U_14.02LTS next year ?

[nss000]

Gents:

Makes me suspicious...

So I read in Ars Technica ... that Canonical expects to release U_14.02LTS **next year**! Seems strange to me, given that U_12.04LTS was just released on a "5-year" support schedule. Why not just roll any significant improvements into an update/backport/whatevr in U_12.04 ?? Is the 5-year support being ditched, or will older xxx.LTS desktop versions be allowed to bitrot while Canonical forges into the **squintsville** phone/tablet arena?

As an aside ... what do (other) U_10.04LTS Luddites intend doing where their Ubuntu support runs out this April?

 

[stillblue]

The lts' have always been even years in April so one would assume that this will be 14.04LTS. That would be every forth one. Nothing has really changed.

 

[sam_p_lay]

You probably know, but those version numbers are dates... every April/October the new versions come with x.04 or x.10 version numbers. So obviously 14.04 will be due April 2014. Like stillblue says, the schedule/intervals is same as usual.

 

[stillblue]

You probably know, but those version numbers are dates... every April/October the new versions come with x.04 or x.10 version numbers. So obviously 14.04 will be due April 2014. Like stillblue says, the schedule/intervals is same as usual.

Be honest, how long had you been using Ubuntu before making that connection? I bet it must have been 4 years for me. I attribute it to the brain cells I killed off back in college. I bet though that I could figure out a way to blame MS if I put my mind to it but it's too hot today.

 

[sam_p_lay]

Be honest, how long had you been using Ubuntu before making that connection? I bet it must have been 4 years for me. I attribute it to the brain cells I killed off back in college. I bet though that I could figure out a way to blame MS if I put my mind to it but it's too hot today.

Haha I bet you could :-D Isn't it hot every day in the DRC? It was actually pretty quick because of trying to figure out the weirdness of 10.10 - why isn't it called 10.1? The final '0' is redundant? A bit of digging, plus making the connection of other distributions (like Mandriva) using dates as version numbering led to the answer.

 

[nss000]

Tut-tut! Given the current movement of Canonical to split-off from our traditional *nix base ( all aboard the squints.ville express ) my question about updating options for U_10.04LTS n desktop was meant to be serious. Still inquiring for your 00.02-cents input?

The lts' have always been even years in April so one would assume that this will be 14.04LTS. That would be every forth one. Nothing has really changed.

 

[sam_p_lay]

Tut-tut! Given the current movement of Canonical to split-off from our traditional *nix base ( all aboard the squints.ville express ) my question about updating options for U_10.04LTS n desktop was meant to be serious. Still inquiring for your 00.02-cents input?

That would be 1/50th of a cent 🙂 How do you feel they're trying to split off? I'm seeing increasing anti-Canonical sentiment lately, maybe due to this Amazon business? Or maybe Ubuntu on phones - becoming too mainstream for some people?

I'm not a libre/free software fanatic (more interested in results than philosophy) so I'll take the best tool for the job. For a Linux desktop, that tool is Ubuntu (and Kubuntu etc) so I'm not bothered if they want to become profitable.

 

[sam_p_lay]

By the way, this might be of interest:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/01/ubuntu-considers-huge-change-that-would-end-traditional-release-cycle/

If you haven't already seen it. Not sure if the article you saw is newer or older? Hopefully they'll stick with the current release schedule. It's hard to image rolling releases helping to improve stability.

 

[nss000]

SpL:

Indeed ... I know of no *nix other than Ubuntu that performs robustly for a casual linux lusr like myself.

I am still baffled beyond words that multiple *.LTS version will co-exist. Why !!?? If you think that big-time changes show up every two (2) years then THAT ought to be the LTS-duration. Two ... not five .. unless 5 is a "mis.print" to be soon corrected. I still have nowhere (safe) to go with my U_10.04LTS production system that **must** remain bulletproof.

Gawdsakes at least with DOS_6.22 you only had to worry about replacing the 3.5" floppy and Iomega ZIPdrive. So .... what happens if I **never** update U_10.04LTS. Will it run for another 5 years?

By the way, this might be of interest:

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/01/ubuntu-considers-huge-change-that-would-end-traditional-release-cycle/

If you haven't already seen it. Not sure if the article you saw is newer or older? Hopefully they'll stick with the current release schedule. It's hard to image rolling releases helping to improve stability.

 

[skittle]

...So .... what happens if I **never** update U_10.04LTS. Will it run for another 5 years?

Yes, thats one of the strong points of linux. If you are currently happy with its performance, there is no need to update, things will run indefinitely.

if your happy with 10.04, and don't care about software/security updates then don't bother upgrading. Your installation won't suddenly stop working just because it falls out of its service requirements.

 

[Ijack]

Yes, thats one of the strong points of linux. If you are currently happy with its performance, there is no need to update, things will run indefinitely.

To be fair, that is not exclusive to Linux. Any installation will continue to run when it falls out of its service requirements (although upgrades to hardware might cause problems - with Linux as well as any other OS). There are people still running DOS 3.0 or earlier.

 

[sam_p_lay]

I think the idea with 5 years is that you're not forced to upgrade to the next LTS or even the one after that. Gives that bit of flexibility that you're after. Like ijack points out, no reason to drop 10.04, just like you could still easily run Windows XP if you wanted to. So if you don't want to upgrade, just stick with it 🙂 Have you tried 12.04 though? You dislike Unity or just don't trust 12.04 to be as stable as 10.04?

 

[stillblue]

If you are administering a server you may not want down time so a long term support is good but not so long that you can't place newer system on new server. For example. I run a server and it'll run 12.04 until the Cubs win a world series or I replace the server altogether. However, if I install another server in 2016 I'd much rather install 16.04LTS than 12.04LTS.

Or you have a slow internet connection. Upgrading my desktop takes weeks, seriously, and many don't have that option and it isn't something you want to do very often.

 

[nss000]

BigS:

Yes I **do** care about continuing security for my legacy production box. For the last three (3) years all of my personal, academic, business and creative data are on this AMD-965/AMD-gd70 system. Everything !! I have no serious backup ( USB keys! ) and consider such technology or LAN methods too hard to use. In addition HW components like an Epson scanner were nearly impossibly obscure to install. Ms AMD_gurl has strongly warned me **against** trying to update the OS, from U_10.04LTS to U_12.04LTS; Yet if in-the-future some updates are required for daily security then I am squeezed .

I **am** building out a modest new Xeon workstation to which eventually everything important will be transfered. The build should take about a year ( to finance haha ) and many components are still lacking ( 1st rate graphics and big HDD ) . I currently run U_12.04 on that new system with a buffet-like **tray-full** of different GUIs ... GNOME/GNOME CLASSIC/UNITY/MATE ... not sufficient guts (yet) to give a Debian install an "honest mans try".

That mix/match is **no** way for a casual-linux-lusr to run a production box, so prudent & robust software decisions need to be made... as well as paying for a 2560x1440 monitor.

Yes, thats one of the strong points of linux. If you are currently happy with its performance, there is no need to update, things will run indefinitely.

if your happy with 10.04, and don't care about software/security updates then don't bother upgrading. Your installation won't suddenly stop working just because it falls out of its service requirements.

 

[nss000]

SpL:

I have U_12.04 installed on my new half-built Xeon system. Current GNOME_3 is only 1/2 as bad as its critics claim. Unity is unspeakable ... & Xfce ??? I see Ubuntu moving away from the workstation/desktop market and can expect no **fantastic** improvements from them. Squints.ville is their aim! My $19.95 DUMBPHONE can care less. But, I am committed to the large bandwidth home desktop and will try to choose system SW/HW components that make it most powerful.

I think the idea with 5 years is that you're not forced to upgrade to the next LTS or even the one after that. Gives that bit of flexibility that you're after. Like ijack points out, no reason to drop 10.04, just like you could still easily run Windows XP if you wanted to. So if you don't want to upgrade, just stick with it 🙂 Have you tried 12.04 though? You dislike Unity or just don't trust 12.04 to be as stable as 10.04?

 

[stillblue]

Fortunately for you you still have two years and you say you only need one. Keep doing your updates and you should be fine. The Upgrade can wait, that's the purpose of an LTS.

 

[sam_p_lay]

SpL:

I have U_12.04 installed on my new half-built Xeon system. Current GNOME_3 is only 1/2 as bad as its critics claim. Unity is unspeakable ... & Xfce ??? I see Ubuntu moving away from the workstation/desktop market and can expect no **fantastic** improvements from them. Squints.ville is their aim! My $19.95 DUMBPHONE can care less. But, I am committed to the large bandwidth home desktop and will try to choose system SW/HW components that make it most powerful.

I wouldn't worry too much about the phone thing. Although Shuttleface says that mobile is Canonical's focus for 2013, he's sticking to his approach of making Ubuntu everything to everyone, which is gonna include desktop users.

You don't like Xfce? The Xubuntu implementation adds a nice modern layer of polish that makes it quite palatable to me. I didn't hate Unity initially but it wasn't as desirable as KDE. It's grown on me though... from maybe a 2.5/5 to a 3.5/5 - it's not terrible 🙂 I'd still take KDE or Xfce, but I could happily live with Unity.

 

[nss000]

Never tried it! I have thought to try Xfce on my new system, but have heard it's a mess to include it with other front-end GUIs. Not that I understand, but I read that both an Xfce-ubuntu and an Xfce-desktop exist as separate creatures. Some posters claim after installation the apps get all mixed up ... whatever that means.

Thanks , but no thanks for THAT mess! A **no cost** install of Xfce I would do in a flash.

I wouldn't worry too much about the phone thing. Although Shuttleface says that mobile is Canonical's focus for 2013, he's sticking to his approach of making Ubuntu everything to everyone, which is gonna include desktop users.

You don't like Xfce? The Xubuntu implementation adds a nice modern layer of polish that makes it quite palatable to me. I didn't hate Unity initially but it wasn't as desirable as KDE. It's grown on me though... from maybe a 2.5/5 to a 3.5/5 - it's not terrible 🙂 I'd still take KDE or Xfce, but I could happily live with Unity.

 

[nss000]

I understand your life-cycle point about servers ... and it DOES imply a reasonable amount of **wisdom** w.r.t. system function. We will build RINGWORLDS before the po' po' Cubbies win a World series!

But, I don't claim to have any system wisdom to bring to the table, and count on the OS_supplier to provide Circadian "clues" to my admin actions. The LTS designation provided that, while multiple LTS versions obscure the cycle ... not to put a poetic end to the issue. You see, I supply data ( some rather clever) to my computer appliances, but for all functional subtleties I pay with opportunity costs and expect the OS to ... operate the system !!

If you are administering a server you may not want down time so a long term support is good but not so long that you can't place newer system on new server. For example. I run a server and it'll run 12.04 until the Cubs win a world series or I replace the server altogether. However, if I install another server in 2016 I'd much rather install 16.04LTS than 12.04LTS.

Or you have a slow internet connection. Upgrading my desktop takes weeks, seriously, and many don't have that option and it isn't something you want to do very often.

 

[nss000]

SpL:

I hope your optimism vis' Shuttlecocks intension is correct. But these posts suggest otherwise:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:doctormo.org/2013/03/06/ubuntu-membership-2/

http://smspillaz.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/delivering-free-software-to-the-masses/

Snarky stuff, eh? Time to "sharpen the pikes"? A cold-eye cynicism may well serve better the casual linux lusr.

I wouldn't worry too much about the phone thing. Although Shuttleface says that mobile is Canonical's focus for 2013, he's sticking to his approach of making Ubuntu everything to everyone, which is gonna include desktop users.

You don't like Xfce? The Xubuntu implementation adds a nice modern layer of polish that makes it quite palatable to me. I didn't hate Unity initially but it wasn't as desirable as KDE. It's grown on me though... from maybe a 2.5/5 to a 3.5/5 - it's not terrible 🙂 I'd still take KDE or Xfce, but I could happily live with Unity.

 

[sam_p_lay]

SpL:

I hope your optimism vis' Shuttlecocks intension is correct. But these posts suggest otherwise:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:doctormo.org/2013/03/06/ubuntu-membership-2/

http://smspillaz.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/delivering-free-software-to-the-masses/

Snarky stuff, eh? Time to "sharpen the pikes"? A cold-eye cynicism may well serve better the casual linux lusr.

Thanks for posting - an interesting read. He makes some excellent points, and I think the first (re accountability) is an especially strong point. A lot of is stuff I've considered before and a lot comes down to people's motivations for developing free software. Obviously it's gonna vary from dev to dev, but I think a lot of it is glory-seeking.

They want recognition and respect for creating the greatest distribution/Bittorrent client/music player/IDE/whatever. You don't get that as one cog in a huge machine that is Canonical/the Debian community/whatever so you get a billion forks and distros based on distros rather than everyone working together on a single great system. And of course demanding that everyone contributes to one great distro totally goes against the whole idea of free software anyway. Who has the right to tell you what to develop for free?

And I think that same thing is one of the biggest factors in bugs and glitches in open source software. I'd rather Ubuntu finally fix the cursor theme bug than add some new feature I don't really care about, but there's no glory or recognition in bug fixes. And if a community dev isn't paid for that time and effort (and their livelihood doesn't depend on it), why bother when they'll get more recognition for some potentially cool but unnecessary feature?

If there's a bug in my code, I have to fix it. I don't like bug-hunting, I prefer creating. But it's my job - I'm being paid to write quality code and my job/livelihood depends on that. And if I wasn't being paid, I can guarantee I wouldn't have the motivation to fix that bug. I wouldn't be required to, so I wouldn't. Devs are the like the builders of the 21st century - on the whole, they're a lazy bunch and need strong motivation to do good work. Obviously there are exceptions, but I'm not one of them.

His point about NDAs and transparent development is an interesting one too considering Shuttleworth's recent decisions to restrict knowledge of development of certain new features to only those in the community that are 'well-established/recognised for their contributions', or something to that effect. For some great new feature(s) in 13.04/13.10 he wants to surprise everyone with (and no criticism while they're being worked on).

Like I say though, for me, it's not about the philosophy (fits right in with the 3rd point in the article you posted) - it's about results. I think maybe a less open, less transparent and less free (beer-wise) way of working could be the way to get the best results. The code comes from people, so the devs and their motivations are at the absolute core of it. Best results come from happy devs, which means money, nicely-written code (tighter, more restricted controls on contributions could benefit that) and not having people slating your work before it's even finished.

Unity for example - that criticism clearly really upset Shuttleworth and a lot of the decisions he's making now are a result of that backlash. Say what you want about him, how he conducts himself and how you feel he should conduct himself, but he's the guy at the top, he's making the decisions and what's good for him (and for Canonical) means happy devs doing better work.

 

[nss000]

I agree, the **Torvold** model of philosopher-king systems diktator ( see also Jobs/Ellison/Brin ...) may demonstrate exceptional performance. Of-course such diktators must make lots of superb choices .. kinda like the Parthian rebel Mithridates (50BC).

But, the community of peons, coders, lusrs, worker-beez & indians-not-chiefs don't necessarily do well as the case of Mithridates exemplifies. He could fight and talk; Torvold can talk and code! Has Shuttlesworth ever coded "HELLO WORLD" or is he just a Hollywood-style hustler? Others too ... and in FOSS environs fearless-leader walks a very fine line. MY TAKE: For a repackager ( of Debian et.al. monk-works ) like Canonical a good deal more humility is appropriate. Has Canonical ever written any ( but glue code ) for Linux ?

BTW: I did get kicked-off the UBUNTU forum 6-mo ago for accusing Canonical of suicide with UNITY. I now understand the knife-point was indeed ... for the opportunity costs I had incurred ... planted in my own back. Fair enough for the egocentric thieving b*stard. When my spring-term lectures end, and for all my modest computer talent I will give Debian an honest-mans trial.

Thanks for posting - an interesting read. He makes some excellent points, and I think the first (re accountability) is an especially strong point. A lot of is stuff I've considered before and a lot comes down to people's motivations for developing free software. Obviously it's gonna vary from dev to dev, but I think a lot of it is glory-seeking.

They want recognition and respect for creating the greatest distribution/Bittorrent client/music player/IDE/whatever. You don't get that as one cog in a huge machine that is Canonical/the Debian community/whatever so you get a billion forks and distros based on distros rather than everyone working together on a single great system. And of course demanding that everyone contributes to one great distro totally goes against the whole idea of free software anyway. Who has the right to tell you what to develop for free?

And I think that same thing is one of the biggest factors in bugs and glitches in open source software. I'd rather Ubuntu finally fix the cursor theme bug than add some new feature I don't really care about, but there's no glory or recognition in bug fixes. And if a community dev isn't paid for that time and effort (and their livelihood doesn't depend on it), why bother when they'll get more recognition for some potentially cool but unnecessary feature?

If there's a bug in my code, I have to fix it. I don't like bug-hunting, I prefer creating. But it's my job - I'm being paid to write quality code and my job/livelihood depends on that. And if I wasn't being paid, I can guarantee I wouldn't have the motivation to fix that bug. I wouldn't be required to, so I wouldn't. Devs are the like the builders of the 21st century - on the whole, they're a lazy bunch and need strong motivation to do good work. Obviously there are exceptions, but I'm not one of them.

His point about NDAs and transparent development is an interesting one too considering Shuttleworth's recent decisions to restrict knowledge of development of certain new features to only those in the community that are 'well-established/recognised for their contributions', or something to that effect. For some great new feature(s) in 13.04/13.10 he wants to surprise everyone with (and no criticism while they're being worked on).

Like I say though, for me, it's not about the philosophy (fits right in with the 3rd point in the article you posted) - it's about results. I think maybe a less open, less transparent and less free (beer-wise) way of working could be the way to get the best results. The code comes from people, so the devs and their motivations are at the absolute core of it. Best results come from happy devs, which means money, nicely-written code (tighter, more restricted controls on contributions could benefit that) and not having people slating your work before it's even finished.

Unity for example - that criticism clearly really upset Shuttleworth and a lot of the decisions he's making now are a result of that backlash. Say what you want about him, how he conducts himself and how you feel he should conduct himself, but he's the guy at the top, he's making the decisions and what's good for him (and for Canonical) means happy devs doing better work.

 

[sam_p_lay]

I agree, the **Torvold** model of philosopher-king systems diktator ( see also Jobs/Ellison/Brin ...) may demonstrate exceptional performance. Of-course such diktators must make lots of superb choices .. kinda like the Parthian rebel Mithridates (50BC).

But, the community of peons, coders, lusrs, worker-beez & indians-not-chiefs don't necessarily do well as the case of Mithridates exemplifies. He could fight and talk; Torvold can talk and code! Has Shuttlesworth ever coded "HELLO WORLD" or is he just a Hollywood-style hustler? Others too ... and in FOSS environs fearless-leader walks a very fine line. MY TAKE: For a repackager ( of Debian et.al. monk-works ) like Canonical a good deal more humility is appropriate. Has Canonical ever written any ( but glue code ) for Linux ?

BTW: I did get kicked-off the UBUNTU forum 6-mo ago for accusing Canonical of suicide with UNITY. I now understand the knife-point was indeed ... for the opportunity costs I had incurred ... planted in my own back. Fair enough for the egocentric thieving b*stard. When my spring-term lectures end, and for all my modest computer talent I will give Debian an honest-mans trial.

Shuttleworth can code - he used to be a Debian dev! Not sure what his code contributions to Ubuntu are today, probably fairly limited but I may be wrong there. Comes back to results though - whatever Canonical is doing, it's working. For very specific/niche usage cases, there may be better distributions, but for general use you'd have a hard time beating Ubuntu/Kubuntu etc.

I used to use Debian, and I liked it. It was the second most stable, least glitchy distro I've tried (second only to Ubuntu/X-/K-/etc). But it definitely does come second - it was noticeably glitchier. Software Centre for example wouldn't uninstall packages. I could download and install them with it, but to uninstall I had to use apt-get or Synaptic. Hotmail was also broken in Chromium (default browser was Iceweasel - Firefox 3-based dinosaur). Generally pretty good though.

I don't use it now though because it's libre-linux kernel and I'm reliant on a USB Wi-Fi dongle to get online (which relies on proprietary drivers/firmware). Not worth the hassle of getting them via another OS/computer when Ubuntu works better anyway. It's not like the FSF recognises Debian as a fully free OS anyway! I'd definitely give Debian 7 a chance if they went back to the full kernel.

 

[nss000]

SpL:

"Full kernel" ? I don't understand the term. Are you warning me off Debian ?? Have the FOSS-fanatics done it wrong ?? Isn't the Linux kernel exactly whatever L. Torvold sez it going to be -- no more no less ? Mebby I need a lesson in just how linux is structured and who says what about which parts.

Shuttleworth can code - he used to be a Debian dev! Not sure what his code contributions to Ubuntu are today, probably fairly limited but I may be wrong there. Comes back to results though - whatever Canonical is doing, it's working. For very specific/niche usage cases, there may be better distributions, but for general use you'd have a hard time beating Ubuntu/Kubuntu etc.

I used to use Debian, and I liked it. It was the second most stable, least glitchy distro I've tried (second only to Ubuntu/X-/K-/etc). But it definitely does come second - it was noticeably glitchier. Software Centre for example wouldn't uninstall packages. I could download and install them with it, but to uninstall I had to use apt-get or Synaptic. Hotmail was also broken in Chromium (default browser was Iceweasel - Firefox 3-based dinosaur). Generally pretty good though.

I don't use it now though because it's libre-linux kernel and I'm reliant on a USB Wi-Fi dongle to get online (which relies on proprietary drivers/firmware). Not worth the hassle of getting them via another OS/computer when Ubuntu works better anyway. It's not like the FSF recognises Debian as a fully free OS anyway! I'd definitely give Debian 7 a chance if they went back to the full kernel.

 

[sam_p_lay]

SpL:

"Full kernel" ? I don't understand the term. Are you warning me off Debian ?? Have the FOSS-fanatics done it wrong ?? Isn't the Linux kernel exactly whatever L. Torvold sez it going to be -- no more no less ? Mebby I need a lesson in just how linux is structured and who says what about which parts.

Haha yeah they have done it wrong 🙂 Take a look:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux-libre

It's the full kernel with any proprietary blobs removed so every last line of code is accessible. People like rms would have you believe that this is better, but they have a hard time giving any solid, tangible reason how/why it's better. Comes back to philosophy and freedom. If you don't have the technical know-how to go editing and compiling your own kernel, I really can't see the benefit.

Just means that hardware selection is much more limited. Debian's page on Wi-Fi dongles actually recommends finding an FSF-certified stick that has open-source drivers (for use with linux-libre based distros). Relying on open-source GPU drivers is fine if you're not gaming, but obviously you need that proprietary Wi-Fi support to get online! If I need a second system/OS to get those drivers, I may aswell stick with the OS that actually gives me internet connectivity as standard (unless Debian offered something unique and amazing... which it doesn't). And like I say, I did run into more bugs with Debian than Ubuntu/etc (though Debian better than anything else in that regard).