Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageRecent Features
| |||||||||||||
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire)
Sam Varghese
considers the ill effects of 6 month Linux distribution releases.
"For years, Microsoft thrived on just such a strategy, adding features to Windows as though they were going out of style and not caring about anything apart from marketshare.
From 1995 onwards, the name of the product reflected the fact that the company's expertise lay more in marketing than technology - Windows 3.1 in 1990 was followed by Windows 95.
What has been the end result? Windows is a widespread but highly insecure and buggy operating system which everyone is forced to use simply because it has become some kind of de facto standard.
I fear that GNU/Linux - or at least some distributions - is following in its wake."
(Log in to post comments)
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 2, 2008 20:32 UTC (Thu) by drinian (guest, #51119) [Link] Why do we need releases at all? My understanding is that Gentoo systems, for instance, are just smoothly upgraded over time (with occasional extra sysadmin efforts necessary for subsystem replacements, major upgrades like KDE 3.5->4.0, etc.). Open-source projects often use very fast release schedules that have very little to do with the distros. But the article seems generally poorly written; the Windows analogy doesn't hold up very well because Windows has historically been a very tightly-coupled set of packages that offer much less choice than the typical distribution's package manager. The entire distribution should not sit still to provide a "stable platform" for one userspace application. Also, is this comment from his article really true?KDE 4.0 was a major change from the previous version and it came in for a huge amount of criticism simply because a few gentlemen (and I use the term advisedly) did not know that an .0 release is always a development version and not meant for deployment.
.0 Posted Oct 2, 2008 21:15 UTC (Thu) by johnkarp (subscriber, #39285) [Link]
I don't know who told him he was an authority on the semantics of '.0' releases, but it wasn't me.
Gentoo avoids releases Posted Oct 2, 2008 22:27 UTC (Thu) by purslow (guest, #8716) [Link]
Yes, "releases" are irrelevant to a Gentoo user (I've used it for 5 years).
You install once -- not painful, but requiring attention & time -- , then keep your system as upto-date as you wish. I'm writing this from Firefox 3.0.3 running on KDE 3.5.10 , but my kernel remains 2.6.25 . I make it a Saturday job to update the system info ('eix-sync'), then decide which packages to remerge & in what order, which the Portage management system makes very easy.
The less well-informed press get confused by this with big headlines
Gentoo avoids releases Posted Oct 3, 2008 0:04 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
unfortunantly this is only true if you don't need to do a new install
I used to run gentoo on my home server, but I upgraded my machine I after a couple of days of fighting to get the several-year-old gentoo install to work on my brand new hardware I gave up and went to a different distro.
I've been using linux since 1994 when I was downloading stacks of floppies from Finland, so it's not that I'm a newbie who can't do anything without hand-holding (and I dispise graphical installers), but the idea of having to reverse-engineer the installer to put in my own kernel to get things installed was too much.
Gentoo avoids releases Posted Oct 3, 2008 19:15 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]
Why were you trying to install from a several-years-old Gentoo CD? They do release new CD images regularly (generally once or twice a year), and they're now moving to having the CD image get regenerated up-to-date frequently. (The general principle is that, if something is sufficiently reliable that people should use it in general, it's sufficiently reliable that the CD should use it, except that there's a bit of overhead to making new CD images so it's worth grouping some changes, but there's no reason to hold off aside from managing build load)
Gentoo avoids releases Posted Oct 3, 2008 19:24 UTC (Fri) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
I was trying to install from their most recent release, which at that time was a year+ old, I was following the instructions from the main gentoo site on how to get started.
apologies for exaggerating, but the argument that gentoo doesn't need releases in just plain incorrect.
the release may only be a new install image that deploys the same stuff that you would have if you updated from an older image, but you still do need releases.
Gentoo avoids releases Posted Oct 3, 2008 19:58 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]
Fair enough. That said, the process kind of used to be that they would have releases of the CD, but rarely and arbitrarily, and with politics surrounding releases. Of course, they had the same problems with releases that everybody else does, plus the fact that this was a less-core part of the workflow so people put less effort into it. Now they're moving to not having releases, but just maintaining the CD images routinely, which should fit into the usual Gentoo process better.
Gentoo avoids releases Posted Oct 7, 2008 9:42 UTC (Tue) by syrjala (subscriber, #47399) [Link]
You don't need a Gentoo CD to install Gentoo. All you need is internet access and some Linux installation with root access and a few essential tools (can be almost any live CD or just some other distro installation).
The Gentoo live CDs are nice because they're so small that you can just download and burn one when you happen to need it but they're not essential to the process in any way.
Gentoo avoids releases Posted Oct 7, 2008 17:39 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
if a systems drive has failed, having to install one linux distro so that you can then install gentoo is not a good requirement. if you have to go to all the trouble of installing another distro and get it working, gentoo needs to be _far_FAR_ better than that distro to be worth the trouble of installing at that point.
and I don't know any distro that's so good that it's worth installing another distro first so that you can install it.
Gentoo avoids releases Posted Oct 11, 2008 10:41 UTC (Sat) by leio (subscriber, #41189) [Link]
The sentiment that you need another distribution installed was wrong above. All you need is a running linux system where you have the ability to download and unpack the stages and chroot. This basically means any LiveCD works for that as well that boots for you - knoppix, systemrescuecd, gentoo LiveCD, or even an ubuntu cd. That is if you are into the preferred method of installing it in a terminal, rather than using the installer (that as I understand is meant for experienced users, that have installed from terminal before, as a way of speeding the progress up).
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Nov 23, 2008 8:54 UTC (Sun) by anomalizer (subscriber, #53112) [Link]
Depends. I wouldn't run anything but gentoo as my desktop/laptop OS. At the same time, I'd never run it as my production/qa/dev OS.
I prefer exploring options on my gentoo system so that I know if I'll really need to move to the next ubuntu release in production.
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 2, 2008 20:36 UTC (Thu) by tuna (guest, #44480) [Link]
Interesting article, not. The author basically complains that all distributions do not follow the RHEL/CentOS/whatever model of releases and instead of the 6 month Ubuntu/Fedora/whater model.
A tip to all writers (who all of course will read my magnificient comment here on LWN), if you want to say something is better than something other, bring up the good points of what you like instead of saying what you don't like is crap.
FWIW, I really like the 6-month model! Go Fedora, Ubuntu, Gnome, Linux, OpenOffice and everyone else who are doing it!
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 3, 2008 7:06 UTC (Fri) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]
Since the RHEL/CentOS/whatever model of releases depends on the 6 month Fedora/whatever cycle the complain is a bit funny.
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 3, 2008 8:54 UTC (Fri) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]
Indeed - RHEL/CentOS style releases make sense for server applications where hardware doesn't change very frequently and stability is crucial. For the desktop/laptop/netbook, where new hardware comes out every week, it makes far more sense to have 6 monthly releases for those who want to use the latest greatest hardware.
Ubuntu does also provide LTS releases every 2 years or so - many people stayed on Dapper 6.06 until 8.04 came out. 8.04 was nowhere near as good as it should have been, particularly re PulseAudio, but 8.04.1 is pretty good.
Surely the author should simply choose a distribution that fits his preferred release model - the article doesn't really add any value other than saying he doesn't happen to like the 6 month model.
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 3, 2008 12:52 UTC (Fri) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] For the desktop/laptop/netbook, where new hardware comes out every week, it makes far more sense to have 6 monthly releases for those who want to use the latest greatest hardware.Actually Windows can support the latest greatest hardware with releases every two years, so I don't see why the Linux distributions couldn't do it. Well, this was naive... - but from a user's point an upgrade is sometimes just a change from one set of bugs to an other set of bugs: I'd hate to replace a KDE 3 desktop with a KDE 4 desktop just to make my webcam work.
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 3, 2008 14:08 UTC (Fri) by seyman (subscriber, #1172) [Link]
> Actually Windows can support the latest greatest hardware with releases every two years
Actually, it can't. Windows depends heavily on hardware vendor supplied drivers.
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 3, 2008 14:44 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] Actually Windows can support the latest greatest hardware with releases every two years Too bad the hardware cannot support the latest greatest Windows release!
so I don't see why the Linux distributions couldn't do it Me neither. I guess they can?
Windows? No - Windows can't. Posted Oct 3, 2008 20:48 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Actually Windows can support the latest greatest hardware with releases every two years. Never was the case. Remember USB? Windows 95 never supported it so Windows 95 OSR2 was born. Remember DirectX 10 videocards? Windows XP was unable to use their power - you MUST install Windows Vista to use it. The list goes on and on. Windows does not support "latest greatest hardware" - it's the other way around: "latest greatest hardware" supports Windows (that's why there are stickers "designed for Windows" after all) - if makers of said hardware "feel like it". Linux distributions can not dictate rules to hardware makers so this model will not work.
Windows? No - Windows can't. Posted Oct 3, 2008 21:08 UTC (Fri) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
I don't remember OSR2 supporting USB ... I had to upgrade my father-in-law from 98 to 98SE in order to get decent USB support ...
Cheers,
OSR2/USB Posted Oct 3, 2008 22:11 UTC (Fri) by johnkarp (subscriber, #39285) [Link]
This is getting off-topic, but OSR2 support did support USB for a few of the device classes, such as human-input devices.
He's right Posted Oct 4, 2008 6:20 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Actually Windows95 OSR2 had no support for USB at all. Windows95 OSR2.1 did :-) It was so long ago that I forgot... Anyway: it does not change anything. Hardware manufacturers in this (and many other cases) were forced to wait YEARS till new version of Windows started to support their goods. And they only started to sell new hardware in stores when Windows started to support them. Linux has now such luxury: when new videocard and/or gadget and/or whatever is out people are starting to demand support right away...
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 6, 2008 20:38 UTC (Mon) by jbailey (subscriber, #16890) [Link]
That's not even really true. Dell released a server just after Ubuntu's
first Long Term Support release (Dapper, 6.06LTS) - I think it was the 2850 - that wasn't supported and required a fair amount of work to get in.
Dealing with server hardware on long-time supported releases of Linux isn't
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 2, 2008 20:53 UTC (Thu) by johnkarp (subscriber, #39285) [Link]
I'm not quite clear on his complaint. Is it the length of the release cycle, the numbering systems, or featuritis?
If its the length of the release cycle, then his complaint about microsoft makes no sense, because he states one release every 18 months is 'more than enough', which should make him quite happy with MS, because they release desktop Windows every 2 years on average.
Also, people do have the choice between long (Debian 'stable') and short ('testing', 'unstable', Ubuntu, Rawhide). And most people go for shorter cycles, at least on the desktop.
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 3, 2008 1:43 UTC (Fri) by yarikoptic (subscriber, #36795) [Link]
IMHO any release 'by the date' not by 'when it is ready' is prone to be a failure to some extent. Thus I only admire previously delayed releases of Debian since they were released after they become ready, and not just when it was promised.
Sure thing such an argument would be weak, unless Debian had stable/testing/unstable(/experimental) versions which could be treated as releases on their own ;) I can even say that Debian has releases daily! (testing snapshots iirc are built on a daily basis). Giving user a choice between those 'releases' is actually what is needed in my opinion and experience. I do have stable (with a custom set of backports) on critical systems, I have testing (default) + unstable/experimental (by my choice) setup on personal systems. And I consider such approach to be 'PERFECT'.
To finalize this point: what long-term value any release has if it doesn't have long term support (and obviously it would be very tough to do so for any release coming out each 6 months in a row). Thus, in other terms, to my taste any release without LTS is just a snapshot of a distribution at the current moment (like testing in Debian, only that testing DOES have security updates ;-) ).
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 3, 2008 15:47 UTC (Fri) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Debian's releases are mostly irrelevant from what I see: Debian users run testing or unstable, few and far in between even bother with stable. Also, timed (not "when it is ready") releases are considered here in distribution (software collection) settings, there it makes no sense to wait until everything falls in place (that would be forever). Just pick the latest working pieces and ship that. For individual packages, the "whenever it is ready" model is still best.
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 3, 2008 23:53 UTC (Fri) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
I run stable (here and there with a few backports from testing) on every
server I administer (except where support contracts require me to use something else, sigh). They're just meant to *work* and do their jobs without fail or security holes, not to have the latest and greatest whatever. And -stable is damn good at that.
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 9, 2008 10:31 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
They do work. They also prevent you from doing anything (easily) that you couldn't do (easily) several years ago. It depends on your needs which concern is the greatest.
In my experience, most people who run Debian, even on servers, do not run stable.
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 10, 2008 13:44 UTC (Fri) by stevem (subscriber, #1512) [Link]
Then we have some very different experiences. The vast majority of Debian users I talk to are running stable on their servers. On laptops and desktops people tend to be more adventurous, but even then a lot of them just want things to be stable and reliable and therefore stick with what they have.
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 10, 2008 21:17 UTC (Fri) by Quazatron (guest, #4368) [Link]
I run Debian stable on all my servers. I want something solid and safe on my servers, that just keeps working and doesn't surprise me when I do an apt-get upgrade.
Most upgrades that hit -stable are security and bugfix related, and that's the way I like it.
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 4, 2008 10:40 UTC (Sat) by pkern (subscriber, #32883) [Link]
This might be true for desktop (end-)users. I for myself appreciate that the system does not change below me every few weeks with configuration changes needed to accomodate the updates. (On the servers and corporate desktops where users quickly complain if something fails to work all of a sudden...)
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 6, 2008 0:08 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] The distributions with a 6-month version cycle are targeted at desktop (end-)users, as you call them. The distributions targeted to servers have longer cycles (CentOS has around 2 years) and are maintained much longer.
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 3, 2008 19:33 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]
There's no reason that a release can't be promised on a certain date, and include whatever's ready in time. I actually have a lot more respect for a release process that is willing to cut features if they're not ready than for one willing to slip releases until all the features intended for a release are ready.
two better than one: short & long release cycles Posted Oct 2, 2008 22:48 UTC (Thu) by undefined (guest, #40876) [Link]
i rather like ubuntu's release pattern.
disclaimer: i use debian on my servers and workstation, ubuntu on everything else.
with ubuntu i can stick with a LTS and ride it out for 3 years, or i can upgrade every 6 months, or something in between. and there's no distinction between the two kinds of releases (ie fedora vs rhel, opensuse vs suse) except for support duration. one-stop shop for distro resources: bug reports, package database, forums, etc. same as debian with stable, testing, and unstable (though security support is a little different, but even that distinction is disappearing with the testing security team).
currently i'm using ubuntu 7.04, because that was required for hardware support when i migrated to it a year ago (or for consistency with the desktops whose hardware required it). security support is about to run out, so i'm upgrading to 8.04.1 (which i planned on migrating to anyways, but this just puts a deadline on it ;-).
and isn't part of a 6 month release cycle the "release early, release often" motto? and for a conglomerate release (gnome, distros), the time-based release dates gives everybody feeding into it a clear deadline (unlike where one major package holds up a distro release and all other packages grow old/out-of-date in the meantime).
New Feature Support Posted Oct 2, 2008 23:47 UTC (Thu) by chromatic (guest, #26207) [Link]
I suppose only buying hardware eighteen months old or older is one way to solve the obvious problem with the "release infrequently" approach, but that introduces its own problems.
New Feature Support Posted Oct 3, 2008 0:14 UTC (Fri) by wilreichert (subscriber, #17680) [Link]
Exactly. You need up to date distros with current kernels if users are gonna be able to run them on new hardware.
New Feature Support Posted Oct 3, 2008 21:03 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]
"""
Exactly. You need up to date distros with current kernels if users are gonna be able to run them on new hardware. """
Which is a fundamental problem with the way we do things in the Linux world. I have a MB with an Intel G43 chipset which requires running an alpha version of my distros to even boot. And it's been a damned pain since the alpha-ness of both distros has been very apparent. (Well, now that Fedora and Ubuntu betas are out, I guess I need to run beta versions to even boot.) This will be a recurring problem as long as driver versions are coupled to kernel versions.
New Feature Support Posted Oct 6, 2008 16:06 UTC (Mon) by alecs1 (guest, #46699) [Link]
You are so unfortunately right. I bought my first laptop and went for the best specs + warranty for the money, while the hardware seemed to be safe with Linux.
The processor speed was impressive, but that's all. From the software point of view this computer is a fiasco: -Linux: Radeonhd not working, mic not working, camera problems, suspend problems, configure some things by hand, others. -the Vista that came with it is not very tolerable performance-wise, as it will write stuff to the hdd for long periods and such bring my apps to a crawl, I haven't found a way to completely stop that. The interface is even worse, and the lack of features intollerable.
But, the Vista that came with it had the drivers already installed and everything is functioning. That is probably also because it is an easier target for the manufacturer.
I have to say that while the rate of news and changes in Linux is thrilling, and the configurability is amazing, and some of the software has tons of features, Apple looks like a good dream to me right now (and I was able to find OS X computers in the allocated time, but not Linux ones).
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 3, 2008 1:08 UTC (Fri) by motk (subscriber, #51120) [Link]
Sam Varghese is a goose. He can be safely ignored.
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 3, 2008 7:34 UTC (Fri) by rvfh (subscriber, #31018) [Link]
Thanks for the advice. I went for the comments first (as the title was already sounding dodgy), had a good laugh with tuna's comment, liked the others too, and now can safely go back to work after reading yours :-)
Ah! How could I survive without LWN and the comments section?
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 3, 2008 16:14 UTC (Fri) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
Allow me to declare that many an external link is sometimes really worthless. If you want to find a real pool of such, go to slashdot and follow most of the .com/.co.TLD links...
There's a need Posted Oct 3, 2008 16:20 UTC (Fri) by sbergman27 (subscriber, #10767) [Link]
I deploy CentOS, some Ubuntu, and have deployed Fedora in the past. I really do feel that there is a need for a sort of "RHEL Lite". 12 month release cycle, conservative and stable, updates handled conservatively like RHEL, and 3 years of support. I'd have plenty of uses for something like that.
I like regular releases... Posted Oct 4, 2008 12:00 UTC (Sat) by philipstorry (subscriber, #45926) [Link]
Regular releases are now one of my requirements for software.
Either that, or it doing exactly what it says it will, perfectly, every time,
I noticed that more and more I was buying commercial software that was actively maintained in a visible manner. Even if it's bug fixing releases, I like the fact that something is being done and the software I'm using is getting better.
I once had to wait a year and a half for a fix from another operating system, and even then I had to go and find it myself - they were that confident of their fix that it wasn't even shipped as an automatic update!
That's not service. That's not worth paying for, or donating to, or supporting in any way. That's just taking my money/time/effort and legging it.
Six monthly releases seem to work pretty well, so consider this my vote of support for them...
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 4, 2008 13:24 UTC (Sat) by mbottrell (guest, #43008) [Link]
Seriously, please don't post articles written by the hack Sam Varghese.
He's a muck racker at best, and a person who lives in fairy land at worse.
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 4, 2008 21:53 UTC (Sat) by dkite (guest, #4577) [Link]
What is funny is how no mention is made of how these releases affect the
developers and development culture that has made free software possible.
For users, great, unless you really dislike regressions.
For developers it imposes an unnatural discipline. It favors only those whose
I guess if we really want bad clones of commercial software, imposed release
Oh I forgot. What problem did the imposed 6 month schedule fix?
Derek
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire) Posted Oct 6, 2008 0:16 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] Upstream developers (even ones not clocked by their own 6-month cycles) are doing just fine, thank you. Downstream distributions just ship whatever is working reasonably well when they start the stabilization phase of their cycle. Whatever doesn't make it in time, will be in the next version; it's not like this is the very last chance to get shipped, ever.
What we need are backported bugfixes Posted Oct 5, 2008 2:03 UTC (Sun) by Richard_J_Neill (subscriber, #23093) [Link]
Consider distro X, released on some day. It contains a bug, Y, which is irritating, or worse. Most users have to wait for distro X++, released 6 months later, in order to get the fix (but they then get new bugs Y++).
There are two nasty consequences:
1. It is nearly impossible to obtain a Linux distro which is stable, supported, and has had most bugs fixed. For an end-user who above all wants his desktop to be reliable, there is currently nowhere to turn.
2. The Bug-report/fix/test/release cycle loses most of the potential "many eyes". If someone finds a bug, what motivation do they have to report it, if the fix doesn't make it back to them for 6 months (if at all).
What we need are backported bugfixes Posted Oct 5, 2008 6:39 UTC (Sun) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
and the fix is to hvae releases every 2 years instead? (a common result when developers wait for all the new features to be ready before doing a release)
nobody is arguing that people sould make releases less frequently, they are arguing that the release cycle should be regular and predictable.
I think the postgres people are going a good job with this. they make releases on a pretty predictable schedule, but they make additional releases when they have significant bugs to fix
What we need are backported bugfixes Posted Oct 5, 2008 17:21 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
They also backport them a *long* way. Basically the new releases get
performance and feature enhancements, and bugfixes to features existing in version N get backported for years, as long as they affect correctness and not just performance.
This makes sense, really: a database that eats your data is useless, and
What we need are backported bugfixes Posted Oct 6, 2008 0:21 UTC (Mon) by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458) [Link] You talk as if a distribution ships a version, and then there are no updates or fixes until the next version of the distribution gets delivered. That is very much wrong. Updated/fixed packages are at the order of the day, so much so that installing a distribution from the original media after as little as a month usually means a huge download of updates, even around half the size of the original ISO image.
|
|||||||||||||