| |||||||||||||
Fedora here I come!Fedora here I come!Posted May 2, 2012 21:56 UTC (Wed) by dowdle (subscriber, #659)In reply to: Fedora here I come! by kragil Parent article: Poettering: The Most Awesome, Least-Advertised Fedora 17 Feature
Just out of curiosity, how would you compare the Ubuntu LTS releases against each non-LTS releases with regards to stability?
I use Fedora in computer labs and on my personal desktops and I rarely run into problems... although a lot would depend on how many packages one has installed and commonly use... and the hardware you are running it on. I use fairly common, business class Dell desktops and laptops and almost never have hardware issues... so your mileage may vary. I've seen hardware that hates one distro and loves another and vice versa. Fedora generally just works for me.
From what I've read, Ubuntu provides about 12-16% of their own packages that are not vetted in Debian's repos.
I don't think this is worth arguing over but I think your comparison of the stability of Ubuntu vs Fedora was overstated... at least it was from my perspective. Obviously not from yours though, eh?
(Log in to post comments)
Fedora here I come! Posted May 3, 2012 7:08 UTC (Thu) by geuder (subscriber, #62854) [Link]
> Just out of curiosity, how would you compare the Ubuntu LTS releases
> against each non-LTS releases with regards to stability?
I don't think I have seen any pattern. If things are broken they are broken, bugs don't look at the release classification. (I don't know whether Ubuntu project has stricter release quality criteria for LTS, but I think the biggest limiting factor is testing and bug-fixing resources. And they don't magically grow when its LTS time every second year.)
Maybe the chance of getting a fix in the same release is slightly better if it is LTS. For non-LTS you wait half a year and there is the next release. Just a feeling, though. I have no statistics and generally the number of serious breakages is too small and/or affects only some particular hardware, so statistics might not be very useful.
Fedora here I come! Posted May 3, 2012 7:19 UTC (Thu) by kragil (subscriber, #34373) [Link]
Well, a LTS release is the end of a meta-cycle where Canonicals own software is supposed to be mature and stable. With regard to Unity it shows. In 11.04 and 11.10 it was barely usable and now it works fairly OK.
AFAIK a LTS is based on Debian Testing instead of Unstable, so even more fixes there. The development is also more conservative and more focused on polishing and fixing than on new features. It all adds up and as a general rule a LTS is definitely better than a non-LTS.
Fedora here I come! Posted May 3, 2012 7:28 UTC (Thu) by geuder (subscriber, #62854) [Link]
>Well, a LTS release is the end of a meta-cycle where Canonicals own
> software is supposed to be mature and stable. With regard to Unity it shows.
True for Unity. However, I don't remember any comparable case from Hardy or Lucid, so I think it's a bit early to generalize. Not sure whether they really planned such a long and rocky road for Unity when they started the project, it might well be just by accident that it happened to be "ready" for LTS.
Fedora here I come! Posted May 3, 2012 17:37 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
I'm pretty sure they implemented more aggressive QA processes ahead of the LTS this time. If you look at the chatter and the talking points among the engineering teams, QA process definitely seems to have been in sharper focus for this time. So I don't think its so much a matter of accident as it is a direct result of cycling back and re-examining the pre-release QA process and making some adjustments so more testing is actually getting done.
For as much flack as I give Canonical for having no idea how to cultivate a sustainable business model... the engineering side seems to getting better and technical project management with the resource they are alotted. There are without a doubt some very good lessons learned about how to implement agile development (and cycle back to re-optimize out bottlenecks) inside the Canonical engineering fenceline. Hopefully they spend some time talking about the recent QA process rework at some conferences in front of other project developers and try to throw some process nuggets out for people to take back and integrate into their workflows.
-jef
Fedora here I come! Posted May 21, 2012 9:13 UTC (Mon) by kragil (subscriber, #34373) [Link]
Repeat after me:
Canonical needs to "cultivate a sustainable business model" like Chelsea needs to do the same. That is NEVER. As long as capitalism survives Canonical will survive, because Mark has more money than he can ever spend on Canonical/Ubuntu. He spends more on NY penthouses than he does on Ubuntu. He is not going to have kids (he does not want to and isn't able to anymore). So Canonical is going to be around forever and will always be able to burn 10s or 100s of millions. No problem. Arguing about how long Mark will keep this up is pretty pointless, when it costs him next to nothing to sustain Canonical. Your common car tuner spends way more of his income on his hobby than Mark. And just like Chelsea with luck you can win the Champions League with that strategy. There is no reason why Ubuntu can't do the same.
|
|||||||||||||