Updating software between releases - where backports/SRU isn't enough

[Onno Benschop]

On 29/07/07 07:28, Tim Hull wrote:
> I thought I'd bring up an issue that I see with Ubuntu - and most
> Linux distributions as a whole.
> Anyway, the issue is that once a release is declared "stable", there
> are no more updates beyond security updates available - at least
> without resorting to ugly tarballs or random unofficial package
> repositories.  This is all fine and dandy, unless you need a feature
> or a bugfix deemed non-critical - especially if it's the kernel or
> some other low-level component like Xorg. 
This reply is longer than I intended and you may feel that I'm telling
you off. That is not the case.

While I understand what you're asking for, perhaps I'm able to convince
you that it makes no sense.

I write software for a living and I support clients with different
configurations all around the country. Some clients have access to
broadband, many others have access to a tin-can and wire - that is 28.8k
dialup or worse. These clients are running Dapper LTS for the simple
reason that it works and continues to work. They just need their
computer to work. While I care about security fixes, they don't. While I
care about the latest version of something like Firefox, they don't.

All this by way of background.

The whole point of an LTS system is that it is in a known state and
continues to stay in a known state. It might not be perfect, but it
continues to stay the *same*, which means that when I get a support call
about an issue, I *know* what is on the other end. On my servers, this
issue is even more important.

Another way to look at an LTS system can be by looking at time spent to
administer the machine. An LTS machine is setup once, and while regular
maintenance is done, that is, disk-space, logs, updates etc. are
on-going, there is no time spent configuring software once the setup is
completed. In terms of time, perhaps 10 minutes a week at most.

I run a current stable machine as my workstation, so at the moment it's
running Feisty. For me that's fine, I can update, compile, fix, etc. but
I would never expect my users to do that. In terms of time spent
maintaining it, I've upgraded from Dapper to Edgy, then from Edgy to
Feisty, both in addition to the 10 minutes a week on normal maintenance.
That means if I were to multiply that time investment across all my
clients, one of us would go broke, either the client, or me. (Let alone
the logistics of getting the updates to the client and rolling them out.)

I will concede that there may be an argument for running an LTS machine
that I am not aware of that is causing you to make your request. If so,
please enlighten me. Otherwise I think you're using an LTS scenario for
the wrong reasons and you should be running the current release.

You should probably know that for years I ran Debian Testing because
stable took too long - for me - to update and I needed newer
functionality on my workstation. After Testing broke my machine one too
many times, I switched to Ubuntu where there is a six-monthly release
schedule that keeps me running the latest stuff without running into a
random chance that my machine stops for no apparent reason after an
update. (There are a few rough edges still, but I feel that everyone
within Ubuntu is working to resolve that, including myself in small ways.)


So, personally, I think that you're asking the wrong question.

-- 
Onno Benschop

Connected via Optus B3 at S31°54'06" - E115°50'39" (Yokine, WA)
--
()/)/)()        ..ASCII for Onno..
|>>?            ..EBCDIC for Onno..
--- -. -. ---   ..Morse for Onno..

ITmaze   -   ABN: 56 178 057 063   -  ph: 04 1219 8888   -   onno at itmaze.com.au