| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire)How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire)Posted Oct 2, 2008 20:53 UTC (Thu) by johnkarp (guest, #39285)Parent article: How often do we need GNU/Linux releases? (iTWire)
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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 (subscriber, #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 (subscriber, #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.
|
|
||||||||||||