Well, maybe there should be two different versions of the LTS release: One for the home-users where the applications are upgraded And another for corporate use, where they are not. /Pär <div> 2008/1/1, Joel Bryan Juliano <<a href="mailto:joelbryan.juliano@gmail.com">joelbryan.juliano@gmail.com</a>>:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On 12/31/07, Evan <<a href="mailto:eapache@gmail.com">eapache@gmail.com</a>> wrote: > This is a strawman, so feel free to rip it apart. > > While I generally like the current Ubuntu release cycle, I find it has a few > problems: > > Forcing LTS users to make do with software that is 2 or 3 major versions > out-of-date is just wrong. I understand that the focus is on stable software > rather than cutting-edge, but some of the stuff in 6.06 is just plain > obsolete, forcing people to upgrade to a non-LTS to get programs that do > what they need. At first, people will decide what version of Ubuntu they will use based on what they need, and many companies will mostly be comfortable with an LTS along with it's support benefits than a less documented bleeding edge release. I know someone who is still using Hoary because of the low system requirements and speed comparison to newer Ubuntu release, and many companies are still using Red Hat 9 or 7.3. Use cases varies that's why we still have an active 2.4 kernel development. > I find that the 6 months between major releases is just a touch too short > for the developers to make significant changes and do a proper test cycle. > Their are no 'service pack cds' meaning that any bug which makes it into the > final release stays there forever. This has led to what is basically a > never-ending early adopters penalty. > Here's my proposal. While it isn't perfect, I think it fixes the issues > mentioned above. > I agree at some point that 6 months is relatively short, I think sacrificing features over time is what most people dislike, but Freezes are a necessity in an open source software distribution. There's a need to constantly highlight deferred/prospective specs, that rigorously be reminded and discussed over time to ensure that those specs made tentative changes until such status be reached that they'll be good to go. -- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list <a href="mailto:Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com">Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com </a> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: <a href="https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss">https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss</a> </blockquote></div>