[ubuntu-uk] Not a good press
ajp at princeswalk.fsnet.co.uk
Tue Nov 3 15:59:08 GMT 2009
On 3 Nov 2009 at 8:13, Philip Stubbs wrote:
> 2009/11/3 Sean Miller <sean at seanmiller.net>:
> > Maybe it is time to ask the question again -- is the 6-month cycle too
> > ambitious?
> > Sean
> There will never be a 'one size fits all' If six months is too fast
> for someone, then they should use only LTS releases. Alternatively,
> they could use Debian, or Suse or RedHat etc.
> An ambitious schedule will cause some problems, but I think it will
> also drive progress. It must be good for developers who come out with
> a shiny new version of their software knowing that they only need to
> wait maybe six months before it is included in a major distribution.
> Also, from a users perspective, it helps having up-to-date software
> available directly from the main repositories.
As I take a particular interest in OpenOffice.org it seems that even a
six month release schedule has been too infrequent, as recently the
latest version of OOo has emerged just too late to be included.
Windows users can update immediately. Ubuntu users had to wait six
months. OK, there was options to go to PPAs etc, but these are not
regular options we should expect users to know about. And poor old
LTS users have to wait ages for an OOo update.
Also, we should not be expecting users to 'do research' before hitting
the 'Upgrade to 9.10' button, or at least there should be some
warning, perhaps even some pre-install testing like the 'Windows 7
Upgrade Advisor', before users commit to the upgrade. I myself had
a problem because of the new boot methods. I got round it easily, but
it would have really freeked out the sort of every day, non tech user
we are aiming for. We really must aim for 'out of the box' working for
all users upgrading from one version to the next.
More information about the ubuntu-uk