Modify Colors
This morning I went to find the name of a piece of software through Add/Remove programs, only to find that there was only one category (“All”) and there were no applications listed at all. It took me less than 10 minutes to find and implement the solution, but I shouldn’t have to deal with this stuff. Worse, I find that these sorts of little problems are almost common. They don’t take long to fix, but they happen way too often. Not every day by any means, but still often enough to be annoying.
Ubuntu has all the features it needs for the moment. The best thing that could be done right now for Ubuntu would be to create a less-frequent highly stable, well supported release. Oh wait, that’s called a Long Term Support release. And it’s what I’m using right now.
What I am suggesting is really just a change to the way LTS releases are treated. There are four things I would like to see change about LTS releases:
- Each LTS should focus almost exclusively on improving stability and fixing bugs. The point of regular releases should be to introduce new features. LTS’s on the other hand, should have their number one feature be less bugs.
- All feature changes should have to be essential to the long-term usability of the release. In other words, the approval process for new features should be very strict. In fact, the only case in which a new feature would be approved would be if it were something like .docx compatibility that users are almost certainly going to need in the near future.
- Make it easier to continue using the LTS release. Right now, by the time the next LTS release comes along, the old one feels really out dated. Sure there are the backports, but staying with an LTS release should be much easier. Ideally, there would be selected application updates and new features made available after some time for the LTS release. Not everything, but highly important applications, popular improvements that are easy to bring back, and new artwork. All of this should be on an individual opt-in basis, so you don’t get anything new (other than regular maintenance updates) unless you specifically ask for it.
- Recommend new users download the LTS. Considering how the current system works, recommending the latest release to new users makes a lot of sense, but if the above changes were implemented, it would be a great idea to encourage everyone to use the LTS.
These chagnes would hopefully make Ubuntu much more stable without sacrificing the ability to rapidly add new features.
Related posts:
- How Ubuntu Lost Its Credibility and the Road to Regaining It If Ubuntu announced that a radically new theme would be...
- What LTS Should Mean This release of Ubuntu and the previous one have both...
- Optional OSS Synchronization Recently the issue of synchronizing open-source software releases has come...
- Ubuntu 9.04 Coming Soon to Dell Netbooks Dell has been somewhat slow in adopt new versions of...
- No Release Will "Make or Break" Ubuntu A recent article that has gotten a lot of attention...
There are upgrades for new hardware on LTS releases. That’s what Ubuntu Dapper 6.06.2 was for. New applications introduce new bugs and security holes because of the new features that are added to the applications. Speaking of new features and new programs, there are add-ons for Firefox 3 that add some of the functionality that’s present in Firefox 3.1. And for OpenOffice.org 2.4 you can easily add some of 3.0’s functionality. Search for it, Google is your friend.
Wait, that sounds surprisingly similar to RHEL et alia. No, scratch that. That sounds *exactly* like them.
@powerplant
Odd, mine works just fine. If you’re having issues then CHOOSE to get involved and make it better.
Yet another word there: “quitcherbitchen”
If you do *nothing* but complain (like many Vista users) then well, it’s your loss. At least with Linux the end-user has the power to get involved in development.
I know Linux isn’t perfect for everyone, I never said it was. It’s definitely NOT Windows OR OSx, and for that I’m thankful. Linux, FOR ME, does what I want – Windows did not.
Not trying to be evangelistic or anything, yes a bit defensive.
When taking to MS Admins bashing Linux, all I keep hearing in the back of my mind is the Borg Queen : “Small words from a small being, trying to attack what it doesn’t understand.”
We are Linux.
Windows, OSX, Gnome, KDE, E17, etc all occasionally crash, updates sometime kill another app, etc, etc.
I work with just about all desktops. Windows XP sometimes crashes, sometimes apps just quit. Windows Vista sometimes ties up the system for no reason, apps just quit, OS fails to boot until 20 minutes later. OSX loves to display the damned pinwheel sometimes for 5 minutes at a time, apps sometimes quietly quit, etc. I get the same thing on my Linux systems. I prefer using Linux/E17, as I find it more stable than the alternatives. This will change I’m sure, but my point is that a Desktop is never going to be both rock steady and current. If you want stability then the OS and apps will be dated, even then things may still go awry….
“The main reason there are so many different distributions is simply this: CHOICE”
Ok. So where is the choice of a desktop distribution that works? It doesn’t exist.
Oh, I see that you brought up the supercomputers argument. Yep, that must make desktop Linux great. You forgot to say that Google runs Linux, by the way. That will convince everyone.
It boggles my mind why you moderate comments, but let trolls post so much here. I guess you’re more forgiving than me about stupid people.
I think all the “Quit’cher whining, it’s just fine as it is!” and “use ${DISTRO} it does what you want” comments miss the point. Most distros have been operating on the model of things all rolling forward together with every release. What most people *want* is a stable base with update-able apps. Backports are one way around this, but for reasons I can’t grasp neither Debian or Ubuntu have a backports repo that keeps up with most of the significant packages (*cough* OpenOffice? *cough*). Sometimes it’s lack of manpower, sometimes dependency constraints in shared libraries, sometimes bugs that can’t be fixed without major changes to the system.
A proposed solution I’m hearing more about these days is to offer statically linked apps in their own namespace, much like what Nix and gobolinux do. I have not had a chance to check out how those things are implemented, but it may be a solution for the future.
Most likely such a solution would have to come from the community first, though. Such a scenario, if implemented well, could allow a user to stick to LTS and have updated apps for the full LTS period. Or Debian stable, for that matter.
The vast majority of posts here that describe how to achieve a “stable Ubuntu” are either totally unachieveable (and undoubtably submitted by people who aren’t programmers nor package maintainers), or are describing Debian Stable. I realize that most Ubuntu users are newbies who do not know much about the “Linux world”, but I would hope by now that they’ve been made aware that Ubuntu is literally a fork of an unstable version of Debian. Use Debian Stable if you want a “stable Ubuntu”. Debian has what Ubuntu lacks (and never will have).
Love the FUD – (nice Trolls, go play with yourselves now..)
*sigh* Ok – here it is everyone….
The main reason there are so many different distributions is simply this: CHOICE
You have other choices, yes – Windows and OSx, sure.
(BTW, OSx is just BSD with some polishing that Apple doesn’t give back, nice of them there eh? But then again the BSD license says they don’t have to. WTG GPL!)
All of the whining and poo-poo-ing over this distro is better than that one or Linux isn’t as good as Windows means absolutely zilch at the end of the day – check this out. How many SUPERCOMPUTERS in the world exist? How many of them run Windows? Google it people.
I use *many* different distros, each with their own advantages and drawbacks. Gentoo, Ubuntu, Debian, Centos(SME-Server), IPCop, Untangle, and (*gasp*) Windows. At the end of the day I can safely say the ones I do not have to worry about are the non-MS ones. Updates? Wait for MS to fix a problem or (OMG) do it myself?
The only linux distro that I ever have any issues with when updating is the Gentoo one, but then again I am running the bleeding-edge (testing) branch of amd-64, so I *expect* things to break now and again. I check the forums and mailing lists and viola! Problems solved!
I can understand the author’s original point (whine?) somewhat, but having waited until Ubuntu 8.10 came out to move to 8.04 from 7.10 myself, I don’t really care.
The only “cost” in using Linux (any version) is the time you take to teach yourself to do something new, like the first fish that decided to try land instead of water. Some may die, yes – and many distros have done just that. The ones that survive however, grow even stronger with their communities behind them. Ubuntu is unstoppable now, not just because some guy with deep pockets keeps dumping $$$ into Canonical, but I’m sure that helps. Look at other versions that started as an idea and nothing more.
Again, it’s all about choice. Keep churning that FUD out.
It rhymes with ‘cud’, just like a cow to keep chewing it and spewing a bunch of crap.
IMNSHO, Windows really bites big moose wooter.
NTTP
Congratulations, you have already found that even the most basic things don’t work sanely in desktop Linuxland. Now you can wake up, switch to something else and save yourself a lot of headaches, or fool yourself and wait for things to improve. Hint: they won’t. Ever.
Your choice.
Oh, yeah, I want to add to what someone said about needing to upgrade Ubuntu. Last month I burned the latest release to try it on a 2 year-old computer and I found Ubuntu’s live CD made it choke to a complete halt.
What the hell?! The thing probably takes up 2x as many resource as a lowly Windows XP (in fact, I don’t really know since I don’t use Windows).
Really, really odd. It’s ok for Linux to be cutting edge but what exactly s Ubuntu competing with? Top-of-the-line desktops? Really? Is that how Linux is supposed to replace Windows?
I tried to install PC-BSD on that machine but there were hardware problems. I find it kinda sad that Linux really is dominating the open source scene. I don’t think it’s a good a product as the BSDs (security-wise, OpenBSD is solid gold, performance-wise, FreeBSD 7 beats Linux).
I don’t mean to bash, but I really want people to know what _really_ happens. It’s not like I’m hostile to Linux, but the fact is there’s a lor of professional PR from the industry and the truth is what they really want to do is do kill Sun Microsystems.
The fact that Ubuntu is plagued by little problems everywhere was what made me switch to FreeBSD and Mac OS.
I had used Debian for years and was basically tired off their really-late release-schedules (what schedule?
) and so I tried Ubuntu. I found the documentation pretty awful, just as bad as Debian. In a way, even worse, because I had to search for little fixes on a PHP forum instead of a mailing-list. Also, updating Ubuntu broke it. Stuff was badly documented for the release. That wasn’t supposed to happen.
But that was years ago. Now, as I see, nothing’s really changed. Just by compraing Ubuntu/Debian to FreeBSD I can say that IMHO the problem is really developer culture in Linux (and in this case, in Debian). They aren’t really so keen on mature software engineering practices and it shows. It really does…
1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Ah, here you go overboard. “Feels outdated”? In reference to what? All the new goodies of the hot new releases? That’s what you DIDN’T opt for. Your point 2 was strong, now you’re weakening it. opt-in? Talking about keeping things simple…
4. Maybe, it depends what the new user wants. Freedom of choice.
Free as in how? Studies have shown time and time again that more time and training is needed in order to setup Linux systems compared with Windows. Sure, the company pays $600 for Server 2008 Standard up front, but if that $600 is spent on the software and not on training or time spent configuring the systems, it’s money well spent.
At my university, the entire departmental backbone is setup using a mix of Linux systems. If someone wants a new workstation, the IT crew has to spend time post-installation configuring the system to work with their department CIFS shares (they won’t allow NFS access to users for some reason), as well as many other settings that have to be done manually. If they had purchased Server 2008 and Windows Vista Business (total cost $800), it would simply be a matter of plugging the Vista system in, tell it to join the domain, and *poof*. You’re done. Next workstation? Join the domain. *poof* You’re done. Active directory, group policies, user restrictions.
I’m not trying to start a flamewar here, but I’ll agree with the statement about multi-monitor setups. With my Vista system, I installed my two video cards (ATI 4850/3650), connected the three monitors, and it just works. I’ve never found X to handle multi-monitor setups out of the box like that – it always requires fiddling with config files, hoping that you didn’t mess up the syntax.
Until the entire linux community (not just Ubuntu) can stop grovelling over the different ways of doing things, it’s never going to be a serious contender. How many years have people been saying “this is the year for Linux”? Did we forget that the Windows7 preview was done on a plain-jane netbook with 1GB of RAM? I manage several CentOS systems at work, and I’ve got my own Fedora workstation, but setting up a Debian web server still took some re-learning. I don’t want to have to remember the individual quirks from one distro to another – With windows there’s only one way. With OSX, there’s only one way. With Linux, there’s as many ways as the different devs feel like.
heh?
your third point is contradictory to your first point:
“1. …should focus almost exclusively on improving stability and fixing bugs”
“3. … Ideally, there would be selected application updates and new features made available after some time for the LTS release. ”
upstream app updates -> new possible bugs. that´s how it is!
I’ve been using Ubuntu exclusively on my home computers for at least four years. At first, there was quite a bit of fiddling around necessary to get everything working properly, but the past couple releases have been super-easy and everything “just works”.
That said, I have trouble keeping up with the frequency of releases and find the need to upgrade my five computers so often a bit off-putting, especially coming from the Windows experience where this was necessary only every 6 years rather than Ubuntu’s 6 months.
I’ve begun using the LTS releases but maybe I need to look at another distro.
I’ve used every release of Ubuntu since 6.04 RC. Each release has been an improvement over the last to the point that despite having a very non-standard sytem I’m successfull without editing config files or going to the command line. I’m a freelance and have no problem being compatible with my many Windows using clients. That’s not to say that there aren’t some issues when releases 1st come out. I’ve been a software engineer since 1964 and am well versed with the command line but always 1st seek ssolutions in the GUI tools. Far to many users blindly take advice on forums that envolve command line solutions they don’t understand given by others who only think that the solutions work. When you compile drivers yourself or install deb packages not sspecifically tested for the release you’re using you ask for trouble. To be sure there are still some bits of hardware that don’t have good driver support — that list get shorter every release. From what I’ve seen Linux has better hardware support than Vista these days. I for one am very impressed with the 6 month release schedule. Most Silicon Valley companies can’t manage a 1 year release schedule. If you find that schedule scary, give new releases a few months before you change to them or even stick with an older release if it meets all your needs. I’m a change addict that looks forward to every new release of Ubuntu. I’m quick to install new releases on my desktop but hold off on my laptop until the desktop has all my favotite aaps up and running. With 8.10 that took all of two days.
1 – It’s free. Nuff said.
2 – It does support multiple monitors just fine – I’m using four.
3 – try reading /var/log/syslog or messages once in a while
4 – I’ve been through many updates with “no” issues.
5 – It works with every accessory I have.
6 – Be part of the solution and submit bugs, logs, and help out.\
7 – 10 minutes of trying to find an application to remove?
At least you’re not rebuilding Windows – “againnnnnn”
8 – apt-get install and remove are great, but how about downloading the source and compile a custom build for yourself. Then back it up with Clonezilla once your happy.
I hope folks realize this: For the open-source, free, application that are installed on my computer I’ve probably saved over $6000.00 dollars.
Ubuntu RoX. I’ve moved to it, in a desktop environment, from Fedora, CentOS, and others. Way to go… guys/gals.
- Respectfully,
Anthony
I moved to Ubuntu from Slackware back in 2006. I really liked the ease of use and the massive (debian) software repository. But I always had problems with Ubuntu. After a kernel upgrade my laptop would not suspend, my eepro100 stopped working etc. Ubuntu wants to move too fast. I simply do not have the time to fix my OS. It should just work.
Since april 2007 I moved to CentOS as my desktop and I never looked back. It always works and I am happy. Though I sometimes envy the people who have all the latest toys (OpenOffice, Firefox) but I keep a partition for Ubuntu. I try every release but the last 3 releases are not able to wake up after suspend on my laptop (Thinkpad Z60m) and then I go back to CentOS.
I would love to see an Ubuntu version which is rock solid, has a stable set of libraries and kernel version with new driver backports combined with the ease of use of the Ubuntu desktop and the newest stable versions of the most common desktop software (Openoffice, Firefox, Gimp, etc.). It is like Fedora and RHEL/CentOS rolled into one and taking best of both worlds. But who knows what the future will bring…
linux… just works, as long as you are not trying to do anything with it
Ubuntu dropped the ball on the last couple of releases. I used 6.06 for about two years and it suited my needs and nice and stable. I tried 8.04 and thought it was crap frankly. I immediately bailed out to a mix of Debian, Fedora and OpenSuSE all of which are good but have their drawbacks of course. I finally settled on Debian Lenny, which I have decided is the one for me. Nice and stable even though it is still in testing.
I couldn’t agree more. I love Ubuntu and I use it constantly. The system software is second-to-none, but the desktop apps still leave a lot to be desired. The wheels just keep falling off, and software quality for even big-name apps like Firefox is constantly lagging. Some of these bugs are just silly. Others suggest a fundamental weakness in the very foundations of X.
The worst thing of all is the fact that configuring sound and video monitors on Ubuntu is still a black art. I tried to get a new touch screen working with my X config and now my whole GUI is screwed – I’ve given up trying to fix it. I have better things to do with my time. I have to live in low-res until the next time I feel like reinstalling Ubuntu.
This is just crazy. I’m a very experienced developer, and I can compile kernels if I have to. But why should I have to? And what hope does Joe Average have of using Ubuntu in the wild?
No more new features, please. Just fix bugs, and for godsake, make sound and video configuration automatic, and foolproof like on Windows.
I was hook on with using ubuntu for a while. from 7.04,7.10 to 8.04 and the latest was 8.10 for the reason of trying out a stable OS. My main objective was to be able to run our local business system (developed under windows) to run on ubuntu and the only way to run it was to have wine emulate the program. Well, i found it working but some viruses found its way working too. Attached itself (Viruses) to the wine emulator and microsoft based PC’s with anti virus running program connected to linux.. keeps shouting that the accessed program is infected. So much with the trying and experimenting. I have extracted myself from further exploring the product. I should start encouraging our programmer who developed our system to start developing systems under open source. Linux in general lets you learn so much.. the downside.. more learning and less productivity. But yet again im still open to anything. Linux will alwasy be great alongside microsoft.
“All of this should be on an individual opt-in basis, so you don’t get anything new (other than regular maintenance updates) unless you specifically ask for it.”
By opting out do you mean No updates? I do not think Ubuntu makes you update anything. I turned off my updates I guess I opted out, that was easy!
Why don’t you move to Debian Stable?
Intrepid (8.1) broke the gspca webcam driver for some cameras (mine!), and the xpad driver (if the xpad is plugged in, it forces the mouse cursor to the middle of the screen – very unusable). It’s disappointing to upgrade expecting new features and then be left with a partially crippled system. I suppose I could find and compile the old drivers, but what a hassle.
one problem, is that ubuntu is dependent on software that they don’t have control over.. if they decided to stick with say.. an older version of gnome, then users wouldn’t be able to use other newer software that they find online.
I think problems like this will go away as technologies like devicekit,packagekit, pulseaudio, etc mature and form a consistent base system, then stable releases will happen more naturally.
imo.. ubuntu tried too early to put out LTS.. I’d say that perhaps there never should have been any LTS releases for desktop oriented software until late 2009 perhaps.. the evolution of the underlying software is still happening too fast to really call anything stable atm.
While new features are good, the rush for features is exactly what got Vista, and Windows ME into trouble.
Part of what makes XP (also not so great on release) so attractive to people now is its stability – a stability achieved ONLY by a focus on bug-fixes, not features.
High stability, high longevity releases will also help adoption not only by individuals, but corporations as well. Long term support, or lack thereof, is exactly what’s slowing adoption by many people, and understandably so.
I see the LTS releases as being a “stable” release. It should be super polished and as bug-free as possible. It shouldn’t introduce any major features or functionality. Additionally, the software contained shouldn’t be updated beyond bugfixes and security updates.
Why? Consistency. Having a consistent, well-tested platform should be more important than having the latest bling.
To that end, the LTS should essentially be the $LTS->version– plus version updates to included programs. Enabling Compiz by default in 8.04 (IIRC) would not have occurred under this plan. It would have instead been reserved for 10.04 or whenever the next LTS is due, as it was a new feature which was relatively untested except by intrepid users willing to install it from the repositories.
Another example of this would be the current implementation of failsafe X. Right now, when the video driver fails (users with nvidia cards who like to run betas often fall prey to this if they don’t carefully watch update-manager to unmark kernel updates), the user is presented with a dialog which 1.) is not sized to fit all of the text, 2.) makes references to restarting X without a button or other function to force it, 3.) takes forever to automatically start X. I would not ever want to see this working but somewhat poor-usability feature in an LTS, but for those of us who run the bleeding edge releases, it’s acceptable because we know enough to work around it.
Basically, what I’m trying to say is that LTSes should be treated as stable, supported, maintained but not constantly-improved releases, whereas the releases between LTSes should be treated as release candidates for a future LTS or non-mandatory feature upgrades to a past LTS.
You sound like you want super stability and new packages all in the same distrobution. I hate to inform you that its impossible.
could not agree more with Anonymous Coward and your good self
I use ubuntu 8.04 en recognise your problems, still we must spread the word!
Linux(Ubuntu) is the way to go.
For someone who’s written so much about the problems of the Ubuntu model, you certainly have a poor understanding about the release cycle and its purposes.
I couldn’t agree more. The idea about no new feature development during the LTS period is a great one. Plenty of time to innovate in between.
Actually, all Ubuntu needs is more people who actually do the work.
There’s already too many who claim what it should do, yet nobody is bothering to *actually* do anything. If you try and submit a backport request in Ubuntu, chances are it’ll sit for 2-3 months – everybody is just busy.
Many ubuntu users misinterpret the meaning of LTS. it does not mean this release is going to be extra stable. it means is exactly what the name says: “long term support” — this release is going to be supported for much longer than a typical release. if an ubuntu LTS release were actually focused on high stability (which it is not), then they would not have included a beta version of firefox 3, and the extremely buggy pulseAudio sound server. if you want better stability, try slackware.
/use debian stable.
One thing that might help would be to fork testing instead of experiemental for your LTS. Or to consider your last release as a freeze of the next LTS, and do nothing but bug squashing for six months.
As it stands, I think your comments are pretty ridiculous. You want more stability than Ubuntu and Fedora currently provide, but still newer packages than you can get in backports for LTS. How about a tiny bit of acknowledgement that when you ask for more stability that means you’re asking for older packages?
You are a good writer, why don’t you take your energy and file a bug on this instead of just blogging it?
I would like to see a whole other release for businesses, so we can get away from this Microsoft grip. If they were to focus on a domain based alternative with shares and such that was a linux solution not a samaba / temporary fix solution i think you would get more buy in from the business side.
Disagree entirely. Ubuntu’s desire to be stable is why I can’t use it. The fact that they released 8.10 without OpenOffice 3 and without workign nvidia drivers only showcased that fact for me.
I switched to Fedora 10 and have not looked back. It’s stable enough and also contains the latest and greatest. If I want stability, I’ll use a server-oriented distribution, like Centos.
Sounds like Apple’s Snow Leopard plan in that there be a release that keeps the features low and focuses on stability and speed.
I would not say stability is a huge issue, but some usability is, like the wifi example given above. The proposed restrictions on new features are ridiculous. This would mean (essentially) that Ubuntu would only include features that other OSes/distros already have. But perhaps splitting the releases into ’stable’ and ‘cutting edge’ would be a good idea. New users should definitely go with ’stable’, whereas I want to see and play with all the new/unstable/crazy ideas coming down the pipe. Innovation should be encouraged, especially in operating systems, and I think think there should be scope for that in the release cycle. Having a ‘crazy’ release would allow developers a huge testing base, and would elicit the kind of feedback they really need to fine tune (or even drop!) their projects.
What you want already exists. It’s called ‘Debian’.
I totally agree. I am very fond of Ubuntu but it should really be more stable (in particular the LTS releases).
In several cases I found that the most up-to-date version often solved a bug present in the LTS. Considering that the new release is supposed to integrate the developers latest efforts, it makes sense, but in my opinion, it would do no harm to make it one release per year and focus on fixing bugs.
I actually stopped using Ubuntu, and went back to Widows (Gasp!), simply because of the lack of multi-monitor support. Perhaps that could also be fixed.
I don’t get you people. What did you expect from Linux? If you want a sane desktop OS where you don’t have to deal with that crap by design, use Windows or OS X.
I realize that you were probably just using this as an example, but wouldn’t .docx support fall under OpenOffice.org, not Ubuntu?
Actually, I believe that the LTS should be LTS — meaning no app updates. What *should* be updated, though, is the kernel. New hardware should be supported by backporting newer kernels.
Agreed, though, that LTS should mean stability. Ubuntu 8.04 screwed the pooch on that one.
yep, stability and maintenance of main apps durind the support period (ie. providing up to date versions of office, firefox, gimp and f-spot via main update. For the other apps backports is good enough.)
I agree on less frequent releases that are queued for bug-fixing rather than non-stop arse kicking features which eventually keeps a new Ubuntu user on a loop hole thinking how the heck could he make his wifi work big time.
Though the wifi is not my problem, but I see frequent complaints on hardware devices that doesn’t work.
LTS is a great idea.
I want to add that rather than thinking about new features to introduce for the next release, could they please think of ways to fix those good ol’ bugs. Hibernate anyone?