Open Ballot: Are distro release cycles too short?

Too short indeed

spiffytech (not verified) - September 25, 2009 @ 1:16pm

While the wait between distro releases feels like forever compared to the rate at which the rest of the internet moves, I think the 6-month cycle has been detrimental to the quality of Linux distributions. Six months is not a lot of time to upgrade all packages, install new technologies, and make sure the distro is robust and reliable. Due to the short time available for testing, I have seen all major distributions ship with serious bugs on my, and other people's, systems. Since the distro developers turn to the next release very shortly after a release is out the door, many of these bugs are never fixed.

I was pleased to see openSuse move to an 8-month cycle in order to improve the robustness of the distro. I would like to see all major distros do this, and use the extra time solely for testing and bugfixing, and not for new features.

No!

emorrp1 (not verified) - September 25, 2009 @ 1:26pm

I love the fact that a new version of almost all the software on my machine comes out every 6 months. A fresh install also allows me to do some spring and autumn cleaning of all the cruft I tend to collect. I've long since mastered backup and restore of crucial elements and I can be up and running (playing with) the new system in under half an hour!

I think the 6 month release cycle works great for keeping your interest in a project:
Month 0-1: Explosion of reviews (YotLD?) and everyone celebrating the new features, trying it out and recommending it to all their friends.
Month 2-3: People are actually using their desktop rather than playing with it, potentially trying out other new distro releases and starting to see the first glimpse of what the next version could be like.
Month 4-5: Lots more info about what the next version's going to be like, an explosion of preview reviews, getting all excited for the new release, potentially trying betas in a virtual machine.

I really like the idea of a rolling release, where you get the latest software available frequently. My only issue being that I couldn't use it as my main machine, in case I broke something/something brakes, and I don't know how to fix it. I can't afford to be without a working computer for even a day, which I guess is where the 30-min install comes up again.

I guess my perfect distro would be one that released a new, stable base system every year, but that the superficial, end-user, relatively standalone applications worked on a rolling release. The only issue with this approach is where to draw the line - gnome has many end-user applications, but is also quite heavily tied into the system stability.

I can't stand the approximately 2-year long release cycle of Debian (or windoze) - I get bored. On the other hand, 3-months would be too short - what kind of quality/stability testing can you actually do in 3-months?

However - We are not Joe Bloggs, my partner is not interested in the new features every 6 months, she just wants to use the computer as a tool, and that's great too. So, I'd like to raise a point about marketing - there isn't really any in Linux, most info travels by word of mouth, which is great for us, but not so much for Joe Bloggs. When a new distro version comes out, we hear about it, even for some relatively obscure ones (e.g. below top 25/50/etc.)

I think LTS releases could be a great marketing tool, and they should be shouted about when they are released, not as introducing new features since the last one 6 months ago, but as having a ton of new features since the last LTS. The only version Joe Bloggs should hear about is the LTS, it should be the most prominent on the website, and should be the version we recommend to friends, even if we know there's a release that offers more features. For those of us not content with LTS, we'll know about the ordinary releases through the current word-of-mouth, and can react appropriately. As soon as anyone wants to know more about Linux (e.g. what does LTS stand for?), they would discover the ordinary releases, and could join our crowd at their own pace. This was my thoughts on release cycles, prompted by this thread: http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=29&t=27560

The only drawbacks here would be the perennial question of popular software versions (e.g. why doesn't Jaunty have ff3.5 as default?) which would be massively exacerbated (explained generally here: http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=31954 ). My solution to this (in the Ubuntu world) would be to compile a list of PPAs which backport the newer versions of popular apps - including, but not limited to, those installed by default - and make them easily available.

</diatribe>

Certainly not :)

spaceyjase - September 25, 2009 @ 1:35pm

Software and hardware moves along so fast, more so in open source circles, that it is important to capture the latest and greatest for a desktop release. Six months is a fairly decent amount of time to do so, in my opinion.

And as there is choice, one doesn't have to upgrade? One of the PCs has a rather specialised role in the house and doesn't really need a lot of stuff. Beyond security patches, there's no need to upgrade it and it runs along just fine.

Yes, for mature distro's anyway

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - September 25, 2009 @ 1:43pm

I'm tempted to say yes, primarily because of Ubuntu's recent underwhelming releases. However, when using newer, Netbook optimised OSs like Easy Peasy and Jolicloud, I very much appreciate regular releases. This is because these distros are finding their feet and still have a long roadmap ahead of them. Now that Ubuntu has "settled", I think it would be beneficial to switch to a year long release cycle.

Either that or put the Gnome 3.0 shell in.

Yes

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - September 25, 2009 @ 2:03pm

Yes we need six-monthly release cycle and silly release names, so many silly names available and so few releases, damn.

not all hardware ==

Greggor (not verified) - September 25, 2009 @ 2:19pm

for my laptop or Internet desktop 6 month releases are great I'm usually trying stuff out on those often enough that 6 month distro install or upgrade is fine. My production servers get a stable supported distro installed and other than regular patches don't need to be upgraded / touched. My development work station is a yearly upgrade. So long as distro's are not dropping patching / support after 6 months then who cares. If your adventurous then upgrade / patch and try out the newest .001 increment in version releases for your favorite software.
When I ran a debian work station I ran unstable so I could have newer software releases but I would never put unstable on my servers.

Yes and No...

ChrisW (not verified) - September 25, 2009 @ 2:59pm

Quick release cycles (or even rolling release cycles) are great for the bleeding edge desktop user (like myself), but stability obsessed server admins (like myself) are more concerned with long term support for stable and well tested mature software.

Ubuntu have a good model... 6 month standard releases with every so often one being a Long Term Support release. My desktop updates with every update and release Ubuntu pushes my way, my servers are all ubuntu-LTS or Debian and I only update what _needs_ updating.

And, although this could never really work with Linux, what would be nice is to separate 'Application' software from the OS in the release, allowing a longer release cycle for OS (thus making sure everything is stable and mature before release) with the 'Applications' software, potentially, a rolling upgrade as new 'stable' versions are released.

No, not too short

Will Daniels (not verified) - September 25, 2009 @ 4:09pm

Ideally, I do very much like the idea of a rolling release, but it is not very practical in most cases and there are occasionally significant changes to a distribution that are just not suitable to throw out there at some arbirary point as a "rolling upgrade".

Also, having regular releases with defined objectives helps to drive and organise specific efforts focussed on one particular area, which is necessary at times to make real progress on something. And of course the publicity during the runup to a release does a lot of good for promotion and community spirit.

However, there are times when 6 months is just too long to wait for new code or other changes. Ubuntu mitigates this issue quite well already with having Launchpad PPAs, but still it frustrates me sometimes that versions of package dependencies often get bumped needlessly in the repos for the next release, so that you (usually) can't just pick out just one or two updated packages from the next version repos, somebody has to actually go to the trouble of backporting the newer packages, and who knows if and when that might be done for any given package.

Requiring that people update their whole operating system and all of it's applications at once is not the best idea in my opinion. It would help get more people testing updated packages if they could do so perhaps only for applications, without having to worry about not being able to boot one day.

Perhaps the best thing would be some kind of rolling release for application packages, with the more fundamental system and core desktop stuff held back on a periodic release cycle?

Otherwise, for the most part, I think Ubuntu has got things about right. A longer cycle would just mean a longer "stabilisation" period after the release as a consequence of having more changes, because nobody is going to extend the release cycle by say 2 months and then allocate all that extra time to more testing and bug fixing.

I think 6 months is sufficient to make at least "progress" in any area, yet it's not quite long enough to make the scale of changes that would pretty much guarantee an upgrade nightmare and broken release. I have never seen any evidence that a longer release cycle leads to a more stable release...it has to be up to individuals to decide what level of stability they need and to delay upgrading or even skip certain release types accordingly. Nor have I noticed any correleation between the speed of progress and the release cycle. Early releases add some disruption and overhead to longer-term goals but then they also help to identify issues earlier and I think the two sides tend to balance each other out most of the time.

Just my 2p for what it's worth.

It's good, if...

TomMan81 - September 25, 2009 @ 4:58pm

I think that a 6 month release cycle is good, if the distro handles this well. It would be stupid if every 6 months you had to backup all your stuff, download the iso, burn it to disk and install the OS all over again. The best way is to have PackageKit or whatever notify you of this change and ask if you want to change to the new repositories. Like what Ubuntu does at the moment.

What kind of idiot question

DaveS (not verified) - September 25, 2009 @ 5:43pm

What kind of idiot question is this? Of course its too short. Causes confusion amongst users and puts pressure on developers. Think I will write to The Guardian...........

6 month release cycle is now part of our Linux culture! So no!

Wickoo (not verified) - September 25, 2009 @ 5:58pm

I think the 6 month release cycle is appropriate for the open source development model. Every 6 month we have a new Gnome so it is nice to have a new Ubuntu! It is just like a more complete update.

I think this is a mistake to compare Linux distribution release model with Windows or Mac OS. They have service packs and updates, we have new releases every 6 month that in addition to bugfixes contains new software. Don't expect it to be completely different OS from the previous one and try to enjoy small changes!

At end I want to stress that short release cycle has become part of our Linux Culture. I expect to see a new Ubuntu every 6 month!

Too Short

Dave (not verified) - September 25, 2009 @ 7:06pm

I think having a release every six months is too short. Nothing really changes between releases and it introduces a lot of new bugs. Maybe some years ago it was a good idea but Linux is quite a mature OS now. Every six months all they achieve is a slightly quicker boot up time. Better they tried to make a bigger changes and get it out of the door every year.

Opinions are split it seems

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - September 25, 2009 @ 8:34pm

I kinda like the notion of a rolling release.
Let people get off the train when they want.

"it's all about freedom"

Regarding Ubuntu

Jimbo Scotland (not verified) - September 25, 2009 @ 8:53pm

Regarding Ubuntu specifically,

I think as Ubuntu begins to mature we will see Canonical put more emphasis on its LTS releases as the de facto release most people should opt for, hiding away the regular 6 month releases from 'average users'. Upgrading every 2 years rather than every 6 months is a much more sane proposition for the average computer user who just wants something that works.

I'm sure they will always keep the 6 month releases in between the LTS in order to keep the hardcore users energised and focused on the latest and greatest, but Grandma and the typical Facebook user will do just fine with an upgrade once every 2 years.

I think Canonical will eventually rename/rebrand the LTS and none LTS releases to reflect this change. The LTS releases will become the regular vanilla Ubuntu and the other releases will get some special name denoting they are for enthusiasts.

well...

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - September 25, 2009 @ 10:26pm

It all depends on whst you use your computer for and what you expect out of it.
On servers I run SLES 10 with a 2.6.16.60 kernel and that is really old but can handle all new hardware since Novell has been patching it really hard.
I like the idea of rolling updates but that lacks the wow factor that something new is included in the new version, and there can be a stability issue as well.
Going for a 6 or fixed month schedule can be tempting, the problem here is that there always is a starting period for the new release where not do much gets done and there is also a period in the end where nothig new can be added since they need to iron out all the bugs. That leaves at best 3 month of real progress for a 6 month release cycle.
I'm for a little longer release cycle 8 or 9 month so they can get more stuff in to the release. For all the rest of us we can always update from factory to have the latest and gratest with bugs and all, we need something to break our system in the lack of viruses.

6 months = Perfect

ItsAllLinux - September 26, 2009 @ 5:39am

We want rapid technology updates on our distro to get the latest and best features, maximizing user experience and fix bugs.

Long release cycles with better upgrade and update features

Andrew From NYC (not verified) - September 26, 2009 @ 3:59pm

I think the release cycle for distros should be closer to 2 years. Before you start throwing things at me, hear me out.

The real problem is with all the incompatible packages. Every distro wants to put things in different places and because of the nature of dependencies you wind up with a product that feels glued together.

IMO all packages should include in their archive every single bit and byte required to make it run, short of development platforms like Java of course. If you used a library, include it, because if you rely on the distro to provide it in their repos, they may abandon it for a newer library version in six months and if the new library is incompatible with the old one, the package is broken.

Until we fix the package mess, there is no good solution for distro release cycles. The answer now is to release often with poor options for upgrade, and variable update options.

I should be able to download a Firefox update without going to the command line or waiting for a very late upgrade in my repo. Linux suffers from lots of usability issues due to it's very poor package management culture.

Rolling, Rolling, Rolling

Keito (not verified) - September 26, 2009 @ 9:05pm

I'd like to see a rolling release, with a focus on keeping the system stable, not necessarily bleeding-edge.

Having the system altered so (sometimes) drastically every 6 months, with changes to locations of files and programs, can make life hard for even the most avid linux fan.

Rolling release would mean I don't have to do a clean install to get the most out of my system when a new version of my favourite OS comes out (eg; getting left behind in kernel versions).

Benevolent Dictators take note!

DICK NIPPLES

Alias - September 27, 2009 @ 12:15pm

It really depends on what the End User wants, if a user is fine with updating their software then they should have the option to be able to do it themselves not relying on their distro manafacturer to do so for them.

Example... when Ubuntu releases 9.10 all the software will be upgraded to the latest release, this means that the user is forced to go through the trouble of removing that software if they prefer an earlier version.

Personally I like the 6 month releases however I can see how other would not.

No

aikiwolfie (not verified) - September 27, 2009 @ 6:45pm

We have many different distros to suit the varying needs of many different people. As we have seen with distros like Ubuntu, a lot can be achieved over 6 months and sometimes better quality work is achieved when fewer features are being worked on.

@ Dick Nipples: 9.10 is a preparatory release for 10.04 which is the next LTS release. If you don't like it don't upgrade. You'll still get updates for the next year or so.

Varies

Freak (not verified) - September 27, 2009 @ 8:26pm

Like others have said, I think it depends on the target audience. For example I run Debian on my stable home computer, but UNR on my EEE netbook. This way I get regular updates for my EEE, which quite frankly needs them.

Short after what?

Morten Juhl-Johansen Zölde-Fejér (mjjzf) (not verified) - September 27, 2009 @ 10:06pm

The thing is, releasing every 6 months is a relative term in itself. If Fedora (to name one; other culprits spring to mind) ships the latest and fscks everything up, the 6 months aren't really the issue, are they? They will then be testing and improving, and after 6 months they will put out a new shipment of bug-infested innovation.
If, however, a January release featured some software, new versions were relased in February and those versions - now stabilized - were included in July, a 6-month cycle would suggest fairly recent, but not too buggy software.
If Debian took a year and a half to release and still included software from last week, one might as well run Arch.

6 months good

dazfuller - September 28, 2009 @ 9:47am

I like the 6 month upgrade cycle, it puts me in the position of choosing to keep a stable release on a machine which I don't want to keep upgrading and for my general PC I can keep on upgrading. Typically when I get to 6 months I want to start playing with new stuff so a new release stops me from playing around too much with my existing setup.

And I love those silly names

Best of both worlds

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - September 28, 2009 @ 2:39pm

I like the mix of 6 month updates along with long term support (LTS) releases that Ubuntu puts out. I have stayed with 8.04 LTS version because I have not seen a compelling reason change, but I like to have the option of jumping onto a 6 month release if something really cool comes out. Prior to 8.04 I updated every 6 months because I wanted the improvements.

As far as quality is concerned, I am not sure a longer cycle will help. Either you are committed to quality or you are not. If not, a longer cycle will be used pick up latest versions of software at the last minute. It might even make quality worse because the longer the release interval, the greater the pressure to get the latest application in now rather than wait another 8, 9, or 12 months for the next opportunity.

I like it short and sweet!

Bill Stone (not verified) - September 29, 2009 @ 8:43am

I prefer the nice and predictable 6 month schedule. It's easy to remember and I know when to expect the next update. Also, Linux stuff changes too frequently to be stuck with buggy older software in the repositories. And just to jab ubu: I hate that ubu distros are released at the end of the month... 9.10 should be released 10-01, not 10-30.

Rolling Upgrades, Thank You

julian516 (not verified) - September 29, 2009 @ 9:04pm

Once users are past the point of breathless enthusiasm a 6 month release cycle increasingly appears to be pointlessly disruptive. Count me for rolling upgrades, a three year support cycle (anybody for four?) and an annual Live CD (or DVD) that lets new-comers aboard gracefully.

In other words, after three or four years clean out your accumulated detritus and do a fresh installation with the latest Wunderbar 3.3.33.a.2b or whatever. Then sit tight and get something done with all the time saved.

No, I like six months

Peter R (not verified) - September 30, 2009 @ 12:04pm

I like to get those performance improvements and extra functionality every six months; the upgrades to my various machines don't cause me much trouble, and people can skip an upgrade if they want.

Spare a thought for the developers, please! Many of them get their biggest kick out of seeing their work being put widely into use, and it would be de-motivating for some if the bus only came along once per year.

It depends on your needs

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - September 30, 2009 @ 4:18pm

As a previous post stated, it depends on your needs. A few years ago after trying out and having issues with Ubuntu (which is based on debian unstable and testing), I switched back to Debian stable on my computer that I needed to be fast and dependable. I have always run Debian stable on my home server, no problems.

A few years ago I was very "install happy" and loved installing and testing out stuff, now I am happier to have more stability so I can get work done.

With all the distros out there, clearly there should be enough room for the long term stable distros and the new cutting-edge distros.

If you are talking about "on average":
Ubuntu current always seems to have a crazy amount of updates I think for a current release, and should probably have a longer release cycle (but not much longer), while Debian should definitely work to get its stable releases out sooner, which I believe they are doing already.

I think maybe there needs to be more consolidation of distros, that is more of a problem I think, or at least more of an effort to tell me how your new linux distribution Z meets a need that can't be met in distribution X that has been around for awhile and is probably more stable. Clearly the only alternate distro in the past few years that has offered significant improvements over standard distros is Hannah Montana Linux ;).

Anyway, if 6 months has become a standard average for linux releases, then maybe this is the best compromise between stability and cutting-edge features.

I favor incremental upgrades to existing distros

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 3, 2009 @ 5:15pm

I favor incremental upgrades to existing distros. The "distro release cycle" approach forces the user (essentially) to throw everthing out & start over re-customizing with each new release.

The release-cycle approach serves those who view tinkering with Linux as an end in itself, but not the great majority of potential Linux users. They see any operating system (Windows, Mac OS, Linux, even DOS!) as a mere tool to get a job done, whether it's word processing at work or Facebook tracking at home. Forcing the average user to switch releases effectively discourages them from using Linux at all.

Also, it appears as if the fixed distro cycle is guaranteed to produce new-distro bugs, which must be fixed after each release. As Linux gets more sophisticated, the number of bugs and interdependencies will necessarily increase over time; while they will get fixed, the short distro-cyclke approach guarantees they will be present.

I believe so...

VulcanRidr (not verified) - October 9, 2009 @ 2:49pm

I don't like the short release cycles. Its one of the reasons I don't run Ubuntu any more. I quit Ubuntu when Gutsy was released, primarily because the releases were broken enough that users had to completely reinstall instead of upgrade. This is one of the things that drove me away from RedHat was when they broke upgrades around 5.x - 6.x.

I went to Debian back then, and I went *back* to Debian from Ubuntu. I run sid, so I really like the idea of LTS + rolling releases. In actuality, I think the Debian way is really good, with an LTS (stable), a semi-rolling release (testing) with some vetting of packages, and the bleeding edge (sid) for the geeks. I run sid with a very few exceptions (mail server and firewall). On the firewall, I run stable until the packages I use get a little long in the tooth (~6 months), then switch to testing. Since I use the distro names (e.g. etch, lenny, squeeze) in /etc/apt/packages.list, the transition from testing to stable is seamless.

2 years, 6 months & Rolling !

Forest Kitten (not verified) - October 12, 2009 @ 5:10pm

I am a great fan of Ubuntu for it is simple to use. I use the 6 month-version but I can understand that some people do want a longer period, so therefor is the 2 year cycle more adequate. For me, I would love to see a third option in Ubuntu, namely a rolling upgrade would make me very happy!
Sure, this could be more unstable, but that would be fine to me, because I long to see the latest builds! Don't mind to be the guinea-pig there!

Having longer periods

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - October 24, 2009 @ 6:56pm

Having longer periods between releases means users don't have the hassle of upgrading too often. I would like to see maybe a yearly release pattern but with new software (like new versions of Firefox or OOo) in the repositiries.

Longer Cycle => New Users => More Relevance

Anonymous Penguin (not verified) - December 8, 2009 @ 6:46pm

Having a desktop user focused release with a longer release & support/update cycle would definitely be a good option in my opinion. there are users who would jump on Linux for their every day desktop if their investment into setting up & fixing issues would pay of longer.

receiving security updates and fixes for 3+ years would be a pro and is also good for "marketing".

why care at all to reach new user groups and broadening choices? reach more people, get more support, eventually more funding and increase to importance of the kernel to big consumer orientated companies (hardware, software, business models...)

just my 5ct ;-)