[ubuntu-uk] Not a good press

Tony Pursell 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 mailing list