[Bug 1] Microsoft has a majority market share

[»John«]

> STOP releasing a new version every six months!!!

These are there for a reason - they ship with updates of the key system
components such as kernel, X server and desktop environment and I think
they're there for those who can't use older releases because of some
problem with these (such as incorrectly functioning hardware). Canonical
doesn't risk updating this stuff in already released versions of Ubuntu
because there's a good chance it might cause more harm than good and
since having to wait 2 years for a version of Ubuntu which works for you
is probably not an option for many potential customers, here goes the 6
month refresh period.


> Since 2001, windoze has released (for user desktops) only XP, Vista
and now 7. As a result XP (for all its faults) is now quite stable.

Well, as far as both my personal and professional experience goes, the
key word in the last sentence is "QUITE".


> Stop adding new bells and whistles and concentrate on fixing ALL the
issues that are outstanding.

That would certainly be nice, but most of these actually get fixed
upstream and the fixes don't make it in point (that means maintenance)
releases, which is yet another reason for the way things are.


> How about making the next release a 'service pack' for lucid. Don't introduce any core changes or waste effort doing a new look-and-feel?

I can see your point, but I don't see how creating new look-and-feel for
every release is responsible for not fixing some outstanding software
issues because doing artwork requires a whole lot different skill set
than programming so I really doubt these tasks are performed by the same
people.


> If I am to make the switch to ubuntu on my main machines (and I'd like to for many reasons) I need something that is more stable, is still having the 'low priority' bugs fixed and is providing regular updates for the main applications (like firefox and open office) for the next four or five years and that, when it is replaced, will be replaced by something that has had a much longer testing and bug fixing phase...
> 
> Perhaps I've missed a trick and should have gone back to the last LTS (8.04.4)? If I had would the application updates have finally made it through (e.g. firefox 3.5)?
> 
> The LTS issue is far from clear. The latest LTS is not the one offered on the main page and it is not (obviously) pointed out the one that is offered will only be supported until next year.

LTS releases are supported for 3 years on the desktop (5 on servers) and
there's a new LTS every 2 years, so If you want a stable system, I
recommend you to keep upgrading from one LTS to another at the end of
it's life. That way you're gonna start with something that has been used
and debugged for a year (year and a half including the development
process) so at least all the issues you're likely to run into as a
regular should already be sorted out.


> Having done a quick search, I still don't know if old versions get
application updates....

No, they don't. They only keep pulling in point releases from the branch
that shipped with the release to minimize the risk of introducing any
major issues so you're gonna get Firefox 3.5.?, not 3.?.? unless you
install it from some unofficial source like GetDeb or someone's Personal
Package Archive. Downloading upstream binaries should work too, but I
refuse to mess with that because once you get used to repositories and
automatic package management it just seems too much work (and the risk
of introducing clutter into otherwise perfectly clean system).

-- 
Microsoft has a majority market share
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Mozilla
Bugs, which is a direct subscriber.