| |||||||||||||
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release modelUbuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release modelPosted Feb 28, 2013 22:12 UTC (Thu) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285)Parent article: Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model
I think the real problem with this model is the probable lack of QA for long interval updates.
I ran into this with Gentoo all the time. If you update your Gentoo system every week you are good to go.
If, however, you wait a couple of months or more between updates something is almost certain to go wrong because the developers never considered data or configuration file conversion from version N-2 to version N, only N-1 to N.
Ubuntu *already* has this problem to some degree when you try to update from version 10 to 12.
(Log in to post comments)
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Feb 28, 2013 23:28 UTC (Thu) by heijo (guest, #88363) [Link]
Maybe they should stop having all sorts of dependencies and conflicts between things, and there would be no such issues.
Installing packages in their own directories like it is done on all non-Unix OSes would be a nice start, so you can't have file conflicts, and can install anything side-by-side automatically.
Then add a single configuration system that properly separates applications and distribution defaults, using prioritized option "layers", from user configuration, so configuration defaults can be upgraded trivially.
And so on...
But honestly, the distribution guys are all totally incompetent, since they had 20 years to do these blatantly obvious changes and did nothing, so I wouldn't put much trust in them.
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 1, 2013 2:25 UTC (Fri) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link]
Sounds like you want GoboLinux:
Or perhaps something based on the Nix package manager:
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 10, 2013 0:29 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]
Actually you don't have to redefine the filesystem hierarchy like gobolinux do. This fall into what "linuxapps" are about (use containers, nor chroots).
But let the screening "security panels" for those containers be the most basic possible, or you'll have severe cases of "confused deputy" on your hands, and a flush of protests, because for most being "barred" by security is worst than a crashing app (those "containers" could have "capabilities" on the style or EROS OS, let the user choose most of the permissions, only emit the proper warnings... most of them will choose not really secure options in any case lol... but who cares ? its their responsibility clearly stated in the licenses)
OTHO nix approach is also very good, something worth to look into.
>But honestly, the distribution guys are all totally incompetent, since they had 20 years to do these blatantly obvious changes and did nothing, so I wouldn't put much trust in them.
sometimes i wonder...
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 1, 2013 3:17 UTC (Fri) by ericc72 (guest, #41737) [Link]
I think this is possibly a great idea
Btw (in response to one of your responders), Gobo Linux seems dead, and I know NixOS is kind of new and experimental (hopefully they can try out some interesting stuff and see how it goes.)
It would be cool if packages could be packaged "upstream" or from the vendor where they could run on most distros because there was enough ABI compatibility that things just worked with these kinds of self-contained packages (if that were the case, more 3rd party paid apps might be release for the platform.)
I think OSX does things kind of like that with .app folders that are self-contained and exist in the /Applications folder off of root (meaning, everything is packaged in the .app folder.)
I never took too close a look at OSX Homebrew, but this seems pretty interesting as well:
http://mxcl.github.com/homebrew/
I'm not a big fan of the OSX UI (the UI itself is okay, but when I click the green maximize button, I want fully maximized - I also really like the Windows 7 snap feature and cannot live without it on OSX when I am forced to use.) Nor do I like the walled Apple garden. Bring on Wayland and what I imagine will be some great ideas on the desktop once more mainstream (sorry, lots of talented people probably don't want to waste their time on outdated graphic stacks, but once something modern becomes more the norm, watch out, I bet we see some cool stuff -- this is not to say there are not talented people working on Linux desktop stuff, only saying it will be much more appealing once this transition more solidifies.)
But innovation in other means of packaging and all that, bring it on I say. There is room for some really cool ideas. And I think the current directory structure can coexist with something like the above.
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 1, 2013 5:26 UTC (Fri) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
>I'm not a big fan of the OSX UI (the UI itself is okay, but when I click the green maximize button, I want fully maximized - I also really like the Windows 7 snap feature and cannot live without it on OSX when I am forced to use.)
You can use http://www.irradiatedsoftware.com/cinch/ for that. I think "maximize" can also be fixed by an extension.
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 1, 2013 5:45 UTC (Fri) by ericc72 (guest, #41737) [Link]
Thanks for the tips. A quick search reveals some options. No different I suppose on my Win setup where I tweak quit a bit and run utilities that enhance the experience.
That said, I'm interested to see what sort of desktop innovation comes out of having a modern graphics "stack". I actually really like Linux in many ways, but there are things that get in the way of my "workflow". To have an awesome desktop (and I know for many it already is) that runs on the same underlying core that runs (my) server stuff, that will be great. Yeah, I can do it now, but there are still some nuances that are annoying (not that for Windows not using UTF-8 by default and CRLF line feed issues are not annoying too!)
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 1, 2013 13:32 UTC (Fri) by renox (subscriber, #23785) [Link]
> That said, I'm interested to see what sort of desktop innovation comes out of having a modern graphics "stack".
*Sigh* I wouldn't hold my breath: Wayland is a low level evolution which will simplify maintenance of the low level GUI stack for its developers, so for them it's a nice improvement but I see no reason why it would provide "desktop innovation".
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 1, 2013 20:56 UTC (Fri) by ericc72 (guest, #41737) [Link]
I hear what you are saying. I guess what I am thinking, or maybe hoping, is that the reality of a more modern graphics stack will "inspire" so new lower-level toolkit stuff or whatever. Maybe some really cool, simple, yet effective window managers, etc. in addition to desktop environment things. Basically, the fact that whatever gets created can now use a modern graphics stack with much better (graphic related) performance, might just inspire some stuff. Maybe even the same workflow stuff, but better (I don't mind the classic style desktop.) Just a more polished experience maybe.
Not a not not pun Posted Mar 4, 2013 9:33 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] not that for Windows not using UTF-8 by default and CRLF line feed issues are not annoying too!Not that triple negatives cannot be said to not be becoming uncommon :)
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 1, 2013 17:32 UTC (Fri) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link] Thanks for the link. I didn't try Cinch, not liking that sort of thing much in Cinnamon, but SizeUp is really nice — it helps relieve some of OS X's inherent "Steveness."
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 7, 2013 16:41 UTC (Thu) by fatrat (subscriber, #1518) [Link]
Since this is an OSS forum, there's also Slate
https://github.com/jigish/slate
which does the same sorts of things and is OSS. I use it daily.
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 1, 2013 12:27 UTC (Fri) by fdrs (subscriber, #85858) [Link]
You can use Warp and BetterTouchTool, and you ll have a quite usable MacOSX system.
I don´t use it anymore , as I do _really_ prefer using Linux as my desktop, but, after installing those tools, MacOS became quite usable.
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 1, 2013 16:51 UTC (Fri) by dashesy (subscriber, #74652) [Link]
.app folders are not that special, they use some rpath trickery to separate the applications, and of course plist files. It can easily be done in Linux too, just use rpath and $ORIGIN properly.
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 1, 2013 23:21 UTC (Fri) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]
> some rpath trickery
Ha! OS X has the most complicated rpath logic I've ever seen. The library has to declare that it supports rpath for anything to apply, which seems…backwards. Not to mention that libA.dylib having "libB.dylib" as a dependent library is resolved relative to the executable opening libA.dylib, and not at all relative to libA.dylib :( . I can see why no one wants to rely on anyone else setting the paths via otool properly and instead just ships everything they need.
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 2, 2013 0:02 UTC (Sat) by dashesy (subscriber, #74652) [Link]
Yes, it is backward. Since 10.5 OSX has @rpath that more resembles Linux rpath however. I am not an expert in OSX but had to do some fiddling when porting some library. This is what I figured out, if libA.dylib depends on @rpath/libB.dylib (shown in otool -L) then you can use install_name_tool to add_rpath of @loader_path/. which should make the path relative to libA.dylib.
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 13, 2013 15:31 UTC (Wed) by regala (subscriber, #15745) [Link]
yes, and like any non-Unix OSes it could happily become a mess. Thanks but no, thanks, I prefer my Gentoo to look like a sane system.
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Feb 28, 2013 23:32 UTC (Thu) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]
If you arrange it that you have to install every interim version, you can avoid that problem at the cost of wasted time and bandwidth.
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 1, 2013 13:41 UTC (Fri) by jbicha (subscriber, #75043) [Link]
I'm thinking it shouldn't be too difficult to support upgrades from now ("R") until the next LTS (let's call it "S"), since Ubuntu already supports upgrading from one LTS to the next. Once the next LTS is released, you'll have to upgrade to the LTS stack first then you can hop back on the daily or monthly train ("T"). This allows that T train to drop the migration code for upgrades to S.
Although if you've gone a year or so without upgrading, then maybe you should just stay on the LTS.
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 1, 2013 13:54 UTC (Fri) by redden0t8 (guest, #72783) [Link]
I'll be curious to see how Ubuntu handles it. It's definitely an inherent problem in a rolling release distro, but it's far from insurmountable. Of all distro's, I'd expect Ubuntu to try and tackle it since it'll the first(?) non-power user distro to try a rolling release model.
Example:
Ubuntu discussing moving to LTS + rolling release model Posted Mar 2, 2013 10:15 UTC (Sat) by jospoortvliet (subscriber, #33164) [Link]
http://opensuse.org/tumbleweed would be the first. But it isn't exactly what Ubuntu proposes or what debian has - it is more a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too solution and not as truly rolling as say Gentoo is.
|
|||||||||||||