you could freeze the whole environment; a practical impossibility with Internet access required. Perhaps it's time FOSS copied M$ and gave an "illusion of stability". Rather than highlighting incrementing version numbers and scary sounding changes to attract new installs. Concentrate instead on building a large core software base where it "should just work". Most updates that break things by introducing bugs, rapidly get re-issued. Where applications have relied on bugs, or stop working with new versions for unclear reasons patches become available soon enough, due to need for installs on new systems. So IMO Debian style release labels, depending on level of radicalism/conservatism required of the installation, seem to have a lot going for it. What's needed is a "should work" preview level with easy to back out changes, that gives upstream ISV's and distro's time to iron out problems caused by updates, so work is not disrupted. Really what commercial users want, is stuff that works, that costs minimal maintenance time. Where bureaucratic certifications are needed, requiring no-changes to the system, what is the "support" actually meant to achieve? Adminstering "unsupported" frozen systems, due to OS Vendor / Hardware manufacturer losing interest, is often much easier than where they're pressuring you into upgrades through hardware updates, and almost compatible software changes. Supporting multiple releases is hard and a major PITA, with FOSS everything important could run at the same level, because there's not license issues, so by choosing Release cycles, we actually throw away one of the main benefits. Progress is simpler and less painful via many small steps.
LTS on Desktop Often an Illusion Posted Jan 1, 2008 17:35 UTC (Tue) by yokem_55 (subscriber, #10498) [Link] "Progress is simpler and less painful via many small steps."This couldn't be more true. Anyone who has maintained a gentoo system will have learned that a frequent, regular upgrade schedule keeps the system much more maintainable over the long run then doing big huge upgrades all at once when a lot of different things could break in the process.
LTS on Desktop Often an Illusion Posted Jan 2, 2008 3:05 UTC (Wed) by roblucid (subscriber, #48964) [Link] The initial paragraph wasn't too clear, but the comments on the End of Life SuSE release in http://lwn.net/Articles/263153/ explain the conundrums and illusion of desktop support, with just security updates, 3rd parties may not release fixed binaries which will work. I think the Gentoo updates (as well as Debian) will work better done regularly, simply because that's what the updates are tested with. A new "Release" causes much more trouble, because it has to support the full system upgrade, between high impact changes. Frankly even just tracking security patches in more traditional update models, it's wise to check them out on "sacrificial" systems.
|
|||||||||||||